Copyright vs Copywrong

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

Moderator: Moderator

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:36 am

I think it is fair to say that Frank categorically hates corporations. He seems to take it as given that if a corporation benefits from something, then that something must be evil. It's a convenient, simplistic way to do ethical triage in a complex world, and I even have a certain sympathy for it, but until we all realize that this is where he's coming from---and my read so far is that he's been consistent---then we'll tie ourselves in knots trying to make his pronouncements make sense or hold him to a logical line.

He forgets, I think, that Harlan is a corporation.

Anthony Ravenscroft
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 4:04 am
Location: Crookston, MN
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Anthony Ravenscroft » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:54 am

If Warner were to have bought up the Warhol estate, they'd be claiming that all images of bananas now belong to them alone.

I'm being sarcastic, of course, but also dead serious -- it's a business maneuver. When you've got a few hundred lawyers sitting around picking lice off each other, you put the cretins to work trying to push the fences just as far as possible (& maybe a few steps more). The more arrogant & outrageous you are, the bigger the stakes.

Years ago, Apple claimed to own ALL rights to EVERY graphical user interface (GUI). hile they got slapped down a bit for that, Apple DID manage to claim rights over the Xerox "Star" GUI... which was released fully two years BEFORE the Apple "Lisa" (which predated the Macintosh), & the Star was based on well-established work at Xerox PARC, which in turn was claerly based on Stanford research going back to the mid-1960s.

As much as I detest some of past Apple management, I can't decry this. See, by clouding the rights of ANYONE to the Xerox research, they made it extremely difficult for anyone ELSE to sieze control. Basically, Apple forced the roots retroactively into the public domain, albeit with a large malet.

But it worries me that this same clout is brought to bear against not just music labels, but their signed artists. Apple would really like for iTunes to be the exclusive source for music... then again, Amazon would also like to corner the mp3 market, & so would Google & Yahoo, & then there's Rhapsody & Live365...

:lol:

Browsing back over this thread, I now hope that in his next few interviews, Prince starts dropping tiny hints about some super-deluxe album he's been obsessing with, & how he may just have to sigh deeply & push the Delete button. He could milk that publicity for YEARS before 'fessing up... or, who knows, whomping up one of his best albums just to fill the vacuum!!

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby cynic » Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:43 am

But it worries me that this same clout is brought to bear against not just music labels, but their signed artists.
well,
at least the word of law (however perceived as tainted by application of high priced lawers) is an improvemant over brute force.

any clout brought to bear against signed artists is largely due to what they signed, or did not sign.

"The takeaway here is simply that all musicians and artists of all kinds should have their professional business dealings memorialized in an agreement. Copyright and Trademarks should be properly registered and protected. Problems may occur when friends have an understanding regarding a business arrangement that is based on a handshake early in their careers only to find out years later that the needs and professional aspirations of the parties have dramatically changed. An agreement with clearly stated terms will provide guidance to the parties involved as the years roll by and hopefully serve to avoid litigation. "
http://degeorgelaw.com/wiredlegalblog/2 ... a-artwork/

I wonder how many more banana t-shirts and coffee mugs were sold after this was in the news?
I wonder if there is any entertainment value in a cage match with lou reed and the board pres. of the warhol foundation?
they had best work up a contract.
follow your bliss,mike

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Moderator » Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:24 am

Part of that, of course, falls under Caveat Emptor. If you sign such a contract without legal counsel you're an idiot.

It's one thing if the corporation deliberately deceives you. It's quite another f it's there in plain sight and you, in your eagerness, dispensed with your own protections. Harlan is my poster child for this reasoning.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby cynic » Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:26 am

absolutely
and as anthony's post indicates; interested parties drawing off established law to resolve dispute, or composing a contract, request power over the moon.

codification is as much a negotiation as a framework of just behaviour.
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Ezra Lb. » Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:50 pm

Barber wrote:Part of that, of course, falls under Caveat Emptor. If you sign such a contract without legal counsel you're an idiot.

It's one thing if the corporation deliberately deceives you. It's quite another f it's there in plain sight and you, in your eagerness, dispensed with your own protections. Harlan is my poster child for this reasoning.


