I wish Harlan Ellison would just die already...

[TremblingBluStar]

Now, explain why that argument doesn't apply to King Arthur, or Robin Hood or War of the Worlds, but does apply to Mickey Mouse.

I'm pretty sure War of the Worlds is copyrighted. I could be wrong there, but I'd be surprised if it weren't.

I remember reading once that the limit of copyright laws was at one point 25 years, but that companies lobbied to have the U.S. congress extend it to 70 years with the ability to renew the copyright indefinitely.

 

[Professor Zoom]

However, what YOU want is to make a gazillion bucks from making a Star Wars movie.

Which you can only do BECAUSE IT'S A STAR WARS movie. You're basically trading on the work of SOMEONE ELSE to make a gazillion bucks. Trading on the Star Wars BRAND. Which you had nothing to do with.

THAT'S why you have to pay. To secure the copyright AND the trademark. Someone else did the work FIRST.

Now, explain why that argument doesn't apply to King Arthur, or Robin Hood or War of the Worlds, but does apply to Mickey Mouse.

Are you being serious? Copyright has expired for King Arthor, Robin Hood, and War of the Worlds. Mickey Mouse hasn't. Should it? Probably. But, that's a different topic.

Copyright is for a certain length of time, and then things enter into the public domain.

Star Wars WILL enter into the public domain at some point after the copyright holder's death.

Do I think corporations--who can't "die"--should be able to be copyright holders, no. Do I think copyright should be forever, no. Do I think an artist and their heirs should be able to enforce copyright as per the terms set down by law, yes.

But, again, if you want to make a fan film and not make any money from it, Lucas will allow you too, like he has countless people before.

Lucas does that as a courtesy. He's not legally obligated to.

Right. That's my point. He doesn't have to give that courtesy. It was stated "why do I have to pay to make a star wars movie" and you don't. You just can't make any MONEY from your Star Wars movie.

Now, explain why that argument doesn't apply to King Arthur, or Robin Hood or War of the Worlds, but does apply to Mickey Mouse.

I'm pretty sure War of the Worlds is copyrighted. I could be wrong there, but I'd be surprised if it weren't.

War of the Worlds is in the public domain. Anyone can make a War of the Worlds anything. As long as you are making it from the original source material. All the movies that have been created from the original source material are copyrighted. And probably Trademarked.

Basically, anything before 1900, is in the public domain. That is only about copyright. Trademark is different. For example, I THINK, Sherlock Holmes is trademarked, but the stories are in the public domain. I don't know, I've heard murky and confusing things about Holmes.

 

[Jan]

Perhaps the definition of theft needs to be redefined. The whole idea of intellectual property is way too limiting, and mostly based on the copyright holder's greed, in my opinion.

Of course you're now talking about two different terms - theft and intelectual property. I don't see how you can redefine theft since it basically means taking something owned by another without permission. Simple and basic.

Let's take Star Wars as the most obvious example. George Lucas already made a gazillion bucks with it. Why can't someone else remake it and do his take on it?

So you think that it's okay for (presumably) a government to decree an upper limit on how much money anybody can make? I most vehemently don't!

And why are you picking only on the ones making buckets of money? Why not concentrate on people like Harlan Ellison or Spider Robinson who've worked hard at their craft all their lives and simply can't afford to have their work stolen? Those are far and away more numerous than the Star Wars/Treks in the world.

Morality is defined by the majority though.

If so, it's not the kind of majority you're thinking of. It's not going to be determined by thieves who want something for nothing, it's determined by society as a whole.

It's okay to borrow something and never buy it, isn't it?

Only with permission.

Jan

 

[Ultramann]

A lot of people are saying that the government can put a cap on income these days. Which I don't believe hey should either!

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Now, explain why that argument doesn't apply to King Arthur, or Robin Hood or War of the Worlds, but does apply to Mickey Mouse.

I'm pretty sure War of the Worlds is copyrighted. I could be wrong there, but I'd be surprised if it weren't.

