Copyright vs Copywrong

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

Moderator: Moderator

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:33 pm

That dog will not hunt. I never said that I support illegally ripping someone's album. You will not find one thing I said giving that fox a cookie. It was you who supports the current copyright regime as is. You are on record defending it.

Now, on China, that's a complex issue. Stopping piracy is a thing I support, but how you do it is a hard matter, not easily busied with. China has no incentive to stop piracy, since they make huge growth from it, and they are not afraid of us. People with more skills than me have to deal with that. Constant talking to them and pressure is how you do it. Certainly, demonizing China doesn't work. Look how well that works when dealing with Iran.

I am for changing the actual laws, not killing copyright protection. Updates in online speed will make illegal downloading cumbersome. We see some bright successes with Spotify and other pay services, where you can get a song streamed fast, unlike the slow downloading involved with peer to peer.

On YouTube, as long as the song is available as a stream, that you cannot copy or burn, I don't see how it hurts an artist. It may hurt the artist, but the artist can try to rationalize with the public about how it hurts them. I'd suggest that much of the downloading is done by people naive to the plight of hurt artists. Our society tends to see artists as rich, pampered prigs. Blame the media.

-----------

A lot of this downloading fever happened because greedy artists like Metallica started to sue fans, not a good thing, knowing how loyal the heavy rock audience tends to be. When pampered millionaires like Lars Ulrich acts like a victim of evil downloaders, it made the public rebel and not in a good way.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:40 pm

We have to understand something: The First Amendment does not exist to support rock lyrics or book censorship, it does so by accident, but only because the Amendment exists to secure the right to criticize the powerful without recrimination. You can call the President a war criminal and not worry that the secret police will knock down your door. Copyright laws are similar. They promote the useful arts, not monopolies like Microsoft, who own over 200 billion dollars in intellectual property control.

What we need is more art and culture in schools, more arts funding, more respect for artists. Suing fans just makes people angry and insular. We don't want to waste the resources of the government to go after non-violent downloaders. Arbitrary laws are made by powerful men to control free thought. Like the prohibition of drugs. Years of arbitrary laws have not slowed down drug selling one bit. I can go out right now and buy a dime bag. We need a new way to change the hearts of people, get them to understand the plight of artists. Obviously most Americans lose sympathy, since they don't have jobs themselves. They certainly don't care about people who make a living from what they perceive as a hobby. There has to be a total heart transfer.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:08 pm


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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Anthony Ravenscroft » Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:07 pm

Barber wrote:You're the person who keeps dragging the topic into other areas.

Well, to be fair, I'm also a culprit... but TRYING to focus despite the Nyquil. :oops:

Okay, let me dust off a few neurons from my days as a social-psychology wonk. What we're seeing in the whole download mess is (IMO) a variant of the tragedy of the commons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

I used to collect Zen-like rules-of-thumb (heuristics) beginning from a mass of Murphy's Law derivations. One of these was The Guppy Law:
When outrageous expenditures are divided finely enough, the public will not have enough stake in any one expenditure to squelch it.

Or more succinctly:
Enough guppies can eat a treasury.

If someone steals a penny from me, just because they CAN, it's nothing to me -- the loss is practically infinitesimal. If everyone on Facebook does it, I'm in trouble. If they do it every day, I'm rapidly bankrupt. Yet each of those people can say, "What did ---I--- do? It was only a penny!! Get OVER yourself!!"

Sound familiar...?

Mr Church, I know you consider yourself libertarian (lowercase), but you're defending a hoary corporatist tactic, which is at best Objectivist Libertarian (if "best" even applies to such a case). And in the case of downloads & SOPA & all that, the benefits will accrue to the Disneys of the world -- NOT individuals & underdogs. SOPA & PIPA are just recent upswells, & will recur with new names. Politicians will again shape the (proposed) laws to support their masters, whether corporate or moralist, & try to peddle them to us "for the common good" when any possible good is far from common.

We've got plenty of laws to deal with IP piracy. What lacks is the willingness to piss off "trading partners" like Red China -- sorry, I'm a socialist, but I would no sooner support Beijing than I would Stalin or Tito -- to say "stop your citizens from doing this, or you'll see sanctions."

As a law professor once told me, the legal system ultimately exists to protect the minority from the majority. Most times, left to itself, the mob wins -- laws are supposed to be there to at least question mob rule.

Downloaders are a mob.

Some good can come from "crowdsourcing" -- for all its flaws, Wikipedia is an excellent example. But it has an AMAZING webwork of rules for self-policing, & questionable input is often axed unmercifully. THAT is democracy in action.

If download addicts would get their shit together, they could possibly create some similar way to police the mess WITHOUT (in most instances) the ham-handed involvement of Government. And if that's too much trouble, then they can just say hello to SOPA, & live with the fact that they wanted that more.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FinderDoug » Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:27 pm

I never said that I support illegally ripping someone's album. You will not find one thing I said giving that fox a cookie.


One: (May 8, 2011)
If Prince wanted to never release a bootleg, I could offer it as a download or stream, as long as I didn't sell it.


Not selling it is immaterial. Copying it and streaming it would be ILLEGAL without the artist's permission to do so. It's not yours to give away. That's what copyright IS. So you have expressed support for it.

As for Baker, he lost my consideration with this gem of Lack of Comprehension:

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of this money stems from the work of small number of performers who are promoted by the major entertainment companies. The vast majority of singers and musicians get almost nothing from copyright protection.


So, because major-label promoted acts make most of the money from sales of recorded work, the vast majority of singers and musicians should just forget about copyright, because it gets them nothing? Besides, well, PROTECTION OF THEIR WORK? Aside for the apples and rhinos of his logic, that level of signal-to-noise ratio is worthy of being dubbed with muted trumpet and used in the new special, "It's My Copyright, Charlie Brown!"

He ignores that people, by nature, take the path of least resistance, (which is why we have the problem with illegal content that we have now), so having them have to do paperwork around a voucher system isn't going to win the process many fans; that people struggling to get by don't have a hundred dollars to spend to support an artist, whether that money is coming back to them or not, which eliminates their voice from this artistic Nirvana; that the entertainment industry could very EASILY subvert the system by cherry-picking AFV recipients and having them work-for-hire to get around any copyright questions (and then the Entertainment industry can pick up talent DIRT CHEAP because they're up against a voucher system in terms of pay levels instead of being driven by market rates - "Gee, you made $2500 last year with AFV? What if I could get you $25,000 a year for the next five?")(seriously, I don't think he understands what copyright does either); that such a system puts into play the potential for the government to regulate who qualifies as a voucherable artist, thus INCREASING the potential for de facto government censorship (because if you think the government would never, ever make rules around what constitutes "art" for the purposes of shelling out tax money/breaks, I have several bridges I wish to sell you); not to mention that the tax code is almost never as simple as "show us a receipt and claim your prize"; that the internet is global and his voucher system takes nothing into account for international payment (Japanese citizens not paying US taxes and all); and on and on.

And it does nothing to address the actual problem: THAT PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET STEAL SHIT FROM ARTISTS. All his proposal does is create a class of media that can't, by definition of his system, be 'stolen'. If your store security doesn't work, the answer ISN'T to put out a bin of things labeled "Take this stuff." You fix security in a sensible way. The baby-with-the-bathwater approach and privacy-intrusive elements of SOPA weren't sensible. But neither is what Baker is pedaling.

The entire proposal sounds most like an intellectual land-grab for the only thing a creative artist DOES have to protect him or herself: "sign away your copyright, and there's a possibility you'll make money with your art!" Does that come with fine print in the ad that says "Results not typical"?

It's no better than the record industry mogul getting the band to sign the contract in the dark on the hood of the car: gotta be tonight, boys; if you don't sign now, I'm off to Tupelo, whatta ya say, let's go make some magic...

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Anthony Ravenscroft » Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:47 pm

Litigation is a major sticking point. Deep-pocket companies can afford to have full-time lawyers going after infringers, without hope to actually recover losses, much less damages. Not so for individual artists; unless there's some Indonesian site making plenty of buckage from my photos or music or short film or whatever, I couldn't afford to pursue it directly, & there's no credible attorney who'd take it on contingency. The Big Guys are frying their own fish, & don't have any interest in standing up for me.

As such, copyright doesn't do me a whole lot of good. By comparison, if someone was ripping off my trademark, there are various business groups that would stand with me, because the principle of trademark is widely supported -- if it erodes around the edges, then the rot could quickly spread.

The principle of copyright has been badly eroded, in large part from how much Congress has tweaked it again & again to spread the influence of their corporate masters. This degradation was underway long before any of us had even dialup.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Lori Koonce » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:26 pm

Frank

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-rago ... ertainment

The above link is to an interview that Richard Marx gave to the Huffington Post. About half way through it he and the interviewer discuss how piracy has affected the music industry. Read it and learn. I double dog dare ya!

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:10 pm

"Not selling it is immaterial. Copying it and streaming it would be ILLEGAL without the artist's permission to do so. It's not yours to give away. That's what copyright IS. So you have expressed support for it."

Some laws are arbitrary, some are universal. Copyright laws are written by people who are lobbied by big media, not exactly a fair way to create a law.

Streaming a song is no different than hearing one on the radio or taping a song off the radio and giving the song to a friend. Remember, back in the day, the music industry thought home taping was killing them. Ended up being a shuck.

If I wanted to make a recorded version of Prince's Little Red Corvette, I could do it with Warner Brothers permission--I don't need Prince's permission, and he wrote the song! Prince has been going apeshit about this for years, not liking the versions of his songs he cannot stop from being recorded. The irony is he records other people's songs.

That's worse, in my view than streaming that song on youtube. What about my point that giving someone a taste of your music will get them to buy it later? They need a preview. Another issue is how expensive cds are and the fact that most cds have only a few good songs on them.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:15 pm

Once again, let's focus: the laws are created for the creation of useful arts, not for someone's monopoly power. Baker's plan would actually let art flourish, especially less commercial art. Instead of living hand to mouth, someone like David Loftus could get money for his readings. He'd like that. Wink.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FinderDoug » Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:16 pm

All you have are excuses and rationalizations.

I deserve monopoly power over my work. It's MINE. I created it. I sweated over it. I deserve the right to control it. To set my price, whether I give it away or sell it engraved on 24k gold plates. I deserve the full weight of the law to hammer the shit out of people who try to pick my pocket by thinking they're entitled to it. If I find free distribution helps my Sales, I GET TO DECIDE if that business model is right for me.

YOU don't get to. You are entitled to absolutely ZERO say in the process. YOU also don't get to hand it out, host it, load it, photocopy it, nada. You have the right to purchase as many copies as you want. You do NOT have the right to buy one copy and make it digitally available for a thousand people to enjoy for free.

And I'm going to depend on Joe Average to throw some of his coin my way on his own? He's not doing it RIGHT NOW in a world where a song costs less than a cup of coffee. You think he's going to do it when he has to jump through four flaming hoops so the government will let him write a hundred bucks off his taxes - if it's even THAT cut and dry?

A voucher system doesn't reduce the struggle of the small-market creative type one bit. It doesn't level the playing field. You still need to hit the street, market, self-promote, fight for a share of the market space, fight much more well-known and established entities in your own market, and you're still guaranteed nothing. The only difference is the voucher system takes away the only protection the small-market creative type enjoys for their effort.

But if you want to choke out ten-thousand small artists because that's the only way to drive a stake in the heart of the big bad corporation that won't simply open the door and let you take whatever you want, no one here is going to change your mind. But you'll excuse me if I don't consider you a very good ally to the struggling artist.

As for Prince: he still holds the copyrights to his compositions. (Well, he co-holds them. The other registered party on his composition copyrights is Bank of America.) If he doesn't like the existing versions of his recordings, he could re-record every song he owns and release his own versions to compete with Warner's catalog (though given how well that worked with the new master of 1999, it's apparently not the blockbuster concept it sounds like on paper). If he's upset that Warner owns the copyright to his sound recordings, well, that's usually how it works, since Warner was the record company. He probably shouldn't have signed a contract that didn't give him the controls he wanted. Unless I missed the article in the papers, no one held a gun to his head. But I DO think it's a great example of not surrendering one's creative rights if one doesn't want to.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:43 pm

Just admit that you are to the right of the founders.

My mission is to support free speech, more than just self serving monopoly power.

If I cook my own hamburger, McDonalds cannot say I am infringing on their right to own the concept of hamburgers.

-----------

How then do you explain the fact that Adele is still number one on the charts? Hasn't she been there about two years? I guess nobody downloads her songs. :roll:

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Steve Evil » Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:32 pm

FrankChurch wrote:If I cook my own hamburger, McDonalds cannot say I am infringing on their right to own the concept of hamburgers.

-----------


But if you walked behind the counter of a McDonald's restaraunt and helped yourself, you'd be stealing.

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 » Thu Feb 02, 2012 2:51 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Just admit that you are to the right of the founders.

My mission is to support free speech, more than just self serving monopoly power.

If I cook my own hamburger, McDonalds cannot say I am infringing on their right to own the concept of hamburgers.

-----------

How then do you explain the fact that Adele is still number one on the charts? Hasn't she been there about two years? I guess nobody downloads her songs. :roll:



Frank

You are just being stupid. Copyright laws allow for things like parody and satire. They even allow one to make substantial changes to an original work. What they don't allow is for the wholesale stealing of a work.

Downloading and PAYING for the song is what makes a hit. Buying CD's is what makes the hits. Billboard and Cashbox only know about the songs that people are PAYING for you git!

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby diane bartels » Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:47 am

Steve B, I do have a birthday present for you. I think you will like it. PM me if you can guess what it is. (P.S., Lori I bet you can guess.) PPS, it is somewhat on the intangible side, but Steve will like it, I'm sure.

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

Re: Copyright vs Copywrong

Postby Ezra Lb. » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:29 am

Steve Evil wrote:
FrankChurch wrote:If I cook my own hamburger, McDonalds cannot say I am infringing on their right to own the concept of hamburgers.

-----------


But if you walked behind the counter of a McDonald's restaraunt and helped yourself, you'd be stealing.


And spewing your grits!
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest