Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New laws regarding videotaping in a theatre

This is topic New laws regarding videotaping in a theatre in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002692

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 11-13-2003, 01:47 AM:

A new bill is being introduced in Congress that mostly has to do with file sharing (such as Kazaa and so on). But it also has a provision that states that anyone who videotapes a movie off of a theatre screen would be committing a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

I do agree that such videotaping is morally wrong (and already legally wrong as well), but: 5 years?? Really? Here's the article from CNET:

---------------------

Share 'True Crime,' do the time

By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
http://news.com.com/2100-1026-5106684.html

Story last modified November 12, 2003, 4:20 PM PST

A forthcoming copyright bill backed by key U.S. senators would place file swappers in prison for up to three years if they have a copy of even one prerelease movie in their shared folders.

In addition to the prison term, the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act would punish making such movies available on a public "computer network" as a federal felony with a fine of up to $250,000. It would not require that any copyright infringement actually take place.

Senators John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., plan to introduce the legislation at a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. Joining them at the event will be actress Bo Derek, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) President Jack Valenti, and Mitch Bainwol, chairman of the Recording Industry Association of America.

Hollywood studios have fretted for years about Internet distribution of prerelease movies, meaning films that have not appeared on DVD or in theaters. Footage of "Star Wars: Episode II," "Tomb Raider" and "The Hulk," has reportedly surfaced on peer-to-peer networks before their commercial distribution. In September, the major studios responded by halting their normal practice of sending DVD "screeners" to Academy Award judges.

A copy of the bill seen by CNET News.com, marked "Discussion Draft," represents one of the fiercest attacks yet on peer-to-peer networks from copyright holders' allies on Capitol Hill.
The threat of a three-year prison term kicks in when anyone makes an illicit copy of a movie "available on a computer network accessible to members of the public," when the film "was intended for commercial distribution but had not been so distributed at the time." Once the film is commercially distributed, the felony penalties appear to no longer apply.
An aide to Cornyn said it is designed to expand the 1997 No Electronic Theft Act, which already makes many forms of copyright infringement a federal felony. The draft bill will "help law enforcement pursue those who are already violating the law by establishing, by presumption, that if someone willfully puts out a pre-release file you have reached the economic harm threshold, which is standard under the NET Act," the aide said in an e-mail message.

The aide said the prison terms are "already the law, and if someone distributes a pre-release today and the Justice Department can figure out when that person did it and how, they can (be prosecuted). This legislation simply makes it presumptive that if someone distributes a pre-release that it reaches that level, facilitating law enforcement. The punishment does not change."

Peter Jaszi, a professor at American University who teaches copyright law, said he is "deeply troubled" by the wording of the draft legislation, because it does not say any actual copyright infringement must take place--only that the file be available in a shared folder, Web site or FTP (File Transfer Protocol) site. "It says we don't care if anybody got any of these copies," Jaszi said. "We're going to conclude that at least 10 people did. It relieves the copyright owner of having to prove that any violation of their rights actually happened."

MPAA spokesman Rich Taylor said "this legislation will go a long way toward targeting one of the most serious contributors to piracy right now, which is the practice of camcording motion pictures. It's the first time the U.S. Senate has had legislation that specifically addresses the threat of camcording."

"Piracy for too long has been high-reward and low-risk," Taylor said. "Legislation such as that being introduced tomorrow will go a long way toward changing that equation."

The Cornyn-Feinstein bill also creates another federal felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, for using "an audiovisual recording device" in a movie theater to make a copy of a film and boosts civil penalties available to MPAA member companies when suing over prerelease movies placed on the Internet.

Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., are co-sponsors of the bill.
A related proposal has been introduced in the House of Representatives. It covers surreptitious recording in theaters but does not include the three-year prison term for making a prerelease movie available online.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-13-2003, 01:57 AM:

You're right Jeff, 10 years would be more appropriate. That way when good behaviour and all that other crap is factored in, somebody might actually serve some time.

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 11-13-2003, 02:04 AM:

Um, I actually meant that I thought this was way too much.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Jeff

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 11-13-2003, 02:17 AM:

This can only take place in God´s own country!

Studios must review their release policy. Days of cinema-only release is over, and must be exchanged with a day and date multi platform release including internet, DVD, VHS, file sharing AND cinema etc.

I bought a R1 DVD of "Finding Nemo" 10 days ago and have no intention of going to the cinema to see it when it opens in Denmark tomorrow. The kids have seen it at least 5 times already. That´s 10 tickets for the price of one DVD!

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-13-2003, 03:47 AM:

oooh, we can't make this problem go away on our own so we'll have mommy and daddy government take care of it for us. maybe tomorrow they will guarantee all our movies will make $50 million because someone must have done something bad if they don't.

assholes.

carl

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 11-13-2003, 03:50 AM:

Sorry, Jeff. I disagree as well. 5 years seems like an appropriate punishment for this type of theft.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-13-2003, 04:01 AM:

You're right Carl, shoplifting shouldn't be illegal either. Individual store owners should have to deal with it themselves. Same goes for any other property owner.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-13-2003, 04:18 AM:

Five years sounds appropriate to me. Moving this to Yak sounds appropriate as well.

Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 11-13-2003, 04:40 AM:

I think 5 years is fair, knowing that they will be out in 1 year anyway.

