Demotivational posters - DPChallenge Forums

09/02/2005 01:45:12 PM · #51

Jason - your points, to me, appear to be that the period for copyright is too long, and should not be extended. I agree that it should not be extended. As for the proper length of time, most of the world thinks about 50 years is right.

I agree that Disney has made use of works in the public domain because copyright has expired. As can anyone else. I thought that is what you are arguing for more of? I agree that there is a degree of hypocrisy to make money from copyright expired matierial and then to argue for extension of copyright protection. I agree that extensions should be opposed. The answer is not to abolish copyright law.

The shortfalls of DRM are things that you agree to when you buy media subject to it. You agree under contract, not copyright. Your solution is not to agree contracts that include DRM provisions that you don't agree with. It is not to abolish copyright law (which would not affect whatever contract you have agreed on DRM).

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Morality

You say that it is not immoral to breach copyright and copy media. Presumably, you feel that no artist, singer, designer, writer, etc deserves to be paid for the work that you are copying.

You say that Disney (and presumably any other person who enforces their rights under copyright law) is a thief.

Disney pays people for their work. You don't. The real thief is, to my mind, easy to spot.

Actually, I did not say any of that. You're arguing against points I haven't made.

Okay - from your first post:

Originally posted by theSaj:

So, yes....they {disney] decry theft and use....but that's exactly what they do.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Frankly, I don't give a crap about laws.

...

it may be illegal to violate copyright but it is not immoral.

You said that Disney "do" theft, that you do not care for the law and it is not immoral to breach copyright. By breaching copyright, you are not paying the people who hold the rights - the photographers, singers, musicians, composers, authors, sound technicians, directors, designers etc.

Thus my statement was precisely reporting your suggestion.

Who is to decide if you are using intellectual property and not making any profit, and you are not causing any damage to the intellectual property. How about the owner of the intellectual property? Plenty of owners allow precisely that.

Do you see the contradiction between these two statements:

1. "I believe thought, idea, invention is free...given to man by God for the benefit of all."

2. "In fact, I do believe they should be paid. And in fact, am willing to give them exclusive right to such payments for a limited period of time. "

Which is it? Free for all (option 1) or copyright (option 2). If 2, the only point you are making, as I keep on saying, is the length of time that copyright should last.

How about these statements:

1. "Frankly, I don't give a crap about laws. It may be illegal to violate copyright but it is not immoral."

2. "In fact, I do believe they should be paid. "

Which? Are you going to violate copyright (option 1) or observe it (option 2)?

How about these statements:

1) "In fact, I do believe they should be paid. And in fact, am willing to give them exclusive right to such payments for a limited period of time. "

2. "Well guess what....it is their right to profit from their work. But it is not their right to be granted an exclusive monopoly by society. "

Originally posted by theSaj:

I ask you why it is right for Disney to make money from other creator's work with no compensation to those creator's...but wrong for me to do it with Disney's works?

Erm - you want Disney to pay the authors (as they are obliged to do in respect of copyrighted work that has not expired) and all of the other people who work to create a movie (which they do). Then yes, you have to pay Disney.

If you want Disney not to have to pay anyone for the intangible work in a product (ie a movie, book, photo), then no, you should not have to pay them for something that has cost them nothing. But if no one could expect payment for their work, there would probably be no product for you to copy, solving that problem.

You seem to think that the author of a book is the only person with a copyright interest in a film. What about everyone else (all the people I listed previously whose rights are protected by that same law)??

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/02/2005 01:54:43 PM · #52

Originally posted by theSaj:

Trademarks based on dictionary words or common colloquialisms usually have little basis in the courts for protection excepting plagiarism and attempts of misleading consumers into thinking you are another entity.

I think we need a technical explanation of risk in using a registered trademark for profit and the factors that increase or decrease the risk, not a rough understanding of one ground on which it may be possible to challenge the validity of a trademark.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/02/2005 02:33:16 PM · #53

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I think that DPC Prints does exactly that: sells prints under challenge headings.

It does? I though it only sold thngs under the name of the photographer.

//www.dpcprints.com/browse_challenge.php

Thanks! Personally, I think it would probably still be OK, because it's a descriptive title among many, not a brand-name we are specifically promoting.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/02/2005 02:41:10 PM · #54

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Peter Pan

Small point to start with:- Peter Pan was under copyright when Disney made the film (interestingly, it has a unique history. The copyright for that single work was extended into perpetuity by parliament as the benefits of the copyright were assigned by JM Barrie to Great Ormond St Children's Hospital).

That's interesting ... : )

Some of your later stuff I have to disagree with a bit in the details -- the recording engineers and cel artists (and similar production staff) are unlikely to have a copyright interest as they are almost certainly "employees" of Disney, and the interest remains with the corporation under the "work for hire" provisions. The screenwriter may be freelance or contracted.

Some movies are produced completely independently from the Disney studio, and the copyright may ultimately rest with the producer and not Disney at all.

Message edited by author 2005-09-02 14:41:41.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/02/2005 03:14:28 PM · #55

"as for the proper length of time, most of the world thinks about 50 years is right."

No, most of the copyright holders who have become exceedingly rich...many of which companies like RIAA and it's foreign equivalents...by swindling profits from the actual artists.

And I actually believe a decade is fair. As most "good" works usually pay for themselves within a year or two. Furthermore, most pop trends are over within a decade. Second, I do not think the medium should make a difference. For example: Beatles on CD is copyright because it's been re-mastered and re-released as a new recording. When in fact the original should be public domain. Anyone should be able to re-master and re-record to a new medium.

"I agree that Disney has made use of works in the public domain because copyright has expired. As can anyone else. I thought that is what you are arguing for more of?"

Exactly, I am not really opposed to Disney doing so. I am opposed to them benefitting from said "public domain" system but refusing to participate. In my opinion, if you don't participate than you shouldn't benefit.

"I agree that there is a degree of hypocrisy to make money from copyright expired matierial and then to argue for extension of copyright protection. I agree that extensions should be opposed. The answer is not to abolish copyright law."

Why? all the development of copyright law is toward one side. There has not been almost no legislation to protect the consumer/citizenry. So if "our rights are being abolished" than don't expect me to respect "yours" (referring to the copyright holder).

"The shortfalls of DRM are things that you agree to when you buy media subject to it."

No it's not...

a) there are no markings on many products to denote such
b) there is no agreement
c) if there is an agreement, than when I pay cash they are obligated to my end of the agreement (access to said product)
d) agreements only benefit seller not consumer.

For example, the !@#$tard at Canon kept quoting me my obligation to ship the camera back and how it's stated and agreed to in the warranty. However, I am not able to see said warranty or terms of service until after I've purchased product. Nor is it ever in common language. If it were in common language and stated on the exterior of the package I might accept such argument.

"So, yes....they {disney] decry theft and use....but that's exactly what they do." - The Saj

that I said...but that is much different than

"You say that Disney (and presumably any other person who enforces their rights under copyright law) is a thief." - LegalBeagle

I did not say any person who enforces their rights under copyright was a thief. But I believe anyone who does witholds from the public domain is a thief, especially those that use public domain while not adding to it.

"You said that Disney "do" theft, that you do not care for the law and it is not immoral to breach copyright. By breaching copyright, you are not paying the people who hold the rights - the photographers, singers, musicians, composers, authors, sound technicians, directors, designers etc"

Total misquote all out of context and twisted. But perhaps best answered by answering your other questions first.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Do you see the contradiction between these two statements:

Do you see the contradiction between these two statements:

1. "I believe thought, idea, invention is free...given to man by God for the benefit of all."

2. "In fact, I do believe they should be paid. And in fact, am willing to give them exclusive right to such payments for a limited period of time. "

Which is it? Free for all (option 1) or copyright (option 2). If 2, the only point you are making, as I keep on saying, is the length of time that copyright should last.

To answer your question.... OPTION 1.... however, I do believe it a right (good) thing to help ensure benefit to said artist/inventor by assisting in their livelihood as a courteous thank you to their benefit to society. So I believe Option 1 to be true. And option 2 to be good within the understanding that it is an "appreciation". If there is no contribution toward society and the public domain than I believe free market economy (with authorship and recognition). But we've gone over this in threads before....

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

How about these statements:

1. "Frankly, I don't give a crap about laws. It may be illegal to violate copyright but it is not immoral."

2. "In fact, I do believe they should be paid. "

Which? Are you going to violate copyright (option 1) or observe it (option 2)?

To re-iterate...no...I do not care about legality. (I actually believe a legal system is the 2nd worst form of justice in the world.) I believe in justice and morality.

Regarding 2 I already expressed above. I am one who does believe it is good to pay a workman his wages - and I'll gladly pay to hear a musician in concert. Or to watch a movie on a gigantic screen I can't afford. But to pay a workman 25 yrs after he's dead...just shows how ludicrous these laws really are. Even to pay him several years after he's completed the work is a bit ludicrous.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

How about these statements:

1) "In fact, I do believe they should be paid. And in fact, am willing to give them exclusive right to such payments for a limited period of time. "

2. "Well guess what....it is their right to profit from their work. But it is not their right to be granted an exclusive monopoly by society. "

To explain point #2 in this. Regarding those who create art but do not contribute to public domain. Sure, paint your picture, sell it, even make prints. I believe you have that right. But if your not going to contribute to society and simply seek your own gain...then I do not believe society should protect you with exclusive protections. And anyone else can paint the same thing or sell prints. If you can't out-compete them in a capitalist fair market oh well. If you're not going to benefit society we should not benefit you.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

But I don't think we should have to pay after all those workers are dead. I'm sure Disney paid it's workers on "Sleeping Beauty" many years ago. And I'm sure it was an infitessimally small portion of how much Disney made from the film. And I am sure it is much less than the hands profiting from it today who didn't do a single iouta of work to produce that film. And I do not see any reason in paying "licensing" for it today.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/02/2005 03:16:39 PM · #56

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Peter Pan

Small point to start with:- Peter Pan was under copyright when Disney made the film (interestingly, it has a unique history. The copyright for that single work was extended into perpetuity by parliament as the benefits of the copyright were assigned by JM Barrie to Great Ormond St Children's Hospital).

That's interesting ... : )

Some of your later stuff I have to disagree with a bit in the details -- the recording engineers and cel artists (and similar production staff) are unlikely to have a copyright interest as they are almost certainly "employees" of Disney, and the interest remains with the corporation under the "work for hire" provisions. The screenwriter may be freelance or contracted.

Some movies are produced completely independently from the Disney studio, and the copyright may ultimately rest with the producer and not Disney at all.

And I would be more inclined if all parties involved received a portioned share. Except, it's often the case that very little of the profit actually goes to those who produce the film...nor much recognition beyond a handful of individuals.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/03/2005 12:42:30 PM · #57

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Some of your later stuff I have to disagree with a bit in the details -- the recording engineers and cel artists (and similar production staff) are unlikely to have a copyright interest as they are almost certainly "employees" of Disney, and the interest remains with the corporation under the "work for hire" provisions. The screenwriter may be freelance or contracted.

Some movies are produced completely independently from the Disney studio, and the copyright may ultimately rest with the producer and not Disney at all.

I said at the top that my example was a summary and huge simplification in itself. I did not really want to get into the complexity of how copyright transfers on employment/freelance/contractual bases depending on the nature of the right, the material being copied and the context etc.

But yes - very broadly, what you say can be true, that the copyright does not remain with the individual cell artists or sound engineers or any other person if they carry out their work in the course of their employment (which gives them a right to remuneration under employment law legislation). But the employer has the right. That employer could be an individual, or a company, or the movie producing company itself inhouse. It does not change the fact that the rights arise as a consequence of work done, merely the identity of the person who has to grant the licence for the work to be used and has the right to be paid.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/03/2005 12:50:05 PM · #58

Originally posted by theSaj:

...nor much recognition beyond a handful of individuals.

Most of the movie credits I've seen lately take longer to scroll by than it takes to figure out the plot -- practically everyone who had anything to do with it gets "recognized" now : )

09/03/2005 01:45:15 PM · #59

Originally posted by theSaj:

most of the copyright holders who have become exceedingly rich...many of which companies like RIAA and it's foreign equivalents...by swindling profits from the actual artists.

I find it very hard to argue against your ill informed, simplistic and inconsistent world view.

The artists have the copyright. Some musicians choose to sell it. Others choose to buy the rights by way of speculation. Are you saying that people should not be allowed to get rich from good work? All of your examples (Disney and the Beatles back catalogue) are examples of the extreme rich end of the business. I think that your tirade is against rich people, who are rich and fight to get richer. I think that it has nothing to do with the concept of copyright, merely the manner in which a very small number of people use the system to make more money, and protect what riches they have.

Please point me in the direction of the billionaire sound engineers and the luxury yachts of the font designers. Tell me why, as a photographer who makes money from his prints, I find myself having to hold down a day job. Please tell me why most artists in London live in the cheapest boroughs. We all rely on our copyright rights to make money, and you are telling me that you ought to be able to take our work without paying for it because we are too rich. From a man with "L" lenses...

Originally posted by theSaj:

And I actually believe a decade is fair.

As I keep saying - your only point appears to be that you don't agree with the length of exploitation time. Nothing else to do with copyright. You have one point of disagreement with the law as it stands: 10 year exploitation period v 50-100 year exploitation period. Nothing to do with abolishing copyright.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Second, I do not think the medium should make a difference. For example: Beatles on CD is copyright because it's been re-mastered and re-released as a new recording. When in fact the original should be public domain. Anyone should be able to re-master and re-record to a new medium.

Another example of your misinformation. That is exactly what already happens. The Beatles, original recording, and the bundle of rights (as I have said as an example - lyrics, tune, performance, sound recording) all expire. When they have expired, you can copy and play that record as much as you want without paying for it.

But, when a sound engineer takes the original and cleans it up, and puts lots of work into producing a cleaner copy, he has rights in the clean copy. There is no new copyright in the song or the lyrics or the performance, but the sound engineer gets rights to exploit his work. So, you have a choice of either copying the original for free, or paying the sound engineer for his clean version.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Why? all the development of copyright law is toward one side. There has not been almost no legislation to protect the consumer/citizenry. So if "our rights are being abolished" than don't expect me to respect "yours" (referring to the copyright holder).

Jason, are you not a citizen? Who makes money by licensing print sales of his photographs. You object to one practice: the lobbying by big business for greater protection that will benefit themselves. Join the already substantial campaign against Disney. Your vigilante justice helps no one except yourself.

Originally posted by theSaj:

"The shortfalls of DRM are things that you agree to when you buy media subject to it."

No it's not...

a) there are no markings on many products to denote such
b) there is no agreement
c) if there is an agreement, than when I pay cash they are obligated to my end of the agreement (access to said product)
d) agreements only benefit seller not consumer.

For example, the !@#$tard at Canon kept quoting me my obligation to ship the camera back and how it's stated and agreed to in the warranty. However, I am not able to see said warranty or terms of service until after I've purchased product. Nor is it ever in common language. If it were in common language and stated on the exterior of the package I might accept such argument.

Okay - start a campaign against contract law... (actually - please don't start on that as well). It has very little to do with copyright law. It has everything to do with contract law, and how contractual terms can be incorporated into a contract. I would suggest buying only CDs, and CDs that do not contain DRM, and making your own e-copies until DRM gets better.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I believe anyone who does witholds from the public domain is a thief, especially those that use public domain while not adding to it.

"You said that Disney "do" theft, that you do not care for the law and it is not immoral to breach copyright. By breaching copyright, you are not paying the people who hold the rights - the photographers, singers, musicians, composers, authors, sound technicians, directors, designers etc"

Total misquote all out of context and twisted. But perhaps best answered by answering your other questions first.

Okay - so I misunderstood why you were calling Disney a thief.

Your points:

1. Disney is a thief because it uses public domain material but fights to prevent its own material becoming public material.

2. You do not care for the law and it is not immoral to breach copyright.

My points:

1. Disney is a hypocritical where it uses public domain material but fights to prevent its own material becoming public material.

2. Disney respects people by paying people for their work where they have a valid copyright.

3. You do not pay people who have a valid copyright for their work (possibly only where you have decided that the person in question is too rich already).

My conclusions: you are a thief, and Disney is hypocritical.

I prefer the option of paying people for their work and criticising Disney and the others for their hypocrisy.

Originally posted by "theSaj":

Originally posted by leaglebeagle:

Which is it? Free for all (option 1) or copyright (option 2). If 2, the only point you are making, as I keep on saying, is the length of time that copyright should last.

OPTION 1 ... And option 2 to be good within the understanding that it is an "appreciation".

So - free. But with an exploitation period. Exactly what we have already. Again, the only thing you are arguing about is the length of time of the exploitation period.

Originally posted by theSaj:

So - musicians only get paid for live performances. No more CDs (why would they release a CD if they won't get paid?) Movie companies go bust, because cinemas no longer have to pay the film companies (why not just copy the films for free?). So we have only live performances again - the theatre. Great.

Again, the only thing you appear realistically to argue about is the length of time of exploitation.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

How about these statements:

1) "In fact, I do believe they should be paid. And in fact, am willing to give them exclusive right to such payments for a limited period of time. "

2. "Well guess what....it is their right to profit from their work. But it is not their right to be granted an exclusive monopoly by society. "

To explain point #2 in this. Regarding those who create art but do not contribute to public domain. Sure, paint your picture, sell it, even make prints. I believe you have that right. But if your not going to contribute to society and simply seek your own gain...then I do not believe society should protect you with exclusive protections. And anyone else can paint the same thing or sell prints. If you can't out-compete them in a capitalist fair market oh well. If you're not going to benefit society we should not benefit you.

Who decides who is "contributing to society"? Is it just up to the individual? What if I decide that your DPC Prints are not being used to contribute to society, but that you plan to keep the proceeds for yourself. I can just order one, copy it and undercut you and sell them myself? And do I get to keep the money I make at your expense?

And another example of you describing the system exactly as it already is: anyone is free to paint the same scene as painted previously and sell prints of their own work.

Originally posted by theSaj:

So - successful films can be pirated. What about the less successful ones? What if they do take 25 years to scrape in a profit from tv re-runs? Will we all be contributing towards the major disasters, give the studios will never be allowed to make a profit out of a successful movie again?

If the media business is making so much money out of exploitation of the copyright interests that they hold, why do so many go bust?

Again, I think that you are trying to justify your theft by saying "it is only against the rich, bad guys". A modern Robin Hood. Except that you don't give to the poor. You steal from the rich, and you keep the proceeds for yourself. You argue against copyright because of corporate greed, all the while you are the person benefiting from your own misguided campaign. As well as a thief, you are a hypocrite.