Movie Piracy a Felony
Posted on October 1st, 2004by Site Admin in SEO
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Read my top posts or learn more about Michael Gray. Want more frequent updates follow me on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!
According to a recently passed law it’s now a felony to sneak into a movie with a camcorders (news). Now lets get one thing straight I am all for movie companies and artists getting money for their work and investment. Illegal copying of movies, songs, MP3’s or anything else is wrong, and those breaking the law should be held accountable for their actions.
However this law speaks more the connections, money, power, and influence, the entertainment industry has over congress. Lets rewind the clock a few years and look at Lawrence Lessig recent Supreme Court Case Decision(official ruling) . Sonny Bono (yes of Sonny and Cher) sponsored a bill extending the copyright term by 20 years. So for authors the copyright now extends 75 years after the authors death, and for corporations it’s 95 years after the characters first appearance. What this means is that things created in 1923 won’t be public domain until 2019.
Who was one of the big sponsors of this bill, the Walt Disney company. Now let me get another thing straight, I love Walt Disney. I have gone at least 30 times in my life. Both of my kids went to Disney world before they were 1 year old. Disney has been closed 5 days in recorded history and I was there for 2 of them.1 The core of the problem is Mickey Mouse would be one of the first characters to become public domain, and as he’s still a viable commercial entity, and it’s in Disney’s interest to protect him, which I can completely understand. However here’s my problem, look at some of the Disney animation films, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Mulan, Hunchback of Notre Dame. Guess what they are all based on, you got it public domain works. So it seems Disney likes public domain, unless it applies to them. Hypocrisy plain and simple.
So back to my original thought, it’s all about big money and big corporate lobbyists, influencing our lawmaking system, and how congressmen and senators are nothing more than whores to their largest cash contributing supporters. Instead what they should be doing protecting the interests of people who voted them in. If you’re going to be whore for money, at least have the strength of character to admit it.2 Yes bringing a camcorder into a movie theater is a crime, is it a felony, sorry nope. This is another case of our misguided legislative and judicial gone awry. The guys with the camcorders are the little fish, the people copying, distributing and selling the tapes, are the poeople really making the money, and they are the one you really want to go after.
1I was at Disney World when it closed for hurricane Floyd in 1999. Then on September 11, 2001. It was also closed three days in 2204 for hurricanes Charley and Frances.
2I am an internet marketer by trade and therefore a money whore. If you’ll pay me I’ll push your product.
Sphere: Related Content
October 5th, 2004 at 9:04 am
All you’re doing here is transferring your anger regarding copyright extentions to this one.
Your argument is also flawed.
At the end you say “Instead what they should be doing {sic “is”} protecting the interests of people who voted them in.”
I vote. I write screenplays. And I don’t want some damn pirate recording the movies I write.
So I guess my interests don’t count? How about those who agree with me? Do they not count either?
Perhaps your sentence should be altered to say, “Instead, what they should be doing is only protecting the interests that I agree with.”
Since you brought up copyright extentions I’ll take a stab at that one for you too.
Let’s say I own a vintage corvette. This car is my pride and joy. It puts a smile on my face every time I look at it, let alone every time I drive it.
When I die, I’m leaving it to my son. He loves it too. And when he passes on he’ll leave it to his daughter who also loves it.
So at what point, Gray, should you be allowed to waltz into my descendents garage and take that corvette?
At what point should you be allowed to say, “Hey! This car’s been in your family for 100 years! That’s long enough! Now you have to share it with the rest of us!”
But COCLES! You scream. That’s a car! Creative ideas are different!
You’re right, Gray. They are different.
That Corvette was designed and built by other people, who then turned around and sold it to me.
My screenplay however was created by me alone. There is nothing else I have that is more MINE. I brought that script into existence and I am the one who will say what is done with it. Who the hell are you to come in and say that I don’t have the right to keep what is mine within my own family? Why can the car I bought stay within my family for a thousand years, while the idea I created on my own can’t?
What possible claim can you possibly think you have to the thoughts I have created in my own mind?
Walt Disney thought up Mickey Mouse and it is therefore HIS choice to decide what he does with it. If he wants it to become public domain upon his death or stay as part of his company for a thousand years that should be his right and his decision.
If you don’t like it then tough beans; move to China. Or, even better, start creating your own ideas and stop bitching that you can’t use everyone else’s.
October 5th, 2004 at 5:37 pm
Cocles I knew this one was going to be a problem for you. I don’t want anyone stealing your ideas or making money off of your work in a way that you didn’t authorize. I also believe you as the creator have ultimate authority for how their work gets used. For example I like Snoopy, and his family markets the crap out him to anyone who pays, but Charles Schultz set this precedent while he was alive. I also like Calvin and Hobbes, and that author chose not to market them at all, and I respect that, doesn’t make me like it any more or less. Another of my favorite authors is Dr Suess. He chose not to market it at all while he was alive. However no sooner was he gone than his wife sold the rights for some of his most prized stories. Yea sure she’s done some great charity work with Zoo’s and children’s groups, but it’s pretty obvious she did something he didn’t do until after his death, and that’s wrong. And by the way I feel so strongly about this I haven’t seen the movies nor have I allowed my children to see them as well.
Do you believe public domain is an idea that is no longer valid? Should Shakespeare’s descendant’s still be earning a profit off of work they had absolutely nothing to do with hundreds of years later? How about classic myths like Aladdin, Sinbad, or Robin Hood, who can prove ownership of them?
How about the telephone? Should Bell’s descendants be the only ones allowed to make use of it? Sure Bell should be able to make back all of his money and even make a handsome profit for years off of it. However by allowing it into the public we allow other inventors to build upon that work, and make more inventions that benefit society. We are going to get to cell phones, pagers, and modems much quicker if everyone is allowed.
Here’s where the Corvette is different, like it or not you are going to have to do things to maintain it over the years, even if it sits in a museum somewhere. Are you going to keep changing your book or screenplay over this time? If you are they are going to end up being a different work. So the timer resets when the work becomes a different entity.
Where do we draw the line, your kids, your grandkids, your great-great-grandkids? I don’t know, and don’t claim to have the legal qualifications for that kind of judgment, however to say that your descendants own the rights to it indefinitely isn’t right. A line has to be drawn somewhere and more importantly we need to stop moving it.
And since you brought it up, I will be writing and selling an ebook next year which I will be selling. Damn straight I don’t want any one stealing it, reproducing or distributing it without my authorization. However I understand the book has a limited life-span going into it.
October 6th, 2004 at 7:02 am
Why is it wrong for Dr. Seuss’s wife to sell the movie rights to her husband’s work? It was Dr. Seuss himself who gave her those rights and allowed in his will for her to make those types of decisions. She has every right to do whatever she wants with those stories as dictated by Dr. Seuss himself.
Public domain is a very valid idea. But it should always be a choice. It is not society’s, the government’s, or anyone else’s place to come in and force MY descendents to give up MY creations.
Yes, if Shakespeare left his work to his heirs then they should be allowed to keep those rights for as long as they want, until the current owner decides it is finally time for the work to go into the public domain. That is their right as the owner and it should be their choice. If Shakespeare wanted his work in the public domain 100 years after his death then he could have easily dictated that in his will.
Sinbad, Robin Hood, Aladdin and various other “myths” are thousands of years old, but if a paper trail existed proving someone today was the owner of those stories then that person’s rights should not be voided merely because some nobody says, “Oh, well, they’re uhmm… old so they don’t count.”
As for Bell’s descendents and the telephone? Yes. If Bell wanted to keep his idea only for himself and his descendents then that would have been his right. He thought it up. We didn’t. Why on earth do you think we should have a right to take what is not ours? If Bell left the telephone to his descendents then it is theres. Tough for us.
If we then in turn want the same convenience that Bell’s family has with their telephones, then we should do what Compaq did back in the 80’s with the IBM Personal Computer. When IBM came out with their PC, they were the soul owner of its patent rights. Compaq respected this but nonetheless wanted to build their own IBM PC’s. So, instead of stealing, they simply built a computer that did all of the same things an IBM computer could, but used entirely new ideas instead of the ones already patented by IBM. And thus, the first IBM Compatible PC was born.
Stealing is for the lazy. Innovation, like cell phones, pagers, and IBM compatible PC’s, is for the creative and amibitious.
If I write a script that makes people cry, and you want one too, don’t steal mine. Go write your own. Don’t tell me my descendents have to give it to you because 100 years have past. Go write your own. If you’re to lazy or lack the talent then that’s your problem. Don’t take it out on my descendents or me.
As far as your Corvette argument goes, I’m simply having trouble figuring out what it is you’re trying to say.
Are you trying to say that because my corvette is maintained, my descendents get to keep it? As if my ideas won’t also need maintenance to be preserved? If you think ideas don’t need maintenance to be preserved then perhaps I should point you towards everthing that was lost when the Library of Alexandria burnt down.
Or perhaps you’re trying to say that no matter how much you maintain the corvette, at the end of the day it will still be a corvette.
Hate to burst your bubble, but the same goes for my screenplay. Not matter how much I alter my work, it is still my story. You are correct in that I or my descendents might wish to re-register it with the Library of Congress after enough changes have been made. But the fact remains that whether it is me registering changes I made or my granddaughter registering changes she made it is STILL the current owner of that screenplay registering changes that they themselves have made. There is even an indicator on the registration itself that states whether or not the work is brand new or merely a new version of something already registered.
So you then ask, “Where do we draw the line?”
Why must a line be drawn at all? Why can’t it be up to the current owner to decide whether or not it’s time for the work to go into the public domain?
You tell us that maintaining the rights along an infinite line of heirs is wrong.
Why?
Because you’re too lazy to come up with your own ideas?
Or not talented enough?
Or perhaps you’re just greedy and desperately want something thatt is not rightfully yours?
It is people like that who put time limits on copyright laws. People, who are not capable of coming up with their own ideas, so they place an arbitrary limit on mine.
If you want your ebook to go into the public domain upon your death then that is your business and your choice. Just as it is rightfully my business and should be my choice to want my ideas to stay with my descendents for as long as they see fit. It is not your place or anyone else’s to tell me I can’t.
October 6th, 2004 at 8:17 am
Here’s my problem with the Dr Suess thing, he set a precedent when he was alive not to market his work at all. A few years after his death you you saw cat-in-the hat and grinch fuzzy bedroom slippers, bedsheets, nightgowns, bookbags and lunch boxes. Now I don’t know for certain he said Audrey when I’m gone you can market all my work, but if he did it was a rather large character departure. Yes legally she had every right to do what she did, even though I persoanlly find it appaling (did I just say I found mass merchandising appalling? AAAHH!!).
I have a real problem with anybody owning anything forever. Yes maybe your children’s lives were affected by the time you spent developing your work, and maybe that affected their children as well, and I’ll even buy the fact that they should be compensated monetarily for it, at some point though it has to stop, they have to earn their own keep.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that I grew up poor and resented rich kids who had everything I didn’t. So you know what, I didn’t like it and got off my kiester and did something to change it. Maybe I hold everybody else to that standard as well, and thats why I have a problem with people resting on thier laurels and collecting money for work they didn’t do.
October 6th, 2004 at 9:29 am
That’s just it though. Dr. Seuss’s wife owns those rights, so it is none of our business what she does with them.
It is her choice to market her late husband’s work, just as it is your choice to not allow your descendents to sit on your laurels.
The key word here, of course, is choice.
It’s fine for you to feel the way you do, but not okay to force those views on other people with arbitrary guidelines and rules.
A creator should be allowed to do whatever he wants with his own creation.
It is the creators business.
It is the creators choice.
Not ours.
October 6th, 2004 at 7:01 pm
Wow, nice reading. Being an artist, I have to side with Cocles, for the most part. If I create something, it should be allowed to stay in my family for as long as my family desires. How is that different then the diamond ring or Limoge that has been handed down through my family? Just because it’s been 100 years someone can get it? Sorry, I’m not seeing a difference. If I created it with my own mind or hands, it seems it would be owned even more so by my family. And it would be up to us how we wanted to share it with the world. And if they want to and I haven’t stated otherwise in the will (which would only carry to one generation as far as I know) they can turn around and sell it or market it anyway they wish. That’s their choice.
And as far as inheriting money, so what. If my dad worked his rear off or creates something, why shouldn’t I get to live off that income? Where should it go to the public or the government to fund programs for people who have never worked a hard day in their life and just want hand outs? Now, that said, having been one of those “rich kids” I will always make my kids work in some form or fashion for the learning experience and responsiblity that comes with it. Does that mean I won’t buy them a new beamer if I can afford it? No way, as long as they are being responsible citizens. And just b/c we used to live off daddy’s money doesn’t mean that all of us now sit on our butts and do nothing.
October 6th, 2004 at 7:43 pm
>>If my dad worked his rear off or creates something, why shouldn’t I get to live off that income?
Exactly my point YOU didn’t work for it so YOU don’t get it.
October 6th, 2004 at 8:29 pm
but, once he is dead, who do you say should get it? It belongs to the family, or to whomever he leaves it to in his will, which with some family, may not be the family.
October 9th, 2004 at 11:02 am
Hey Gray - answer the question. Hmmm, may be I should continue on my view points on my blog. C gave me a lot of good stuff to add yesterday.
ANSWER THE QUESTION
October 9th, 2004 at 11:48 am
Like I said I’m not qualified to say when it should run out, I’m just saying you can’t own in forever, and yes physical property is different than written words, music and ideas. Yes go for creating your own blog.
October 9th, 2004 at 12:05 pm
I’m referring to the money thing. If my dad dies, you are saying I shouldn’t get his money, that’s only one generation - and I quote -
“Exactly my point YOU didn’t work for it so YOU don’t get it.” I would like to know where you think it should go. If it should go to others, aren’t you also giving them something they didn’t work for?
I will blog this today at somepoint.
October 17th, 2004 at 7:41 pm
Show me the artist, screenwriter, novelist, poet, etc., etc. who produces truly 100% original work that *never* references or builds upon something that someone else has created before. Does such a creature even exist?
There seems to be this reaction that the public domain is somehow communistic/socialistic. Far from it. It’s capitalism, pure and simple. What protections does your creative work have without copyright law? Go to any communist/socialist country and see — piracy and copyright infringement are rampant.
What copyright law in the U.S. provides you is a contract with the government. You produce an original creative work and you are allowed to profit from it for a proscribed period of time. Sure you may argue with the amount of time (which is what Disney and others are doing by pushing for the period to be extended, ad infinitum), but can you not recognize that without a creative commons for artists to draw upon, further creativity and innovation is ultimately stifled?
There seems to be the attitude that modern society and culture exists in some kind of vacuum. That it just sprung up and owes nothing to what came before it, nor anything to future generations. This from people living in the United States of America, which has contributed to and profited from the public domain probably more than any other country in the world? Unbelievable.
October 18th, 2004 at 4:09 am
Yes Juan. Would you like the college word for it? Post-Modernism. Every 10 year old knows that you can salute and be inspired by another body of work, without outright stealing it, so why do you base your argument on ignoring this concept?
While I have no problem with someone tipping their hat to my stories in their own body of work, it’s something entirely different for them to say they have just as much claim to my work as my future heirs.
While you must be very proud of that fine written post of yours, it bears little relevance to what we’ve been discussing here.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Real property owners pay an annual property tax because developed property places burdens on society (schools, utilities, fire departments, town halls, archives, libraries, roads, police, jails) etc. Indefinite copyrights also place a burden on society (courts, prisons for violators, rights research, chilling effects, reinventing the wheel, information superhighway, etc.). So, should not copyright holders pay a tax every year on the value of the copyright? If they do not pay, the copyright moves into the public domain. Allow the rights holders to self assess the value every year, with the proviso that anyone can pay the rights holder that amount to bring the work into the public domain (to keep the self-assessments fair). Internationally this helps developing nations, because instead of suffering under copyright restrictions, they can suddenly be making money by such a tax to enforce foreign copyrights. Note that when copyrights were of short duration (like patents) their movement into the public domain compensated society for these external costs — but not any more since recent Supreme Court decisions. It’s not fair to try to have it both ways — indefinite copyrights but no compensation to society for the burdens they create.