They should also be banned from using the Internet & seeing any movie ever again! [Smile]

But in all realality, why keep putting people in our jails that aren't a physical threat to anyone. Fine the hell out of them and take away all there computer and video equipment.

Touchy subject though.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-13-2003, 06:37 AM:

What if the movie is public domain? Does the five-year penalty still apply? If so, that's crazy.

Five years seems a bit harsh, considering that we already have existing laws that provide for civil and criminal penalties for copyright violation. If these were enforced, there would be no need for additional laws.

I'm as much opposed to piracy as anyone, but a first-time copyright volation doesn't seem to merit this much jail time, particularly when compared with the extra-short prison terms given to those who commit violence and other much more serious crimes.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-13-2003, 06:47 AM:

I think Jeff hit upon the key problem with the legislation regardless of ones views on the actually theft and its punishment....

That is...one can prosicute another without actually proving that they have violated anything. It is presummed that you broke ones copyright. In an "Innocent until proven guilty society...it really smacks as wrong and probably unconsititutional.

I too feel that if you did really steal a movie by videotaping or outright duping another form of the product that you should suffer the consequences...including jail time. The idea behind the joil time is that it not only will take your money but deny you the opportunity to do anything productive for yourself for a while. Merely taking the money from someone wealthy would not be a deterrent or real punishment unless you were to write the law such that the financial penalty is a percentage of one's wealth measured in all forms derrived. And then you would have a real sticky anyway as assets would have to be frozen to avoid them leaving the country. This is not a perfect world. If it was, people just wouldn't steal in the first place.

Steve

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-13-2003, 09:33 AM:

IMHO, a non-violent economic crime is best punished with a fine and restitution, not prison. If you deliberately hurt or threaten someone physically, you belong in prison. If you hurt them economically, you owe them complete restitution, even if you have to pay them back for the rest of your life. And with a felony conviction, you will pay for the rest of your life, one way or another.

Posted by Jeff Joseph (Member # 511) on 11-13-2003, 11:52 AM:

We really want our tax dollars being spent on prosecuting this stuff? And jailing non-violent offenders? I'm NOT defending videotaping movies in a theatre; I agree it is wrong for all sorts of reasons. But I think our Federal legal system (the FBI, the courts, the U.S. Attorney, prisons) can be put to way more productive use. Especially in an era where there ARE bad guys who want to blow people and buildings up.

I think in the long run, copyright is over. Fighting against it will wind up doing what it's done for drugs, prostitution, gambling, and so on. I'm not "for" any of these activities... but I think passing laws and jailing people does not work to stop these activities either. Anything that can be digitized, WILL be digitized. And be available on the Internet for free, more or less. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but at some point. Content providers will fight this (can't say as I blame them, either), but this is a losing battle.

One idea: Open big titles world wide on the same day (such as was done with the new "Matrix" film) AND... sell the DVD in the lobby of the theatre for a very low price. Say if you buy 2 tickets to the movie, the DVD is $9.99 That'll stop the video pirates. Why would someone buy a pirated copy when you can get one legit right now for very little money? Later, they can sell the director's cut DVDs (with all the extras) and make still more money.

I guess what I'm saying is that content providers have to wake up and realize the world has changed. New laws won't do squat.

Jeff

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 11-13-2003, 12:06 PM:

I have a friend who is a film and video distributor in his country and he is now doing a judgement call on some of the titles he releases by offering legal VHS copies in his cinemas, day and date, with the releases.

Posted by Bill Carter (Member # 156) on 11-13-2003, 12:41 PM:

In an odd way, Copyright actions have always been unique in that you are basically "guilty until proven innocent". If you are sued for copyright infringement, the burden is on YOU to prove your claim of fair-use, public domain, etc. The rights holder doesn't have to demonstrate that your use was improper.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-14-2003, 06:08 AM:

to clarify and elaborate upon my last post....

i think clear distinctions can be drawn between shoplifting and copyright infringement. in the former case, the victim suffers an actual loss. the stick of gum that was in the store is now gone. in the latter case, there is no actual loss (let's say nothing was physically stolen). the victim's complaint is (most likely) that profit did not come to him that otherwise might have. the victimhood rests on an imaginary scenario. there is no guarantee that the forgone profit would ever have been gained. there's no guarantee that the stick of gum would have been bought either, but after it's stolen the proprietor can't chew it. the copyright victim can still enjoy his work.

[i realize that this anti-copyright view can be seen as political, but no more so than the pro-copyright comments i'm rebutting. oh what the hell, go ahead and close the thread.]

now take this case, where it isn't even necessary for copyright infringement to occur. we're two generations removed from actual harm now. the thinking behind this boils down to: "if we can't make the charges stick on the guilty-looking people, we'll make it illegal to look guilty."

look at how specific it gets. it's only about film, and especially about film "intended for commercial distribution". it's pure special-needs legislation. yeah, like most legislation.

c'mon, valenti is behind it. you know it's bad!

carl

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2003, 08:16 AM:

Information about US Copyright law:

http://www.copyright.gov/

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ45.pdf

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/chapter05.pdf

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-14-2003, 09:39 AM:

I have no problem with the philosophy of copyright. It's "their" product, the fruits of "their" labor.
I also disagree that they are not losing something through illegal duplication. If there was only one place to get something, they would be making money off that thing. If you wanted it you would buy it from them, the end. If someone else comes along and illegally duplicates that item and sells it, each of the buyers now has an option. The legitimate owner's product or the thieves product. So there IS loss of income to the thieves. I don't see how there is a difference between stealing the gum and stealing any other product.
This morning I heard an NPR story about this issue and it turns out that "they" figure it's insiders making the videos anyway. Seems kind of obvious to me, when the video hits the Internet before the movie hits the theaters.

Maybe cut off one of their hands or pluck out one of their eyeballs.

I hate thieves more than anything [Mad]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 11-15-2003, 01:30 AM:

You know you have heard it from me before:

I went to the 'local fleamarket' again today. ALL the pirated movies the guy was selling (Matrix Revolutions, Kill Bill, Texas Chainsaw, Elf, Mystic River, Brother Bear, ETC ETC ETC) THEY WERE FLAWLESS SCREENER COPIES. NOT, I repeat, NOT filmed inside a movie theatre. I had him run them on a DVD player for me. Some of them had the "PROPERTY OF MIRAMAX FILMS" or other 'tickers' running at the bottom stating it is a federal crime to be watching the thing. Anyways - I have personally contacted the FBI regarding this guy and he still is making a buttload of money selling these things. So they could pass a law saying people will go to jail for life - BUT NOBODY CARES!

....I do......

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-16-2003, 04:57 PM:

My philosophy is that there should NEVER be jail time for any non violent offence. Jail time for violent offenses should be indefinate, until it is as certain as possible that a repeat will not occur.

And lastly, the death penalty is barbaric. Regardless of the horrific nature of some crimes, it is not human to lower ourselves to the level that these dastardly criminals go to. What would be more appropriate is life with hard labor, no parole.

As for copyright infringement, how about the loss of drivers licence in all 50 states, now and forever? Loss of voting rights? Loss of income (garnishement)? Public humiliation (printing of infringers name on an internet watch site once prosecuted).

Jail time scares not the infringer, but losing ones ability to legally drive oneself? To lose the ability to get a full paycheck? Having every potential employer know you are a thief of the lowest caliber?

Dave

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-16-2003, 05:31 PM:

Not to burst your bubble Dave, but there are already MANY 10,000's of unlicensed (and BTW uninsured) drivers driving around every day...especially in CA, NM, AZ, and TX. That sure wont work. The cops have much better things to do than stop everyone to see if they have a valid DL.

Also, jail time in many cases is the only answer... some fat-cat could just laff at the fines and re-open under another "storefront" after paying the fine.

This is a problem, but as with many complex problems, there are no easy answers.

>>> Phil

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 11-16-2003, 08:02 PM:

In response to Carl Martins comment regarding theft of gum ...

Surely, you can't believe the words you typed? Theft is theft, plain and simple. The gum is a GOOD. The film is both a GOOD & SERVICE. The store owner provided a tangible product (the gum), the theatre provides a SERVICE by providing the product (the actual film) to the consumer. If one took the gum without paying, they stole it. No money will be made on that pack. If one pirates a movie (insider or not), they have taken the ability for the film-maker and theatre (no to mention everyone in-between) to make additional sales. Theft of a service is still theft.

As to the death penalty comment by Dave..
I agree iwth you that time shoud be served 'hard labor.. no parole'. I DO believe in the death penalty. I do believe that certain crimes should be penalized by death. I don't feel that the public, read.. You and I, shoudl support, via taxation, prisons. I would love to see someone devise a system that would allow for a 'self-suporting' prison. It chaps my ass that some scumbag sitting in a cell that I help pay for can obtain an college level education at MY expense when I'm unelegible for grants/scholarships. I feel like that's being punished for being a productive member of society. I feel the same way about people who spit out kids by the dozen, collecting welfare/food stamps/gov't subsidies yet can't keep their F'ing legs closed long enough to go out, get a job and become a productive member of society rather than laying around being a leach! [Mad]

Sorry to have taken this off subject.. actually, no hell I'm not. It's the way I feel and that's the way it is...

Back to the topic.. theft is theft, plain and simple. You either bought it legitimately or you didn't. I see no gray area involved. Disagree if you may, it's your choice. [uhoh]

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-17-2003, 12:48 AM:

Someone needs to go to jail for that Blockbuster commercial playing on screen in the Vista Ridge video. [Big Grin]

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-17-2003, 05:25 AM:

quote:
Surely, you can't believe the words you typed? Theft is theft, plain and simple. The gum is a GOOD. The film is both a GOOD & SERVICE. The store owner provided a tangible product (the gum), the theatre provides a SERVICE by providing the product (the actual film) to the consumer. If one took the gum without paying, they stole it. No money will be made on that pack. If one pirates a movie (insider or not), they have taken the ability for the film-maker and theatre (no to mention everyone in-between) to make additional sales. Theft of a service is still theft.

sure, they are both theft under the law, but within that rubric we can distinguish different types of acts. there is direct physical theft (the gum) which unequivocally deprives the owner of his property. it is not necessary for the gum to be seen as a good, as an economic commodity, for this to be true. on the other hand, if a movie is pirated, it may still be sold by the copyright holder. and more importantly, it may still be enjoyed for all its other qualities, as an object, as a work of art. it's natural for economists to commodify everything as it's that aspect of life that they study. but this obsessive commodification should not be reflected in policy or, arguably, ethics.

carl

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-17-2003, 05:26 AM:

Duplicate post deleted by moderator. Please do not use the "back" button after posting.

doh!

[ 11-17-2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Carl Martin ]

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-17-2003, 09:18 AM:

Carl
Are we to believe that under your philosophy that it's ok to wait till the next #1 best seller comes out, then set up printing presses and run off a million copies and sell them for $1 less than the owner?
Are you saying that's ok????

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-17-2003, 06:17 PM:

i think there should be no law against it. i don't think it's immoral. (i see those as identical statements.) but it's also a highly unlikely scenario. i don't think a pirated version of anything has sold anything near a million.

since copyright began, there has always been an (ever-increasing) interval of time after which copies may be made freely. it makes no sense to me that 74 years after "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" is published i can be prosecuted for duplicating it but 75 years (or whatever) after it's ok. there's just no salient difference there. it's like when abortion is arbitrarily declared legal up to a certain date and not thereafter. it's a feel-good compromise that makes everyone feel their side has been at least partially conceded to, but it's morally bankrupt.

republishing a book like that may not seem fair, or good business ethics, and a lot of people would agree with you on that. but life ain't fair, and most of life's unfairnesses are best remedied by people following their own codes of behavior, not top-down, by the legal system.

there are plenty worse things going on routinely in business and elsewhere that are perfectly legal.

art has been around a lot longer than copyright, so it's certainly not a prerequisite for creativity. arguably, the entrenched institutions of art production that we have today (like hollywood) do owe a lot to copyright. but these institutions are artistically corrupt. [it is my opinion that] art would benefit tremendously from weakening its ties to business. i don't advocate government subsidy of art at all; i advocate a laissez-faire model. as it is now, copyright is an artificial imposition that keeps art trapped in the business world. a building can only rise so high on a rotten foundation.

carl

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-17-2003, 07:36 PM:

[Roll Eyes]

wow

Thankfully there are copyright laws that protect creative people from people who believe as you do, otherwise those creative people would never be able to make a living at what they do and would not do it, as they would always be getting ripped off by people who believe as you do.
Maybe it would be helpful for you to think along the lines of why there ARE copyright and patent laws, to figure out how and why the world works.

Posted by Jim Spohn (Member # 1547) on 11-18-2003, 10:36 AM:

I second Gregg's reply!!.... Jim Spohn

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-18-2003, 10:53 AM:

I'd have to agree with Greg too. It astonishes me how much disregard you have for non-physical forms of property, along with how much you are seemingly against capitalization -- of words.

Posted by Edward Jurich (Member # 1787) on 11-18-2003, 11:14 AM:

Pirates are a bigger problem than I thought and I think stiff penalties are in order. I've found out that people are selling DVD's of current movies (still in theaters) in some malls. These are video's shot off screen and sold by people walking the mall. At the very least, anyone caught taping off screen should have their camera confiscated on the spot with the camera turned over to police. I think the news of cameras being confiscated would make people think twice about taping.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-18-2003, 11:35 AM:

I agree with Dave that nonviolent crimes shouldn't be punished with prison time. But the Prison Guard's Union will continue to lobby the government for more stupid laws and an increase in mandatory minimum sentences so that they can build more prisons and create more jobs.

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."

Who the hell am I hurting financially by making a copy of Gone With The Wind? David O. Selznick? Selnick International? MGM? New Line? Or the collective executives at AOL Time Warner who won't get their share of $15? It's been over 60 years, isn't it time to just give it up to society? Who gets paid every time the Mona Lisa is viewed? I can't wait for the Special Edition Now In Galleries with Digitally Enhanced eyebrows so that I can be a good little consumer.

What about all those pictures in the picture warehouse of various theaters that have videocameras pointed at the screens to "check focus and framing in the other theaters"? Does everyone there go to jail, too?

FIVE YEARS for depriving a corporation of its profits. But who puts the studios in jail for depriving us of two hours of our lives for all the crap they release? Not to mention the countless hours I gave up out of my life so that their [bs]

product can hit the screen on time so they can make $90 million in a weekend... Aren't I entitled to a free copy?

The industry has seen record profits, so maybe if they throw some people in jail, the trend will continue. [Roll Eyes]

=TMP=

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-18-2003, 02:51 PM:

"....Aren't I entitled to a free copy?...."

NO

You get paid for what you do, yes? If you don't then who's the fool?

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-18-2003, 04:50 PM:

quote:
Thankfully there are copyright laws that protect creative people from people who believe as you do, otherwise those creative people would never be able to make a living at what they do and would not do it, as they would always be getting ripped off by people who believe as you do.

oddly enough, i'm more concerned with being creative myself than bootlegging others' works.

quote:
It astonishes me how much disregard you have for non-physical forms of property, along with how much you are seemingly against capitalization -- of words.

ha ha. yeah, i'm just too lazy to use the shift key. actually, when i write longhand, i often write in ALL CAPS. go figger.

quote:
Who gets paid every time the Mona Lisa is viewed?

well, the louvre. and let me tell you, a lot of people view that painting. it's hard to even get close to it, there are so many people swarming around it, with their digital cameras and video recorders held over their heads (i even filmed them doing this a few months ago). where's the outcry? good post, tp.

carl

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-18-2003, 06:11 PM:

"...oddly enough, i'm more concerned with being creative myself than bootlegging others' works...."

