|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: New laws regarding videotaping in a theatre
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-21-2003 06:10 AM
quote:
Never said you did. There are others making comments on this thread besides you
it's a fair cop. i did think they were addressed to me though, and i don't think anyone mentioned a conspiracy. i did actually regret quoting dennis's post as he didn't seem to be responding to my points at all.
quote:
I guess you're just determined to have an outlaw mindset here.... What you seem stuck on here is that things like laws do not change or go away just because you don't like them. They are still there.
as i said though, i'm not actually being an outlaw as far as this is concerned. i'm just defending those who are. yes, the laws are still there, but i'd like to see them gone. the topic was originally about impending legislation.
quote:
The insult of "creative types who think "the world owes me a living" duplicitously ignores the fact that they've already done WORK to create the item being sold. They ARE working for their living. Taking something without paying for it because it's easy is NOT working.
i didn't particularly mean to be insulting; i was just flipping the script on greg's statement. i'm doing work defending my position and don't expect remuneration for it. in a way, it's a labor of love. i don't pay to listen to music on the radio.
quote:
Just because you contradict yourself, it doesn't mean what you said is profound. Artfully?
i'm pretty liberal in what i consider "art". i don't hate everything produced by hollywood simply because it's hollywood. i love a lot a french and iranian films even if i disapprove of the circumstances under which they were produced. it's possible to judge a work on its own merits. but works will in some way reflect their origins, and hollywood movies all too often reek of a bloated juggernaut. if a hollywood movie is insightful or otherwise redeeming, it's usually the exception. sometimes you luck out and the artful is found to be marketable.
quote:
The hardest thing to do is write a Top 40 hit. Think you can do it? Think just anyone can do it?
writing any song takes work. the work is not proportional to the popularity. popularity is not the same as quality, which is a subjective determination. copyright or not, if you wrote a top 40 song, you'll have food on the table. the real reward is that you have influenced culture. you are free to disagree with that, but why should the law step in in your favor? yes, i still maintain copyright is an immoral incursion of the law.
if your creative endeavors aren't profitable enough, you can always keep a day job. actually, most creative people do.
carl
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-21-2003 09:40 AM
Is it time to move this to the political forum yet?
I'm in favor of copyright (in principle) and do believe that it encourages creativity. Having said that, I do believe in the constitutionally-mandated requirement that copyrights exist for "limited terms" and that works should be placed into the public domain within, say, fifty years of creation. Crap like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (passed at the behest of Disney to retroactively extend copyright protection in order to prevent Mickey Mouse from becoming PD) just irks me. Retroactive extension of copyright protection isn't going to encourage, say, Walt Disney, to be more creative. Instead, it just panders to special interest groups and isn't in the public interest.
I should also point out that, as much as I will defend copyright protection as such, I'm strongly opposed to laws which go well beyond copyright protection to protect content creators yet which harm consumers. The most blatant example of this would be the so-called "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" (google for "DMCA" to find out why this is such an evil and over-reaching piece of legislation). Copyright owners already have the right to sue violators in civil courts; we don't need to start mandating anti-copy schemes (which will be broken anyway) which inhibit so-called "fair use" (such as a teacher using a copyrighted book/movie/recording in a classroom setting, which is permitted under current US copyright law).
Throwing someone in jail for a minimum of three years for committing a nonviolent crime where damages can be claimed and paid to the copyright holder (or non-holder, if this is taken to apply to PD films as well) is unnecessary. Let's leave copyright in the civil courts as much as possible.
As for poor-quality video/DVD versions of PD films: consider that these may encourage the owners of the best film elements to do a thorough restoration, which would result in a newly copyrightable work (original version would be PD, but restored version would be protected for a new term).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!
Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 11-21-2003 12:41 PM
I KNEW someone would bring the infamous 'Mickey Mouse Argument' into this... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Once again for those who missed class the last time this one came up:
Even if the copyright on every Mickey Mouse (and many other Disney character-based) movie were to expire tomorrow, Disney still has the legal right to sue 'to the stone age' someone using the characters without their permission.
How is this possible, if the character(s) are no longer copyrighted, you ask? Simple.
Mickey Mouse (and many if not all of Disney's and most likely other company's character likenesses are REGISTERED TRADEMARKS.
Unlike copyrights, a trademark's registration lasts forever (no expiration date of any kind) , and the trademark owner has to to is to legally police it to prevent the sometimes common occurrance of a trademark becoming 'generic' (though still registered- the owners just have a more difficult time enforcing their rights in court. and some have simply abandoned any efforts to try) as a result of not protecting it (Examples of some trademarks that have become generic or semi-generic include Phillips® screwdrivers, Crescent® wrenches, Aspirin®, Xerox® (especially when used as a verb or adjective), and even CinemaScope® (though Fox has apparently managed to re-register that one, but doesn't seem to be actively pursuing anyone that uses the name in a generic context...))
Therefore even if the Mickey Mouse® movie were to fall into the public domain, it still carries with in its frames the trademarked image of the likeness of Mickey®. thus Disney still has the right to seek legal restitution if it feels its trademark rights are being violated.
It's that simple.
-Aaron
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-21-2003 12:52 PM
quote:
Thomas, you are a little confused about current copyright law. It's OK right now, and always has been, to make a copy of any movie (such as by recording from TV) for your own personal use only. This is known as "fair use." What would not be OK is to sell the copy to someone else.
Yes, I am familiar with fair use. My point was that for the old films such as GWTW, one still has to pay to see them. Whether to rent, buy, in the theater, on cable, or via commercials on TV. True, you could always check it out from your library, but It's still against the law to rent the film, and copy it, even for your own use. If this were allowed, then videotaping a movie off of the theater screen for your own use would be allowed. The extent to which people want to cling to copyrights is getting out of hand.
After I'm dead and buried, I could care less who makes a copy of my movie. I'll be doing more important things.
=TMP=
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 11-21-2003 03:17 PM
quote:
i don't pay to listen to music on the radio.
No, maybe not directly, but that doesn't mean that the music you listen to is not paid for. The radio & television stations pay for the rights to broadcast this material, so you can listen to, or view the programming for free. The stations' advertisers provide the funding for these payments, and the advertisers' revenue comes from.... YOU! ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
The Brits pay an annual license for their TV sets, effectively purchsing what they receive. They also used to have to pay license fees for their radios (maybe still do?).
quote:
copyright or not, if you wrote a top 40 song, you'll have food on the table.
Which is as much as saying "I don't pay for the music, but being mass distributed, someone else will... so I don't have to worry about whether you have food on your table.
That's a lot like the kind of argument I get when I find someone in the trunk of their car at my drive-in. "Gee... what harm has this done? If I didn't come here in the first place, you wouldn't have made any money off me either".
Tell that one to the cops around here. They're pretty good about persuing "theft of services" cases... probably another criminal example of an "immoral incursion of the law".
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-21-2003 05:36 PM
quote:
No, maybe not directly, but that doesn't mean that the music you listen to is not paid for. The radio & television stations pay for the rights to broadcast this material, so you can listen to, or view the programming for free. The stations' advertisers provide the funding for these payments, and the advertisers' revenue comes from.... YOU!
i was just using that as an example of "taking something without paying for it because it's easy" (william hooper), which noone would consider illegitimate. i mostly listen to college radio. but listening to commercials is not the same as paying. yes, the cost does go to consumers, but regardless of whether they listen to the radio.
quote:
What if your creative endeavour is your day job?
if you're a musician, tour. if you're a painter, your works are not reproducible anyways. even if what you do is 100% reproducible you can probably find people who will pay for it. there are lots of organizations that give grants.
ultimately, if what you do is not rewarding to you, you'll find something else to do.
