Motion Picture Theft

[Brad Grimmett]

Also, as I stated in my previous post in this thread, just because you illegally downloaded a film or bought a bootleg off the street doesnt mean you would have paid full ticket price in the theater to see the film.

 

I think many people automatically assume that those who illegally download films would definitely have otherwise gone to the theater and paid to see the film, and that just isnt true.

 

In other words, each illegally downloaded film DOES NOT always equal $10 (or whatever the ticket costs) from the studio.

This is the kind of justification that has been mentioned repeatedly. I would say this.....if you don't want to pay for something then you shouldn't take it. It's really very simple. Whether someone "would have" or "wouldn't have" gone to see a film if they hadn't been able to steal it is of no importance. If you didn't pay for it you can't have it. My mother taught me that when I was three years old.

[Alessandro Machi]

I think many people automatically assume that those who illegally download films would definitely have otherwise gone to the theater and paid to see the film, and that just isnt true.

 

In other words, each illegally downloaded film DOES NOT always equal $10 (or whatever the ticket costs) from the studio.

 

I can agree with that. However what about the movie in the 2 dollar to 5 dollar range? Why not limit downloading to either "older" movies or movies that don't go for full pop?

 

On second thought, I don't agree with your statement because one would get caught in a cycle of always wanting to download the newest films because they've already seen the "old" new movies. For instance, lets say when Spiderman first came out, you didn't see it in the movie theatres nor did you download it.

 

Now Spiderman II comes out. Since you never saw the first Spiderman, you decide to download that one. You like it enough to want to see Spiderman II, in the movie theatres. The downloading of the previous Spiderman motivated you to see the second Spiderman.

 

Instead, lets say you downloaded the first Spiderman movie when it came out. Now the second Spiderman movie comes out, are you going to download the first one, or the second one? Answer, the second one, thereby perpetuating a situation in which you end up seeing the whole series without ever paying to see any of the films.

[Matt Pacini]

This is called situation ethics, and in my opinion it's what's behind the incredible lack of basic morals these days.

This has been the standard practice in education and our culture for the last 20 years or so, and it's obviously resulted in a catastrophe of moral decay.

 

Any time you hear someone say something like "well, TECHNICALLY it's wrong, however..." you know that situation ethics is at work. It's not wrong if I don't want it to be wrong, or it's wrong in some other instance, but not in this one.

Like "sure, it's wrong to hit women, but she was dissin' me, so it's OK" That sort of thing.

 

Saying that X percent of the audience isn't paying because they're downloading, DOES NOT RESULT in lost money for the studio is just absurdity.

 

It's pretty simple to figure out if it's stealing: If there is a price on it, and you don't pay that price, you're stealing.

The other way to know, is if the owner of it says it's stealing, then it's stealing.

It's not complicated at all.

 

MP

[K Borowski]

I think many people automatically assume that those who illegally download films would definitely have otherwise gone to the theater and paid to see the film, and that just isnt true.

 

In other words, each illegally downloaded film DOES NOT always equal $10 (or whatever the ticket costs) from the studio.

 

I agree with you here. The rest is nonsense. It IS stealing. OK, so you don't get the car off the dealer's lot without breaking three of the windows and killing a cop. It's STILL stealing.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Michael Ryan]

Hello All,

 

Here's a few more things to think about.

 

Robert Shapiro (former Clinton administration economist) just gave a speech where he talked about "intellectual Property" and he said that in the U.S. alone that accounts for 5 TRILLION dollars. That's with a T.

 

Also for those who think that stealing "ideas" (in all its forms) are not the same as stealing solid in your hand objects, you should visit this site: www.wipo.int

It's the World Intellectual Property Organization which is run by the UN. It manages treaties signed by

183 nations and over 23 treaties that govern Intellectual Property.

 

Here's a little justification for those of you who steal movies off the internet. You can feel a little bit better about yourself because you are small time when you compare it to the state sponsored piracy by...you guessed it...CHINA. They rip off ideas (in all forms) in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Think about that the next time you buy something from Wal-Mart.

 

Mike

[Dominic Case]

It IS stealing.

Everyone is getting hung up over the word "stealing".

 

There are many ways of breaking the law.

There are many ways of wilfully depriving someone else of what is rightfully theirs.

There are many ways of breaking a contract.

There are many ways of cheating, defrauding, and piracy.

 

Stealng is more than taking some material object away - but many people get hung up on that material sense - so when they download something, or record it on video in the cinema, they say that they took nothing - it's their disk, or tape, or whatever. They are right - but they are still breaking the law by failing to pay for what they put on the disk.

 

If you sneak into a cinema and watch a film without buying a ticket . . . we've got better words than "stealing" to describe that. But it's defrauding people of the money, whichever way you slice it.

 

I think many people automatically assume that those who illegally download films would definitely have otherwise gone to the theater and paid to see the film, and that just isnt true.

So the evaluation of the loss to the studios is inflated - yes, I agree.

 

But if I steal a $1,000 camera from a store, it's theft. It is not a defence to say that I wouldn't have taken it if I had to pay for it.

[Keneu Luca]

But if I steal a $1,000 camera from a store, it's theft. It is not a defence to say that I wouldn't have taken it if I had to pay for it.

 

 

In my previous post, I never said anything about a "defense". I was simply pointing out a flaw in an analogy.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Keneu

[Alessandro Machi]

This is called situation ethics, and in my opinion it's what's behind the incredible lack of basic morals these days.

This has been the standard practice in education and our culture for the last 20 years or so, and it's obviously resulted in a catastrophe of moral decay.

 

Any time you hear someone say something like "well, TECHNICALLY it's wrong, however..." you know that situation ethics is at work. It's not wrong if I don't want it to be wrong, or it's wrong in some other instance, but not in this one.

Like "sure, it's wrong to hit women, but she was dissin' me, so it's OK" That sort of thing.

 

Saying that X percent of the audience isn't paying because they're downloading, DOES NOT RESULT in lost money for the studio is just absurdity.

 

It's pretty simple to figure out if it's stealing: If there is a price on it, and you don't pay that price, you're stealing.

The other way to know, is if the owner of it says it's stealing, then it's stealing.

It's not complicated at all.

 

MP

 

Actually it's not that simple.

 

Say I have a live event video production company and I edit wedding videos. I'd like to get a license to use the song "Somewhere in Time" as the montage music. The record company says it will cost me 100,000 thousand dollars to get permission to put their music in the background of a wedding video that will never be broadcast nor will it ever be resold.

 

Is the record company being reasonable asking for a $100,000? Are they obligated to be reasonable?

 

That's why situational ethics exist, no matter how many laws exist, there are situations in which the law may not be reasonable and thusly get challenged in court.

[Brad Grimmett]

Actually it's not that simple.

 

Say I have a live event video production company and I edit wedding videos. I'd like to get a license to use the song "Somewhere in Time" as the montage music. The record company says it will cost me 100,000 thousand dollars to get permission to put their music in the background of a wedding video that will never be broadcast nor will it ever be resold.

 

Is the record company being reasonable asking for a $100,000? Are they obligated to be reasonable?

 

That's why situational ethics exist, no matter how many laws exist, there are situations in which the law may not be reasonable and thusly get challenged in court.

So you're saying that it's OK to use the song because you can't afford it? That's ridiculous. Again, if you can't afford it, you can't have it. It really is that simple.

I want to live in a $10 million house, should I just go squat in one since the owner refuses to lower the price and I can't afford it?

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

I'm pretty sure all you guys are way smarter than I , but you're getting way to deep in semantics. "what really is stealing...?" C'mon....if I take something that doesn't belong to me, it's stealing. Simple. Yes, simple.

 

If I sneak into a theatre I'm not taking material that does not belong to me. However it is theft of service. The theatre says, " Hey kid, give me 8 bucks and I'll show you something I think you'll be entertained by for 90 minutes." It's a hedge bet. Maybe I'll hate it, but we make a deal with each other when I buy that ticket.

 

(soap box)

I hate these people that go into a restaurant, order their food, eat it, then say they want their money back 'cause " the food sucked and your sign reads '..best meatloaf in town...'" They're the theives in my book. Of service and product. "Technically they're at fault for false adverts..." WTF? These types should get a life....Just don't go back to that restaurant!!!

 

The internet is one giant anomaly...I don't think I'll ever "get it". If a law is stupid, it's still a law. Hell, in Houston I can get a ticket for spitting on the sidewalk!?! Ripping DVDs, downloading stolen software, it's all bad. Even when sh#t people ("evil corporations") are getting hurt by it.

 

My point is that getting into semantics to justify stealing because you don't like a corporations reason for their anti-piracy propaganda is lame. I know that these guys are bastards! Stealing is still wrong no matter what shape or form, even if you're stealing from SATAN!!!

[Rik Andino]

Everyone is getting hung up over the word "stealing".

 

There are many ways of breaking the law.

There are many ways of wilfully depriving someone else of what is rightfully theirs.

There are many ways of breaking a contract.

There are many ways of cheating, defrauding, and piracy.

 

Stealng is more than taking some material object away - but many people get hung up on that material sense - so when they download something, or record it on video in the cinema, they say that they took nothing - it's their disk, or tape, or whatever. They are right - but they are still breaking the law by failing to pay for what they put on the disk.

 

Have you ever been around Lawyers...?

Yes I know it's even more horrible than this thread...(no offense to the attorney out there :) )

 

But the thing about the law is that definition is vital.

So if you don't define the law things get murky

 

Piracy is not prosecuted as grand or petty theft but as federal crime of copyright infringement...

and sometimes as counterfeiting...meaning it's not stealing

 

Of course most of us are not lawyers...so I can't see why all the fuss over definitions...

Most of us agree piracy is wrong...but just how wrong depends on your view of morality.

 

It's funny on the issue of piracy Hollywood is trying to teach us morality...

But for years they've skirted the issue that they were responsible for the morality of nation...

And that they shouldn't be blamed for teaching children violence, crime, and lewdness

Now they want to define what stealing is and what it is not.

 

Malcolm X would call thiss "The Chicken coming home to roost..." :D

Edited April 20, 2006 by Rik Andino

[Freya Black]

Stealing is stealing.

Saying it's not stealing, because it's copyright infringement, is absurd.

 

Well technically under law it isn't it is copyright infringement.

 

Copyright laws were created for this exact purpose; to make a clear definition so people couldn't say they're not stealing anything

 

They most certainly were not. As I've already said. Copyright law and the whole concept of copyright was created to protect the flow of ideas and to stop big companies with greater resources from exploiting the ideas of others. It had an economic component too in that it was hoped that it might provide some financial income for the people creating the ideas to encourage them to make more.

 

Copyright laws can also be used not just to protect people from making copies of someone elses work, but also the way in which that work might be used and abused.

 

I don't know where you got the idea that copyright was created so people couldn't say that they weren't stealing anything, but it fact copyright was created with much higher and important ideals in mind.

 

(I should also point out that the ideas themselves are not copyright, and copyright is the right to copy make copies of texts in whatever form, just to try and avoid further confusion on this topic)

 

Saying it's not stealing, because you're not taking an "object", is the same as your boss telling you at the end of the week, that he's not paying you for your labors, then saying he's not stealing anything from you, because he hasn't taken an object from you.

 

Well I suspect in the eyes of the law this would also not be theft. Possibly fraud or embezzelment. I have no idea what.

 

Sorry guys, ludicrous excuses. If you're supposed to pay for something and you don't, you're stealing.

 

Incidently, what I wrote was not meant to be a justifcation or excuse for illegal copying or to say it was okay to steal things for that matter, like you have just suggested here. I think this thread has a few people who aren't reading peoples posts properly but just posting things based on what they would have liked people to have said! ;)

 

Just remember this someday when you make a film, and a producer or distributor screws you out of money you should have gotten in wages or royalties.

Hey, it's not like they broke into your house and took a couch or something from you, eh?

 

To put it another way, if the producer or distributor takes your art away from you without any payment and re-edits it and intercuts it with soft porn and advertisement for cars, softdrinks and fastfood, and change it into a comedy, a work that perhaps you spent a number of years working on, then that is the same as if they broke into your house and stole a couch from you?

 

Personally I think not.

I guess that depends on how little you value your work however, and whether you are merely interested in making films for your own financial gain.

 

love

 

Freya

Edited April 20, 2006 by Freya

[Alessandro Machi]

So you're saying that it's OK to use the song because you can't afford it? That's ridiculous. Again, if you can't afford it, you can't have it. It really is that simple.

I want to live in a $10 million house, should I just go squat in one since the owner refuses to lower the price and I can't afford it?

 

I never said that, you ASSUMED that.

 

My point was posed as a question because I don't have a firm opinion about it. If someone does not negotiate in a reasonable manner is that their right?

[A. Whitehouse]

I have been reading this site for years and this is the only post Ive felt the need to participate in.

 

I am a downloader of internet movies. I also go to the cinema a great deal and participate in digging old films out of storage at the local film library (ACMI, Im in Melbourne). I have this to add, though I think I missed the body of the discussion.

 

I download films that I am unable to find anywhere else. I am a huge fan of foriegn ( Japanese, Iranian and french and italian cinema) films and I use the internet as my oppurtunity to watch films I would otherwise have no chance of seeing. I know this might sound weak, but I see an awful lot of films, films that I have seen from downloading I will then go and see if it comes up in a festival. Case in point, I downloaded Ken Park when it was banned in australia and blocked from appearing in Melbourne film festival.

 

Another example. Il Conformista, I have a VHS pirated 5 th gen dub, its appaling. I love this film, possibly my favourite. This film is entirely unavailable anywhere in any format except ancient prints. I have watched this film when screened anywhere, Ive seen ancient 16mm (Pirate copy in ACMIs possesion!) and 35mm prints. But I have still broken (or stolen) copyright of the films producers.

 

Im not a huge fan of new american films (some I love, but you know what I mean) I watch an awful lot of foriegn language films that I have only been able to find over the internet through bit torrent or other P2P. A lot of these are new films, as another example. "Dumplings" I am a big fan of Chris Doyle and of Fruit Chan. This Film was fantastic, I didnt know whether this film would ever be available in Australia. I downloaded it. When it came up at MIFF, I went and saw it.

 

I dont think Im unique. I think that in some ways the internet has opened up possibilities and expanded my taste while not really curbing my cinema going habits (or expenses). I will admit to watching downloaded new films that I definetly would never have seen otherwise, I mostly dont even watch all of them. For example "stealth".

 

Perhaps some of the users and posters on this site would be surprised to know the possibilities of P2P and the access to old cinema and new hard to find foriegn cinema out there.

 

I do think that piracy is wrong but I want to see these films in whatever format I can. A 35mm print at my local cinema is prefferable. I usually get DIVX files and the subtitles are seperate in SRT files. I miss out on surround sound which is a big downside. I work in the industry as a DOP and editor, I do not want to risk the income of many already struggling film makers, particularily here in Melbourne where it is dire. These are just my thoughts, this was my first post.

 

Thank you,

Sasha

[A. Whitehouse]

May I add, just briefly, that I never want to steal these films and would happily pay to watch them if available. I think that if the quality of some large budget mainstream productions was as good as some of these small indie films then perhaps the public would feel the compulsion to watch these films in theatres. I think all films should be watched in theatres, I think that is the act of going to the cinema. Participating in a film makers vision with a audience.

Dare I say that one reason I think that audiences are staying away from cinemas ( I feel that possibly this year will be even lower than last year which was down from records previously as most of you will know ) is because we are failing to make and or support and distribute films that people can connect with and are relevent to their lives. I think we are particularily guilty of this in australia. I think New Zealand is beggining to get the idea with New Zealand films continually topping the box office in New Zealand. Or at least films made with a New Zealand voice like "Fastest Indian" (even though Roger Donaldson is Australian :)).

Im sorry this off topic but I know that this arguement has been used for the decline of pop music sales which are blamed on a lower standard of craftmanship in Pop music, by some people atleast.

If the customer feels the product has little "worth" then perhaps a free ride is to be expected?

 

Sasha

[Keneu Luca]

I think this thread has a few people who aren't reading peoples posts properly but just posting things based on what they would have liked people to have said!

Yeah I noticed that too.

[Brad Grimmett]

I never said that, you ASSUMED that.

 

My point was posed as a question because I don't have a firm opinion about it. If someone does not negotiate in a reasonable manner is that their right?

I assumed nothing. I asked you a question, which you didn't answer.

To answer your question regarding reasonable negotiation.....Of course it's their right to negotiate however they like....because they own it! Whether it's "reasonable" or not depends on the opinion of the person that is being negotiated with. Saying someone's negotiating practices are "right" or "wrong" is pointless. It means nothing, because there is nothing to stop them from asking whatever price they want.

Again, if someone puts a price on something that YOU deem too high, there is nothing you can do about it. You either pay for it or you don't use it. I'm really having trouble understanding how this could possibly be confusing to anyone. If you don't have the money, or don't want to pay for something, whether it's a movie, the rights to use a piece of music, a house, a car, etc., then you can't have it or use it. So what's the big dilemma?

But then you write this:

 

"Is the record company being reasonable asking for a $100,000? Are they obligated to be reasonable?

That's why situational ethics exist, no matter how many laws exist, there are situations in which the law may not be reasonable and thusly get challenged in court."

 

I don't think you understand what you're talking about here. You're talking about a "law" in relation to how much a company is charging for a piece of music, but what you don't understand is that there is no law (at least none that I am aware of) stating how much someone can charge for a piece of music, and therefore you can't challenge the price in court.

It's like saying that I want to buy a $100,000 car, but since I'm not going to drive it much I should get a huge discount, and if I don't get that discount the car company is negotiating unreasonably. It's silly.

 

Situational ethics exist for one reason....so that people can pretend that they're doing nothing wrong when they know they are.

Just because you think a company is screwing people (whether they are or not) doesn't make it right to screw them back.

[Michael Ryan]

Hello Freya,

 

I have to respond to a few things that you have said, but at the same time I hope I don't offend you. I've read many of your posts on this forum and you come off as a bright person with lots of great ideas and information and you sign all your posts "Love Freya" How nice is that? It may be the nicest thing I've seen on the internet. Now, back to the point.

 

First off, let me tell you where I'm coming from. I have been the editor of two magazines and I'm also a freelance writer. Because of this I have had to talk to copyright lawyers and I have had to understand certain aspects of copyright (copyright is fairly complex and by no means am I an expert on the subject), but there are certain concepts that I have had to understand because if I didn't, it could cost me and the publication I was working for money. Having said that let me comment on some things you have said.

 

Your quote: "They most certainly were not. As I've already said. Copyright law and the whole concept of copyright was created to protect the flow of ideas and to stop big companies with greater resources from exploiting the ideas of others. It had an economic component too in that it was hoped that it might provide some financial income for the people creating the ideas to encourage them to make more."

 

Freya, you are slightly correct, I think your statement is actually causing greater misunderstanding for many of the people on this site. In a nutshell, copyright is your proof of ownership. I'm about to make this statement very simple (there's more to it), but when you put this symbol ©Michael Ryan 2006 next to your article you are telling the world (and a judge if it went to court) that the article is your Intellectual Property. The "act" of copyright doesn't generate you any money. As a matter of fact it can cost you money. You make your money by selling the "rights" to your article in whole or aspects of it to a publisher. So, when a publisher buys First North American Serial Rights, he/she is NOT buying your copyright, he/she is buying the right to print your article (and once they print it once, they no longer have the right to print it again, unless you agree to it). So, the writer gets paid from the publisher by the amount they agree to in a CONTRACT that both parties sign. If another magazine prints my article without buying the "rights" to it (or at least getting my permission) they are guilty of "copyright infringement". As any copyright lawyer will tell you "infringement" is just a legal word for yes, you guessed it...STEALING. In the eyes of the law, if I'm the copyright holder and someone takes my work without permission, it's the same as if they took my care, my boat, my wooden dinner table.

 

Your quote: "To put it another way, if the producer or distributor takes your art away from you without any payment and re-edits it and intercuts it with soft porn and advertisement for cars, softdrinks and fastfood, and change it into a comedy, a work that perhaps you spent a number of years working on, then that is the same as if they broke into your house and stole a couch from you? Personally I think not."

 

Freya, if you are the copyright holder and the producer or distributor did those things to your film..all I can say is CA-CHING it's pay day! You would be making my copyright lawyer very, very happy because it would be an easy, short case that would take about half a day in court and he would still have time for nine holes of golf (all on my dime, of course).

 

Mike

[Keneu Luca]

To answer your question regarding reasonable negotiation.....Of course it's their right to negotiate however they like....because they own it! Whether it's "reasonable" or not depends on the opinion of the person that is being negotiated with. Saying someone's negotiating practices are "right" or "wrong" is pointless. It means nothing, because there is nothing to stop them from asking whatever price they want.

Again, if someone puts a price on something that YOU deem too high, there is nothing you can do about it. You either pay for it or you don't use it.

 

You're aware of the current gasoline prices these days right? It's ridiculous. It's absurd.

 

If someone came to me with a tank container of 30 gallons of stolen gasoline and I knew I wouldnt get caught - Id take it.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

You're aware of the current gasoline prices these days right? It's ridiculous. It's absurd.

 

If someone came to me with a tank container of 30 gallons of stolen gasoline and I knew I wouldnt get caught - Id take it.

 

Gasoline prices are a completely different matter, they are something we NEED. And if you think the prices are too high in America (I'm guessing that is where you are from) you should come to England, and check out our wonderfull over taxed prices on fuel.

 

 

 

And, would you take something directly from the owner if you knew you wouldn't get caught, or would you only take it off a third-party?

[Freya Black]

Hello Freya,

 

I have to respond to a few things that you have said, but at the same time I hope I don't offend you. I've read many of your posts on this forum and you come off as a bright person with lots of great ideas and information and you sign all your posts "Love Freya" How nice is that? It may be the nicest thing I've seen on the internet. Now, back to the point.

 

Hey Thankyou! :)

 

Well we are just chatting about copyright! I doubt theres much you can say that would be too hurtful towards me in that, unless we go wildly off topic! :)

 

I actually think it's quite a positive thing to respond to someone directly and to quote them, because then it is clear you are talking about things they have said, and people aren't left wondering "are these people talking about me?" or the possibility of paraphrasing what you think they have said and ending up accidently changing what they have said. When those two are combined, people end up going through the thread thinking "Where did someone say that? I don't remember that?" and it's really confusing.

 

First off, let me tell you where I'm coming from. I have been the editor of two magazines and I'm also a freelance writer. Because of this I have had to talk to copyright lawyers and I have had to understand certain aspects of copyright (copyright is fairly complex and by no means am I an expert on the subject), but there are certain concepts that I have had to understand because if I didn't, it could cost me and the publication I was working for money. Having said that let me comment on some things you have said.

 

Your quote: "They most certainly were not. As I've already said. Copyright law and the whole concept of copyright was created to protect the flow of ideas and to stop big companies with greater resources from exploiting the ideas of others. It had an economic component too in that it was hoped that it might provide some financial income for the people creating the ideas to encourage them to make more."

 

Freya, you are slightly correct, I think your statement is actually causing greater misunderstanding for many

 

Well I think I'm a bit more than slightly correct! ;)

Copyright originates with the Statute of Anne in England 1710

You can read a modern transciption here:

 

http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html

 

It's a bit hard going to plough through all the pages but the first page is quite a clear indication of some of the concerns that led to the Statute being enacted. You can see it is less concerned with economics but more concerned with ideas of learning and the circulation of ideas and works.

 

I think a lot of people have a great deal of misunderstanding about copyright already as we have seen with all the allusions to things like breaking into your house and stealing a sofa, or stealing a coke or a big mac or something.

 

of the people on this site. In a nutshell, copyright is your proof of ownership. I'm about to make this

 

Well not really. If it comes down to the crunch you may well have to prove that you are the creator of the work. Copyright is the right to make copies of the work once you have created it.

 

statement very simple (there's more to it), but when you put this symbol ©Michael Ryan 2006 next to your article you are telling the world (and a judge if it went to court) that the article is your Intellectual Property.

 

As I understand it there are still places outside of the berne convention where displaying a notice like this is needed to declare that the item is copyright in order for you to be covered by the law. In Berne convention countries the notice is not needed, however, you might as well stick it on to be clear and to protect yourself in other places too! It can't hurt and it may well help you, both inside and outside of the Berne convention as you are making it really clear to people that you consider the work to be your copyright. It makes it hard for people to claim ignorance in the matter! :)

 

The "act" of copyright doesn't generate you any money. As a matter of fact it can cost you money. You make your money by selling the "rights" to your article in whole or aspects of it to a publisher. So, when a

 

Yes copyright doesn't in itself generate any money and that's not even really the intention of it. However, as for it costing you money, well maybe it can if you hire copyright lawyers or whatever, but I'd also like to point out that it need not cost you anything financially either. Under the Berne convention, copyright is automatically yours as soon as you create something, (unless it was created in the course of employment in which case it might be considered "work for hire" but that's another whole kettle of fish). You mention the "act of copyright" in quotes which makes it sound a little as if copyright is something you do! That seems a little strange to me. Copyright just is, although obviously there is the act of creating the work, and there may well be the act of doing things to protect your copyrights too but copyright in law is just something you automatically have at least within the Berne convention.

 

publisher buys First North American Serial Rights, he/she is NOT buying your copyright, he/she is buying the right to print your article (and once they print it once, they no longer have the right to print it again, unless

 

Yes indeed this is another wonderful thing about copyright. It is the basis on which all that GNU software is created . It's called licensing. If you own your own copyright you can license (excuse the spelling) the work to people too. This allows you to have some control over the way your work is used.

 

Actually GNU is a great example about how copyright can be about much more than mere economics, because obviously most of the GNU software is free (as in beer).

 

Copyright is a wonderful thing to have around. :)

 

you agree to it). So, the writer gets paid from the publisher by the amount they agree to in a CONTRACT that both parties sign. If another magazine prints my article without buying the "rights" to it (or at least getting my permission) they are guilty of "copyright infringement". As any copyright lawyer will tell you "infringement" is just a legal word for yes, you guessed it...STEALING. In the eyes of the law, if I'm the

 

Perhaps they would say that in an attempt to explain the matter but strictly speaking it's not true. Copyright is as the name suggests is a right, and is quite different under law to theft, which is why there are special laws for it. When you infringe copyright you are very literally infringing someone rights.

 

copyright holder and someone takes my work without permission, it's the same as if they took my care, my boat, my wooden dinner table.

 

It isn't, they infringed your rights. To me this is a much more serious thing than merely stealing your wooden dining table or stealing a bottle of coke. To say they are the same is to denigrate copyright to something lower than what it is.

 

Freya, if you are the copyright holder and the producer or distributor did those things to your film..all I can say is CA-CHING it's pay day! You would be making my copyright lawyer very, very happy because it would be an easy, short case that would take about half a day in court and he would still have time for nine holes of golf (all on my dime, of course).

 

Hopefully if they did all these things so obviously it might be an easy case! :) However my point was that these things might be more important than losing a sofa or two! :) Also that copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft because it allows you some protection from these other things as well.

 

Sadly in the real world of course it doesn't always work out that way. Sometimes the producer or distributor are very powerful and sometimes the people defending their work are very poor and can't pay all the legal fees etc.

 

Sometimes you can license or sell stuff and the other side of the deal may not keep to the agreement or find all kinds of ways of swindling you. A case in point being the film "Repo Man" by Alex Cox, which to this day Alex has not recieved a penny in royalties for to my understanding. The film

 

At some point I really am going to have to learn how to spell the word license properly! :)

 

love

 

Freya

[Alessandro Machi]

I assumed nothing. I asked you a question, which you didn't answer.

To answer your question regarding reasonable negotiation.....Of course it's their right to negotiate however they like....because they own it! Whether it's "reasonable" or not depends on the opinion of the person that is being negotiated with. Saying someone's negotiating practices are "right" or "wrong" is pointless. It means nothing, because there is nothing to stop them from asking whatever price they want.

Again, if someone puts a price on something that YOU deem too high, there is nothing you can do about it. You either pay for it or you don't use it. I'm really having trouble understanding how this could possibly be confusing to anyone. If you don't have the money, or don't want to pay for something, whether it's a movie, the rights to use a piece of music, a house, a car, etc., then you can't have it or use it. So what's the big dilemma?

But then you write this:

 

"Is the record company being reasonable asking for a $100,000? Are they obligated to be reasonable?

That's why situational ethics exist, no matter how many laws exist, there are situations in which the law may not be reasonable and thusly get challenged in court."

 

I don't think you understand what you're talking about here. You're talking about a "law" in relation to how much a company is charging for a piece of music, but what you don't understand is that there is no law (at least none that I am aware of) stating how much someone can charge for a piece of music, and therefore you can't challenge the price in court.

It's like saying that I want to buy a $100,000 car, but since I'm not going to drive it much I should get a huge discount, and if I don't get that discount the car company is negotiating unreasonably. It's silly.

 

Situational ethics exist for one reason....so that people can pretend that they're doing nothing wrong when they know they are.

Just because you think a company is screwing people (whether they are or not) doesn't make it right to screw them back.

 

 

Remember your position the next time you go to buy gas and they raise the price 50 cents and then after you leave lower it 50 cents.

 

Famous artists would sell half the amount of CD's if they had a warning on their CD's that said "don't you dare use this music for anything other than listening to because we'll sue you till you're bankrupt". The deceptive practice of maintaining ones public image while suing their own fans for using music on their wedding video wouldn't go over well.

 

The trade off is basically "Don't ask, Don't tell".

[Alessandro Machi]

I assumed nothing. I asked you a question, which you didn't answer.

 

Here was your quote....

 

So you're saying that it's OK to use the song because you can't afford it? That's ridiculous. Again, if you can't afford it, you can't have it. It really is that simple.

I want to live in a $10 million house, should I just go squat in one since the owner refuses to lower the price and I can't afford it?

 

Where do you get off saying you didn't assume anything when you clearly assumed that I was of the opinion that "it's Ok to use the song beause one can't afford it" when I said no such thing nor even implied it.

 

Of course you assumed it because I never said it.

[Brad Grimmett]

If someone came to me with a tank container of 30 gallons of stolen gasoline and I knew I wouldnt get caught - Id take it.

So you're a thief? Wow. OK, so I guess stealing a movie is nothing to you if you don't mind stealing $100 worth of gas.

[Brad Grimmett]

Where do you get off saying you didn't assume anything when you clearly assumed that I was of the opinion that "it's Ok to use the song beause one can't afford it" when I said no such thing nor even implied it.

 

This is getting silly.

Do you see the question mark at the end of the sentence that I wrote? The question mark denotes that I am asking a question.

Here it is again: "So you're saying that it's OK to use the song because you can't afford it?"

I don't know how much more clearly I can show you that it's a question. A question, by the way, that you still haven't answered. Should I assume that since you haven't answered it that the answer is yes?

 

Of course you assumed it because I never said it.

 

How does the fact that you never said it mean that I assumed something? That doesn't make any sense.