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?

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 11-19-2003, 01:24 AM:

quote:
Who the hell am I hurting financially by making a copy of Gone With The Wind? David O. Selznick? Selnick International? MGM? New Line? Or the collective executives at AOL Time Warner who won't get their share of $15? It's been over 60 years, isn't it time to just give it up to society?

You wouldn't want it if it was not under copyright. It would be PD & you'd just find crappy versions from Madacy & worse.

If it falls into the public domain, anyone can dupe & sell it & the copyright owners cannot recoup their costs to make available the best quality issues, i.e., from the best possible sources (physically in their possession & ownership) & with their financial resources gained from selling titles they own.

This had long been a problem for silent & older movies. Before the US copyright laws were last changed to make the period of copyright more closely conform to European, TONS of things had fallen into PD. All those titles were available from cheapjack PD video (& sometimes film) companies, horrible splicy, incomplete, trashed, dupey (to the point some had contrast so high that they were literally black & white), some taped from TV, color features completely pink.

Since the copyright period was returned back to (now about) 1924, there's never been availability of the best-quality versions of movies previously PD. Universal put out The Man Who Laughs, licensing agreements made excellent restorations of Metropolis available, Chaplin's estate has made his materials available for the excellent sets out now, etc.

The copyright law does have a serious flaw in that *some* titles in which there is interest are not available. The best suggestion that was made was that it should be amended so that after a period of 50 years or so, if the owner does not make them available, they revert to the public domain. That would maintain an incentive against boneheadedness, as well as for profit & availability.

But copyright provides commercial incentive for the owners to sell the best version of the product, & that they certainly have been doing if they think they can make a buck on it.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 11-19-2003, 06:54 AM:

Yes I am well aware of the number of unlicensed drivers out there. I stand by my statement. Police wouldn't be stopping people to check for dl's, that's just silly.

The technology already exists to stop those without valid dl's from driving. It would cost a small amount per driver, and would take a while to implement, and in time it will just happen anyway, but it is avialable. So give it five years and that seemingly painless punishment will actually prevent people from driving.

Dave

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-19-2003, 01:44 PM:

I hardly believe that NO ONE would want Gone With The Wind if it wasn't copyrighted. [Smile]

quote:
If it falls into the public domain, anyone can dupe & sell it & the copyright owners cannot recoup their costs to make available the best quality issues, i.e., from the best possible sources

Good point. Maybe there could be an amendment to the copyright law allowing ONLY the original copyright holder to make high quality reproductions for sale or rental, but allow people to make copies for their personal use. Not exactly abolishing a copyright once it's expired, but perhaps extending the fair use rights after the period expires. Those who want the high quality will buy it, those who could care less and settle for a crap copy can do so without going to jail.

IMHO, a country's copyright period should not be longer than the average life span of someone living in that country.

=TMP=

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-20-2003, 06:39 AM:

quote:
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?

hey, i'd be flattered. but why would anyone buy it from someone else when they can just "steal" it from me?

quote:
The copyright law does have a serious flaw in that *some* titles in which there is interest are not available.

there is no way to verify this, but i'd guess that's true for *most* titles, considering all works of a reproducible nature (films, books, etc.) at all levels of popularity.

people seem to justify copyright in 2 different ways. they claim that intellectual "product" rightfully belongs to its originator. i've argued that this product may be appropriated by others without diminishing the extent to which it "belongs" to the originator. hence the word "theft" is mis-applied.

alternately, they claim it is necessary to foster creativity. while the nature of creative output is undoubtedly shaped by the existence of copyright laws, i can see no reason to assume that without copyright works of equal validity would not be created. we would still have culture, but it would be on the whole more organic, more concerned with reflecting experience and expressing ideas than the pablum dolled up (sometimes quite artfully) to pass as our mainstream entertainment.

maybe you like the status quo. that's fine. in fact, mainstream "art" is a valid reflection of the factors contributing to it, and will for this reason have value for future cultural historians. but what it indirectly documents is the capitalization of culture, from the perspective of very large corporations, which is not very helpful to the common cultural consumer trying to gain insight into the conditions of his existence.

but whether you do or don't like the art/entertainment we have now isn't important. the question is whether the government should have a hand in shaping it, be it by directly controlling its content, as in many countries, or by creating conditions that skew its nature, as i argue is the case here and in most countries. especially as this involves the enforcement of an arbitrary right (to control all manifestations of ones creativity, necessarily subjectively interpreted, for a limited, but ill-defined time) over a more basic and ancient right (to do as one pleases with that one physically owns, such as making a copy).

quote:
Maybe it would be helpful for you to think along the lines of why there ARE copyright and patent laws, to figure out how and why the world works.

laws will stay in place as long as powerful entities benefit from them, or through propaganda, or sheer stupid inertia. the economy of the old south was dependent on slavery. that's not a defense of slavery; that's a criticism of the economy. [please don't interpret that as an equation of the wrong of slavery with the wrong of copyright.]

carl

Posted by Joe Schmidt (Member # 822) on 11-20-2003, 07:37 AM:

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. There is a great deal of confusion over copyright these days, and the greedy Hollywood cartels are spreading all sorts of misinformation about, such as the recent claims that if you watch a show on TV and zap the commercials, you are stealing their copyrighted property. Utter nonsense.

