What's new

Bill to make skipping ads on DVD's illegal?!? (1 Viewer)

Mark Oates

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
875

Well, isn't that the problem everybody has with the copyright situation? We all want to see artists/authors/originators of works (and their heirs) getting recognition and recompense for their talent, but they're only seeing a small percentage of the money their work is sold for. The rest pays huge salaries to faceless corporate entities who are exploiting both artist and consumer. And these corporations are behind the changes to US (and by extension international) laws benefitting primarily themselves.
 

Jeff Ulmer

Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Aug 23, 1998
Messages
5,582
Well, there are some aspects of copyright that should not be diminished simply because the product has entered a private home, but their needs to be very clear definitions as to what those are. For example, I take great exception to the way the software industry is abusing its priviledge under the guise of copyright protection. They have established ways of conducting business that are contrary to every other acceptable practice, from contracts of adhesion to restricting resale of licenses. The law also needs to address these issues in order to protect consumers. I would agree that lawmakers are very good at creating generalisations without making concise rules. Fair Use is a perfect example. While the intent is clear, the practical application is not, which leads to, as you say, broad interpretations that do no one any benefit. Trying to get the courts to clarify matters is pointless, as the decisions commonly contradict each other. Write a set of rules and stick to it, and make it clear to the average public what they can and cannot do.
Anyhow, I must get back to work.
 

Damin J Toell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2001
Messages
3,762
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Real Name
Damin J. Toell


Of course, copyright infringement is a civil offense, in addition to be (in fewer situations) a criminal offense. So is it really that strange that the government uses its prosecutorial power to protect the personal interests of its citizens? Various state and federal laws make the government an "agent" of real property owners and personal property owners, as well as those who have had any of an innumerable set of things actionable under civil law happen to them (battery, stalking, defrauding, etc.). What's so different about copyright infringement that it doesn't deserve to have the protection of the government's prosecutorial power?

DJ
 

Scott Kimball

Screenwriter
Joined
May 8, 2000
Messages
1,500

Not so... until 1976 (I believe), registration was required for copyright protection... though cases could (and can) be won without it.

It currently costs $30 to register a copyright. If a work has any tangible value, $30 hardly breaks the bank. It is not elitist to require a copyright. Items protected by patent are registered. Heck... I have to register my car every year, it costs more than $30, and nobody has ever called me elitist for registering my 10 year old car. Registration not only provides added protection to the author, but it also makes it possible to trace copyright - possibly affording the holder additional income from the work.

The lack of registration requirements is one of my biggest problems with copyright law. I don't care if they reduce or eliminate fees for individual works - let the taxpayer foot the bill. Or, charge for access to search the copyright files.

As someone who frequently has to search for copyright holders to acquire broadcast rights for an educational institution - rights that we're willing to pay for - I can tell you it can be a huge headache to get permission from a copyright holder, simply because we can't find who owns a work.

There are also many stories of independent producers who want to create a retrospective piece - be it a video, interactive display, or book - and the number of clearances they need to get (which they are willing to pay for) makes such a project all but impossible, simply because it costs too much to perform the search. This leaves this kind of creative work to the rich producer who can afford an army of lawyers to clear the copyrights. Elitist, indeed.

-Scott
 

Glenn Overholt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 24, 1999
Messages
4,201
You brought up some points that really irk me. The whole 'searching out the owner' is all screwed up today, just because there are so many out there.

Any retrospective/documentary shouldn't have to require permission unless the film will be on just that one item.

As for finding the owners, a website should be put up with requests, and 30 days after they are posted, if no one replies, no permission is required. I can't see the harm. If they want it protected, they should be watching that site.

Glenn
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,807
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top