Copyright vs Copywrong

For the discussion of Movies, Television, Comics, and other existential distractions.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Moderator » Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:36 pm

No, Frank, it is not free speech. It is appropriating someone's privat property and using to your own purpose. We're not even talking about works of art here, but wedding photographs. Would you defend the KKK using a mixed couple's wedding picture in the same way? Or using a straight African-American wedding photo to advocate the Klan's view?

The concept that any image displayed in even a slightly public forum -- like Facebook -- is somehow free for the taking just defies the rules of society. It's the worst sort of invasion of personal rights, which ought to trump all other rights in your book given your record on the record.

I am an ardent defender of the right to free speech, which includes the right to protect your own words. And, to continue that Constitutional vein, the right to protect your own property from theft.

Viewing this as somehow excusable behavior, and even defensible, is skewed beyond the pale. IMHO.

This is why the marginal but talented artists are disappearing in this nation.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Moderator » Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:42 pm

Frank, these are your peeps.
Packing fudge is GAY and QUEER and PERVERTED and SICK!!!!!!

No glove no love?

Nasty fagots,Who cares

How can men love each other? Detestable in the eyes of God. Sick humans. What example are these gays giving to our children? Pinche jotos.

...we don't want to see this crap...dispalyed, F*$$ fa$s..

Bwaney Fwank pokes Obozo in the turd hole.

Ghey's have rights. The right to jump off a bridge.

Well I know I'm on one of those kissing hugging pages. But I could care less about any fagett or what happen to them. So now all you gay or gay lovers out there can start your thumbs down. And voice your discuss with what I said.


And that's just the responses in the last five minutes.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:45 pm

It occurs to me, having watched this badminton game for many months now, that there is certain misconstrual over the term "free" in this context. When the First Amendment declares what it declares and says that speech is "free" I don't for a minute believe the framers meant "without cost." This was a purely political statement, namely that no one has a right to tell someone else they can't say or publish what they want. It said nothing about giving the product resultant therefrom away for nothing. Just that governments may not bar you from the activity of expression.

Everything else is, well, everything else. When I write a story (or a song or make a photograph) it does not magically become common property to which everyone is entitled. The product isn't free.

What the current flapdoodle over copyright is about---as it is always about---is who actually has the right to benefit from the product and furthermore what constitutes "product."

Yes, I can loan my copy of anyone's book to a friend to read. I cannot run off multiple copies of it and distribute it as I see fit. That's no longer "my copy" I'm loaning, but a new product to which I do not have license to distribute. There is a difference both in intent and in kind.

Now what seems to have Frank's goat is the idea that a corporation can "own" an idea. Frankly, it can't. I have Mickey Mouse indelibly impressed into my memory and I can draw Mickey if I choose. They can't make me forget and they can't stop me from drawing Mickey. They can't stop me from showing the drawing of Mickey to my friends.

They can stop me running off multiple copies and distributing them as I see fit. That's no longer an idea, it's a product.

I suspect Frank just basically loathes large corporations and it galls him that they can make money off things like Mickey Mouse and prevent others from doing so. Which is also not quite right, there's a whole long chain of interconnected livelihoods involved, but that's another issue.

There's a difference between the intent of "information wants to be free" and people wanting something for nothing. The former is a theory of memes, the latter a statement of entitlement that has nothing to do with memes.

Given all that, what is the difference between a 50 year copyright and a 100 year copyright other than the desire to strip the rights of a manufacturer from their source of income? That's not the thing that should concern anyone. I promise you, reduce length of copyright, it won't benefit the Artist. The best we could hope for would be that it wouldn't hurt them any more than they get hurt now. What would be a benefit would be a clearer statement of recognition for The Creator of the Work and stronger enforcement of the rights pertaining. Length of copyright wouldn't matter.

