THE PAVILION ANNEX

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FinderDoug » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:57 am

Frank:

Carey's book was about the use of propaganda to shape thinking to support corporate agendas within a democracy, whether to create an educated sector to be involved in decision-making, or to make the uneducated and unengaged chase their tails so as to not interfere. Not really relevant to a corporation's right to enforce its copyright on something, and not really an example of how corporations have used copyright laws “to be intellectual bullies”.

Neil Postman's “Amusing Ourselves To Death” was a great condemnation of what television has done to erode public discourse and how the rise of electronic media allows greater/faster manipulation of our perceptions of reality, but again – not much for illustrating your 'intellectual bully' claim vis a vis copyright. Not even going to get into Bernays. In short, I asked for an example of how corporations have used copyright laws to be intellectual bullies. You gave me examples of people who have written on the uses of propaganda to steer national dialogue/crowd psychology.

But while you were busy out in the weeds, I actually did recall an instance – though it was more of a trademark case than a copyright one – that being the 1989 case in which Disney threatened legal action against three day care centers in Florida if the centers didn't remove 5ft tall unauthorized likenesses of trademarked Disney characters from their walls. Which is very much the kind of corporate bullyism you allude to.

EXCEPT

Disney – or any corporation – HAS to protect their trademarks, their copyrights, their licenses, because when they cease to do so, when these things are not kept intact, their value is jeopardized. And this is true all the way down the line, from a mega-corporation down to a mom and pop. It's THEIR RIGHT to fight to defend it. If Steve were the most generous photographer on earth, and set up a free-share of all his work – which corporations would no doubt pillage for their own use in things like travel brochures and commercial advertising, because I work in Marketing and you hear what goes on – that would be his right. I'd think him crazy to give away quality, but it would be his right. So too would be his pushing a button on the desk and sending out The Lawyers to extract the pound of flesh from anyone who grabs a freebie and gets caught. And anything in between. Steve invested his time and effort into his product. The law allows him to protect it.

If Warner wanted to give away “The Dark Knight” online, that would be their right. And I'm sure there are people who would argue that it's great publicity for WB and DC and the flagging comics industry. But WB has a substantial investment at play: the license, the search for a director and writer, the salaries of the people who worked the film, the production, the post production, the publicity, the prints, the distribution, the manufacture of the media (which is more production, more artisans, more people paid to get it from film stock to DVD in your home), the special work, such as award season related activities. To expect WB to kick back while someone streams it for free online is untenable. Even if WB is worth a gob of money and somewhere, some else thinks “Eh, they're selling it used down the street at the Blockbuster for $3 – who should anyone care?”

WB cares - as does anyone with sweat equity in creating a product - because, Frank – that's the way the world works. And in this case, the big guys fighting to protect their investment helps the little guy fighting to protect his smaller and, to him, more financially significant investment. Is the model changing? Absolutely. Technology is making as many new avenues for product as it is ways for product to be ripped off. And that fight is ongoing as the new media evolves. But for right now, copyright protections cover me and the big guy, and they protect me from both the little guy AND the big guy, and all of that sits fine with me.

ALL of which has NOTHING to do with propaganda and the media, which is all you could offer by way of 'examples' of what you were trying to impart about his corporations bully people by way of copyright. And I'm out.

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Moderator » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:09 am

Game, set and match to Doug. Nicely written.
- 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: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:08 pm

Barber, set, match, my soaking patootie. You only say that because you agree with him...pokes him. I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you..

---------

Dougles, I also mentioned Manufacturing Consent, FAIR. John Stauber is another one. Documentaries about media from these fine people:

http://www.mediaed.org/

Books by Bob McChesney, the Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian. Project Censored. Susan Douglas and her critiques of how the media pollutes our society with sexist images. Whole bunch of stuff.

You seem to imply that big companies are a good thing. Take Disney. They refused to release a Michael Moore film. Then there is Disney again, who owns ABC, a network that avoids the left like white on rice, even though we own the airwaves.

Another one Dougles mentioned was Warners. Warner books killed a Noam Chomsky book, including all the books in the same publishing line. Corporate America, which dominates the media controls much of what we see and read. Important that these things are scaled down.

Barry Lynn has written about monopolies and how they hurt the economy--the capitalist economy. We need strong laws with teeth. Cut down these corporate powers. Without agrarian economic reform we are fucked anyway.

-----------

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:15 pm

Postman was talking about how television skews what we think. This is important when dealing with corporate control of all our information.

Alex Carey was talking about corporate propaganda, which is infused through what we see and hear. Very important when dealing with these huge media corporations.

There has to be severe media reform, more public media. I'm not naive enough to think we can do it now.

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

Barber, Cris may not make bank from touring but many bands do, most not being big pop groups. Indy bands need touring, because record sales are way down, because of how bad radio is, and frankly, illegal downloads. I don't support illegal downloads, but the reality is that downloads can never be stopped. There are too many smart teenagers and hackers to ever stop it. Jailing these teens is not the way.