It's in the public domain everywhere except the UK and the EU, where the copyright doesn't expire until 2016.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Now, explain why that argument doesn't apply to King Arthur, or Robin Hood or War of the Worlds, but does apply to Mickey Mouse.

I'm pretty sure War of the Worlds is copyrighted. I could be wrong there, but I'd be surprised if it weren't.

It's in the public domain everywhere except the UK and the EU, where the copyright doesn't expire until 2016.

I didn't realize copyright was that long in the UK. I'm surprised actually.

 

[Tom Hendricks]

I actually thought I remembered him saying something similar to that. So I decided to Google and see, didn't find anything. So I was probably wrong. However what I did find was other people saying what I said in my headline on different sites in response to the news of him suing.

I don't hate Harlan, not in the least. Even with the headline I wrote and my position on this. This is one of those times you wish you could take something back. I never imagined the uproar with this, but looking back now it was not even close to a wise decision.

Funny thing about this thread title and the uproar it has caused? It's within the realm of probability that Harlan might make a similar comment about someone he disliked.

 

[JarodRussell]

Because right and wrong aren't dependant on technology. Theft is still theft even if it's suddenly easier to do.

Perhaps the definition of theft needs to be redefined. The whole idea of intellectual property is way too limiting, and mostly based on the copyright holder's greed, in my opinion. Let's take Star Wars as the most obvious example. George Lucas already made a gazillion bucks with it. Why can't someone else remake it and do his take on it? Why does he have to pay another gazillion to get the rights?

Actually, right now, if you want to make a Star Wars movie, you can. LOTS and LOTS of people have made fan films in the Star Wars universe. Lucas hasn't stopped anyone.
However, what YOU want is to make a gazillion bucks from making a Star Wars movie.
Which you can only do BECAUSE IT'S A STAR WARS movie. You're basically trading on the work of SOMEONE ELSE to make a gazillion bucks. Trading on the Star Wars BRAND. Which you had nothing to do with.
THAT'S why you have to pay. To secure the copyright AND the trademark. Someone else did the work FIRST.
But, again, if you want to make a fan film and not make any money from it, Lucas will allow you too, like he has countless people before.

No, I want to release the "fanfilm" in 3,000 theaters to the public without going broke. Or is that within the confines of "not make any money from it"?

Which you can only do BECAUSE IT'S A STAR WARS movie. You're basically trading on the work of SOMEONE ELSE to make a gazillion bucks. Trading on the Star Wars BRAND. Which you had nothing to do with.

This is the very thing I'm questioning.

And why are you picking only on the ones making buckets of money? Why not concentrate on people like Harlan Ellison or Spider Robinson who've worked hard at their craft all their lives and simply can't afford to have their work stolen? Those are far and away more numerous than the Star Wars/Treks in the world.

Same goes for them as well.

Let's take Star Wars as the most obvious example. George Lucas already made a gazillion bucks with it. Why can't someone else remake it and do his take on it?

So you think that it's okay for (presumably) a government to decree an upper limit on how much money anybody can make? I most vehemently don't!

What? Why are you putting words in my mouth?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Are you being serious? Copyright has expired for King Arthor, Robin Hood, and War of the Worlds. Mickey Mouse hasn't. Should it? Probably. But, that's a different topic.

Copyright is for a certain length of time, and then things enter into the public domain.

Do you seriously believe that anything will ever enter the public domain again? Disney and the other copyright holders will likely lobby for yet another extension in the next decade. Endless copyright extensions will destroy the public domain. If copyright laws resembled what they were two hundred years ago, Star Wars would already be in the public domain.

Basically, anything before 1900, is in the public domain. That is only about copyright. Trademark is different.

There's been a recent ruling in a trademark case over Betty Boop that has some bearing.

Trademark had been used to prevent companies from using public domain Betty images in merchandise. A company sued, and the Appeals court ruled that trademark can't be used to prevent exploitation of the public domain.

