Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 27, 2014, 05:53:59 AM
532062 Posts in 40230 Topics by 5034 Members
Latest Member: michaelb41
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Press Releases and Film News  |  This guy's got the right idea about copyrights « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: This guy's got the right idea about copyrights  (Read 1682 times)
trekgeezer
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 4969


We're all just victims of circumstance


« on: January 02, 2008, 02:26:31 PM »

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/riaa_behaving_b.html
Logged




And you thought Trek isn't cool.
CheezeFlixz
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 3723


Pathetic Earthlings


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2008, 08:14:22 PM »

I agree with that.  Thumbup
Logged

316zombie
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 42
Posts: 755


« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2008, 04:15:17 PM »

 Thumbup Thumbup Thumbup
Logged
Justy
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 56
Posts: 427


Oh the humanity!


« Reply #3 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.
Logged

-----------------------------------------
"Hey that's great, but who're the Chefs?"
-----------------------------------------
Derf
Crazy Rabbity Thingy
Proofreader
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 386
Posts: 2431


Lagomorphs: menace or underutilized resource?


« Reply #4 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.
Logged

"They tap dance not, neither do they fart." --Greensleeves, on the Fig Men of the Imagination, in "Twice Upon a Time."
nshumate
B-Movie Site Webmaster
Bad Movie Lover
****

Karma: 79
Posts: 760



« Reply #5 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...
Logged

Nathan Shumate
Cold Fusion Video Reviews
Sci-fi, Horror, and General Whoopass
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 11161



« Reply #6 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.
Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
Pages: [1]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Press Releases and Film News  |  This guy's got the right idea about copyrights « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.