Filmy, you made my point for me. Thanks! ;o)

J--

Artists can, and have done so. John Lennon even did this with a song, Yoko Ono fought it and won. He owned 100% of his own publishing, but they were/are a corporation, and she argued that he had given away a corporate asset. When the corporation is dissolved (maybe Sean won't have kids) then the song reverts to PD.

Getting back to the original topic:

I haven’t read the “Free Culture” book yet (I will) but I don’t see how copyrights strangle creativity in anyway. Everyone who has created anything has stood on the shoulders of those who went before them. That doesn’t mean they had to violate anyone’s copyright to get there. Anyone who has written a book or paper on a technical topic has had to research that topic and "read the manual" to gain their knowledge but that’s not plagiarism unless you copy pages from the manual verbatim.

What the author brings to the reader is a new view on the "same old manual". A new way of explaining the material that somehow connects better with the reader by injecting personal experiences or even just explaining it in a clearer way. If that were not worth something, then there would only be one book on each topic. Or everyone could just read the manual and be a guru. But it doesn’t work that way. Authors take the material to the next level. They stand on the shoulders of the engineers that wrote the manual, and add something of themselves to make something new and worth more. It is expanding on the teaching, not copying the words.

I can listen to music from the Beatles and dissect it and understand why it sounds the way it does, and if I’m really good, I can write my own music that sounds just like it and not be in violation of anyone’s copyright; as long as I don’t steal their actual lyrics or melodies. The copyright doesn’t keep me from being creative. If I write a song with "Beach Boy" harmonies, I didn’t violate anyone’s copyright or be any less creative because of a copyright. Everyone in every profession is influenced by those who went before them. That’s just how inspiration works.

Now if I like someone’s music and want to use it in my video I have to ask permission for that right. If they want to charge me for that right, I am free to create my own music that gives the same feeling. If I am incapable of creating my own music that gives the same feeling, then perhaps I should think again about paying them for their hard work which I cannot recreate.

So I am free to be inspired by those who came before me and I don’t see how copyrights get in the way of creativity. I'll read the book, but I don't see how it can make that claim.

~jr

And so the thread decends to an all new low......

"If there was no Heirs. For it to go into Public Domain"

So, if no-one shows up to claim my stuff, it's okay to take it?? You're talking about robbing the dead!! I can't wait to see the criteria when they roll out THAT law. What about brain death? If someone's in a coma does that count? Or did you have a specific internal termperature in mind that would trigger the procress?

Mark2929 - I wonder what you do for a living? Mortician perhaps? Because if so, now I have to be careful where I die - I have some nice personal effects.....

On second thought - don't tell me, I don't want to know. I might end up with a pathalogical fear of bakeries or something.

I used to think that the public internet forums were a good thing, that they provided a view into some sort of microchosm where information can be freely exchanged. But this place is scaring the bejeebers out of me. And I might be found guilty by association. I should email a moderator and ask to have every one of my posts pulled.

I don't know if there's anything after this life but I really REALLY hope anything doing any judging can draw a distiction between a temporary loss of good judgement and complete moral bankruptcy.

Talk about locks on doors - I'm going out right now to buy more because some of you people are out there.

If anyone wishes to build a case for stronger copyright laws, they only need look here. When challenged to provide evidence that many people wish to copy stuff for all sorts of reasons, a couple of pages of this thread will provide all the enlightenment they need. I'll even offer to do the priniting!

There are some really good people in here, at all skill levels, willing to share what they know with those of us that don't.

But some of you are just flat-out bizarre.

I once came here in search of information, perhaps even a little intelligent argument. Well, I got what I wanted - this has been a REAL education.

>>>...I don’t see how copyrights strangle creativity in anyway....<<<

I think maybe that is at the deepest core of society right now. It is not that the copyright itself hinders creativity it is the mere fact that so much stuff is being registered/copyrighted/trademarked anymore that all you have to do is point a camera at the world, hit record and chances are you will have violated something. ..not only in what is visually recorded but perhaps in what you have recorded in audio as well.

I have a new theory - something has been bothering me over the last few years. look at the movies coming out for starters. Lets take the current crop and soon to be released crop. Lets see - we have "Dawn of The Dead", "The Lady Killers", "The Alamo", "Fat Albert", "The 39 Steps" , "The Punisher" and "Around the World in 80 Days" to name but a few. Now some other films are "Scooby Doo 2", "Alien 5", "Spiderman 2","Anaconda 2", "Battlefield Earth 2" and "The Princess Diaries 2". Recently we have seen "Cheaper by the Dozen" and "Freaky Friday". Promised are "The A-Team", "Bewtiched" , "21 Jump Street", "Garfield" and "The Sponge Bob Movie". What is wrong with this picture?

While not a remake, sequel or based on a TV show the biggest money making film over the last month has been "The Passion of The Christ" - based on a book that is basicly in Public Domain.

So my theory is this - it is cheaper to buy rights to an old TV show, old Cartoon, old film or use a public domain story than is is to create a brand new concept and run the risk of being sued because it really wasn't as new as the screenwriter and production company thought it was? Other than that I really can not figure out why every other film planned, or coming out, is some sort of remake that is based on a comic or TV show or is a sequel to a film that maybe was really not all that succesful, or good. (Anaconda 2?? Battlefiled Earth 2???)

One high spot might be "Sk8er Boi", a film based on Avril Lavigne's song. Although even that isn't going to be all the new - the song rocked but the film will be the time treasured story of someone rejecting someone only to wish they hadn't rejected them when they become rich and famous. ...and besides, it is based on a song. Ok, it might not be a high spot but the sound track will rock...well, ok maybe it won't because some Hollywood exec will want to make the soundtrack commercial and, rather than allow real music from real punk bands to be used, they will toss in whatever fluff is passing off as top 10 when the film will come out.

So - face it - every story has been told and probably all of them are copyrighted. What to do? Can't try andcreate a new story so take one already and just pay to use it as a basis. And if anyone says you stole it just say "No man I didn't write this, I just took it from what was already there, we paid for it.. so sue the other guy, not us/me."

I saw the new "Dawn of the Dead" on Friday. It didn't really have that much to do with the first one - ok, there were Zombies and they were in a mall. But on the whole - it looks like someone wanted to rip off the feeling of "28 Days Later" but decided to get the rights to remake "Dawn of The Dead" and use that as a front. Don't believe me? Watch the orginal "Dawn of The Dead". Than Watch "28 Days Later"...the films don't really feel the same overall. Now watch the new "Dawn of the Dead" - what does it feel like more? I say "28 Days Later" and not the original "Dawn of The Dead". The intro montage of video screens and news reports feel lifted right out of "28 Days Later", I swear I even saw the same footage used. And the Zombies? What happend to slow moving creepy crawly dead ones? "Ah loose 'em, we want fast ones like '28 days later'!"

So is this the result of copyrights strangling creativity? You can only be creative if you remake something or base it off of an already exisitng book/song/comic/film (as in squeal). Food for thought.

Woah dvdude - slow down and take a deep breath.

I think that if you read what I said and then what mark2929 said, what he said makes a bit more sense. "If their are no heirs..." Look at what I said as it would relate to that. I am not saying I would want it to go to public domain however I would not want some studio/label/publisher/'3rd cousin on my great aunts ex-husbands sisters side of the family' get whatever income would be coming in after I died either. I would also like to think that if something would be written into the overall laws it would follow some common sense (although 'common sense' and 'law' don't alway so hand in hand anymore it seems) That was ther point of my post - where do you draw the line? How would you decide something like that? That what wills are for except I am not so sure that if someone made out a will saying that "100% of all future income form any of my [INSERT ITEM HERE] sales will go direct to [INSERT CHARITY HERE]" the studio/label/publisher/'3rd cousin on my great aunts ex-husbands sisters side of the family' would sit back and allow it - espcially if it was some vast amount of work such as Elvis, The Beatles and Queen had/have.