i've argued that intellectual "property" is of a different nature than physical property, such that the word "theft" (the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it --websters) is not applicable to it, or at least has a separate meaning. the wrong of theft is not that the thief benefits. it is that the victim loses. if you're talking about lost profits you're talking about a potential that was never realized, not something that was possessed and then taken.
all the other "ends justify the means" arguments for copyright smack of social engineering.
quote:
Tell that one to the cops around here. They're pretty good about persuing "theft of services" cases... probably another criminal example of an "immoral incursion of the law".
the analogy with theft of services doesn't really wash with me. you're in a position to tightly control who receives your services. if someone sneaks in, they're on your property and you can kick them out. if they're standing outside the gate, watching your screen, that's legal and no one would call it "stealing", just "being cheap".
if you're busking on a street corner, listeners will pay you or not as they see fit (actually it's possible to make a living). you don't retroactively demand payment for something you put out into the public domain (using the term loosely). unless you're the government or the mob.
i agree we're all pretty much treading water at this point. well, at least you've heard another perspective now. feel free to spread it around. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
carl
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-22-2003 06:42 PM
I have to admit I came into this thread a bit late, but had to put in my two cents on the subject since copyright law greatly affects what I do for a living.
quote:
Q: But it's ok for some thieves to come along and steal whatever creative thing you do and sell it without giving you anything for it?
A: hey, i'd be flattered. but why would anyone buy it from someone else when they can just "steal" it from me?
I have the strongest possible doubts anyone would be flattered if they were forced to do their job for free. That's essentially what makes that "I would be flattered" nonsense so f**king naive. If someone plagerizes my ideas or illegally steals and uses my art files for their own financial gain I am fully within my rights to sue the dogshit out of them. Plain and simple.
My time, labor, creativity and expert design sense is worth good money. I should not have to give it away for free and f**k anyone who thinks I should work for free. Like I said, if someone wants to disagree with my statement then they should give away their work too. C'mon, back up that "we don't need copyright law" by working your own Goddamned job for free!!!!
The quality of graphic design and art in the United States continues to sink to ever lower levels of sucking much ass. There are several reasons why this problem is getting worse. Lack of ethics as it pertains to copyright law is one of the chief problems. If REAL ARTISTS can't make a decent living in that business then they leave to do something else for a living and you're left with an ever higher percentage of no-talent hacks doing the work for burger-flipper pay.
Oh, and doing creative work "for the honor of being published" is one of the greatist insults one can extend to any creative worker. That's a big jerk off. If someone asks me to work for the honor of being published I'll flatly respond, "f**k you."
Most fields of work demand qualifications to gain entry into the job market. You must be degreed and pass the bar exam to be a practicing lawyer. You must work through medical school and do your residency to become a doctor. Engineers have to be certified. So do electricians in most states. Even with the lack of respect and pay the teaching field now has they still must be certified.
When graphic design was done in the "analog" realm (no computer stuff), items like a formal education or art degree held much more value. Now with everything computerized, many businesses have this painfully stupid idea that the computers themselves are doing the work. This is also why many who pirate digital content don't seem to have any problem with it. They don't view digital content as having required any money, time, labor and expertise in its creation. "Why do I need to spend all that money hiring that guy with a BFA and an attractive portfolio when I can just have my $6 per hour secretary sit in front of a Mac and do the same thing." Well, this is exactly why much of the graphic design in America looks like shit these days. You have cheapskate, unethical bastards with no taste or ability to tell when something looks like crap cutting costs on creative needs.
To put it another way, if the computer is creating the art then other types of media should be no different. Go into the art supply store, buy a set of oil paints and canvas and crank out a few paintings as good as a Rembrandt or Monet. To get good art and graphic design via the computer you still need someone with talent who knows what the f**k he is doing. That takes more than some dipshit with no formal training who simply downloaded a few warez apps. It also takes someone besides a guy with a Cisco certification. Sorry, IT people are not artists in any way, shape or form. Most are very left-side-of-the-brain oriented, not creative driven. And with the fast declining wage scales in the graphics industry, IT people are really wasting their time trying to make an extra buck doing art. They'll make a lot more money concentrating on that IT stuff instead of dabbling in web page design.
quote:
As for copyright laws, they've become absurd. It's gone from, "Here is a law to protect the Artist and his work so that he can make a living from what he enjoys doing." to "Let's extend this law so that long after the artist and majority of his family is dead and gone, the parent company which published his work can continue to make money off of his corpse." Hence the phrase, "Commemorative Edition."
Items like an author's books or an artists works are just as worthy of protection as the patents on Coca-Cola or Levi's jeans. If others want to rip it off and sell counterfeit copies of it then they are thieves plain and simple. Here's an idea for the copycats: use the time you would have spent copying someone else's ideas and create something of your own; do something honest for a living.
quote:
Who the hell am I hurting financially by making a copy of Gone With The Wind? David O. Selznick? Selnick International?
Here's the problem with that argument. Most people doing creative work are not rich. They are not a big monolithical corporation. Many of the people out there trying to rationalize copyright infringement as being okay have this stupid, cartoony vision that they're only hurting a big business monster when they pilfer.
Most book authors are NOT RICH. Most book authors don't have all their stuff getting turned into movies. Yet there are still scumbag thieves out there pirating their work and denying them a paycheck. My father is a successful writer, but certainly no millionaire. Anyone making and selling illegal copies of his books will not honor the royalty terms of his contracts. They make it more difficult for my father to make his house payment and other living costs. Pirating copyrighted material IS NOT A VICTIMLESS CRIME.
[ 11-23-2003, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-23-2003 06:59 AM
just to correct a factual error, i am not in college. i guess the assumption is that since i live in berkeley, i am a uc berkeley student. i am not. i do have a degree from an east coast university.
i work in a movie theater (surprise!). while i have my issues with the "real world" (who doesn't?), i can't live anywhere else but in it. but i can still live according to my conscience, and try to realize my ideals. among other things, that means giving a shit about how films are treated and presented at my theater, and trying to pass that attitude on to others. i could just let things go to hell like at most of the theaters i'm familiar with, but that would be succumbing... er, living in the real world.
carl
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 11-23-2003 08:37 AM
I've never heard someone use the term Real World so often. I hate that term. Ever since I entered this pathetic standardized education system when I was 5 years old I have heard, "We're preparing you for the REAL WORLD..." Oh great. So I have been living in this false parallax of a world all my life. It's good to know that others have crossed over. Maybe for an additional $25,000 and four more years, one day I can become part of this Real World so that I can ridicule others with my quips about how much smarter I am.
Maybe I should trademark the term, "Real World" so I can sue the hell out of people that piss me off when they use it. That would be putting that copyright/trademark law to good use. But I think MTV/Viacom/God has that under their corporate belt already.
quote:
The quality of graphic design and art in the United States continues to sink to ever lower levels of sucking much ass. There are several reasons why this problem is getting worse. Lack of ethics as it pertains to copyright law is one of the chief problems.
I disagree that that is one of the chief problems. It's one of the chief excuses, sure, but the chief problem is lesser-skilled people claiming that they can do just as good a job, and the people hiring them can't tell the difference. My friend was supposed to shoot some footage every week for 2 months for some event they were going to hold. He has a Canon XL-1 camera to do it with. He quoted them $400 a week plus expenses. Some hack college student comes up and tells the owner he'll do it for $250 with his Sony Handycam. Guess who the owner chose? The cheaper offer, of course.
It's this "Cheaping-down of America" that's the chief problem. It's the reason they don't release 70mm anymore or have any really HUGE cinemascope screens. Because they can release something shot on Super 35 on Agfa stock and still make $50M on opening weekend. If ticket prices are going up and quality is going way down, what better incentive is there for people to bootleg stuff? If they'll be treated to a crappy presentation at the theater, they won't mind the crappy copy they buy off the street.
I'd better go now before I get myself in trouble. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
=TMP=
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic