> > True. Laws do change, but copyright laws seem to be changing in favor of >the > > copyright holders, due most likely to powerful media lobbies that are > > recognizing how technology is making pirating simple. Look at what's >going > > on with DRM. There's a lot of money at stake. > >yep. you help show why the laws are becoming corrupt. >Elected officials are modifying Copyright laws for powerful media >compnaies without the people in mind. >the cash cows are dying...new streams of income need to be found >becasue the modes of distribution are changing.
I wasn't defending powerful lobbies influencing legislation, just stating the facts. Though, honestly, I do believe in order to give creators the incentive to create there needs to be strong protections. The other end of that is that the strong protections are also there to defend our economy. >people are trading my music/movies illegally. >i can do 2 things: >punish people and make them buy CD's the old fashioned way...or make >it easy to buy good quality media online. >which is smarter? >unfortunately media compnaies are dragging their feet so that decision >is made for them every single online second. I think the smart plan is to do both, and many companies do: they put out CDs and offer songs for downloading on iTunes. But that has not stopped pirating. Same for software. >do you believe the RIAA suing 12 year old girls is effective or a sign >of desperation? Both. Again, what choice do they have? If an increasing number of people are costing you millions because they are illegally stealing your product, what do you do? If you have a home and it has a termite infestation, wouldn't you call an exterminator? > > Not really, we can look at everything from traffic tickets to spankings >to > > public executions to honor killings and many other horrible activities >meant > > to serve as a deterrent to crime. Similar concept. Really, what other >choice > > do they have to protect their rights? > >i guess you agree that current copyright laws are good..so yes, they >must find extremely harsh punishments to protect current laws. I believe to some extent that everyone should do what they want. In a sense things are only illegal if you get caught. However, if you are caught you should be willing to pay the price. If you don't wanna do the time, don't do the crime. Some people do drugs, some people pirate music, some people speed when they drive. To me, that is each individual's choice. But those things are illegal; if you get caught you have no one but yourself to blame for the punishment you receive. You knew the rules and you made a choice to defy them. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. But until it changes that is our reality. To pretend otherwise is at one's own expense. >I guess it makes sense to stone homosexuals in Afghanistan becasue >thats the law. >people continue to be gay in Afghanistan. This is two different points. 1) To me it does not make sense to stone homosexuals (or punish them in any way). 2) If you are gay in Afghanistan and that is the punishment, I would advise moving. If you stay and are caught in homosexual activities then it shouldn't surprise you if you are stoned to death. I don't agree with the law, but it is the law. Work to change it or move. Same with America. Disagreeing with a law offers no protection from it. >i feel like im in HS debate class. >David, lets bring this down to videoblogging. >i have my personal fun videolbog where i keep my friends and family in >touch with how i live. >I edit a montage of my trip to amsterdam to the music of Bon >Jovi's"Dead or Alive". >I post a video of my worklife...adding in a small soundbite from >"Glengary Glen Ross" to illustrate that my boss is such a hardass. >you're saying Im a pirate and that I should feel lucky that the MPAA >and RIAA do not choose to make me an example in the US federal court >system? Short answer: yes. They would probably be within their rights to do so. Do I think they would go after you for that? Not at all. It would be difficult to show much damage in your example, especially with so many other worse offenders out there. But they could decide at any moment to go after every single violation. They could be compiling a database right now. So, you would be using that material at your own risk. Password protect the site to limit your vulnerability, though, again, I would think you'd be so far under their radar it wouldn't matter much. FWIW: Do I think you should be punished because of it? Not really, but the law, I believe, would require permission. > > No, I think I understood you. You are talking about a requirement to >allow > > people to use your creation against your will in a way which could >impact > > your profits. I would suggest that the current system is sane to the > > copyright holder, but restrictive to the end user. I personally think >the > > creator deserves more protection than the user. > >so we disagree on Fair Use laws. >the creator has ALL the protection currently. >balance. Yes, we disagree. Yes, the creator has by far the most protection. Yes, I believe this is fair compensation for the person who made something. I see it similar to patents. If anyone can copy your patent, why go through the trouble of creating and testing it? Why invest money, when after you get it working someone can benefit from your blood, sweat, and tears by using part of it in their product? Or drug patents. Drug companies create new medicines because they can patent the formulas and make big money. If the create a new drug and someone else can use the formula and distribute it however they want, what is the incentive in doing the research? Sure saving lives is a worthy cause, but after a business invests millions in something they want a return on investment. > > You mention using copyrighted material for fun, but giving a cut of >profit > > if money is involved. If I stream a movie/show/song for free I make no > > profit, but the users don't have to go buy the material. So, even though >I > > made no money the copyright holder lost money. > >again, extreme examples are always the best thing to use in an debate. >yes, correct. streaming an entire movie/song online is not Fair Use. >But I provided some more logical Fair Use examples above. Okay, you use part of a song in your vlog. Normally the company makes money by licensing that. Now you are using their property and they aren't making money. If you are talking about fair use, the problem with that is it is too vague. Consult an attorney and be sure it is worth it and is defendable. If it is something small they likely won't go after you, but it is their right to do so if they choose. I think you and I would agree that fair use needs to be defined better. >as a side note...free copies of movies/songs happens now becasue media >companies have been slow to flood the web with inexpensive copies of >good quality media that people want. That is akin to stealing a Ferrari because you want one, but think they cost too much. The twist in that is companies have to raise prices to offset the amount of product that has been stolen. Sort of a vicious cycle. But still doesn't adequately justify stealing. And nowadys it is so easy to get stuff for free that a lot of people wouldn't pay for it even if it was cheaper. > > Coke want you to wear their shirts, but they -- like most companies -- >are > > very protective of their brand and may not appreciate the t-shirt you >make. > > Maybe the font is off or the color isn't right or the context isn't how >they > > would present their image. Also the t-shirt maker would lose a lot of > > business if everyone could make their own shirts -- shirts he paid >Coca-Cola > > for the exclusive rights to make. So now, because we've loosened rights: > > coke loses money they could have made selling rights to print their > > t-shirts, t-shirt maker/seller loses business because there is no need >to > > buy the product, and coke loses control over how their product is >presented. > > Maybe someone who had coke growing up might make and sell a soda that >tastes > > just like it and call it Coca-Cola. If everything can be made into a > > knockoff, aside from the econmic impact, how do you know what you are > > getting? > >should i be allowed to comment on the brand of Coke? Sure, and you are allowed to. In certain ways. Here is a link to the artist who won a case to use Barbie dolls in his art (story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1492417.stm ) here is Barbie as a suicide bomber -- different artist, I think -- (Story: http://www.theculture.net/barbie/ ). Post on forums how you don't like the taste of Coke and think there isn't any nutritional value to it. All within your rights. But it is where your commentary impacts their business that you'll have problems. And just as you are allowed to comment, Coke is allowed to sue and I am sure they have deeper pockets. > > As for the obscure artist, perhaps he prefers obscurity. If his >paintings > > show up on t-shirts and bedsheets and shower curtains people may think >he > > sold out and his paintings won't sell as well. Also, what if he worked >for > > months at great expense on a piece and then someone modifies it and he > > doesn't like it. Too bad for him? Then the newer version gets modified >and > > that gets modified, etc. What if somebody modifies the work to sell a > > product or promote an ideology he doesn't believe in? > >again, im arguing from the standpoint of a regular joe who wants to >simply reuse marterial around me to make comment. No profit whatsoever >other than the general cultural profit where shared ideas becasue rich >becasue people are discussing the world around them in communities. I guess it would depend on how and what you were expressing. And how threatened the copyright holder feels. >and if someone wants to stay obscure, then h/she will not let anyone >know they have made anything. Obscure can be a profitable place to be for an artist. Unknown is not. >bottom line: you can make laws that >restrcit anything. >whether or not it works is a different story. Very true! >current laws are creating a generation of pirates. I would say technology is creating a generation of pirates. Ease of use and the cost of legally obtaining material are motivating them. Though I wonder which motivates more as I know people who could easily afford the stuff they are downloading for free. >its against the law to drive over 55. >you say thats the law and proud when you are punished and fined. Well, not sure I am proud of it, but if I am caught I will pay the consequences. Those are the rules. And I expect the same from others. If you are never caught, more power to you, but if they get you, take your punishment graciously. >I say, lets think about the laws in the first place...and consider >changing them. >(as happpened on Interstate highways). >change can only happen when we discuss things as we are happening now. I agree with you 100% on this. If someone doesn't like a law, work to change it. And open discussion like this is great. We may not settle anything, but hopefully at the least it makes us think. >Chuck Olsen made a great video that is better than my written email: >http://blogumentary.typepad.com/vlog/2005/03/videoblog_week__2.html >he is also a pirate. More great content from Chuck. Very good stuff. But he is looking at things from the fan's point of view, not the manager's. It is a different perspective and the law is on the manager's side. Though he makes the same good points as you. I understand what he is talking about. Hell, in Chicago we have a public park that is trademarked. The entire thing. Millennium Park. They'll let amateurs go in and take pictures, but if you look like you know what you're doing, apparently, the cops will harrass you. Buildings are trademarked. Public outdoor sculptures are trademarked. Do I think it is a bit much? Yeah. But the law is the law. If I feel strongly enough about it I should work to get that changed. The difference between the buildings, sculptures, and park are that they are created to be in public. They will never be hidden. Never require payment to view or experience. They were created with the full knowlege that they would be in the public eye whereas music/movies/etc earn money based on how they are displayed/experienced. Though, on the flip side, the artist wants to protect his/her creation and profit from it. It would just be nice if cities wouldn't allow trademarked structures. I guess that is the concession you make to get someone famous to design things for you. > > Sure, but there is an impact: Final Cut Pro doesn't sell as well as > > anticipated, gotta lay people off, next version of Final Cut Pro stinks. > > > > Why should someone give up their rights? It's kind of like money. Let's >say > > someone makes $50,000 a year. But there are a lot of people who make >less, > > so he is compelled to give his money to whomever wants it. He worked all > > year to make that amount. He went to college to make that amount. He has > > bills to pay with that amount. Is it fair that he should be required to >give > > up his money? (this is not an analogy about taxes, I swear!) > >i lost this one. >i agree I shouldnt steal Final Cut Pro. >also, dont give away your cash to people on the street. Yeah, I did a crap job with this analogy. I guess I was trying to say why should someone be compelled to give up their rights to someone who doesn't want to pay for them? He struggled to create something, shouldn't he be able to control access to its distribution? > > Disney used stories in the public domain -- which we are all free to do >-- , > > but he paid for the painstakingly hand-drawn cells, the songs, the >actors, > > the film, the studio, the distribution, the support and administrative > > staff, the scripts, etc. and he took the risk. > >and no one denies the hard work Mr Disney put in these contagious >movies that are a part of our culture. >the question is: why do they keep extending the timelimit when media >enters the public domain. >Copyright has been extended 15 times last century. >If Disney followed the then current laws, Mickey Mouse should be in >the public domain...but becasue of the lobbying efforts of the Disney >Coproration and others...no touching. >something screwy is happening here. Unfortunately, I'd say it is politics as usual. :( However, you yourself said laws change to meet the times and perhaps this is one of those instances. Really, before our modern age there wasn't much reason to have such long copyright privileges. In this case, Mickey Mouse is the image of Disney. If he went into public domain they'd lose a ton of money. Billions. And they would no longer have control of their image. I could make and sell Mickey Mouse t-shirts and dolls and make Mickey Mouse porn and Walt and company couldn't say a damn thing. >jay -David ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get Bzzzy! (real tools to help you find a job). Welcome to the Sweet Life. http://us.click.yahoo.com/A77XvD/vlQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