I understand fully the amount of work that goes into the creation of something. Than I also understand the money that goes into it as well. Look at the Beatles as a perfect example. Does anyone feel that the labels have not made their investment money back 100 times over? Does anyone here feel that Michael Jackson should legally own the publishing on any Beatles songs let alone some 250 of them? The point is who should get all of that money? Who gets it now? Paul is still very miuch alive yet in 1985 MJ legally purchased the publishing for anywhere between 159 - 260 Beatles songs. And since 1995 our 'friends' here at Sony have been partners with MJ thusly co-own publishing on these songs. What does Paul get? What does the estate of John get? Squat. I don't know one person who buys any Beatles album because Sony and MJ own publishing on much of the music. People like the Beatles, they like their music, they like their songs so they buy cds and records...lots and lots of them. So why shouldn't the people who made the music have the final say? Alive or dead?

But in death...if there are no heirs...how would you suggest the scenerio go down? Charity? Public Domain? The labels? The publishers? who would it all go to?

dvdude My Post was After hearing from Filmy The following..

Quote from Filmys Post above...

I than asked who got the money because the author, and person who really owned the publishing, was dead. BMI responded they knew the author had passed but pointed out that they (BMI) 'owned' the song because there was no one else to claim legal ownership and therefor they (BMI) got all the money from the publishing. END QUOTE

SUGGESTION

Read All Filmys Post then the rest of the Thread..
SO Who should get it then Public Domain or The BMI Allowed to Make Money IE THEFT Or Public Domain where it becomes free.

Personally speaking If I go to Heaven And I have nO fAMILY Friends ect then I without question would want My possesions to go To the world.. SORRY cant take it with you..Unless you lived in Egypt 7000 Years ago. Personally I wouldent want to use Public domain stuff. If you used it in your work then someone is halfway to legally copying what you have created already. BUT maybe the Kids In school or having a Birthday party ect instead of Singing Happy Birthday and prosecuted (Reference to one of Billyboys Posts) They coud sing what our Hyperthetical Artist Left for posterity. Thats what I meant I suppose though If you dident want The Bmi to claim your Stuff Or for it to go into public Domain Perhaps you could take it with you and the artists work could be made Unusable By anyone.

Of Course you may have Misunderstood my Post. Because you dident read the others. I really feel though If you are going to insult someone that you should check thoroughly that you have the facts straight. I further feel that insults without any justification are a good case for Moderation

MARK2929 is FOR Copyright Laws TOTALLY Its some of the wackier enforcements that I dont agree with

WARNING - this is a long post mostly aimed at Spot. Read at risk of boredom!

I've bitten my tongue so many times whenever the copyright debate pops up here, partly because most people here make the same mistake almost everyone (me too!) makes when discussing copyright - they flip back and forth between discussing it as a legal issue and discussing it as a political/philosphical one, and while there is naturally a connection between the two ways of looking at it, they are so very distinct. This distinction is even more important when discussing it on a forum that is visited by people from all over the world, since as a legal issue it's very different in many countries - especially since few countries have anything like the US Digital Millenium Act (or whatever it's called). People also tend to conflate trademarks and patents into the same discussion - not all IP is the same.

The other reason I have bitten my tongue is that it slightly disappoints me to see someone I admire and with whom I agree on almost everything else he says (Spot) make statements that strike me as incorrect, unfair, or even, on the odd occassion, foolish. It would be different if Spot was always making statements that I disagreed with, but I'm pretty sure this copyright topic is the only one where I find myself at odds with him. It's unusual and frankly kinda unsettling that someone that seems so spot on (pun!) so often could be so different from me on this topic, but that's life I guess. So the rest of this message is primarily directed at Spot (so I can stop referring to him/you in the third person!).

In fact I have at least one mostly-written very long reply to previous copyright threads, but in the end I didn't post it as it was too long-winded (yes, much longer-winded than this post!) and by the time it was nearly finished those particular threads were dead.

So, to cut a long story short(er), here's my brief take:

BALANCE
On the whole, Spot, the problem that I have with your posts on the copyright topic is that I see little mention in them of the balance between consumer rights and artist rights. At times your definition of fair use is so narrow as to be unenforceable and unfair.

To use an old example from this forum, I for one see nothing wrong with parents buying a DVD of a film and when watching that film with their kids and using their remote to skip over the bits they think are unsuitable for their kids, that way their kids can watch the film with them while missing the parts they aren't ready for (there really is value to this). Nor do I see anything wrong with the parents doing this while taping the film to VHS so the kids can watch the "edited" VHS version of the film without the parents needing to be present to skip over the bits they wish left out. Note that I'm not making a legal argument here, so if you respond by quoting law at me then you're missing the point.

I realise that you've said "my voice my choice" on this forum (or something like that), but that great slogan isn't law, it's just a great slogan (I'm not being sarcastic - it really is a great slogan). A sure sign that a slogan isn't good enough as an argument is that it can be countered by slogans - "my house my rules" or "my kids my responsibility", etc etc ad nauseum. We need to get behind the slogans to find a balance for these competing rights.

So that's where I think you're making your mistake - it's not a major disagreement I know, but it's significant. I'd really like to see you discuss the concept of "fair use" in more depth, explaining why you think, for example, parent making a version of a film for their kids somehow erodes your rights in any way.

SPECIFICS
As for your specific comments in this thread, here's a few quick responses:

(SNIP)
* Piracy and the removal of copyright stifle
* artistic endeavors because artists are not
* protected.

Oddly, the example you gave to support the above assertion doesn't really do a good job of supporting it, to whit:

* Case in point: We were asked by a
* manufacturer to do a DVD on their product as
* a training tool. They wanted to sell it, and
* wanted to do it at a budget of XXX. They
* wanted copy protection. We were interested,
* but by the time we spent the extra 65cents in
* a small run of DVDs, copy protection alone
* ate our margin. So we elected not to do it.
* Had we not needed the information to be
* encrypted, (which would only deter about 25%
* of the hackers anyway) then we'd be able to
* make a margin.

And the reason copy protection was going to cost you so much? Copyright! You had to pay a fee to the intellectual property owners of the DVD copy-protection system, right? The only technical copy-protection schemes available for DVD disks are protected by copyright, so they had you over a barrel didn't they. Did that strike you as being unfair? After all, you aren't free to create your own copy-protection schemes, since they won't work on any DVD machines, so you HAVE to use the standard ones, yet despite being a standard they are also protected by copyright - a monopoly copyright at that. (okay, there were probably other IP issues in there too like software patents, but you get the idea). Copyright can hinder creative choices too.

* Lessig is brilliant in his views presented in
* "The Future of Ideas and Code and Other Laws
* of Cyberspace" but he also has an agenda to
* push as one of the founders of Creative
* Commons.

It's fine to be aware of others' agendas, but that doesn't disqualify or even diminish the value of their views, or else your own views would be out, as would mine. I too make a living (of sorts!) from copyright-protected work, though the sort of stuff I make (training videos, corporate videos, and a few TVCs), are hardly likely to show up on Kazaa anytime soon, thanks to their specialised audiences.

* Creative Commons will be a great
* playground for professionals who have chosen
* to focus on more than just their art. For
* those artists like me who would rather focus
* on the creative side and leave the management
* to others, it requires us signing contracts.
* Those contracts usually include publishing
* rights shares, performance royalties, sync
* rights, and many other stipulations. Creative
* Commons is not going to work in that
* particular light.

With all due respect, that's circular reasoning - given that the CC guys are trying to break from the existing system, you can hardly criticise them for not meeting the requirements of the existing system. :-)

* But it will work well for
* some people, and at that level, Lessig has a
* very good alternative. Definitely worth the
* $20.00 if you want a good political read.

If you look at it one way, it's all political, including your posts. You're defending the current system (and, frankly, advocating measures beyond it) because you believe that it protects you and your work - but I put it to you that if you "unclench" you'll see that the current system hurts you too, and not just as a consumer (you gave an example above).

Look, I'm no open-source let-all-information-be-free zealot! Like I said, I make my living from created works - but we need to strike a balance and we need to be open-minded about where that balance needs to be struck. I don't see this in your posts on this topic.

Do we really want to live in a world where "Happy Birthday" can't appear in low-budget films because they can't afford the rights? A world where I violate an actual patent if I use my laser pointer to exercise my cat? But there I go bringing patents into a copyright discussion! ;-)

In your next post you said:

(SNIP)
* Choosing
* extremes to illustrate the cause is of no
* benefit to anyone.

I agree with that.

RIGHT TO SPEAK
(SNIP)
* My opinion is that those who don't have any
* copyrighted media have no grounds whatsoever
* having a say in the rights of copyright
* holders.

This is a very foolish thing to say. Did you mean this or were you joking around with BillyBoy? I hope you were joking, or else this is a silly, silly thing to say. Think for a moment of the precedent you're setting for all discussions on other topics.

Think also of the obvious retort to this approach - "Spot benefits from the current system, so his views on it are hopelessly biased and can hence be ignored as mere partisan cheering".

Surely for a balanced discussion we need the views of everyone included? Creators, consumers, those that hold copyright, those that don't.

I look forward to seeing you retract that statement, or at least "clarifying" it. I hope you do.

What about me? I hold copyright in many commercial works, but they aren't available to the public for purchase. So am I disqualified from commenting on the copyright system in your universe? Or do I get half points? Can you see how silly this is?

* Kinda like people who don't have
* children telling parents how to raise their
* children.

Uh huh - and those who have never served in the military cannot comment on miltary matters. Those who have never run for office can never comment on politicians. Those that have never murdered cannot comment on the topic of murder. Etc etc etc.

Baloney.

Here's the rule I go by - you're allowed to comment on an issue as long as you have a pulse. And you're allowed to be shot down in flames by anyone else with a pulse. And all those watching this exchange of ideas, each of them with pulses, can decide who they agree with. Messy, but it works.

By attempting to disqualify non-copyright holders from this debate you, once again, show an uncharacteristic lack of balance. It's almost as if you don't want to hear dissenting points of view, and it borders on being an ad hominem attack. Why are you this way on this topic? It's so at odds with your approach to every other topic I've seen you discuss on this forum.

(SNIP)
* It's really easy to be a tour guide of a
* country you've never seen. Problem is, you
* don't know what you're talking about til you
* actually visit.

That's a slightly better way of putting it, but since no one here is an IP lawyer - we're all tourists. :-)

-----

There's lots of other things I could comment on (including a pile of stuff that I agree with you on, honest), but I thought I'd just comment on those two main items where we disagree:

1) More balance between consumer rights and creator rights, and

2) Non-copyright holders should have an equal say in these discussions

And this post is too long, so here I stop.

All the best Spot - I really do like what you do and say here, that's why your approach to this topic seems so odd to me. Keep up the good work,



Skevos Mavros
http://www.mavart.com

Skevos, regardless of whether or not we're in agreement, or sides are taken, that has to be one of the most thoughtfully written posts I've ever read in this forum. Well done!

J--

Here is an explanation of the "Happy Birthday" story (along with another one about the Beatles' music). It's a perfect example of what's wrong with copyright laws today.

In my mind, it shows that the "artist" is not the one the laws were written to protect. If that were true, Paul McCartney would hold the copyrights to his works, not that twit Michael Jackson or anyone else.

Anyway, it's an enlightening read.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm

J--

Very thoughtful discussion. Anyway, as I mentioned in the first post, it's not uncommon to get 50 posts on this topic. This response is #36.

I was watching a DVD of "Miss Congeniality" yesterday while exercising on the old rowing machine. Pretty funny movie. I was listening to the commentary track, and the female star (Sandra Bullock) and the screenwriter were discussing the various scenes and such.

At a point about one-third of the way through the movie, the character played by William Shatner makes the announcement that he will be retiring from the organization. He makes a little joke, saying "Don't cry for me--Alabama!" At this point Sandra and the screenwriter make the comment that it would have cost too much money to say "Don't cry for me, Argentina", so it was changed instead.

So let me get this straight: the person who originally wrote "Don't cry for me, Argentina" feels he or she has a right to the use of those words? Of course, that now means that anyone making a commercial movie had better not say "Don't cry for me, Alabama" either, or THESE movie guys will come after them.

Be careful what you say.

Skevos, I appreciate your post, as it's not reactionary and well thought out.
I'll first respond by saying that my stands on this issue are two-fold;
1. As an artist, as a beneficiary of the current system, and as a producer, I believe very strongly in copyrights. Regardless of how you look at it, using someone else's work in your own is theft. Period, end of story. And since you use the word "foolish" in your post, I'll use it as well. Anyone who steals copyrighted works is a fool, and is eventually going to get caught.
The system may not be, and certainly isn't perfect. But it's what we have, and while it's in the process of being examined for a re-fit in light of upcoming and current technology, it's also what we have. There are 3 sorts of people in this argument; Those that are theives and don't care who/how/why they steal, they simply do it. Then there are those that don't want to steal, but are either incapable of doing the work themselves, or are too lazy to do the work.
Then there are those that are honest, and won't steal no matter what the cost to their production might be.

You're right, I'm not an IP lawyer. On the other hand, I spend a lot of time lecturing TO IP lawyers. I've invited members of this forum to attend the presentations when they've been in their areas. It helps my cause when videographers attend the NARAS meetings.
Take my statement on the legal aspect to any IP lawyer you know, and have them vet it for you.If they come back with any substantial differences, I'd be shocked and challenge their support with opinions from precedent and a couple of the best respected IP lawyers in the US. I wonder why NARAS and CMP would ask me to do a treatise on copyright relating to media if it wasn't felt that I knew what I was talking about? That article, which this community only saw a small part of, was vetted by 4 different IP attorneys. In the end, 2 words out of 40,000 words were changed to clarify a meaning for lay persons.

So, the other side of my position here. While I'm not loud about it here, I am and have been, and will continue to be, loud in NARAS and RIAA meetings about video editors and creatives demanding access to a mechanism that will provide access to some forms of copyrighted media. I won't argue for blanket media access because frankly, I don't think most people deserve it. I don't agree that a video creator should have carte blanche access to certain media, simply because the song becomes devalued. A great song ceases to be great when used in the wrong context. Who determines whether the context is wrong or not? The copyright holder.

My point regarding those who haven't registered copyright is that if you don't understand the risks, if you don't understand the process, then they are yapping about something they know nothing about. Therefore they have no credibility. You notice that I don't imbibe in the political commentaries here. Because while I have my opinions on the war in Iraq, the current administration, the price of gas, and whatever else, I've never been to Iraq, Iran, and I've never spent a day in the White House with W. Therefore, I'm not completely informed. My voice on the matter is for my close friends, and not for public commentary. It's so damn easy for people who have never undergone the process of registering, defending a copyright to armchair quarterback the process. What's more ironic is that most folks are clueless as to copyright laws and processes. It's no where NEAR as hard as these discussions would have someone believe.
As some have pointed out, it's often as easy as asking.
Of course people without copyright have the opportunity and right to comment on copyright, yet how can they accurately comment on HOW the process works if they've never LEARNED HOW the process works? I might as well launch into a discussion on how much I hate the way Mercedes mechanics install carbuerators in the trunk, because I know nothing about it. And I'd sound pretty stupid, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, if you want to use Celine Dion's works in your corporate vid, chances are it's gonna be difficult. What makes a wedding videographer think that he's ENTITLED to the use of a song that cost over 100K to record in his 800.00 video that's being copied 50 times?
Do I personally agree that "Happy Birthday" should be capable of being heard in a low budget film? Personally, I do. Legally, logistically, professionally, I can't agree. Because the moment I do agree in those contexts, I'm taking away someone's right to the property they own. I might not agree with how they own it, how they acquired it, or what they do with it, but THEY OWN IT. I don't want you telling me how to use my lawnmower, therefore I can't tell you how to use yours. Is that fair?
I have been in court defending my copyrights. More than once. Spent a lot of money defending them to only receive a pittance back. "Spirit Dog" and "Robot Wars" both contained my music illegally used by the composer. For reasons of confidentiality, I'm not allowed to say his name. But I've been there. I've been there with Squanto, been there with X Files, been there with a few others. Buena Vista has a landmark case now of Buena Vista vs Indian House that set the precedent of protecting traditional songs of indigenous culture.
I too, entirely derive my income from creative works. Hence my zealous protection of those sources. I was carrying the anti-napster banner long before half the world even knew what it was.
Ironically, I received a letter yesterday from BMG explaining that due to online sales, due to piracy, and due to the recent shifts in the publishing industry, our royalties will now be configured differently. We're also now subject to new taxes since the publishing now falls under new auspices due to the DCMA.

Regarding your point about CSS and so forth....
It's expensive to put locks on the doors. I'm willing to pay that price if it's worth it to do so, if the client demands it. Macrovision came up with the concept. Why did they come up with the concept? Because people steal. Why do you have locks on your doors? Because people steal. If there is no deterrent, more people are likely to steal. This is an indisputable fact of humanity. People steal. And when they can do it in the privacy of their own home, it's easier. And anonymous. I don't feel that Macrovision has me over a barrel. I guess I could bitch about the fact that they are the Microsoft of the CSS world, but frankly, I'm not willing nor interested in getting off that particular ass and creating something different. So the choice is either deal with it or not. I choose to deal with it. It didn't hinder the creative process, it hindered the revenue process. And there is the rub for most folks. Not having access to certain works hinders their ability to make money. And therefore, for some reason, because they want to make money with copyrighted works, they feel like the artist or copyright holder is obligated to share in that revenue process whether they want to or not.
When Sony spends the cash to develop a registration/activation process to support their protection of the Vegas property, does it stifle the creative process or the revenue process? It affects revenue. Not creativity.

Remove the concept of IP and it makes a LOT more sense. it's a work of art, but a physical product. So, you buy a sculpture that was created by Bernini. Can anyone compel you to display that great work in a college, corporate office, or hospital lobby? No. Can anyone compel you to make copies of the work that are so perfect that no one can tell the difference? No. Can anyone compel you to share this historically significant piece of art with the rest of the world? No. Should anyone be able to compel you to do anything with the art? No. You bought it, you own it, therefore it's yours to do with as you please. Maybe you'll have a conscience and decide to share it in some fashion, maybe you have your own reasons for not sharing it.

But that begs to respond to your opening comments. At what point does the consumer gain rights other than listening to the music? At what point does the consumer gain rights other than watching the video? Never. They bought/rented a license to view or hear the media. That's it.
Current laws (appropriately) allow licensees to make copies from VHS to DVD, and edit them the way they want to for personal use. Current law does NOT allow you to open a business of copying VHS to DVD and edit the way you want to, and then sell the edited vids. Big difference between YOU editing your favorite video or CD and Blockbuster editing your favorite video or CD. One falls under Fair Use, the other doesn't. That may change here depending on the DGA lawsuit whose decision is due any day now. To further clarify on your comment, I don't have a definition of Fair Use. The US Code does, and it's there for anyone to read. It's pretty simple to grasp, it's more in lay terms than legalese than most government documents.

Yes indeed, Spot benefits from the current system. Yet indeed, Spot doesn't like the current system. Yes indeed, Spot believes that at certain portals videographers and editors should have easier access to some media. Yes, Spot believes that the current system needs a facelift that supports new technologies. Yes, Spot believes that artists and labels and publishers can benefit from these technologies and that the control can also be maintained. But Spot doesn't know what the answer is. Spot is also not sitting on his ass like most folks, he's out at the conferences and meetings trying to find a means of change.

At no point can I condone taking anything away from anyone who has generated a creative work. At no point can I agree with banalities from those who aren't capable of creative works telling those that do, what they should or shouldn't do with their works. The artist should ALWAYS retain control of their works in my opinion. I'll defend your right to your creative control, and can't understand why you can't defend mine. While your post is well thought out, well spoken, and evocative, I also believe you've misread some of my positions, and more to the point, still don't grasp where I'm coming from. But that's as much my fault for not being totally clear or sometimes reactionary.

Those not in favor protecting intellectual properties have none. I think that explains it fairly well from all points.

Nice post Spot! :)

I would be interested on your opinon of my "Just a theory but... " post above. In the case of someone making music, film, TV or other art for money I would agree that "It didn't hinder the creative process, it hindered the revenue process." But for other people who were so moved by something, perhaps where money wasn't ever an issue, would you feel that copyright hindered in anyway the creative process? And I don't mean in the sense of what copyright is supposed to do but rather the state of the overall legal society that we live in. Or as I said in one of my posts above - it is almost to the point where all you have to do is point a camera at the world, hit record and you have possibly violated/broken some law. And it does go back to another thread I started - how far is too far? Or maybe how much is too much?

I agree that things like skylines shouldn't be copyrightable, because by definition of a skyline, it was created by the society. On the other hand, (devil's advocate here) on the res we have some significant landmarks that were deeded to the Dine' Nation as part of the reservation process. That land belongs collectively to the tribe. Since it's a natural landmark (and likelybecause I have a personal interest in it) belonging to a sovereign nation, I agree that those points of interest should be protected from commercial gain without paying fees. If you as a tourist want to photograph, fine, it's free. But if you are Warner Bros or small video production, there is a scale.
I think that some of the identity crap started by Levi Towns and Roots real estate is ridiculous indeed. I don't think laws have gone too far *yet* in that McDonalds has a right to prevent you from doing a film featuring a McDonalds employee and shooting in/around their restaurant. If you were doing a feature film on the mafia and there happens to be a shot of a McDonalds in the background, that's also legal. McDonalds doesn't like that but...tough. they built a physical object that's ubiquitous enough that it's somewhat hard to shoot a scene on a streetcorner without having McDonalds there. Look at the opening of Sopranos. Burger King didn't want that shot in there, sued to have it removed. And lost. I agree with the court view on that.
Copyrights of these sorts of things have gone to far, because they protect corporate identity when the corporation put themselves out there. I still don't think they really stifle creativity. Maybe at a higher level than most of us are working, but not in any real sense. I mean, you can't have a can of Coke in a feature film from a major lot, but on the other hand, lots of films at Sundance have coke cans or bud bottles in them. Is that a trademark violation? Hell, I don't know. Hollywood claims it is. I don't know trademark law, that's a whole different game. But...it seems silly, as coke cans may be seen as a product in a movie without any endorsement on either parties part, or seen as a decaying piece of aluminum in the middle of the street or backwoods. At which point does the aluminium can painted red and white become a protected object?

Thats what I wanted to hear. Thanks Spot. You are right.

I would like to add that Technology has made so many more things possible that Perhaps neither the consumer or People who hold copywrites have managed to catch up. I dont think its fair to Call consumers Thiefs They have never had the chance to Know that certain rights are not theres. We/ You everyone of us has at some point copied a film on the video recorder. Had a tape deck that we played with as kids. Copied music from the radio and we were never told that it was theft. WHAT IS the Point of a tape deck then ? OR VHS Recorder. I Think that with the advent of Napster ect The Public need educating "HOW you just did it " In educational terms. Not in temper. Im afraid this really needs some Money spent on getting this message across In advertising ect. Also dont blame the Public... Blame the organisations that allow the downloads on a large scale.

I still say Small use licences are a requirement.

You say why should Artists give any rights its their work Take it and its theft.

I say You want to sell it we will buy it on certain conditions if you dont like OUR Conditions then keep your Music and dont Inflict it on the Public.

Anyway your last couple of Posts have educated me :)

THANKS

Good point on the Coke can. What I can say about that is this - product placement. Most of the films that I have worked on where I have been dealing with that type of thing have required permission to use. One film we actually did have Coke product placement. I think we had maybe 20 cases of Coke and the only requirements were 1> At least one shot in the film where one of the main actors was holding/drinking a bottle of it and 2> They needed all the bottles back. Cost to the production - zero. I used to deal with Malibu Comics and would get comics and posters and what not for product placement. I also dealt with labels such as Hollywood Records for the same thing. Requirements vary but cost is nothing and ultimately better safe than sorry. I think it was "Attack of The Killer Tomatos 2" that dealt with product placement in a hilarious way...for those who have not seen it. About half way through the film it breaks the 4th wall - you hear the director yell "Cut" and suddenly you see the crew and there is this whole thing about running out of money and having pay people if they talk on camera. The solution becomes product placement. It is pure genius and totally hilarious.

There is also a certian amount of what I would call freedom with this sort of thing. Most non festival/non student films try hard to not use any sort of recognizable product or likeness. However I doubt someone would sue because there was a shot of a soda can on the road or a band playing a fender strat. However if the lead character was using a discarded soda can to freebase there would be some issues. Ironicly many bands have this same issue - they get endorsed by so and so and than when they do a video shoot or a live concert you will see black tape over certian logos. (Marshall comes to mind - many a time have I spotted the black tape covering the Marshall logo on an amp)

Every year there is also a licensing convention where you can go and check out all the products/logo/charaters and so on and what their licensing availablity is. Somewhere I have 8x10 promos that were mock headshots of characters like Rudolph. On the back it had their "resume" and all of them said "If you would like to have [CHARACTER NAME] appear in your production contact...." Come to think of it - the whole licensing franchise is up there with Publishing as far a ROI goes.

<<<You say why should Artists give any rights its their work Take it and its theft.

I say You want to sell it we will buy it on certain conditions if you dont like OUR Conditions then keep your Music and dont Inflict it on the Public.>>>

This is where silliness is creeping into the marketplace. Think about what you just said.....So, if I don't want to give away my music, then YOU say that I can't sell it, either. Hmmm....THAT would kill free enterprise quickly.

If you don't want to buy a chair that's on the floor of the store, do you then tell the shopkeeper that he shouldn't inflict the chair on your eyes?
OK, here's my argument to that sort of silliness. Fat, slobby people offend my eyes. They should all be taken off the streets and forced to live with Richard Simmons til they slim down. Smelly foods in the supermarket offend the hell out of my nose. Remove those damned things, immediately. The Superbowl at all times, offends my sense of propriety. Remove it from the airwaves. Put what you just said into other terms, it becomes pretty goofy.

When music is 'inflicted' upon the public, it usually takes place in the form of radio. SOMEONE ALREADY PAID THE MUSICIAN/RADIO STATION/PUBLSHER for the right to 'inflict' that music on the public. It's called "advertising" If you don't want to hear the song, turn the radio to another station. If you don't want to see the chair in the store window, avert your eyes. If you don't want to smell the garlic in the store, then don't walk in that part of the store. It's called "Freedom" and if you don't like that, I'm afraid this whole discussion is for naught. Advocating a position that if the artist doesn't sell on your terms that they aren't permitted to put product out their goes beyond ludicrous. Passing a 'law' that would support that sort of absurdity would be a communist act.
It works like this in a capitalistic society: (America)
Artist creates/inventor invents/producer produces and marketing "inflicts" it on the public on the artist/inventor/producer's terms. Either the public buys it on those terms or they don't. If they don't, then either the artist/inventor/producer (marketing dept) has to change their terms, or go away. There are always choices. And whether or not the public is "aware" that duplicating CDs, ripping DVDs, or making digital prints of a copyrighted photograph is illegal or not, the bar doesn't recognize ignorance as an excuse. Try telling an officer that you didn't see the speed limit sign when you are pulled over for speeding. See how far that lack of awareness gets you.

> I Say you want to sell we will buy it on our terms<

I said it as a member of the Public which you labelled as Thieves when you said theft is human Nature. Well The reason we are thieves Is because Law says what the copywrite people ascap or whoever have wanted with very little opposition from the Public.. The Public Will vote in candidates whose election promise will Be a fair deal for consumers too Thats Not Silly Is it.

I am Not a Communist I believe in Democracy.

Hi Spot,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Not surprisingly - I disagree with bits of it. :-) Sorry for the length of this post, I don't have time to edit it and make it shorter, this is written inbetween marking some editing (!) assignments.

You said:

* Skevos, I appreciate your post, as it's not reactionary
* and well thought out.

Thanks.

* I'll first respond by saying that my stands on this
* issue are two-fold;

* 1. As an artist, as a beneficiary of the current
* system, and as a producer, I believe very strongly in
* copyrights.

Me too. Without them I'm out of a job, just like you. But they are not an absolute right (like the right to freedom or food or shelter etc - heck, people can't even agree on those basic rights). Copyrights exist as a trade off, a compromise between what's best for artists and what's best for everyone else. Without the Berne convention ans similar documents, there would be no copyrights. Like all compromises these rights need to be exercised carefully and not abused, and they change with time, society and technology.

* Regardless of how you look at it, using
* someone else's work in your own is theft. Period, end
* of story.

That statement is a perfect example of the lack of balance, the lack of "nuance" if you like, that I'm talking about. It slightly baffles me that such an obviously intelligent bloke like yourself would say something so foolish (there's that word again!). Let's break that sentence down, shall we?

First of all, your use of the term "theft" is a bit inappropriate. I'm no lawyer, and I remind you again that I'm not here to make legal points, but I think you'll find that breaching copyright is not "theft" in the way most people understand the term, it's breaching copyright. One doesn't get arrested for breaking copyright (usually), one gets sued. It's the difference between statute law and civil law, and the difference is roughly the same in most "Western" countries. I stress that the situation is complicated, and if one winds up with a hefty fine or in jail then the distinction seems pretty irrelevant! But there is a distinction.

This has all changed recently in the US thanks to your Digital Millenium Act thingamajig, but arrests made under that act are, I believe, made when someone breaks encryption, not for infringing copyright.