As a for instance, though, just to stir the pot, say I publish a story when I'm 25 and I live to be a 100. Under a 50 year copyright, you're telling me that my work wouldn't be mine for a quarter century of my life? Fuck that.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:02 am

Mark, they use the laws to keep their monopoly on money making. That's what is bad. The artists get pennies not because of downloads but because big companies keep them subservient.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:03 am

Barber, yes, free expression can be ugly.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Moderator » Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:47 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Mark, they use the laws to keep their monopoly on money making. That's what is bad. The artists get pennies not because of downloads but because big companies keep them subservient.


That's the most absurdly paranoid comment from anyone who has never tried to make a dime artistically.

Mark, great post. Some people will not only ignore the forest for the trees, but insist the entire thing is rife with Dutch Elm's disease.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:48 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Mark, they use the laws to keep their monopoly on money making. That's what is bad. The artists get pennies not because of downloads but because big companies keep them subservient.


Well, you;re not gonna fix that by fucking with copyright. I had a friend who fought for stronger copyright for photographers for years---suffered death threats, the whole bit---but there was never a moment when he thought there was something wrong with copyright. It was a contract law issue.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Moderator » Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:50 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Barber, yes, free expression can be ugly.


You're conflating the right to say what you want with the outright theft of someone else's property in order to do so. If You can't effectively express yourself, you explicitly cannot twist my words/works to suit your agenda. That violates MY free speech.

To make the point clearer -- if the hate mongers had gone out and taken a picture of two participating men kissing, that is protected free speech. If they seek out and steal a copyrighted photograph of two innocent strangers who are subject of that hatred, and use it to express that hatred, that is immoral and a crime.

Free speech allows you to express yourself, it does not absolve you of criminal acts in doing so. If someone marches onto a military base to object to the military they're prosecuted not for their opinions but for trespassing.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:28 pm

Warner Books pulped one of Noam's books! They control speech.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Lori Koonce » Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:00 pm

Frank

For a smart man you sure say some stupid things.

Warner's dosen't control the language, the quick check I did at my local library shows a shit load of Chomsky's work on the shelf and available for checkout. 184 books by or about the man are just waiting for someone to look at.

Look, what I'm about ready to say probably will piss you off, but it's the way I see things and it's about time I spoke up. People like you and Dawkins are what I choose to call True Believers. You cannot see the world the way it truly is because of the veil of belief you've chosen to put over your face.

Gwyneth M905
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:40 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Gwyneth M905 » Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:16 pm

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LIKE! :D


Artists' work must be protected. Royalties and/or residuals are an important source of income for many. Now, some may call me Dawkensian for that belief, and they would be right.


Frank, the poor man selling the street sheet newspaper with a poem he's written in it for a buck a shot is an artist. Would it then be fair for someone rich to buy the paper, recognize the genius and use it as an advertising slogan, making millions for Nike?
I want to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi Knight, the same as my Father.
STAR WARS (1977)

User avatar
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FinderDoug » Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:31 pm

Warner Books pulped one of Noam's books!


True story, though the actual story is hardly worthy of the exclamation point.

They control speech.


Really? They didn't keep Noam from taking the book elsewhere. They didn't tie him up in litigation for years, they didn't claim rights over his work, didn't lift a finger to bury it forever. As far as I can tell, they didn't even ask for any monies paid to him to be returned. And Noam and Edward took the 47 page Counter-Revolutionary Violence and used it as the basis for the much-expanded 2 volume The Political Economy of Human Rights, which is still in print from South-End Press today.

So really, Frank - in what sense was "control" exercised, outside of Warner's CEO deciding he didn't want to publish the book after all? Doesn't this actually make the case of copyright being good, seeing as Noam was able to keep his work, expand it, and take it to someone else actually willing to publish it?

User avatar
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FinderDoug » Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:34 pm

BTW, Warner controlled it SO WELL, the entirety of the original book can be found on the web.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:49 pm

Dougles, name the publisher who published the book next?

You forget to mention that every book of the Warner imprint got killed too.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Lori Koonce » Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:39 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Dougles, name the publisher who published the book next?

You forget to mention that every book of the Warner imprint got killed too.


So, Frank this means that all the books in print are no longer available? And that the good Prof lost all rights to having them reprinted at another publisher?

Come on now, even when you are being paranoid, you are usually grounded in a bit of reality.


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests