Copyright vs Copywrong

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

Moderator: Moderator

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 » Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:21 am

Frank

You sure seem to know a lot about creative people and what we think, even if you do get it wrong the majority of the time.

Here's where I want to be treated like Disney. I want to CREATE my product and profit from it as best as I can with the right to take legal action against those who choose to steal my work from me. And ya know what, I have that right and have for as long as I've created. It's called the COPYRIGHT LAWS as they exist.


Frank, for one time in your life would you please be honest. As long as you are getting what you want for the price (read not one red cent) you want it for, you are all right. Fuck the fact that the person who made it has bills to pay, health to care for, and maybe a wife and kids care for".

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:11 pm

I support all creative people not just the ones that Disney hires.

My main concern is not allowing corporations to have so much power in our society that they pretty much run it, which they almost do now. That would make us a fascist state, not a thing I'd think any one here would support.

The laws should be backed up by legitimate aims. If lobbies can write all the laws we will be a nation of serfs.

You amend the laws you protect artists and you protect the average citizen.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:10 pm

(Shakes head as if something may dislodge and things will become clearer...)

I still don't see what it is you think Disney is doing that so despicable other than keeping third-rate dweebs from caricaturing Mickey Mouse for their own benefit.

I do wonder, though, if maybe you have mistaken some of the abuses of trademark law with copyright. They're related but not quite the same and often are used as cudgels by larger firms against smaller (for instance, the Beer Wars). But that's a different kettle of fish.

But I'll say this. You are consistent, Frank. If a corporation benefits from it, you want it taken from them. Categorically. Doesn't matter in what area, throughout everything I've seen you post here you come down pretty consistently on this. The difficulty is when the same laws actually protect small guys. So, imho, it ain't the copyright that bugs you, but the fact that big corporations get to rely on them.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FinderDoug » Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:12 pm

I support all creative people not just the ones that Disney hires.
You support none. You've already said they should be working for the love.
My main concern is not allowing corporations to have so much power in our society that they pretty much run it, which they almost do now.
And that's a noble concern. But if you're starting with the entertainment industry, which end of the snake have you grabbed, really?
That would make us a fascist state, not a thing I'd think any one here would support.
Now I REALLY think Entertainment is a BAD place to begin if this is your main concern.
The laws should be backed up by legitimate aims.
But you, as one who does not create but wishes the fruits of other peoples' creative energy, has zero skin in the copyright matter. To you, it's an inconvenience. To people who wish to ensure their creative labors are protected, the law IS backed by a legitimate aim.
If lobbies can write all the laws we will be a nation of serfs.
You think lobbies aren't already? Again, if you're starting with entertainment, instead of military/industrial, or healthcare, or finance, or agriculture, or trade, where real honest-to-god life-altering damage is done to people every day (as opposed to 'I can't watch "Steamboat Willie" for free' silliness), then your priorities might be a little skewed.
You amend the laws you protect artists and you protect the average citizen.
I agree with you on amending penalties to make sense. I disagree that someone who blatantly and knowing violates copyright should get to skate. In the end, the average citizen has nothing to worry about if they simply don't take what doesn't belong to them - just like every other law against stealing.


Seriously, Frank - one specific theoretical example, from all of the material that you would have right now if a 50 year copyright gave you the pick of 1962. Movies like LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Albums like Dave Brubeck's TIME FURTHER OUT, Sinatra's five (!) albums, and Bob Dylan's debut. Books like SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES and THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE and THE DROWNED WORLD. Can't you conjure up even ONE example from that bounty to support your notion of a shorter copyright enabling "useful art"?

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:47 pm

You could show those movies in schools to show kids how artistic films should really be.

You could do a Lawrence Of Arabia comic book or parody.

Any of this art or culture could easily be enjoyed for free from a Library of Congress site. Towns could afford to show these films, especially knowing that these films would garner smaller audiences.

The idea that Elvis's daughter can still make bank from her dead father who did all the work, and she can keep selling idiotic kitsch, charging awful prices--milking E's birthday every year.

Let her make her own art, if she fails, tough shit.

I'm sure a majority of cds have a short shelf life. Big groups still sell, but there are a huge amount of obscure people who no longer need their copyrights, since they cannot sell enough to do much for them.

I don't like living in a world where the Beatles can keep milking a gullible public while a new group cannot sell one cd.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:16 pm

FrankChurch wrote:You could show those movies in schools to show kids how artistic films should really be.

You could do a Lawrence Of Arabia comic book or parody....

