Copyright Cops?

Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by MatthewA, May 31, 2008.

  1. MatthewA

    MatthewA Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    6,921
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    Salinas, CA
    Real Name:
    Matthew
    Disney stiffed Peggy Lee on Lady and the Tramp video royalties and continues to screw over the Slesinger family over Winnie the Pooh royalties, and Whore-y-wood sleaze like them are expected to have the moral high ground, according to the Copyreich crowd? The mu-Sick industry would charge you for the songs that got stuck in your head if they could.
    So would you advocate making copyright infringement a capital crime?
     
  2. Brian^K

    Brian^K Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gosh, how magnanimous of you. [​IMG]
    If anything, I could understand a complaint from you about how unemotional my response was. As it is, there is no "upset" here. There is a "right" and "wrong" in this case. Stating it plainly, calmly and rationally, as I have, is simply the most effective way of communicating it.
     
  3. Brian^K

    Brian^K Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't you remember the old BOAC commercials? They let bygones be bygones.
    As it is, your implication that abuse of copyright is a righteous action, defensible in the same way that the American revolution was defensible, it ridiculous, the ultimate rationalization.
     
  4. Brian^K

    Brian^K Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    0
    No.
    Why ask such a silly question?
     
  5. MatthewA

    MatthewA Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    6,921
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    Salinas, CA
    Real Name:
    Matthew
    Why do you feel the need to talk down to people for their legitimate concern over excessive force? That is the real issue at hand. Excessive force, not copyright infringement. You claim not to support eventually turning copyright infringement into a capital crime, but to me nothing, no matter how absurd on its face, is outside the realm of possibility thanks to Whore-y-wood sleaze bags and their army of shysters. Your attitude proves my point. You don't care if other people get hurt as long as you get yours. Even if it means turning the country into a police state over the distribution of pop culture junk, claiming that "it's the law," and misrepresenting all concerns over the enforcement of these laws as being pro-copyright infringement. That's like saying that one who argues that a murderer has rights makes one pro-murder. The enormity of the crimes are not comparable, but the principles are. History books are strewn with page after page of stories of and abuses of power, and those committing the abuses trying to hide behind the law to justify them. It's actions like these (treating law-abiding citizens like common criminals) that make bootleggers look like saints in comparison.
    God forbid that governments try to fight terrorism with half as much zeal as homemade CD-Rs full of mediocre 2-chord Slop 40 sludge.
     
  6. MatthewA

    MatthewA Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    6,921
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    Salinas, CA
    Real Name:
    Matthew
    No one here, least of all myself, have ever intended to imply that copyright infringement is defensible. It is not.
    Technically, the American revolution was illegal, otherwise George III would not have sent soldiers to quell the rebellion. However, the actions by the crown that drove us to revolution may have been the law, but they were unjust laws, made doubly unjust by the absence of colonial representation in Parliament. The methods used to enforce the laws were excessive to say the least.
    Here's what Section 1 of the 14th Amendment has to say:
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    It sounds to me like the whole "due process of law" is being treated in such a cavalier manner.
     
  7. RickER

    RickER Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    5,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    Real Name:
    Rick
    I could agree they have the right to delete illegal downloads. But they sure as hell shouldnt be allowed to destroy my personal (legal) property. They also shouldnt be allowed to delete anything until THEY prove its not legal. Innocent until proven guilty, right?
    I havent heard a good song in 20 years anyway. [​IMG]
     
  8. Brian^K

    Brian^K Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am to be subject to the same laws as you are.
    My "attitude" is that violating copyright is indefensible. That's it. It does not include any aspect that could conceivably be interpreted as not "caring if other people get hurt as long as I get mine". That's yet-again, distortion that serves only to over-emotionalize the discussion and distract from the clear and compelling moral assertions that I am making.
     
  9. Brian^K

    Brian^K Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then we agree. And, if what you're saying is true, there is no need to respond to my messages, except to agree with me I suppose. Don't fabricate reasons to make this into an argument.
     
  10. KurtEP

    KurtEP Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wasn't commenting on the abuse of copyright. I was commenting on your assertion that advocating a violation of the law is craven and condemnable, while obeying is praiseworthy. A lot of bad things tend to happen when people slavishly adhere to attitudes like this.
    As to copyright, I'd argue that intellectual property protections should be scaled back by quite a bit in some areas, not stiffened.
     
  11. Brian^K

    Brian^K Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which perhaps may be why we disagree about the nature of the other issues we're discussing.
     
  12. Johnny Angell

    Johnny Angell Played With Dinosaurs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1998
    Messages:
    6,239
    Likes Received:
    708
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Real Name:
    Johnny Angell
    I have a couple of questions. I have a bunch of CDs that I purchased over many years. 1) Under current US law, do I have the right to rip those CDs to mp3s to put on any portable player I might own for my personal use? For instance, I have a 1mb mp3 player I jog with. 2) If I don't have that right, should I?

    I do not make copies of these materials to give away or distribute in any fashion.

    I am particularly interested in the opinions of those there that create these copyrighted materials.
     
  13. Brian^K

    Brian^K Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is an included requirement of your rights.
     
  14. MatthewA

    MatthewA Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    6,921
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    Salinas, CA
    Real Name:
    Matthew
    The idea that an international body, similar to the United Nations, is necessary troubles me. Who will be able to hold them accountable when (not if, but when) they overstep their bounds? The United Nations has proven no better at handling international affairs than the League of Nations before it, but I digress. Furthermore, why can't individual countries enforce their own copyright laws in a reasonable manner?
    If the law says it's okay to infringe on the physical property rights of individuals to protect the intellectual property rights of corrupt companies, then the law, as Dickens wrote in "Oliver Twist," "is a ass, a idiot."
    The level of corruption in Whore-y-wood is well-known and why Congress hasn't launched an investigation of the industry is beyond me. They're likely to find things that would make Enron look like a traffic court hearing. We already know what Disney did under Michael Eisner. And Paramount's claims that mega-hits like Coming to America and Forrest Gump lost money sounds like something out of "The Producers."
    Not one person here has advocated violating U.S. law. No one. But you have twisted their words to imply that they do.
    And yes, I would defend copyright infringement before I defended the studios' business practices. And I would defend neither. But in terms of the enormity of these crimes, copyright infringement is not exactly as bad as the creative accounting that has been proven to be going on in show business for years.
    I find it also odd that the movie industry has been spoon-feeding us anti-capitalist propaganda for decades now and they're surprised that people hold them up as examples of corrupt business practices. Not to mention decades and decades of shameless plagiarism. As Andrew pointed out, what they are practicing is not capitalism anymore than what Enron was doing, but market manipulation. These people are the ones who should be brought to justice, not the oil companies (whose understanding of how they work much of Congress seems to get from "Dallas" and "Dynasty" reruns).
    What, exactly, would you have the government do to enforce copyright laws?
     
  15. MatthewA

    MatthewA Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    6,921
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    Salinas, CA
    Real Name:
    Matthew
    Not according to what the studios believe the law says. Have you seen the new unskippable FBI warnings you are forced to watch at the beginning of every DVD and Blu-Ray? They say that "copyright infringement, even without monetary gain" is included. And that scumbag Valenti was even against allowing people copying their own DVDs for themselves.
    That misbegotten DMCA was just the tip of the iceberg.
    The people who really deserve compensation are the writers, actors, directors, and people who actually created intellectual property. In theory, they're the ones who would be hurt by copyright infringement. But in practice, even when copyright laws are obeyed, they're getting cheated left and right by studio executives. Jack Klugman is suing Universal over residuals for his TV show "Quincy, M.E." I'm rooting for him, and not just because we have a mutual birthday.
     
  16. Brian^K

    Brian^K Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    0
    Present each proposal the government makes, and I will vote yea or nay on each, and explain why.
     
  17. Brian^K

    Brian^K Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    0
    And they have the right to assert those rights when the enter in contract with production companies, and also have the right to assign those rights to the production companies in consideration of getting the job. This is capitalism, not charity.
     
  18. MatthewA

    MatthewA Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    6,921
    Likes Received:
    749
    Location:
    Salinas, CA
    Real Name:
    Matthew
    The government has yet to make any proposals that I'm aware of. Thus far, no news is good news. Do you support jail time for offenders? What about monetary fines? What about simply relinquishing the offending material?
    There has always been copyright infringement as long as there have been copyrights. And I stand by my comments about Valenti, and that goes double for that mafia-like thugocracy he ran for too many years.
     
  19. drobbins

    drobbins Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    1
    Real Name:
    Dave
     
  20. Brian^K

    Brian^K Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    681
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sure you're now sorry about your interrogative. Apology accepted.
     

Share This Page