Freedom to access information should be as strong as possible. Limits just limit our access to knowing stuff, stuff we are required to know in a democratic society. Not that we want one.

We won't ever have one with corporations controlling all speech.

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:17 pm

To be selfish for a bit, we need these hackers to take down corporate America. Hacktivism is saving us.

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:41 pm

hi frank;
i think the phrase goes , "living the dream"... not "living in a dream".

so how's that service union going ? :)
you're not still a "scab"... undercutting those workers with the courage to organize ? :(

playing handmaiden to the avarice of your employer? :|
yeah... thought so. :oops:
they don't deserve to make any more money than you! :|
take control ! :)
all that equipment, property, customer base and capital (profit) is blood squeezed from the souls of you and your downtrodden worker brothers ! 8)
THEY (your employers) had practicaly Nothin to Do with it ! :evil:
YOU (and your shackled fellow workers) deserve the same reward ! 8)
YOU are MANY, THEY are FEW and WEAK ! :evil:
TAKE WHAT IS YOURS ! :twisted:
or ask for a raise if you think you deserve it; ya never know . :)

FrankChurch wrote:"It's not about who is better, it is about what the gullible masses will buy."
:roll:
yes frank, and until the gullible masses revolt, and take it ALL, they will get what they agreed to.
FrankChurch wrote:"I will sound like a right winger here, but nobody has a right to make profit."
:shock:
are you dyslexic frank ?
that sounds more like a Left wing notion. Or the notion of loonie.
follow your bliss,mike

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:35 pm

Mike, the right believes in acceptable poverty. There are winners and losers. They hold their noses and run with that.

My take is that all poverty is ungodly and must be stopped, by whatever reliable means.

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:36 pm

Barber, I forgot jazz was a bit different. You don't have a built in audience like rock.

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Lori Koonce » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:51 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Mike, the right believes in acceptable poverty. There are winners and losers. They hold their noses and run with that.

My take is that all poverty is ungodly and must be stopped, by whatever reliable means.


Frank

Will you give me one hundred dollars please? I'm broke and don't get any money until Friday.

BTW, who decides when poverty is stopped? Me, you, the poor people?

That is a pipe dream, and will never come to pass. And I say that as one of the poor.

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:12 pm

You do remember a gentleman who had a dream?

You may not eliminate all poverty but you could try. I blame advertising that tells us that selfish consumerism is the way utmost happiness. Now there's your pipe dream.

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Lori Koonce » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:23 pm

I do remember the man with the dream Frank, but that's one part I could never jive with.

Please define selfish consumerism. I mean all consuming is kinda selfish if ya think about it. I need to eat, so that's one type of consumption. I want a new Ipad, if I purchase one that's another type of consumption. Both benefit me more than most others, but are necessary.

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby robochrist » Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:16 pm

Lori,

re: wiping out poverty:
"That is a pipe dream, and will never come to pass. And I say that as one of the poor."

I don't think it will ever happen in OUR lifetime, but "never" is always a dangerous word since the world order changes constantly. 200 years from now will be unimaginably different (possibly for the worse, for all we know).

Having shared that, even if it IS a pipe dream we have to keep fighting it. Even the slightest nudge in the proper direction is some kind of victory. This country had buried itself in such a - summoning the word I used in an earlier post - meritocracy - the dispassionate belief in stratified rights to wealth, whereby those who are poor are there because they are lazy and therefore deserving of their situation. In this country, many are "poor" because our average earnings stay below the cost-of-living. We only need to fight that one battle, which, now that labor unions have been unfairly and successfully demonized, has become a complicated one, and a solid part of the middle class will do fairly well again.

In summary, we can't wipe out poverty but we could conceivably do better than we are, and we have to keep fighting for every notch.

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:43 pm

Rob, very proud of you--I even agree with some of it.

Even Bill Clinton believes we can end poverty--he says, END, not end SOME. And, Clinton is a big asshole.

I do believe that Christ will help end it, but we need to help. It also doesn't help to elect douchbags like Gavin Newsome, who tries to stop giving out sandwiches in the fucking park. The slick hair gives it away every time.

We should try, Lori lou. Hope is all we have.

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:35 pm

FrankChurch wrote: ... we can end poverty--
I do believe that Christ will help end it

Let's not depend on "His" cominng back down here for that. :shock:
,
FrankChurch wrote: but we need to help. Hope is all we have

dude , make up yer mind. :wink:
just kidding
bud , if hope's all you've got , hold on to it , by all means.

but do everyone a huge favor, try not to convince anyone who actualy believes in their own ability or the ability of humanity, to save itself.

nah, you wouldn't do that. :)
follow your bliss,mike

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

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:42 pm

As long as you are not naive enough to think that governments will do it. Goverments are never moral agents.

Frankly, the only way to truly end poverty is for us to run the show. That goes back to my utopian lovevillage.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests