posted
I'll reinstate a proposal for de WGA and DGA that I had made a few years back to take care of the piracy issue from the Latin Americans (and others who are in agreement).
Stopping street sales of pirate DVDs and CDs is impractical at best, unenforcable and the worst part, it strikes against the poorest members of the poorest societies.
However, the street-market structure in these countries can allocate for daily reviews by cops, street leaders and other organizations and for daily fees for the sale of these pirate videos to be collected.
A fee based on number of DVDs sold could be charged to each vendor. The fee would have to be fair and reasonable, and it should reflect the amount of DVDs sold. This fee would then be sent to the creative guilds where it can be allocated by them to each individual artist.
It is a compromise because the fees will be lower than what distribution companies charge, and it will eliminate the middleman completely. HOWEVER, poor folks will be albe to eat and the police will be liberated to do more important work than to try and control folks from making copies of their videos to sell.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:LEGAL NOTICES – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY This website, with the address www.captaincopyright.ca is operated and owned by the The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, carrying on business as Access Copyright. We are a federally incorporated non-for-profit corporation established in 1988 by Canadian writers and publishers to license public access to copyright works for use within Canada. We are located at 1 Yonge Street, Suite 1900, Toronto, Ontario, M5E 1E5. If you have any questions about your use of our website, these Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy, you may call, email or write our Privacy Manager:
Consider this: an ordinary DVD put out by Sony or Universal or Warner in Mexico costs about $200 pesos. A pirate DVD costs on the average $20 pesos. The diference is between $20 USD and $2 USD. The big companies do not make a real effort to bring their prices to a competitive edge in Mexico because its' not profitable.
There are other issues, such as 'minimum guarantees', 'renewable licence fees' and other ways to generate income from DVDs that the big studios and their imitators have reasoned out to their benefit.
But big corporations are notoriously disinterested in the welfare of their fans. They are into making money. My plan is solid (even though there's some details that need legal experts to work out), but it would cut right into the purses of the big studios, and that's a no-no in Hollywood.
But does Hollywood really care about the family selling pirate DVDs in say Valle de Bravo? I don't think so.
There are other issues on the street level that need looking into that are far more dangerous than a copy of SUPERMAN made by Pancho and his family. Issues like: weapons trade, stolen goods, etc. Those issues will not be dealt with effectively unless we give the poor pirates some slack.
Regarding food...
Isn't it horrible that we have enough food to feed EVERYBODY and there's still millions of kids dying of hunger everywhere?
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: A fee based on number of DVDs sold could be charged to each vendor. The fee would have to be fair and reasonable, and it should reflect the amount of DVDs sold. This fee would then be sent to the creative guilds where it can be allocated by them to each individual artist. \
This would be a frank admission by the companies making the DVDs, and the lawmakers who would allow it, that it is ok to break the law as long as you cough up a percentage. That's how things work in the mafia, not in real business, it would also void any right the owner of the copyrighted material had to the product, because they would be allowing un-monitored, un-quality controlled, third-party production of something they created, without contracts.
Why don't I start making nike shoes, apple computers and gap clothing? I can build my own Apple warehouse and sell everything on brand, and at a discount, and all I would have to do is pay a percentage to the real apple. This is a horrible idea.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And how do we enforce the $/Sale thing? Its not like they are using computerized cash registers at thier DVD tables.
I see it now.
Jose sells 100 DVD's. The cop on the street comes by and demands the governments cut. Jose says, "I only sold 10 today. Here is your cash." The cop goes to his superior and says, "I'm sorry to report that Jose has sold nothing all week." This gets reported until driving by in his limo, the head of the organization looks out the window and sighs. "Poor Jose," he thinks "his family will starve. He has sold nothing all month."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
We have a single-use license for printing sheet music that comes along with the CD of some songs. I wrote out the same song in my music notation software to make it easier to see the vocal versus piano parts.
I didn't realize that this was a violation of copyright. I did it for my own purposes to practice the song, but then I made the mistake of giving the easier-to-read copy to an accompanyist.
Turns out I shouldn't do that!
We can license to print off more copies off the original, but we can't transcribe and print, even if we own more licenses.
I don't know how this all works if one does an arrangement based on someone else's work. Like if you write out a brass part on a song that didn't have brass in it and then pass out the sheet music.
Anyway, I had to send a message to the person in charge apologizing for violating the copyright.
She's sending me some old prison songs to learn.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. This activity is extremely ridiculous! People created art and wrote stories for who knows how long before copyright existed. That's really disgusting.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, arranging music for the purposes of performance often falls into the field of fair use- especially if you are making an arrangement that is not available for sale. Besides, since your not selling the music, there is no damage, so I say arrange away, I always do.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arranging music for the purposes of public performance will almost never fall under fair use. Arranging music for private performance likely does.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Wow. This activity is extremely ridiculous! People created art and wrote stories for who knows how long before copyright existed. That's really disgusting.
Well, what you say is true. But - playing Devil's advocate for amoment - they did not usually get rich off the activity. It was, I think, mainly an activity of the leisure class (to the extent that it got written down) or else it was small-scale, spur-of-the-moment stuff. Some of which may get passed on as folk tales and traditional tunes, sure; but when you think about it, how many folk tales are there in a given culture, anyway? Maybe something like fifty? Compare that to the number of short stories published every week.
If a given activity is not compensated, it will only be performed by the leisure class on any large scale. If it has barriers to entry, as for example making movies, it may not get done at all. (I defy you to get any particle physics done in an era of gentleman scientists who fund their own laboratories.) You can get books published and stories told in such an economy; what you will not get is the sort of torrent and flood of literature that our capitalist society produces.
The Internet is actually a case in point, here. You'll find a lot of blogs and suchlike, sure. But how many novels do you see uploaded, with the exception of pornography, which actually rather makes me rethink my point, because there is undeniably a lot of smut published for free. I may have to think about that one.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shakespeare's plays were never copyrighted, and that forced him to be creative and quick in his theatre work. He might have been a novelist in the current creative climate, which says something at least about how politics does effect the art that gets produced. After all, there is nothing to suggest that he would have been a particularly good novelist, but he very well could make more money writing bad novels than he could writing brilliant plays.
Creativity is tied to the demands of the market, and despite or because of the internet and other advances in "communication," this is a more individual age, and the art reflects that in a major way. Witness the decline of the composer conductor in favor of the rock-band, or the rapper; and the playwrite in favor of the novelist, or the alchoholic in favor of the journalist (just kidding... or am I?).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: Shakespeare succeeded in the context of patronage and rent-seeking, his financial success had little to do with the existence or nonexistence of copyright.
That is, some of his money was made by rich people paying for plays to be made to increase their status, and some of his money was made by being associated with (and owning part of, likely; he owned part of the theater for a while) one of the few theater licenses in the area, meaning that given a steady supply of plays he was able to extract significant rents (money paid above and beyond 'market price', in thise case) from theatergoers.
Copyright is important. It is already extremely easy to copy creative works and becoming easier, and more and more people can afford to be creative. However, copyright as it exists today is likely flawed, failing to address the second side of the balance, the reason societies secure to creators copyrights: the public good provided by a steady stream of new creations that gradually become available to the general public via the public domain.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is already extremely easy to copy creative works and becoming easier
It can't really get any easier, can it?
quote:However, copyright as it exists today is likely flawed, failing to address the second side of the balance, the reason societies secure to creators copyrights: the public good provided by a steady stream of new creations that gradually become available to the general public via the public domain.
I'm still trying to figure out how a retroactive increase in copyright term was supposed to provide incentives to current producers.
The cynical part of me thinks that the "incentive" was simply the enhanced security in the knowledge that they can milk Walt's creations for a few more generations from the affirmative sign that the pols are really in Disney's pocket.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it can definitely get easier. For instance, '3d printers' are improving in leaps and bounds in both quality and price -- imagine a format for sculptures (or paintings, not just prints) like we have for mp3's today.
Also, ease is not merely a matter of specific technical capabilities; sociotechnical communities, 'web 2.0' sites, and mashups of all kinds are making it easier and easier to discover and copy content of interest.
Yeah, I'm likewise skeptical of recent copyright term increases, to say nothing of transforming so many copyright violations from civil to criminal infractions and giving certain creative industries significant official and unofficial capabilities to hunt down those they consider dangerous.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, it can definitely get easier. For instance, '3d printers' are improving in leaps and bounds in both quality and price -- imagine a format for sculptures (or paintings, not just prints) like we have for mp3's today.
I mentally added a "right" after the "copy" in the sentence I quoted. Pay no attention to the careless reader behind the curtain. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do they call infringement "piracy", anyway? Doesn't it lend a lot more glamor to the business?
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out that Stephen Foster lived in an era before copyright law-- and got ripped off for it, and died poor-- and still wrote songs for a living and published them for all to sing, because that's what artists do. I mean, he's an argument for the existence of copyright-- but that doesn't mean that copyright has to go to the extremes it does today, it means that creators and their families should be taken care of by copyright while they are alive if they are reasonably successful.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Bob, arranging music for the purposes of performance often falls into the field of fair use- especially if you are making an arrangement that is not available for sale. Besides, since your not selling the music, there is no damage, so I say arrange away, I always do.
I'm really unclear as to what constitutes illegal selling of the music and what constitutes legal fair use.
For example: I sang in a college a capella group (I know this probably hurts you very deeply, given that a capella groups are typically viewed as the lowest common denominator of music geek, but oh well) and while maybe a third of our repetoire was original, for the rest we arranged covers of other pieces. We recorded professionally every year and sold the resulting CDs every year, and never paid a dime to anyone. I'm having a hard time imagining this as illegal, purely because we (and every other college a capella group) have been doing this for decades.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was probably thoroughly illegal due to the selling. However, it would have easily been made (at least mostly) legal. Covers fall under something called mandatory licensing, which applies to musical works. Basically, if the artist licenses the work to a single person for recording and sale, they have to license it to anyone who wants to perform and sell it, for certain statutorily set (I think there's some leeway, but the requirements are pretty strict) fees.
They usually don't go after college groups, though, they just go after colleges. Your performance was almost certainly covered by a university-wide license, its only the sale of the CDs that might be questionable (and your school's license may have even covered that).
An important point: conventionally ignored does not equal legal (sadly). There are many practices that are likely not fair use that nobody tries to stop.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Orincoro: Shakespeare succeeded in the context of patronage and rent-seeking, his financial success had little to do with the existence or nonexistence of copyright.
But look at that statement again- he wouldn't have needed noble patronage in today's economy. I'm not saying he definetly wouldn't have been a sucess with copyright laws to protect him, but I am saying that the absence of copyright laws helped set up the circumstances in which he worked.
For instance, it was imperitive that Shakespeare be able to perform his plays brilliantly (though he was only a supporting player ussually). If he did not perform well, then another company might have superceded him, and people might have heard his plays somewhere else, or not at all. Though his work wasn't published in the modern sense, there was some imperative to have it come from him.
I think of it kind of in the way I think of the titan of the symphony- Mahler. If Mahler hadn't had to work night after night as an orchestra conductor, then he never would have gained his chops as a conductor's composer, and his music would never have been so incredibly good.
If shakespeare had been allowed to sit on his but and just write, there is not guarantee that what he would have written would be any good at all. Now, would it be guarenteed that copyright would have made him do this? No, your right it wouldn't have. But it also might have, and you can look at authors today for proof that times have changed- one sucess and an author can be relieved of his daily struggles as a journalist, or a columnist, or a house cleaner (david sedaris). Not necessarily a bad thing either, but an effect none the less.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
erosomniac- Your right I am dissapointed in you
Actually the main complaint against a capella groups in my music department is that they spend inordinate amounts of time rehearsing music which is terribly conventional- and they never do well in their classes. I have nothing against it, but those groups are a dime a dozen, and their music is usually not worth listening to. I do however, enjoy a small bit of it when it's good.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, you seem to be assuming that under copyright law, Shakespeare would automatically be able to 'sit on his butt and write', and then he might not have been any good. But that's only true if his work is good in the first place! Even under copyrights, you can't get rich unless you appeal to a lot of people. So he would still have been forced to go out and make a living as an actor at least to start with; and if copyright led to him not being any good, then he wouldn't be able to make a living from copyright, forcing him right back into the work-for-your-money status that he was really under.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That might be KoM, it could happen that way. Then again, you assume that he would be held to any comparable level of quality in his novel writing, as is seen in his plays. Its plausable to suggest that if he had been able to write novels which afforded him more stability in his career, then they might not have had to be as good. After all, Shakespeare didn't even write plays with traditional standards in mind, because he made the standards. If he had been a novelist, he might have found more success, even as he produced less quality work.
Think about this: what if Shakespeare had found out that he could somehow make more money from his poetry, which is the least beloved of his work. He might have settled on being a metiocre poet, selling out essentially. I realize that's just a what if... but what if?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too funny--the villain in that cartoon is Jerry Haskell. "The Jerry Haskells of the world can't win." I know someone by that name; just sent the link to his mom.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its essentially pointless to talk about what Shakespeare would do given the existence of copyright. Copyright anything like it is today only exists as part of a very complex cultural context; it would be completely impossible to insert it into Shakespeare's culture without greatly changing the culture in the process.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I do feel we're getting out of 'what-if' territory here and into 'woo-woo', but I'd just like to note that Shakespeare couldn't have made any money out of novels; no market for them. Hadn't been invented yet. It was plays or nothing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come to think of it, though, under copyright laws a lot of the plays couldn't have been written. It's not as though he came up with the plots himself.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Assuming those stories would have been copyrighted, but many of the plays were loosely based on or inspired by folk stories which had no one author. Besides, the plots of Shakespeare's plays are rarely unique and almost never very complicated; the genius was always in the delivery.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