For example, I THINK, Sherlock Holmes is trademarked, but the stories are in the public domain. I don't know, I've heard murky and confusing things about Holmes.

Holmes is a confusing case. Holmes is under copyright (but not trademark, though there have been court cases that have attempted to establish a trademark) in the United States for the next eleven years, but he's in the public domain elsewhere. The New York Times has a decent rundown of the issues with Holmes.

 

[JarodRussell]

Are you being serious? Copyright has expired for King Arthor, Robin Hood, and War of the Worlds. Mickey Mouse hasn't. Should it? Probably. But, that's a different topic.

Copyright is for a certain length of time, and then things enter into the public domain.

Do you seriously believe that anything will ever enter the public domain again? Disney and the other copyright holders will likely lobby for yet another extension in the next decade. Endless copyright extensions will destroy the public domain. If copyright laws resembled what they were two hundred years ago, Star Wars would already be in the public domain.

That's pretty bad. Public domain is a very good thing.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I'm pretty sure War of the Worlds is copyrighted. I could be wrong there, but I'd be surprised if it weren't.

It's in the public domain everywhere except the UK and the EU, where the copyright doesn't expire until 2016.

I didn't realize copyright was that long in the UK. I'm surprised actually.

Life plus seventy years in Europe. Wells died in 1946, so 2016.

 

[Professor Zoom]

No, I want to release the "fanfilm" in 3,000 theaters to the public without going broke. Or is that within the confines of "not make any money from it"?

Well... if you charge tickets... that IS within the confines of making money from it. Those films are released in the BIGGEST theater possible: the internet.

This is the very thing I'm questioning.

I'm not sure what it is that your questioning. Whether or not it's ok to make a gazillion dollars on an internationally recognized movie? You think you should have a right to piggy back on someone else's hard work, so you can make a quick buck?

What is the thing you're questioning?

Let's take Star Wars as the most obvious example. George Lucas already made a gazillion bucks with it. Why can't someone else remake it and do his take on it?

So you think that it's okay for (presumably) a government to decree an upper limit on how much money anybody can make? I most vehemently don't!

What? Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Well, if YOU make a Star Wars movie without paying for the rights, royalties, etc, you are taking money out of his pocket. You are limiting his ability to make work. Certainly you would be diluting the market. This would only be done with a change in copyright, which is in affect the government dictating how much someone can make.

So, not really putting words in your mouth. It's the only way your idea would be able to happen.

Are you being serious? Copyright has expired for King Arthor, Robin Hood, and War of the Worlds. Mickey Mouse hasn't. Should it? Probably. But, that's a different topic.

Copyright is for a certain length of time, and then things enter into the public domain.

Do you seriously believe that anything will ever enter the public domain again? Disney and the other copyright holders will likely lobby for yet another extension in the next decade. Endless copyright extensions will destroy the public domain. If copyright laws resembled what they were two hundred years ago, Star Wars would already be in the public domain.

I think you're mistaking my vigorous defense for copyright as an advocate for a permanent copyright. I'm sure Disney will lobby. And I hope it's turned down. Conversely, I don't think copyright should be what it was 200 years ago. I think Life plus 50 or 75 is fine. AND, it has to be a HUMAN BEING not a corporation that holds the copyright.

Basically, anything before 1900, is in the public domain. That is only about copyright. Trademark is different.

There's been a recent ruling in a trademark case over Betty Boop that has some bearing.

Trademark had been used to prevent companies from using public domain Betty images in merchandise. A company sued, and the Appeals court ruled that trademark can't be used to prevent exploitation of the public domain.

Interesting. And good.

For example, I THINK, Sherlock Holmes is trademarked, but the stories are in the public domain. I don't know, I've heard murky and confusing things about Holmes.

Holmes is a confusing case. Holmes is under copyright (but not trademark, though there have been court cases that have attempted to establish a trademark) in the United States for the next eleven years, but he's in the public domain elsewhere. The New York Times has a decent rundown of the issues with Holmes.

Oh, Holmes...

 

[David cgc]

However, what YOU want is to make a gazillion bucks from making a Star Wars movie.

Which you can only do BECAUSE IT'S A STAR WARS movie. You're basically trading on the work of SOMEONE ELSE to make a gazillion bucks. Trading on the Star Wars BRAND. Which you had nothing to do with.

THAT'S why you have to pay. To secure the copyright AND the trademark. Someone else did the work FIRST.

Now, explain why that argument doesn't apply to King Arthur, or Robin Hood or War of the Worlds, but does apply to Mickey Mouse.

Are you being serious? Copyright has expired for King Arthor, Robin Hood, and War of the Worlds. Mickey Mouse hasn't. Should it? Probably. But, that's a different topic.

Copyright is for a certain length of time, and then things enter into the public domain.

Nothing in the rationale you gave for iron-clad copyright says that it should expire. It doesn't matter if Star Wars came out yesterday or five hundred years ago, someone making a sequel would still be "trading on the work of SOMEONE ELSE," "which they had nothing to do with." Someone else still did the work first, even if it was a long time ago.

Again, explain how copyright expiration fits into the rationale you gave.

 

[JarodRussell]

Well, if YOU make a Star Wars movie without paying for the rights, royalties, etc, you are taking money out of his pocket. You are limiting his ability to make work. Certainly you would be diluting the market.

Why? He can do another Star Wars film if he wants, too. How would that be limiting his ability to make work?

 

[Misfit Toy]

One is legal. The other isn't. <to David cgc>

 

[Professor Zoom]

Nothing in the rationale you gave for iron-clad copyright says that it should expire. It doesn't matter if Star Wars came out yesterday or five hundred years ago, someone making a sequel would still be "trading on the work of SOMEONE ELSE," "which they had nothing to do with." Someone else still did the work first, even if it was a long time ago.

Again, explain how copyright expiration fits into the rationale you gave.

To be honest, I'm confused. You don't think copyright should expire?

In what you are talking about, "trading on the work of someone else" it means, your getting the benefit and taking out of the pocket of the copyright holder.

It's true, if I wrote a King Arthur movie, I'm trading on the work of someone (lots of someones), but copyright has expired. (Unless, of course, I'm stealing from someone's modern work, like Once and Future King).

We as a society have decided that in time things should revert to the public domain to be used. The length of that time has been debated back and forth, but, in the end, the author (and heirs) for a TIME get to exploit the work. After that time, it becomes a part of the public domain.

Well, if YOU make a Star Wars movie without paying for the rights, royalties, etc, you are taking money out of his pocket. You are limiting his ability to make work. Certainly you would be diluting the market.

Why? He can do another Star Wars film if he wants, too. How would that be limiting his ability to make work?

If the market is suddenly filled with Star Wars movies, the market is diluted.... or the lack of quality control (yes, I know the prequels), could damage the brand. Some of those fan films are AWFUL. (though some are great).

 

[JarodRussell]

Why? He can do another Star Wars film if he wants, too. How would that be limiting his ability to make work?

If the market is suddenly filled with Star Wars movies, the market is diluted.... or the lack of quality control (yes, I know the prequels), could damage the brand. Some of those fan films are AWFUL. (though some are great).

But the audience is the quality control. And it wouldn't mean that there would suddenly be a thousand feature films. You can only make money with a quality* product, that won't change.

* quality means any sort of shit that resonates with the audience.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Why? He can do another Star Wars film if he wants, too. How would that be limiting his ability to make work?

If the market is suddenly filled with Star Wars movies, the market is diluted.... or the lack of quality control (yes, I know the prequels), could damage the brand. Some of those fan films are AWFUL. (though some are great).

But the audience is the quality control.

How? Has the audience stopped bad movies from being made and marketed? No. There will always be bad movies. The only thing audience can do is punished the person who has MADE a bad movie. They can't stop them from being made.

And it wouldn't mean that there would suddenly be a thousand feature films. You can only make money with a quality* product, that won't change.

* quality means any sort of shit that resonates with the audience.

There aren't enough SCREENS for a thousand feature films. NO ONE would make any money--well, certainly if they tried to do 100 million dollar pics.

And if I was a theater owner, how would I chose which to show?

And your definition of quality is vague. How does one define resonate? The Hurt Locker resonated with the people that saw it, but, really, very few people saw it. Is it quality?

Avatar was seen by a lot of people, but I think it's shit, except for the 3D. Is that quality?

That all said, now we're moving away from copyright and into market forces and what are quality movies.

 

[JarodRussell]

If the market is suddenly filled with Star Wars movies, the market is diluted.... or the lack of quality control (yes, I know the prequels), could damage the brand. Some of those fan films are AWFUL. (though some are great).

But the audience is the quality control.

How? Has the audience stopped bad movies from being made and marketed? No. There will always be bad movies. The only thing audience can do is punished the person who has MADE a bad movie. They can't stop them from being made.

And it wouldn't mean that there would suddenly be a thousand feature films. You can only make money with a quality* product, that won't change.

* quality means any sort of shit that resonates with the audience.

There aren't enough SCREENS for a thousand feature films. NO ONE would make any money--well, certainly if they tried to do 100 million dollar pics.

And if I was a theater owner, how would I chose which to show?

And your definition of quality is vague. How does one define resonate? The Hurt Locker resonated with the people that saw it, but, really, very few people saw it. Is it quality?

Avatar was seen by a lot of people, but I think it's shit, except for the 3D. Is that quality?

That all said, now we're moving away from copyright and into market forces and what are quality movies.

Your problem here is that you want to define quality. Don't do that, let the audience decide, just like it is now. Yeah, there is stuff you don't like that makes a shitload of money. That won't change.

There aren't enough SCREENS for a thousand feature films. NO ONE would make any money--well, certainly if they tried to do 100 million dollar pics.

And if I was a theater owner, how would I chose which to show?

You make another invalid assumption. Just because no one would be limited by copyright laws (so everyone could do a Star Wars movie), doesn't mean that suddenly a thousand people would do a feature film Star Wars movie. The process wouldn't change. You'd still need to find a producer, a distributor, a budget etc...

 

[Professor Zoom]

But the audience is the quality control.

How? Has the audience stopped bad movies from being made and marketed? No. There will always be bad movies. The only thing audience can do is punished the person who has MADE a bad movie. They can't stop them from being made.



There aren't enough SCREENS for a thousand feature films. NO ONE would make any money--well, certainly if they tried to do 100 million dollar pics.

And if I was a theater owner, how would I chose which to show?

And your definition of quality is vague. How does one define resonate? The Hurt Locker resonated with the people that saw it, but, really, very few people saw it. Is it quality?

Avatar was seen by a lot of people, but I think it's shit, except for the 3D. Is that quality?

That all said, now we're moving away from copyright and into market forces and what are quality movies.

Your problem here is that you want to define quality. Don't do that, let the audience decide, just like it is now. Yeah, there is stuff you don't like that makes a shitload of money. That won't change.

Actually, I don't want to define quality. I was responding to YOUR definition of quality and asking YOU to clarify it.

There aren't enough SCREENS for a thousand feature films. NO ONE would make any money--well, certainly if they tried to do 100 million dollar pics.

And if I was a theater owner, how would I chose which to show?

You make another invalid assumption. Just because no one would be limited by copyright laws (so everyone could do a Star Wars movie), doesn't mean that suddenly a thousand people would do a feature film Star Wars movie. The process wouldn't change. You'd still need to find a producer, a distributor, a budget etc...

I misread your post. It's true that the process wouldn't change. But, nevertheless, Sony and MGM and Disney and Paramount and everyone making their own Star Wars movie would dilute the market.