I don't like living in a world where the Beatles can keep milking a gullible public while a new group cannot sell one cd.





Okay, Lawrence is a historical figure, so parody and comic books are not forbidden anyway. There's a question about doing one of David Lean's film, which is a wholly different matter. And I seem to recall that schools rarely had difficulty getting special screenings of certain films, etc etc. All of this comes under the heading of "Asking Permission." Sure, there will be some asshats who will say no, but...

As to the Beatles. Really? That's your bitch? Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head and making them buy the Beatles inb lieu of some other band. No one. That's called marketing and we all have to live with the reality of a fickle public. Yes, it is unfair that those who already sell well get all the money for promotions when we who do not get zip, but that has nothing to do with copyright.[i]

No, it seems you're just pissed about Big. And as has been pointed out, Big is no guarantor of success---John Carter of Mars.

Your examples thus far have been weak at best, beside the point at worst. You want to write your own comic book about Lawrence, go for it. He is in the public domain, just not Lean's film. Or do you feel it necessary to piggyback off someone else's success to achieve anything worthwhile?

This has now become fruitless. You seem to be railing against an injustice that has nothing to do with copyright.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FinderDoug » Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:45 pm

You could show those movies in schools to show kids how artistic films should really be.
Um, Frank? Go to Title 17 and make yourself familiar with the Educational Exemption of the Copyright Law for Motion Pictures. This is already covered. But that was a good swing, buddy!
You could do a Lawrence Of Arabia comic book or parody.
You can do a comic adaptation of T.E. Lawrence's life right now - he's a public figure - but I suppose if someone wanted to be a slave to Lean's vision in graphic novel form, you could make a case for this one. HOWEVER, you're already protected under law if you want to do a parody.
Any of this art or culture could easily be enjoyed for free from a Library of Congress site.
Good use of the technology, but now you've put the government in control of culture and increased the overall tax burden to support the infrastructure on an ongoing basis.
Towns could afford to show these films, especially knowing that these films would garner smaller audiences.
They already do this, too. Copyright isn't standing in the way of this.
The idea that Elvis's daughter can still make bank from her dead father who did all the work, and she can keep selling idiotic kitsch, charging awful prices--milking E's birthday every year.
First, are you sure Lisa Marie is the architect of Elvis marketing and reaping the benefits? Second, at $15 for "Elvis: 30 #1 hits" or $17 for "The Essential Elvis Presley", you're paying .50 or 42.5 cents a song, which is a fantastic discount from paying $1.25 a song individually. So "awful prices" is really just kinda fainting-couch, hand-to-the-head theatrics on your part.
Let her make her own art, if she fails, tough shit.
She does. Her latest album dropped back in May, T. Bone Burnett producing. She's not my cuppa, but she's comports herself well enough.
I'm sure a majority of cds have a short shelf life. Big groups still sell, but there are a huge amount of obscure people who no longer need their copyrights, since they cannot sell enough to do much for them.
Read as: "Their shit is worthless, why even bother copyrighting it, they can't sell it so they should give it away."
I don't like living in a world where the Beatles can keep milking a gullible public while a new group cannot sell one cd.
Um, this has absolutely no bearing on anything pertaining to copyright, except that the small group would stand a better chance if people weren't making their album available for download for free on the internet.

I really have nothing else to add. Really. Finally. Done. I can only joust so much windmill. Good luck fighting the good fight, Frank. You probably want to proselytize to people who can actually work on changing the law. Hint: they aren't reading this thread.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:42 pm

There are many horror stories concerning copyrights, but none is as awe inspiringly bad as the song happy Birthday To You. Even though the song should have lost its copyright Warners still has the copyright and sues people who sing it in videos.

In one licence they charged 700 bucks.

Corporations keep changing the law to make it easier for them to make democracy silly and toll roads will be placed everywhere. Better that we amend this soon.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Moderator » Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:13 pm

FrankChurch wrote:There are many horror stories concerning copyrights, but none is as awe inspiringly bad as the song happy Birthday To You. Even though the song should have lost its copyright Warners still has the copyright and sues people who sing it in videos.


There are a vast number of abused artist horror stories, too. Using someone else's property without permission, regardless of how innocent that usage might be, is still using it without consent.

You assert Warner should have lost it, yet they still evidently still have it. Warner's sues companies who use it in for-profit situations like catering of birthday parties. I've never, once, heard of a lawsuit because someone sang it and posted it to Youtube. Or at a birthday party in their own home (or even non-employee sung at a restaurant, bar, house of worship, etc)

Take it down, maybe, but since I'm unaware of what you're using for an example please share the case in which they sued someone for singing it in a video.