In any event, what I'm trying to say is that breaking copyright is not the same as stealing physical property. I'm not saying it's better, I'm not saying it's worse, just that it's different - the laws are different, the history of the laws are different, the actual act is different, the attitude to it in society is different, the repercussions to the victim/s are different... they're just plain different. Personally I think it makes a lot more sense to refer to copyright infringements as just that - infringing copyright. Makes for a more accurate and less emotional debate, and avoids the whole silly "but when I steal information, nothing is taken!" arguments.

But remember I said I was discussing copyright from a political/philosphical view, not a legal one. And since I'm not subject to American law, and since I'm not here to make legal points, I'll move on from that one.

Even if I let the use of the word "theft" apply, and it does have the advantage of being shorter than "copyright infringement", there's the rest of your statement:

* Regardless of how you look at it,

Oh really? Here I am telling you that I look at it a different way and reach slightly different opinions, and yet you insist that no matter how one looks at it one must agree with you? Can you see how intolerant this makes you sound? Surely, on a matter as complicated as copyright you can concede that there are other, equally valuable points of view on the matter? I can. Agreeing to disagree is one thing, asserting that all are wrong but you is a bit much.

* using
* someone else's work in your own is theft. Period, end
* of story.

This is simply untrue. Even in your own posts you've cited uses of material that are not theft (satire, political commentary, and parody), these alone make your statement untrue. Add to this all the other examples of fair use (ie, just about anything if it's done in the privacy of one's own home), and your statement becomes clearly false.

Then there's wider issues, such as the influences artists have on each other. If one defines "copy" too tightly, then all of a sudden, most forms of art will grind to a halt. If you've read any Greek drama, you'll know that there are basically no new stories, only new(ish) variations on old ones.

Thankfully, it's impossible to copyright ideas, only finished or "derived" works - but I'm straying into legalities again...

* And since you use the word "foolish" in your
* post, I'll use it as well. Anyone who steals
* copyrighted works is a fool, and is eventually going to
* get caught.

See how the word "steals" doesn't really work when talking about copyright? It makes a lot more sense to say "Anyone who distributes copyright works without the permission of the copyright holder is a fool and is eventually going to get caught". Not only does this sentence make more sense, but it's one I would agree with! We seem to be arguing at cross purposes here - I never stated that distribution of copyright works (which I assume is what you mean by "steal") is okay. I can't defend straw men.

(SNIP)
* There are 3
* sorts of people in this argument; Those that are
* theives and don't care who/how/why they steal, they
* simply do it. Then there are those that don't want to
* steal, but are either incapable of doing the work
* themselves, or are too lazy to do the work.
* Then there are those that are honest, and won't steal
* no matter what the cost to their production might be.

That's not very contructive and uneccesarily argumentative. Only three sorts of people? Which one am I? Which one do you think you are? Heh. Nice try. Of course there are more than three sorts of people in this argument. For example (with suitable argumentative descriptions!):

4) Those that genuinely believe that all information wants to be free and that current laws help only the corporations and those artists that want to profit from the one good idea they ever have in their sad little lives.

5) Those that see no harm in making modified versions of copyright material for their own use (e.g., editing existing films for the amusement of their themselves, their own family and close friends, but who would never distribute or sell them).

6) Those that genuinely think it's okay to make fair use backups (e.g, a copy of a CD to play in their car so they don't have to worry that the media will get destroyed by sunlight or stolen).

For what it's worth, I am definetely not a member of category four. :-)

* You're right, I'm not an IP lawyer. On the other hand,
* I spend a lot of time lecturing TO IP lawyers.

Lecturing TO lawyers gives you a sounder understanding of the law? Was that a typo? Surely the point of those lectures was to give the legal people a non-legal (ie, an artist's) point of view? Or have I misunderstood you there?

(SNIP)
* Take my statement on the legal aspect to any IP lawyer
* you know, and have them vet it for you.If they come
* back with any substantial differences, I'd be shocked
* and challenge their support with opinions from
* precedent and a couple of the best respected IP lawyers
* in the US.

Two quick points:

1) I'm not that interested in a legal discussion, particularly not one about the current legal situation. I'm advocating change, remember? Citing the current system doesn't really mean anything when I'm talking about changing the current system! I don't care if you're an IP law professor, I want to discuss what copyright should be, not what it is!

2) I think you'll find there are substantial differences between Australian and US copyright law and enforcement, so if I took you up on your offer I might very well get a different opinion (though the recent Free Trade Agreement will bring them into line a bit - but both system will need to change a little for this to happen, and it will take time). I fail to see the relevance of your comments here - who cares if you're an expert on US copyright case law? I'm trying to talk about where we want to be, not where we are.

* I wonder why NARAS and CMP would ask me to
* do a treatise on copyright relating to media if it
* wasn't felt that I knew what I was talking about? That
* article, which this community only saw a small part of,
* was vetted by 4 different IP attorneys. In the end, 2
* words out of 40,000 words were changed to clarify a
* meaning for lay persons.

So your treatise correctly summarises the current US copyright situation, from the point of view of, and the approval of, organisations with, let's face it, agendas. (shrug) I believe you, I just don't see the relevance. I'm not suggesting that it makes you biased and therefore ignorable, just that it doesn't apply to the conversation I'm trying to have with you. :-)

* So, the other side of my position here. While I'm not
* loud about it here, I am and have been, and will
* continue to be, loud in NARAS and RIAA meetings about
* video editors and creatives demanding access to a
* mechanism that will provide access to some forms of
* copyrighted media. I won't argue for blanket media
* access because frankly, I don't think most people
* deserve it. I don't agree that a video creator should
* have carte blanche access to certain media, simply
* because the song becomes devalued. A great song ceases
* to be great when used in the wrong context. Who
* determines whether the context is wrong or not? The
* copyright holder.

You're not really talking about copyright anymore, you're talking about a related, fascinating, but still emerging area - artists' rights. Copyright in its original form is just about the right to copy (and distribution to an extent). Artists' rights is about how the work is used. Copyright can be used to control the latter to some degree, but recently it has become a form of rights in itself (the example I read about was an artist discovering that a gallery was unknowingly hanging his picture upside down - he asked them to fix it and they didn't, so he sued and won). The area of artists rights is of great interest to me and I find it fascinating, but it's so new that every article I've read about it basically says "watch this space", as it's just too ill-defined and untested at this point.

* My point regarding those who haven't registered
* copyright

Case in point - in Australia one does not "register" copyright, it's automatic. Registration is an option which is useful only for extra assurance by proving date of authorship in the event of a legal battle, it has no relevance to whether actual copyright exists.

* is that if you don't understand the risks, if
* you don't understand the process, then they are yapping
* about something they know nothing about. Therefore they
* have no credibility.

Baloney. :-)

You're saying that unless someone has done X, one cannot "yap" about the laws surrounding X.

Nonsense. Dangerous nonsense at that.

For example, I will never know what it's like to be a woman. Does that mean I have nothing to say on women's issues? No input on legislation that primarily affects women? There are people who would agree with that, but they are a tiny minority, thank heavens.

You see, humans can communicate. Not perfectly, but they can. So with enough skill and concentration one can come to a certain level of understanding on just about any topic - if one human can understand it, all humans can.

You seem to be indulging in the fallacy that if others disagree with your position, then they must not fully understand it. You need to be open to the idea that people do understand your position, and yet they still disagree with it. On matters as complicated as copyright, it's okay for adults to disagree. Heck, if lawyers can disagree about what the law is, then surely artists can disagree on what it should be? :-)

I'm not asking you to agree with me or BillyBoy or anyone else, I'm only suggesting that telling us we don't know what we're talking about because, essentially, we're not you is not going to be very convincing. Your goal is to convince others or be convinced by others, yes? Otherwise why have this discussion?