The reason funny laws come out of Congress is because it is no longer "We The People." It is "The New Corporate Government of America." When a Senator has to raise several million $,$$$,$$$ to run his re-election campaign, of necessity he becomes a bagman
for this kind of money does not appear without strings attached.

There are lots of Republicans associated with the building and operation of prisons so we may be seeing many more laws leading to felony convictions with very harsh penalties and jail time. Adds to their profits, you see.

A very good source of information about the raging copyright controversies is the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
www.eff.org ... have a look, the links can keep you busy for hours.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing contained in this post is to be construed as legal advice, and opinions expressed herein are personal.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-20-2003, 10:34 AM:

This is getting nuts
Enough with the Big Brother BS
Copyright and Patent laws are not some government conspiracy guys, they have been put there to protect the creative types from thieves who think "the world owes me a living". (Sounds like some of the posters here, eh?) Those laws exist because "We The People" allow them to.
Look...like it or not it's all about money. It takes that to survive. No one can live with out it and the creative types YOU wish to NOT reward for their efforts (by stealing it from them with out paying them) are NOT going to make the things you want to steal unless THEY make money. It is NOT a labor of love. It is a labor FOR PROFIT. If you have a particular movie genre that you like, the only way they will continue to make those types of movies is IF THEY MAKE MONEY. If they don't they won't.
All those "greedy Hollywood cartels" or "powerful entities" all work for someone, they are called stockholders. They are little people like you and me. Those "fat cat's" jobs are to make money for the stockholders. If they don't they lose their jobs. So I guess that makes the stockholders greedy too, right? Before long this is going to get to the point where "everyone is greedy".
Now how about you? I hear bitching because you think you are not rewarded enough and think you should be entitled to make illegal dupes of films. Why is it you should be rewarded the way you think you should be, but at the same time everyone else is being "greedy" because they want to be rewarded "justly", as you do?

Now if you want to make things and give it away feel free. If you would "feel honored" or "flattered" if someone steals from you, be my guest. But do not think because you don't have a problem with being a thief, or thievery in general, that others don't, or that some how it's Ok. It's not. No amount of rationalizing is going to make it Ok. You are NOT "entitled" to anything you do not earn or pay for. That IS the law and it's there for very good reasons.
You want something, step up and lay your money down. Don't whine because you haven't got enough money. Go out and earn it, like everyone else, and then buy the things you want. It's they way this country works.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 11-20-2003, 04:53 PM:

Hey, the point of my particular post is this (everyone else is ranting about 'creative licensing')

I have been in the theatre business for 14-plus years. I really do not need my way of life threatened by some street hood selling pirated copies of movies that I am currently playing at my theatre for $9.99 a piece - down the damn street. If they were jittery, crappy copies - I would not complain. However, the fact that they are flawless copies that were obviously obtained in some very high-level way poses a problem to me.

... on a side note - I realize now that on the standees we have that say "Only in Theatres" - is false advertising - when I can buy them at the local fleamarket down the street.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-20-2003, 05:36 PM:

quote:
Enough with the Big Brother BS
Copyright and Patent laws are not some government conspiracy guys

it's no good painting me as a conspiracy nut. i never made that claim. all this stuff is out in the open. hell, the majority of people probably don't even question copyright. i don't equate laziness of thought with conspiracy.

quote:
they have been put there to protect the creative types from thieves who think "the world owes me a living".

they are there to "protect" the creative types who think "the world owes me a living".

quote:
I hear bitching because you think you are not rewarded enough and think you should be entitled to make illegal dupes of films. Why is it you should be rewarded the way you think you should be, but at the same time everyone else is being "greedy" because they want to be rewarded "justly", as you do?

i never said that. i don't make dupes of films. i don't profit off them. what the hell?

quote:
I really do not need my way of life threatened by some street hood selling pirated copies of movies that I am currently playing at my theatre for $9.99 a piece - down the damn street.... However, the fact that they are flawless copies that were obviously obtained in some very high-level way poses a problem to me.

a video will never be a flawless copy of a film, just like a photograph is not a flawless copy of a painting. it's a different medium. sorry, that's a nitpick. but this is the sort of "making it personal" argument that has no moral weight for me. sure, if your business model is built on certain vicissitudes, you'll take a hit when they change. that doesn't in any way justify those vicissitudes.

carl

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-20-2003, 06:42 PM:

"....it's no good painting me as a conspiracy nut. i never made that claim. all this stuff is out in the open. hell, the majority of people probably don't even question copyright. i don't equate laziness of thought with conspiracy...."

Never said you did. There are others making comments on this thread besides you

"...they are there to "protect" the creative types who think "the world owes me a living...."

Don't like it don't buy it. It still does not give you the "right" to steal it. Why would you want anything that the creative people that you (by this statement) have such disdain for?

"...i never said that. i don't make dupes of films. i don't profit off them. what the hell?..."

Once again, you're not the only one who is making comment here. Please try to follow along with ALL the dialogue.

