Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Press Releases and Film News => Topic started by: trekgeezer on January 02, 2008, 02:26:31 PM



Title: This guy's got the right idea about copyrights
Post by: trekgeezer on January 02, 2008, 02:26:31 PM
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/riaa_behaving_b.html


Title: Re: This guy's got the right idea about copyrights
Post by: CheezeFlixz on January 03, 2008, 08:14:22 PM
I agree with that.  :thumbup:


Title: Re: This guy's got the right idea about copyrights
Post by: 316zombie on January 06, 2008, 04:15:17 PM
 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


Title: Re: This guy's got the right idea about copyrights
Post by: Justy on January 09, 2008, 09:07:20 AM
Amen to that. Normally I support copyright protection, afterall the artist did create the work and should get compensation. However, this whole ripping is stealing nonsense is BS. They need to adopt a new business model concerning copyright and music profits or they will lose everything.


Title: Re: This guy's got the right idea about copyrights
Post by: Derf on January 09, 2008, 10:06:49 AM
I can agree with the sentiment, but he lost me when he used the fakespeak word "incentivize."

Actually, all we need to do is to offer copyright protection to the creator of a work for the life of the creator. No corporate copyrights for creative works. When the creator dies, the work goes into the public domain. For groups, this extends to when the final member of the group dies. Record companies shouldn't own copyrights for music they didn't write; the composer alone should own the rights to his creation. Yes, the recording companies produced the records and often helped an artist improve the effectiveness of his or her work. However, the company didn't create the work, so they shouldn't "own" it. An artist should benefit from his work for his lifetime.  A company shouldn't be able to dictate what the creator of a work can do with that work, nor should that company be able to dictate what can be done with a piece after the creator has died.

I know the legal situation is more complicated than this, but something needs to be done to stop behavior like that of the RIAA.


Title: Re: This guy's got the right idea about copyrights
Post by: nshumate on January 09, 2008, 11:13:47 AM
I can agree with the sentiment, but he lost me when he used the fakespeak word "incentivize."

Actually, all we need to do is to offer copyright protection to the creator of a work for the life of the creator. No corporate copyrights for creative works. When the creator dies, the work goes into the public domain. For groups, this extends to when the final member of the group dies. Record companies shouldn't own copyrights for music they didn't write; the composer alone should own the rights to his creation. Yes, the recording companies produced the records and often helped an artist improve the effectiveness of his or her work. However, the company didn't create the work, so they shouldn't "own" it. An artist should benefit from his work for his lifetime.  A company shouldn't be able to dictate what the creator of a work can do with that work, nor should that company be able to dictate what can be done with a piece after the creator has died.

I know the legal situation is more complicated than this, but something needs to be done to stop behavior like that of the RIAA.

Or a compromise, since I think (a) depriving creators of rights after five years is extreme, and (b) a company should be able to make back a return on its investment:

- Copyright held by the creator for life plus 20 years (that's mostly to assure that heirs of a creator are not suddenly left penniless upon the creator's demise);

- Copyright held by any assignee other than the creator, be it corporation or what have you, for twenty years from the date of assignment.

Now all we have to do is find a few elected officials who have the notion to work for the people who elected them instead of for the interests of Disney...


Title: Re: This guy's got the right idea about copyrights
Post by: AndyC on January 09, 2008, 12:08:23 PM
The trouble definitely begins with the buying and selling of rights, particularly among people who don't create.

I was pleased to see this blogger lump patent trolls into the same category. Come up with an obvious idea, patent it, then sit back and wait for someone to actually invent the thing. Then come around with your hand out when they've made some money. Sick.

But returning to copyrights, you can appreciate how someone footing the bill for publishing a song or other creative work needs some guarantee of exclusivity in exchange for their investment and financial risk. However, should this apply to old material they've long since made their money on? Should it effectively limit the public's access to works they no longer consider worth publishing? Kind of the dog in the manger there. Should it prevent the creators from having control over their own work years later? I'd have to say no on all counts.

Likewise, it bothers me that copyrights can be used to withhold or mangle another, separate piece of work (WKRP, for example). This is even more ridiculous in the case of MST3K, where some of the best shows haven't made it onto DVD because the holders of the rights to the movies can suddenly make money off them again, and have thus jacked up their prices for the DVD rights. All because MST3K brought the movies to the attention of viewers.