* You notice that I don't imbibe in
* the political commentaries here. Because while I have
* my opinions on the war in Iraq, the current
* administration, the price of gas, and whatever else,
* I've never been to Iraq, Iran, and I've never spent a
* day in the White House with W. Therefore, I'm not
* completely informed. My voice on the matter is for my
* close friends, and not for public commentary.

One has to go to Iraq before one can comment publically on the recent invasion of Iraq? That's not a tough standard, that's an innapropriate one, and thankfully one that most people wouldn't subscribe to, or else the world would grind to a halt and no one would get out of bed in the morning.

(though, I must say, I agree with keeping politics off this forum simply because it's a Vegas forum - this copyright topic is skating close enough to the OT edge, Iraq would be right over the side).

* It's so
* damn easy for people who have never undergone the
* process of registering, defending a copyright to
* armchair quarterback the process.

Such is life. People have ill-informed opinions. 'Twas ever so. Other people have opinions based on experience. Others let their experienced opinions harden into prejudice and inflexible bias. But by communicating, we can agree on how the world is, and how it should be. Or at least fully understand why we disagree with each other. Simply telling me "You're not a member of group X, so you can't comment on group X" is not just unfair - it won't work.

* What's more ironic is
* that most folks are clueless as to copyright laws and
* processes. It's no where NEAR as hard as these
* discussions would have someone believe.
* As some have pointed out, it's often as easy as asking.
* Of course people without copyright have the opportunity
* and right to comment on copyright, yet how can they
* accurately comment on HOW the process works if they've
* never LEARNED HOW the process works? I might as well
* launch into a discussion on how much I hate the way
* Mercedes mechanics install carbuerators in the trunk,
* because I know nothing about it. And I'd sound pretty
* stupid, wouldn't you agree?

Sure - but if a mechanic replied "shaddap, you're not a mechanic", that wouldn't be very satisfying. If they responded with a well-reasoned argument, then all would be well. Heck, silence would be a better response than "You have no right to speak".

* Yes, if you want to use Celine Dion's works in your
* corporate vid, chances are it's gonna be difficult.
* What makes a wedding videographer think that he's
* ENTITLED to the use of a song that cost over 100K to
* record in his 800.00 video that's being copied 50
* times?

I suspect it's not that they think they're entitled, more that the price, for that use, is unfair. But i'm not here to fight other's battles. I only chimed in to point out that your absolutist approach to artists' rights was surprising and unfair (IMHO), and that your dismissal of those that have less experience was similarly wrong.

* Do I personally agree that "Happy Birthday" should be
* capable of being heard in a low budget film?
* Personally, I do. Legally, logistically,
* professionally, I can't agree. Because the moment I do
* agree in those contexts, I'm taking away someone's
* right to the property they own.

I agree with this sort of use personally, I also agree logistically and profressionally with that sort of use. It matters not one whit to me if some starvinf student makes a film with some of my IP in it. Any system that tries to get money from them will wind up costing far more than the film will ever see, and hence deprive everyone, including me, from seeing what they would have created.

By using my IP in their film, assuming they create something new, we are all enriched. Why would I try to stop that? What would I lose? In the unlikely event that the film "took off", then maybe I could claim something, but at that stage they could afford to pay me - not before!

(remember - I want to discuss how it should work, not how it does work!

* I might not agree with
* how they own it, how they acquired it, or what they do
* with it, but THEY OWN IT. I don't want you telling me
* how to use my lawnmower, therefore I can't tell you how
* to use yours. Is that fair?

For heavens sake - there are limits on what you can do even with your lawnmower, and owning IP is different to owning material items. Take land for instance - are you free to do whatever you want with your land? Thank heavens no! Other property rights are not absolute - why are you trying to argur that IP rights are near-absolute? Not only is that not what I want, it's not even how it is.

* I have been in court defending my copyrights. More than
* once. Spent a lot of money defending them to only
* receive a pittance back.

Erm, you're kinda making my point here - that the current system penalises others without rewarding the artist satisfactorily. But we're getting into legal specifics again...

* "Spirit Dog" and "Robot Wars"
* both contained my music illegally used by the composer.
* For reasons of confidentiality, I'm not allowed to say
* his name. But I've been there. I've been there with
* Squanto, been there with X Files, been there with a few
* others. Buena Vista has a landmark case now of Buena
* Vista vs Indian House that set the precedent of
* protecting traditional songs of indigenous culture.

The latter is about a lot more than copyright - best left to another discussion (a discussion that I'll silently watch as I have little to say on the topic).

* I too, entirely derive my income from creative works.
* Hence my zealous protection of those sources. I was
* carrying the anti-napster banner long before half the
* world even knew what it was.

Napster was never going to survive, but the newer P2P apps are much more interesting from a legal standpoint. The new apps have no middle men. What do we do when our audience directly infringes our copyright? Do we really go after them legally? Or do we change the way we do business? Sometimes it's not about what's right, it's about what's practicable. Once broadband is everywhere and the software known as FreeNet is finished, it's basically all over for digital IP. The only cure to FreeNet over broadband is invasive random house searches, and even as an artist I can honestly say that that is a price too high to pay for protecting my income. I'll do something else for a living and create in my spare time (though it won't come to that - but that's a topic for another rant).

* Ironically, I received a letter yesterday from BMG
* explaining that due to online sales, due to piracy, and
* due to the recent shifts in the publishing industry,
* our royalties will now be configured differently. We're
* also now subject to new taxes since the publishing now
* falls under new auspices due to the DCMA.

Yet more problems with the current system - and if you think it's all caused by piracy, I respectfully suggest that you've bought the line of parties that do not have your interests at heart. But I suspect you know this.

* Regarding your point about CSS and so forth....
(SNIP)
* I guess I could bitch about the fact that they
* are the Microsoft of the CSS world, but frankly, I'm
* not willing nor interested in getting off that
* particular ass and creating something different. So the
* choice is either deal with it or not. I choose to deal
* with it. It didn't hinder the creative process, it
* hindered the revenue process.

This is a sentiment I could agree with. Sometimes artists (me too!) like to flip between talking about what they do as if it's a calling, to talking about it as if it's a business. Of course it's currently both, but if push comes to shove, and you have to choose, which is it? For me it's just what I do, I do it because I love doing it. I'm trying to figure out a way to make a steady decent income from it - the goal of my life is to make a living doing what I love. It's tricky and getting trickier - but no one owes me a living, especially not a living doing what I love. Imagine if everyone had that point of view...

The current copyright laws are simply out of date. They can be reformed without having a major impact on my, or your, bottom line. Heck, who knows - we may end up making more money if we embrace the networks that are currently "stealing" from us. I know several blogs out there that earn decent cash from donations, and they give all of their content away - and their content is just plain old text! It can be done, if we have to do it. But is it really about the money?

* And there is the rub for
* most folks. Not having access to certain works hinders
* their ability to make money. And therefore, for some
* reason, because they want to make money with
* copyrighted works, they feel like the artist or
* copyright holder is obligated to share in that revenue
* process whether they want to or not.

Well now, that's quite different. I don't think we disagree there.

* When Sony spends the cash to develop a
* registration/activation process to support their
* protection of the Vegas property, does it stifle the
* creative process or the revenue process? It affects
* revenue. Not creativity.

This is an obvious, or extreme, example. I think we agree that these "easy" examples are not that interesting - the devil is in the grey areas in between.

(SNIP)
* So, you buy
* a sculpture that was created by Bernini. (SNIP)
* You bought it, you own it, therefore
* it's yours to do with as you please.

Actually, in the emerging area of artists' rights, even after a physical work is sold there may still be limitations on what the owner can do with it, even in private! But like I said, it's an emerging field.

(SNIP)
* But that begs to respond to your opening comments. At
* what point does the consumer gain rights other than
* listening to the music? At what point does the consumer
* gain rights other than watching the video? Never. They
* bought/rented a license to view or hear the media.
* That's it.

Simply not true. In Australia they have the right to copy it under fair use. I thought this was also the case in the US, though complicated by the fact that encryption can block users from accessing their fair use rights.

* Current laws (appropriately) allow licensees to make
* copies from VHS to DVD, and edit them the way they want
* to for personal use. Current law does NOT allow you to
* open a business of copying VHS to DVD and edit the way
* you want to, and then sell the edited vids. Big
* difference between YOU editing your favorite video or
* CD and Blockbuster editing your favorite video or CD.
* One falls under Fair Use, the other doesn't.

Well, seems we agree on that one!

(SNIP)
* Yes indeed, Spot benefits from the current system. Yet
* indeed, Spot doesn't like the current system. Yes
* indeed, Spot believes that at certain portals
* videographers and editors should have easier access to
* some media. Yes, Spot believes that the current system
* needs a facelift that supports new technologies. Yes,
* Spot believes that artists and labels and publishers
* can benefit from these technologies and that the
* control can also be maintained. But Spot doesn't know
* what the answer is. Spot is also not sitting on his ass
* like most folks, he's out at the conferences and
* meetings trying to find a means of change.

Good for Spot! Hey - now you're referring to yourself in the third person...

* At no point can I condone taking anything away from
* anyone who has generated a creative work.

See, I don't like that form of words - it invites the everything-must-be-free types to say "but by copying I don't take anything away from you!", and one gets into the tangled area of "well, if you didn't copy it you're more likely to buy it" arguments. Better to say "At no point do I condone inrfringing anyone's copyright, unless for fair use". Much less grey area.

* At no point
* can I agree with banalities from those who aren't
* capable of creative works telling those that do, what
* they should or shouldn't do with their works.

Yes, this is truly annoying, but I can't see any way of stopping them from tellingus - the public has a way of making its own mind up about what is fair and what isn't. Call me cynical or defeatist - but if the public places so little value on what we do that they not only think it's okay to "steal" it, but they don't even think of it as stealing, then we can only try to educate them or, failing that, find some other way to make a living.

* The
* artist should ALWAYS retain control of their works in
* my opinion.

Balance! Balance! I'd much rather hear you say "The artist should always retain a high level of control over their works, subject to the equally important rights of the users". I think that's what's missing when I see you talk about copyright. it makes your argument brittle in my view.

* I'll defend your right to your creative
* control, and can't understand why you can't defend
* mine.

Ah but I do - but within limits. Strong healthy limits that allow society to grow and experiment and create new things out of old things.

* While your post is well thought out, well spoken,
* and evocative, I also believe you've misread some of my
* positions,

This is quite possible - many of the things you've said in your last post were quite reassuring - I think we disagree more on the limits to rights than on their very nature. Which is pleasing!

I suspect it might even boil down to a matter of style - you might just prefer to make bold statements with no equivication in them, assuming that the reader will mentally insert "subject to fair use and constant review" after every absolutist thing you say. :-)

* and more to the point, still don't grasp
* where I'm coming from. But that's as much my fault for
* not being totally clear or sometimes reactionary.

Possibly - I do find some of the things you say in this one post contradictory - in one paragraph you'll claim complete control for the creator, in another you'll talk about exceptions to that control. Confusing! Last time I assumed the worst (that you think copyright holders should have complete control), this time I shall assume the best (that you know of and approve of all the exemptions to such control, and are aware of the way the current system sucks the blood out of artists and users alike - what could be less creative than a corporation?).

* Those not in favor protecting intellectual properties
* have none. I think that explains it fairly well from
* all points.

A statement I have made many times myself! I often have to lecture long and hard to film students about software piracy. Some openly scoff at the idea that it is wrong to copy protected materiel. Some honestly don't see the connection between those that create software and those that create films. But watch their reactions if they catch a fellow student using one of their recordings in their assignments! Then they get it!

I don't think either of us have moved - but I think we're closer to each other than I first thought. Which is good - it's okay to disagree on matters of degree, it's only matters of principle that can be ugly.

All the best, thanks for the chat,



Skevos Mavros
http://www.mavart.com

This issue has troubled me for some time...with my wedding videography business...do I run the risk of using copyrighted material the client wants or play it safe and use royalty free-type of music that the client may object to....hmmmm. (although with a little digging, I have finally found some good royalty-free tracks I like anyway).

Skevros, while your position is quite well thought out, and maybe even contains some merit, I'm not gonna spend the time to read what is pretty condescending from what little I read.
You are taking sections out of context, and that in itself is unfair.
Consider yourself the winner in this debate, while I'm not tucking my tail and running, I'm also not going to get into the minutae of "breaking sentences down" and manipulating each section to mean what you think it says. My time is worth more than what it would take to respond. We have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Thanks for letting me know in several left-handed ways, that you think I'm an idiot.
Stealing is stealing. Since you apparently don't understand the Fair Use stipulations, trying to clarify and answer each salient point is a waste of both our time.
Thanks for the debate, take the gold cup. All I can say is stealing is stealing. Whether you think IP is different than taking a physical piece of property or not is an entirely different debate. I think it is, you think it's not. There you have it.

Oh dear,

You said:

* Skevros,

Actually, It's "Skevos", Sprot. :-)

* while your position is quite well
* thought out, and maybe even contains some
* merit, I'm not gonna spend the time to read
* what is pretty condescending from what little I
* read.

Oh dear - you must have read the wrong bits if that's the impression you got!

* You are taking sections out of context, and
* that in itself is unfair.

Egad - I quoted nearly your entire post with only a few snips. I expected to be accused of being long-winded - but quoting out of context?

* Consider yourself the winner in this debate,

Erm, if you read the last few paragraphs you'll see that you actually made me realise we differ very little - I don't call that "winning", more like agreeing with you!

* while I'm not tucking my tail and running, I'm
* also not going to get into the minutae of
* "breaking sentences down" and manipulating each
* section to mean what you think it says. My time
* is worth more than what it would take to
* respond.

Fair enough - that's a call only you can make.

* We have to agree to disagree and leave
* it at that. Thanks for letting me know in
* several left-handed ways, that you think I'm an
* idiot.

Far from it - in the end I concluded that you like to state your position simply and boldly with no exceptions, but when you go into greater detail it turns out we mostly agree. So if you're an idiot, then I guess I am too.

* Stealing is stealing. Since you apparently
* don't understand the Fair Use stipulations,
* trying to clarify and answer each salient point
* is a waste of both our time.

There you go again, assuming that because I disagree I therefore don't understand (also a point I made in my post). Maybe I understand AND disagree? It's OKAY for people to disagree. Besides, I'm trying to talk about the way things should be, not the way they are.

* Thanks for the debate, take the gold cup. All I
* can say is stealing is stealing.

I get it! :-)

* Whether you
* think IP is different than taking a physical
* piece of property or not is an entirely
* different debate. I think it is, you think it's
* not. There you have it.

Eh? I think you said that the wrong way around - I got the impression that you thought IP theft and material theft were the same crime, and I wanted to make a distinction between them.

Hope you didn't really take offense, as none was intended. The length of my post was a function of me having no time to edit it, not an indicator of me having a furious view on the topic. I wasn't pounding my keyboard or anything.

All the best,


Skevos Mavros
http://www.mavart.com