I guess you're just determined to have an outlaw mindset here. That's fine. If you put yourself on the wrong side of the law, you'll be in jail or otherwise reprimanded by the judicial system and that will take care of that. Try your rationals on the judge.
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 long as the law is on the books all you are doing by refusing to follow it is to put yourself on the wrong side of the law. You make yourself an outlaw by your own decision. If you want to try to change the law and succeed that's one thing. But to break the law is not acceptable

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 11-21-2003, 12:55 AM:

Greg Mueller has been stating my point of view on this a lot more calmly & tactfully than I could.

quote:

they have been put there to protect the creative types from thieves who think "the world owes me a living".
-----------------------------------------------------------------

they are there to "protect" the creative types who think "the world owes me a living".

What I'm reading here is that you expect "creative types" not to be able to get the best price they can for their work, or the people who distribute & support creative works to get the best price for what they do. The "creative types" are setting a price for their work, & if they don't want to sell it at a price that's less than they believe it's worth, or will justify the cost, or will keep them at an income level they think they deserve, they don't have to sell it at that price. 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.

quote:

alternately, they claim it is necessary to foster creativity. while the nature of creative output is undoubtedly shaped by the existence of copyright laws, i can see no reason to assume that without copyright works of equal validity would not be created.

It's neccessary to foster creativity, because the people who create it have to eat, & have to pay rent to have someplace to live. And as you futher demean people who create copyrighted work, you suggest that you should have the right to just take it for nothing if you want it. There's HUGE denial there. It's got worth, you want it, & don't want to purchase it.

Then that bogus bit about the "capitalization of culture". You aren't interested in some strange new thing like socialized art, because you aren't proposing a mechanism to create it by supporting artists outside of a capitalist system. And you know you wouldn't want socialized art, because the product WOULD be exactly the thing you erroneously say that creative works are now - only works created, approved & distributed by the government.

quote:
we would still have culture, but it would be on the whole more organic, more concerned with reflecting experience and expressing ideas than the pablum dolled up (sometimes quite artfully) to pass as our mainstream entertainment

Just because you contradict yourself, it doesn't mean what you said is profound. Artfully? That's work. That's lots of time spent in the creative fields, learning to do things well, learning what a majority of people like. The hardest thing to do is write a Top 40 hit. Think you can do it? Think just anyone can do it? People who've done it once haven't done it again, millions try to do it just once. And even the ones who haven't hit yet just like the successful ones have a HUGE investment in time & money that have gone toward working on it. Chuck college & hit the road with a band writing & performing, or just give up nights & weekends, your time & money are being invested in your work. What you gain in expertise & ability has worth through its acquisition & use. Would you like to tell anyone else here that their work & expertise they've spent a huge portion of their lives & money on have no worth? You want to just stiff them on a bill for putting your booth together, or not give them a paycheck for running movies this week?

My political views are farther to the left than Greg Mueller's, but none of this has ever been about politics. Since Napster appeared, people have tried to find ways to justify theft any way they can - it's the future, it's a new distribution path, it's a political point. None have even been close to functional, rational models, just babbling. They don't propose in their systems any way of satisfying the creators or owners. They don't start at that end, they start at just taking something because they have what looks like a safe opportunity. They're just styrofoam ego shields for infantile want. I want it, it should be mine!

It's not a streamlined economic model. The cost of something is NEVER set by the buyer; it is AGREED upon by the seller & the buyer. If the seller doesn't want to sell it for the price the buyer proposes, or the buyer doesn't want to pay the price the seller is selling it for, it is not sold. It goes all the way up & down the line, from the creator agreeing on price with a publisher, a publisher with a distributor, a distributor with a retailer, a retailer with the end consumer. If the "consumer" decides "I don't want to pay that much, I'll just take it", that's theft.

quote:

laws will stay in place as long as powerful entities benefit from them, or through propaganda, or sheer stupid inertia.

Or as long as it's neccessary to protect people from folks who would steal their property or exploit them. Where are thieves of copyrighted works in this picture?

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 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

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-21-2003, 09:09 AM:

I guess I've made all the points I want to, but I'm interested in one more thing. Back in the 60s we did all this anti establishment, revolution crap and now we're all business men [Roll Eyes]

Carl, what do plan to do for a living to pay the rent and so on? [Confused]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 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).

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-21-2003, 10:01 AM:

I agree with most of your points Scott. Where I would disagree is if the copyright item in question were still a "viable commodity". Like for instance the character Mickey Mouse and his likeness. Disney has made this their (more or less) symbol/logo and I can understand why they would want to keep that commodity to themselves like anyone else's logo.
I can't see keeping copyright on something that has "dropped off the table" and no one has heard of in years, just because its a family heirloom or something

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-21-2003, 11:45 AM:

quote:
i don't pay to listen to music on the radio.

Sure you do. You give your time to listen to commercials. You're paying to listen to the radio.

quote:
if your creative endeavors aren't profitable enough, you can always keep a day job.

What if your creative endeavour is your day job?

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-21-2003, 12:41 PM:

I KNEW someone would bring the infamous 'Mickey Mouse Argument' into this... [Big Grin]

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

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 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=

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-21-2003, 02:01 PM:

I was using Mickey more as nonspecific example of a "viable commodity" than a specific example.
A viable commodity would be one that is still "alive" and making money for the owners as opposed to something that exists but only in a vault and hasn't been seen or heard from in some specific time and is no longer actively generating revenue.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 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]

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".

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 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]

carl

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-22-2003, 02:54 PM:

"....at least you've heard another perspective now. feel free to spread it around...."

Although each generation thinks they have all the answers, let me assure you that these are not original thoughts. Everyone goes through this phase. Ultimately they adapt to the real world and participate in the system or wind up being street bums. One way or the other, they either participate in the system or suck off it. Successful people learn to participate well, non successful learn to abuse the system well and rely on the hard work of others to sponge off

These "definitions" of yours are just thin rationals. They don't wash in the real world. Maybe on the college campus where you're surrounded by college students, but not in the real world. Remember, for the most part you are talking to adults here that have been out in the real world for decades. Maybe you should try listening.
It would be interesting to hear from you about 10 years AFTER you get out of college and see how your viewpoint has changed.
By the way. You never did say how you plan to pay your way in the real world.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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 ]

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 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

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 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]

=TMP=

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-23-2003, 12:33 PM:

Carl
You have a degree in something but you are working in a theater as "Theatre floor staff with some projection duties." So I'm still wondering what you're going to do with your education and as a career.

Tom
It has nothing to do with dollars it has to do with life experience. The older you get the more of it you have. You have a limited viewpoint because you haven't been out in the REAL WORLD [Big Grin]

enough...yet. It's not a fault, don't think of it as though I'm saying it is. It's just the way it is right now.
If you doubt what I'm saying think of it this way. I'm probably about 30 years older than you. It gives me 30 or so years to gather experience. Since you're not 30 yet we can't make the comparison of you and a new born but I think you'll get the drift.
Got a little brother or sister? Or how about a niece or nephew. Maybe someone just entering school. Who's got a better field of reference to draw on, you or them? See what I mean? When you hear them say something that is wrong and correct them do you consider yourself to be "ridiculing others with my quips about how much smarter I am."
Relax and enjoy your youth. You've got the best part of your life ahead. I'd give everything I got to change ages with you (if I could keep what I know)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-23-2003, 01:03 PM:

quote:
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.

Those lesser skilled people and the dumbasses hiring them are both often guilty of breaking copyright law in their act of doing things on the cheap.

When it comes to graphic design, the lesser skilled people typically have little to no formal training and they are usually working with warez apps they illegally downloaded. When I talk of formal training, I mean real art training, not just courses on computer apps. Those folks often extend their ignorance of copyright law by using copyrighted photos and art in their layouts without permission. On video and audio production it is commonplace for a TV or radio commercial to use copyrighted music without permission. The hacks just do it because they often don't know any better. The people doing the hiring turn a blind eye to software piracy and copyright infringement without any hesitation, partly because they have very little fear at all of getting caught.

But, yes, ultimately it all does indeed come down to a general cheapening of things in America. There is so much of that shit going on in the graphic design area that I am fully correct in my very negative judgment on the state of design in America. Most graphic design businesses are now in the business of doing things "barely good enough to get by" instead of doing a good quality job.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-24-2003, 05:40 AM:

i can't believe i used the "-re" spelling in my profile. i don't actually do much work on the floor, but with "only" 3 screens i have to pretend to work outside the booth as well. i'm not really planning on doing much with my degree (math).

carl

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-25-2003, 03:02 PM:

quote:
I'm probably about 30 years older than you. It gives me 30 or so years to gather experience.

Now, don't take this personally, I'm speaking about the general "older people" when I say:

Aaah, the old "I know more because I'm older" excuse. I can't even count the number of people who were much older than me when I prooved them wrong, in some cases having to tell them off to do so. And I also recall quite a few times when someone younger than ME really opened my eyes on stuff I thought I was well versed in.

I think it's the other way around. Older people not only become more senile, but they become so preoccupied with the money and the bills and the concrete, "real world" way of life where all that's important is turning a profit for someone else that their vision on certain topics become clouded by the rose-colored glasses they wear to make their lives appear successful. I believe younger people have a better sense of telling when something is not right since they have been bombarded a lot less with the falacies of the "real world" way of thinking. "Wait. What you say CAN'T be right, because we've been doing it THIS WAY for YEARS." is a perfect example of ignorance to new ideas.

But that's not what the topic is about now, is it? So back to this boolegging thing...

I just bought a copy of the Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack on CD. I haven't bought a CD in a while, just been listening to the radio and my old records mostly. But what caused me to buy this one? Well, I DOWNLOADED some tracks off of some fan website (gone now) and fell in love with the score, so I went out and bought the CD instead of looking for and downloading the rest of the tracks. Why? Because I felt more comfortable dropping 2 hour's worth of pay on a 45 minute disc having sampled it. [Smile]

Now I can replace those low-quality files on my computer with new ones from the disc so I can have them in the playlist on my computer as well as the CD in my car. Isn't technology great?

Now if only I could download Reel 1 of Loony Tunes to see if I really want to take the time to watch it on my break, that would be sweet.... [eyes]

=TMP=

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-25-2003, 05:57 PM:

I once raised a couple of daughters. One day I was trying to tell one of them something I had learned from my "senile" experience. She said in generalities the same crap you just said. One sentence I'll never forget. "That learning from experience stuff is a bunch of baloney. You have to learn everything for your self."
I didn't bother to ask her if that meant books too, which are the conveyors of experience. I didn't bother to ask if that meant her teachers either, who are the conveyors of experience. In fact I never spoke much to her after that. I just figured she was going to be her own worst enemy for some time to come. And so are you.
What I did say to her was the same thing I'll say to you.
Good luck