FrankChurch wrote: In one licence they charged 700 bucks.


For whom? Chuck e Cheese for a nationwide contract?

FrankChurch wrote: Corporations keep changing the law to make it easier for them to make democracy silly and toll roads will be placed everywhere. Better that we amend this soon.


You keep arguing that we need to change the law, and then point out that corporations keep changing it without permission (evidently without notifying all of the Copyright organizations I know of...). Not sure how laws get changed without legislation, but if you really want to impact it complain to your Congressmen and Legislators, not to me.

And those toll roads you're bitching about? (Red Herring: unrelated topic) They're built without taxpayer funding. So you can either pay for it via taxation or letting the people who actually use the road pay for it. (And as a Californian who is tired of paying for bridges in Iowa, I'm kinda fond of the concept.)
- 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
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FinderDoug » Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:17 pm

[slightly revised from previous version]

The $700 charge (which I'm presuming he pulled from a cursory look at Wikipedia) comes from an on-air claim that Wendy Williams made when Natalie Cole was on her show - she said they'd paid $700 for the right to sing Natalie "Happy Birthday". Mind you, Wendy wasn't complaining about it, just mentioned it in passing, and because it's an unsupported verbal claim, at best the amount is anecdotal.

If Frank had dug a little deeper, he might have found the claim that Disney paid $5,000 for the right to use the song at EPCOT, which would kinda be like two of his plastic dinosaurs fighting each other.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FinderDoug » Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:31 pm

Well, here's Frank's golden opportunity:

1) Come up with a catchy new birthday song.

2) Promote it far and wide via the web as the birthday standard for the 21st century.

3) Offer it absolutely free, unrestricted, to anyone that wants to sing it, use it in film, in restaurants, whatever.

You could completely devalue Warner's copyright on the song AND kick a multinational in the nuts AND strike a blow for creative freedom, all at once.

----

Steve: I've got the words if you've got the tune. Let's make lots of money.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Moderator » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:15 pm

So big corporations had to pay big money for the rights to use a song? That seems to fit right smack in the center of my theory above. Bullseye!

Snopes has a slightly different take on the copyright for the song. Fascinating reading and not an evil corporation to be seen. (Warner Brothers, a division of which adminsters the property, splits the royalties with the original writers' -- two sisters -- foundation, which distributes the money to charities.)

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
- 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 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:32 pm

FinderDoug wrote:Steve: I've got the words if you've got the tune. Let's make lots of money.



Werd.

I just have to trick a musician into writing the music for me...
- 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
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FinderDoug » Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:12 pm

Steve: Really. Three lines. Could be sung in mixed harmonies or in a round. I can hum the tune if someone wants to turn it into sheet music.

Frank - in all seriousness: you can complain about the injustices of the system, or you can be the bird that pecks incessantly at those injustices.

You've got the passion. You could have spent the last eight months in an orchestrated campaign to do SOMETHING - raise awareness, take action to needle the establishment, develop alternatives just like the one I mention above (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) that, if done properly, COULD make a difference (and raise awareness at the same time.)

Instead, you've spent it yelling "FIRE!" repeatedly at people who brought stuff to make s'mores.

I GET where you're coming from. I DON'T AGREE. You cannot come up with an example that will sway me to your side. And you don't agree with me, and will hear none of my examples. We're both concretized in our world view on this. Our scant middle ground is that we agree that some elements of the law need amending, but we're worlds apart on most of even that.

There's nothing more to be gained except incivility in prolonging this. It's eight months. No one has budged. The best thing is probably to say "Bygones" and make this one of those topics we don't discuss at the table on Thanksgiving.

And in the name of all that's holy, take that passion and put it to use. If you believe the world is in as dire a condition as it is, why on earth are you playing the role of Sisyphus here?

Harlan's passion took him toe-to-toe with AOL Time Warner, which ultimately settled. Where could the passion that you bring take you?

David W. Pareis
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:06 pm

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby David W. Pareis » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:34 pm

Two questions.

What opinion does anyone have regarding this?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-1 ... album.html


Second
Let say I have an ibook with a large legally obtained library and at some point wish to sell it on E Bay.
As part of the sale I am offering the collection of books as part of the deal.
Legal of Illeagal?

Variation
I wish to donate the ibook and electronic library to an underfunded school
Anybody who needs Bob Dylan to tell him which way the wind is blowing is a serious mental defective.

Sterling Morrison

Pablo picasso never got called an asshole
Not like you
jonathan richman


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests