Save Star Wars! (1 Viewer)

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by Russell G

I wont apologize for finding the taking away of someones rights gross and disgusting. You can rationalize it anyway you want, but that is ultimately the case in this discussion. I have explained this very thoroughly with many examples.

What about the rights of individuals, and society as a whole? As was very rightly pointed out by Richardo above, copyright law was not intended to be governmental protection of revenue streams for media corporations. That is, unfortunately, what high paid lawyers and lobbyists have perverted copyright law to become in the past 20 or so years.


Remember, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's "right". Unjust laws are changed all the time, sometimes by the judical process, sometimes at the point of musket (cup of tea, anyone?). But that concept may be lost on a Canadian.


What I personally find "gross" and "disgusting", is the vehemence with which some people will come to the defense of huge multimedia conglomerates that have been able to buy enough lawmakers to rewrite laws that protect them at the expense of everyone else.

 

[RobertR]

Well said, Robert.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Robert George




What about the rights of individuals, and society as a whole? As was very rightly pointed out by Richardo above, copyright law was not intended to be governmental protection of revenue streams for media corporations. That is, unfortunately, what high paid lawyers and lobbyists have perverted copyright law to become in the past 20 or so years.


Remember, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's "right". Unjust laws are changed all the time, sometimes by the judical process, sometimes at the point of musket (cup of tea, anyone?). But that concept may be lost on a Canadian.


What I personally find "gross" and "disgusting", is the vehemence with which some people will come to the defense of huge multimedia conglomerates that have been able to buy enough lawmakers to rewrite laws that protect them at the expense of everyone else.

Being Canadian doesn't have anything to do with it. What a ridiculous argument! It's not even about defending a conglomerate or big business.


Here's the situation:


A guy put out a cookie and you really liked it. Baking has changed so he updated the recipe, and you don't like the taste now. You want the old cookie. The guy has the old cookie, but he would rather concentrate on his new ones. Since he owns the recipe to those old cookies, he has decided to not allow others to market them either since he wants to protect his cookie brand that he created and continues to own.


How are the peoples rights being violated just because you don't get your preferred cookies?

 

[Ricardo C]

I wont apologize for finding the taking away of someones rights gross and disgusting. You can rationalize it anyway you want, but that is ultimately the case in this discussion. I have explained this very thoroughly with many examples.

 

 

 

 

I don't know who, or care who Joe Coors is. If he's distributing items that he does not have the legal or intellectual right to distribute, then he's a pirate or bootlegger. It doesn't matter if you think he's a noble hero, or if you thing the legitimate owner is a horrible bastard. The owner of the material and intellectual property deserves to be protected, and a billion people who disagree with his choices doesn't and should never change that.

 

It's that simple.

 

I'll now bow out. Feel free to miss the point and pedantically pick apart posts at your leisure.

 

 

 

 

I thought you'd stormed out of the discussion? Man, internet flouncing ain't what it used to be.

 

[Ricardo C]

 

Being Canadian doesn't have anything to do with it. What a ridiculous argument! It's not even about defending a conglomerate or big business.

 

Here's the situation:

 

A guy put out a cookie and you really liked it. Baking has changed so he updated the recipe, and you don't like the taste now. You want the old cookie. The guy has the old cookie, but he would rather concentrate on his new ones. Since he owns the recipe to those old cookies, he has decided to not allow others to market them either since he wants to protect his cookie brand that he created and continues to own.

 

How are the peoples rights being violated just because you don't get your preferred cookies?

 

 

If I figure out the recipe -or a reasonable enough approximation- on my own, this hypothetical baker has no power to stop me. It's called reverse engineering. But given that we can't recreate any "hidden away" films out of whole cloth, the analogy misses the mark. Again, I thought you'd quit the discussion?

 

[RobertR]

 

Being Canadian doesn't have anything to do with it. What a ridiculous argument! It's not even about defending a conglomerate or big business.

 

Here's the situation:

 

A guy put out a cookie and you really liked it. Baking has changed so he updated the recipe, and you don't like the taste now. You want the old cookie. The guy has the old cookie, but he would rather concentrate on his new ones. Since he owns the recipe to those old cookies, he has decided to not allow others to market them either since he wants to protect his cookie brand that he created and continues to own.

 

How are the peoples rights being violated just because you don't get your preferred cookies?

 

 

You’re asking the wrong question. If many people prefer the old recipe, but the cookie maker says “I don’t care if people like the old recipe, all they can get from me is the new one”, how does that make cookie lovers better off? If your response is “the hell with cookie lovers, all that matters is the interest of the cookie maker’s monopoly on the recipe”, then I suggest your priorities are wrong. A firm, ANY firm, exists to provide goods and services for people. Its profits should come from its ability to provide those goods, NOT from an eternally enforced monopoly. Do you REALLY want the cookie make to spend more time and money on lawyers than making the best cookies he can? Is that REALLY your idea of a good situation? As for me, I'd prefer good cookies be made available to people than worrying about ensuring that revenue is maximized for cookie makers.

 

[Greg_S_H]

It seems a little over the top crazy to me, like a plastic surgery addict who just can't leave their face alone until they become so unrecognizable and disfigured that those around them can barely stand to look at them anymore.

http://www.realself.com/blog/plastic-surgery-like-superman

 

[Greg_S_H]

Ever hear of the Harmy versions? The answer is a deafening YES. I see everyone benefiting. People get great quality versions, Lucas can still put out whatever he wants.... win win!

Harmy won't be able to put out a version like he does now. Right now, he takes what Lucas puts out and tweaks and changes it. He won't be able to do that if what you suggests comes to pass. He'll have to secure a print and do the work from the ground up. It's like Night of the Living Dead. It's public domain, but that doesn't mean you can take Image's work and just copy it onto your own discs. I mean, you can, but if they can prove it, you will be held liable in a court of law. The existence of the Harmy and Ady editions pretty much illustrates how wrong the original post of this thread is about how cutthroat and draconian Lucas is in regards to the originals. These guys aren't exactly hiding in a cave in Tora Bora. Lucas could find them any time he wanted, and could get his lawyers to go after anyone downloading their work. I haven't heard of any such thing. I'll admit that George's laissez-faire attitude towards the original cuts being distributed for free does make your point that the originals being out there doesn't harm Lucas.

 

[RobertR]

Harmy won't be able to put out a version like he does now. Right now, he takes what Lucas puts out and tweaks and changes it. He won't be able to do that if what you suggests comes to pass. He'll have to secure a print and do the work from the ground up.

I didn’t mean to suggest that Harmy would be the one to do it, only to point out that there’s a huge reserve of energy and passion out there for getting the original films in the best possible quality. It’s glaringly obvious the source for that energy and passion isn’t George Lucas.

 

[montrealfilmguy]

What about the rights of individuals, and society as a whole?  As was very rightly pointed out by Richardo above, copyright law was not intended to be governmental protection of revenue streams for media corporations.  That is, unfortunately, what high paid lawyers and lobbyists have perverted copyright law to become in the past 20 or so years.

 

Remember, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's "right".  Unjust laws are changed all the time, sometimes by the judical process, sometimes at the point of musket (cup of tea, anyone?).  But that concept may be lost on a Canadian.

 

What I personally find "gross" and "disgusting", is the vehemence with which some people will come to the defense of huge multimedia conglomerates that have been able to buy enough lawmakers to rewrite laws that protect them at the expense of everyone else.

 

I guess you havent read about the most famous case of copyright here in Quebec. One gentlemen fighting a few companies for 13 years,and still not over. I urge you to read these two articles. http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Claude+Robinson+award+half+appeals+court/5131459/story.html http://dominic-von-riedemann.suite101.com/claude-robinson-sues-cinar-for-plagiarism-a67102 Just in case you might feel like the concept may be lost on a Canadian.

 

[Ricardo C]

I think Robert G. was simply pointing out that Canada evolved into its independence, to the point where the Queen is still technically the head of state. It never went through a revolution in the way America did. I don't think he was casting aspersions on Canadianness (made up a word) at all.

 

[montrealfilmguy]

Then i guess i missed that seeing how this thread hasbeen exploding about copyrights for quite a few pages now. Sorry,Robert. They're still nice articles for everyone to read though.Just not for the gentleman who this is all happening to.

 

[Robert George]

Thank you, Ricardo. Yes, my point was only that America was "born" when we decided we didn't want to live under the yoke of tyranny and kicked the British out, by force after they wouldn't leave peacefully. There are still many in this country that are still willing to break a law in order to change it, even if only as a last resort.


I like Canada, and Canadians. Especially three guys called Rush. ;-)

 

[Ethan Riley]

You seem to think something isn't true unless Lucas says so, but he has said the original versions don't exist. That's clearly a contemptuous, loathing attitude. Of course, a person's attitude is also judged by his behavior, and Lucas' behavior towards the originals makes it quite clear that he has contempt for them.

Why should anyone in a creative field not control--and profit from--their creations?

Lucas HAS profited from the original films--enormously. How does anyone profit from films that are never allowed to be shown or distributed? He can't lose money from others distributing them, since it's obvious he has no intention of doing so himself, so where exactly is the "loss"?

Yeah, well you seem to think you can read a man's mind, and therefore are free to put words into his mouth. I already said it was unfair to ascribe emotions and feelings to him simply judging by his behavior, too. Admit the fact that you really don't know what George Lucas feels towards the originals. I'm sure it isn't "scorn and contempt," whatever it is. It's probably closer to ambivalence, because he's changed them and moved on. He may feel "scorn" towards the Holiday Special, but I'm betting it's closer to embarrassment. As for the rest--everything you're saying sounds like you're advocating the legalized theft of Star Wars from George Lucas, simply because you feel he isn't responsible with it. I feel the woman across the street isn't responsible with her Hummer, but I'm not gonna lobby Congress into taking it away from her. And I personally didn't bring "loss" into the conversation, but whenever you deny an artist's freedoms, that can be construed as "loss." I can't believe you would want such a thing to happen. You seem to have this idea that the things proposed here will only be conditional towards George Lucas--like there's gonna be a "Lucas Law" in which he is forced to meet the public's wishes concerning his films. But any such laws as would be passed that get you what you want would have to affect everybody--all Americans. So all American filmmakers and artists stand to lose their freedoms in your odd scenario. That's the "loss" we should be protecting here; it has nothing to do with money. The end result of your legal wishlist is that artists would stand to lose control over their creations. And that's one bastardly society to live in. You seem to think it's only going to effect billionaires and huge movie companies, but it won't--it'll affect everyone. I wish you would learn the magnitude of what you are suggesting. I don't think it's quite sunk in.

 

[RobertR]

You seem to have this idea that the things proposed here will only be conditional towards George Lucas--like there's gonna be a "Lucas Law" in which he is forced to meet the public's wishes concerning his films. But any such laws as would be passed that get you what you want would have to affect everybody--all Americans. So all American filmmakers and artists stand to lose their freedoms in your odd scenario. That's the "loss" we should be protecting here; it has nothing to do with money. The end result of your legal wishlist is that artists would stand to lose control over their creations. And that's one bastardly society to live in. You seem to think it's only going to effect billionaires and huge movie companies, but it won't--it'll affect everyone. I wish you would learn the magnitude of what you are suggesting. I don't think it's quite sunk in.

Given my post where I talked about Russell’s cookie example, AND my posts about patent laws, this notion of yours that my proposal is “Lucas specific” makes no sense. What does “control” mean anyway? The “creator” is perfectly free to market or not market what he produces. NONE of his tangible property is taken. He simply can’t exercise absolute control over what others do with THEIR property. The result is that MORE people would enjoy these creations, and pay less for them in the process (there is quite a bit of historical data proving this). And you somehow think this result is “bastardly”??

 

[Douglas Monce]

I might, depending on the case. How many billions do I actually need to see me through in luxury to the end of my life? I find your submission to the letter of the law sad. Legal is no necessarily the same as moral. Laws are also not absolute, and we shouldn't act as though they are. I wish people would remember that we (and by "we" I mean any free, democratic society, not just the US or the UK) put governments in place to watch out for us, not to control us. Government should be subservient to the people, not the other way around. We should not fear them, they should fear us. After all, they work for us. We hire them by voting, and we pay them with our taxes.

Actually we (in the U.S. at least) are NOT a democracy, we are a republic which is a rather different animal. Some would call it a democratic republic with a small D on democratic. In a democracy, majority rules and the rights of the majority out weigh the rights of the individual. A republic is just the opposite. The rights of the individual out weigh the rights of the majority. This is exactly the reason that we have representation rather than direct vote. I doubt many people living in the U.S. today would be happy for very long if we switched to a democracy. Doug

 

[Ricardo C]

You definition of "republic" is interesting, but also very idiosyncratic.

 

[Douglas Monce]

My definition of a republic is not in fact mine, but rather a well established principle of the establishment of the U.S. government as stated by James Madison in Federalist No. 10, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...", "We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." -James Madison DEMOCRACY: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. REPUBLIC: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928. Doug

 

[Ethan Riley]

Given my post where I talked about Russell’s cookie example, AND my posts about patent laws, this notion of yours that my proposal is “Lucas specific” makes no sense. What does “control” mean anyway? The “creator” is perfectly free to market or not market what he produces. NONE of his tangible property is taken. He simply can’t exercise absolute control over what others do with THEIR property. The result is that MORE people would enjoy these creations, and pay less for them in the process (there is quite a bit of historical data proving this). And you somehow think this result is “bastardly”??

Because it's not their property. It belongs to George Lucas. If other people are tinkering with it, and distributing it freely, then Lucas therefore has had some of his rights taken away from him. Why the hell can't you understand that? He created Star Wars so that he could make money off it. He didn't put it out there so it could be a public domain industry in which everyone can participate and get "their" share. That's not the way things work. Why should total strangers be out there editing new versions of Star Wars and making money off them? The hell with those people--if they're so friggin talented, they should be creating their own movies.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Because it's not their property. It belongs to George Lucas. If other people are tinkering with it, and distributing it freely, then Lucas therefore has had some of his rights taken away from him. Why the hell can't you understand that? He created Star Wars so that he could make money off it. He didn't put it out there so it could be a public domain industry in which everyone can participate and get "their" share. That's not the way things work. Why should total strangers be out there editing new versions of Star Wars and making money off them? The hell with those people--if they're so friggin talented, they should be creating their own movies.

Well said! Doug