Well certainly all true but the near universal loathing for the music majors is because of their history of exploitive practices. The reason Prince doesn't own his early albums is because it remains standard practice in the industry for artists to have to sign over their publishing and copyrights to their work to the record companies when they sign a contract. I repeat, this is standard practice in the industry. No artists in their early careers have the clout to fight this. The few veterans who own their own material do so because of their economic clout and usually are forced to sign gag agreements for their trouble.

No literary author would sign such a contract but then their industry doesn't require such.
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Moderator » Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:30 pm

Ezra Lb. wrote:No literary author would sign such a contract but then their industry doesn't require such.



Erm. Not quite. I know of at least one major "brand name" author who signed away exactly these rights to a medium publisher who meant him no harm in the assignment of rights. But once the damage was done, both went to court thinking the other was being unreasonable (the author felt he'd been cheated out of his rights to own his own characters, the publisher feeling that they had presented the author with a standardized contract and given that they'd propelled his first ever novel into the stratosphere meant he owed them something of a debt.)

So it happens everywhere.
- 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 » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:16 pm

Ezra made the point I should have made on the Prince front. Warners did sign him, but only if he allowed them to own his master tapes. Sure, he could have told them to fuck off, but tell that to a kid who wants to make it big.

Prince, the fumbling waiter at Shoney's may have been the outcome.

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

Book publishers do allow writers to control themselves much better. As Barber said, not all, but many.

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

Mark, that was your simplistic reading of me and my views. I do not think corporations are evil, I think they do things logically--to make a profit, but as we saw with the money changers in the temple profit making can and does lead to pretty awful behavior. Not on Harlan's fault or even Prince's, but we see it time and time again. The Barlett and Steele book outlines that in shocking colors. Mostly red.

The system enables corporations. We need to change the system. Corporations use copyrights to game the system. I want to see everyone treated equally.

And, Barber...hurumph...I do not support illegal downloads. I understand them, but I do not support them. Big meanie.

diane bartels
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: CHICAGO IL

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby diane bartels » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:42 pm

I have come to hate this thread. I'm not kidding. I hate this thread. It goes round and round and always winds up in the shithole. I really don't like this thread. I no longer care who owns the copyright to stuff. Give them all to Frank, let him divvy up the money.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:46 pm

I can't count it, it's all in offshore accounts.

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 29, 2012 12:20 pm

FrankChurch wrote:I can't count it, it's all in offshore accounts.


If you and your cadre didn't exist, I wouldn't have to put it in the Caymans ya know Frank.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Ezra Lb. » Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:23 pm

diane bartels wrote:I have come to hate this thread. I'm not kidding. I hate this thread. It goes round and round and always winds up in the shithole. I really don't like this thread. I no longer care who owns the copyright to stuff. Give them all to Frank, let him divvy up the money.


Fills you with nostalgia for the 'does god exist' thread huh? :wink:
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:54 pm

Great points by notable economist John Quiggin:

http://johnquiggin.com/2005/01/26/lessi ... copyright/

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Ezra Lb. » Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:03 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Great points by notable economist John Quiggin:

http://johnquiggin.com/2005/01/26/lessi ... copyright/


Questions.

Since most commercial culture depends ultimately on unpaid appropriation of older material...

Is that an accurate statement?

...and I was so struck by the elegance of his minimalist Powerpoint presentations that I got him to send them to me . He mostly uses a white typewriter font on black background with just one or a few words per slide. In the spirit of remix, I plan to see how much of this look and feel I can appropriate for my own work.

Is the analogy of the "remix" really appropriate here?
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

diane bartels
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: CHICAGO IL

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby diane bartels » Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:30 pm

If Steve and Rick want to ban me for this, I accept. But I have to say, Frank Church you are full bullshit, the articles and people you are fulll or bullshit. And everything you maintain on this thread in a particular is either a deliberate lie or marks you as the stupidest to fall off a swamp log ever. When your source crosses out tidbit which is what the damn word is, and writes titbit instead, this should tip a reasonable that maybe that is not the best source and will not perhaps bring a ringing endorsement of your viewpoint. Jeerz grow up already will you!


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests