Director Jean-Luc Godard Says 'There's No Such Thing As Intellectual Property,' Donates To MP3 Downloader's Defense

from the good-for-him dept

Tue, Sep 14th 2010 7:33am — Mike Masnick

Robert Ring was the first of a bunch of you to send in this BoingBoing post highlighting how famed movie director Jean-Luc Godard doesn't believe in the concept of "intellectual property," and has also contributed 1,000 euros to a French citizen who has been sued for unauthorized sharing of over 13,000 MP3s. The key quote from Godard in highlighting why he's supporting this guy:

I am against Hadopi [the French internet-copyright law, or its attendant agency], of course. There is no such thing as intellectual property. I'm against the inheritance [of works], for example. An artist's children could benefit from the copyright of their parents' works, say, until they reach the age of majority... But afterward, it's not clear to me why Ravel's children should get any income from Bolero...

It's always nice when successful content creators, who could just suck up to the monopoly privileges the government grants them, recognize that such things may create greater problems for society and culture, and are willing to speak out about it -- or, even better, to put their money behind their beliefs.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: intellectual property, jean-luc godard

52 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 6:39am

Director Jean-Luc Godard Says....
"Make it so, Number 1. I'm going to go number 2...."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 14 Sep 2010 @ 7:53am
  
  Re: Director Jean-Luc Godard Says....
  Did you forget your medication again?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:11am
    
    Re: Re: Director Jean-Luc Godard Says....
    his helmet is just to tight ... its a loss of oxygen
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Director Jean-Luc Godard Says....
      Oh, come on....really? I'm the ONLY one that had a Star Trek TNG thought there?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Director Jean-Luc Godard Says....
        Flowers! Is there a Jean-Luc Pickard here?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Berenerd (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Director Jean-Luc Godard Says....
        Nope you just beat me to the post :P
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - :Lobo Santo (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Director Jean-Luc Godard Says....
        You're not alone there...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Director Jean-Luc Godard Says....
        Nope you are not alone and you beat me to it, and if I had been first I probably be the one being target with attempted jokes too, to which I would reply with fake indignation or another joke.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Director Jean-Luc Godard Says....
        Actually first thing to come to mind was an old TNG episode. But a poo joke ... come on really
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jupiterkansas (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Director Jean-Luc Godard Says....
        Did you ever stop to think that maybe the name Jean-Luc Picard was inspired by Jean-Luc Godard? He's kind of a significant figure in film.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 7:52am

My first thought: Glad to see another artist on this issue who didn't suddenly become an IP maximalist and authoritarian jackass when he stopped working and began collecting his copyright pension.

After reading IMDB: Holy sh*t he's still working?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:01am

Well, I have a new personal hero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:05am

Ravel's children
>>But afterward, it's not clear to me why Ravel's children should get any income from Bolero...

The only reason is so that Disney can keep copyright on Cinderella.

Big media has been behind the extension of copyright. The dependents of artist are used as poster children. If big media could figure out a way to extend corporate copyright and cut out the children they would do it in a minute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:06am

His opinion is philosophicaly (sp?) based, perhaps in part influenced by his early infatuation with Marxism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:09am
  
  Re:
  My, what great big assumptions you have, Grandma....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:33am
  
  Re:
  Or maybe he's just a rational person...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - interval (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 9:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    You mean despite the Marxism?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PrometheeFeu (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:34am
  
  Re:
  Yes, because government-granted monopolies are the summum of capitalism...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:40am

I am against Hadopi [the French internet-copyright law, or its attendant agency], of course. There is no such thing as intellectual property. I'm against the inheritance [of works], for example. An artist's children could benefit from the copyright of their parents' works, say, until they reach the age of majority... But afterward, it's not clear to me why Ravel's children should get any income from Bolero...

It seems to me like he contradicts himself. At first he says there's no such thing as intellectual property (which is itself untrue--there clearly is such a thing). And then he apparently is OK with an artist's children benefiting from IP until the age of majority--so he's OK with IP, at least for a period of time. He can't have it both ways.

It doesn't make a lot of sense, but hey, if anti-IP people want to call this a victory, then by all means. Whatever floats your boat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:56am
  
  Re:
  It's worth noticing that the quote is from a translation of the original French, so arguing semantics is pretty pointless for us non-Francophones - there's definite 2 different connotations depending on whether you read the Google or human translation.
  
  Anyway, the interpretation I took away from were these:
  
  1. He doesn't believe that IP exists.
  
  2. That if it does exist for any length of time, there has to be a limit and not the indefinite period currently being pushed by IP maximalists.
  
  They're both opinions, of course, but here we see yet another conflict between the IP industry who claim "for the artists" and artists themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 14 Sep 2010 @ 9:00am
  
  Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
  "It seems to me like he contradicts himself. At first he says there's no such thing as intellectual property (which is itself untrue--there clearly is such a thing). And then he apparently is OK with an artist's children benefiting from IP until the age of majority--so he's OK with IP, at least for a period of time. He can't have it both ways."
  
  Well that might be the case if you actually read what he said with any kind of reading comprehension with regard to the manner in which people phrase things. Let me help you with that by emphasizing the key words in his statement:
  
  "An artist's children ***COULD*** benefit from the copyright of their parents' works, ***SAY***, until they reach the age of majority... But afterward, it's not clear to me why Ravel's children should get any income from Bolero..."
  
  This was AN EXAMPLE he was giving. He was essentially saying "you know, I could see it if it was XXXX, maybe, but even then, I really dont believe in IP and this system of perpetual and infinite rights that never end."
  
  And no, there IS NO SUCH THING AS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Please get this through your thick troll head. IP is an INVENTED term, not something inherent to the human condition. In addition, it is NOT CODIFIED IN LAW anywhere. Its simply a catch-all term created by rights holders to easily describe a set of several laws (copyright, trademark, etc) together with the intent to turn weak minds (thats you) to accepting it as if its a natural law or something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 9:20am
    
    Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
    There's no need to act like a child. Good grief.
    
    So it's OK to him if the children can collect until the age of majority. That's IP, not the lack of IP.
    
    And there is such a thing as IP, invented or not. It's silly to pretend like it doesn't exist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 9:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
      His point (I think) is that even if there is a law outlining or defining something called "intellectual property" (I'm not aware of any), that thing is not, in fact, property. No matter what you call it. So it's not pretending at all to say there's no such thing as intellectual property.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - coldbrew, 14 Sep 2010 @ 9:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
        You are going to try and convince someone that has chosen the field know as IP law to admit there is no suck thing as IPlaw? 3 years of school, loads of debt, and the prospect of a good salary are a lot to contend with. His entire future income is predicated on its existence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2010 @ 11:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
        You don't have to refer to copyrights and patents as property to practice copyright or patent law. It's just a convenient-but-misleading shorthand.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2010 @ 9:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
      "And there is such a thing as IP, invented or not. It's silly to pretend like it doesn't exist."
      
      Tell that to the billions of pirates in the world :)
      
      It has to be the dumbest form of property ever devised.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2010 @ 9:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
      By the way explain when "rights" became "property"?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anon, 14 Sep 2010 @ 9:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
      The words, "intellectual property," exist as a phrase. The idea behind owning thoughts is an ignorant attempt at stifling others ability to innovate and use ideas.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brian, 14 Sep 2010 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
    The native indians said "One does not sell the land people walk on." And yet it has been sold again and again beneath their feet, or even more have been evicted from the areas to accomodate the land's new "owners" so they can be put on "reservations".
    
    Certainly intellectual property is merely an idea, just as is property itself, such as land ownership. However, unless we live in communal villages where there are no costs for things and no taxes, we will have to barter with what we have.
    
    For some it is land, material wealth. For others it is their creativity. A person deserves to be compensated for their contribution, be it material or otherwise. Even this site wouldn't exist if the hosting bill wasn't paid for, now would it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 1:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
      What does any of that have to do with whether copyrights are property?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Paul Renault (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 5:32am
    
    Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
    I'm PaulR, who translated the text on BoingBoing..:
    "Il n'y a pas de propri�t� intellectuelle. Je suis contre l'h�ritage, par exemple."
    In the first sentence, Godard says that intellectual creations aren't property in the usual sense of the word: houses, pocketknives, bags of carrots. Thus, in the second sentence, to illustrate this point he says he doesn't believe that copyright should be inheritable.
    He does add" "Que les enfants d'un artiste puissent b�n�ficier des droits de l'oeuvre de leurs parents, pourquoi pas jusqu'� leur majorit�...)
    He is willing to concede that the creators' children could/should [I don't have the text that the ellipsis replaces] continue to receive copyright payments until they reach the age of majority. But afterwards? No.
    He does NOT say, or even imply that the creator should not benefit for his/her works - to those of y'all who insist on repeating this straw man, the original text is quite clear.
    But he doesn't believe that copyright should be treated as property.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 6:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
      That makes more sense, thanks, but he's still contradicting himself. If he doesn't think it should be heritable, then he should be totally opposed to the author's children receiving payments for their parent's work. What he's trying to say is that he's for shorter copyright terms. Also, if the author and the author's children are to benefit from the work, then presumably he's talking about it happening via exclusive rights. In other words, the work will be treated like property. Of course intellectual property and regular property are different--that's not a controversial thing to say.
      
      So basically here's what he's saying:
      
      (1) IP rights shouldn't be heritable, except for when they're heritable.
      
      (2) IP shouldn't be treated like property, except for when it's treated like property.
      
      (3) IP is different than regular property, except for the ways that it's the same.
      
      This guy's great!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Paul Renault (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 8:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
        Godard doesn't think there is such a thing as IP. Do I need to repeat it?
        Maybe: Godard doesn't think there is such a thing as IP. He believes you can't treat copyright in the same way you treat property.
        The key to understanding the nuance is in the French text: "par exemple" (for example) in "Je suis contre l'h�ritage, par exemple.".
        He's talking about copyright, not IP. Again, Godard doesn't believe that there is such a thing as IP
        He doesn't have a problem with copyright for the creator's lifetime. Nor for extending the copyright to cover the creator's children until they reach the age of majority.
        Say basically here's what he's saying:
        (1) There is no such thing as IP;
        (2) Copyright should end when the creator dies, plus maybe a maximum of 18 years, for the children;
        (3) A creator's work(s) should not thought of as property, since there's no such thing as IP;
        (4) HADOPI is a bad idea/institution;
        (5) There is no such thing as IP;
        (6) He thinks filesharing is OK; and he's put his money where his mouth is by donating 1,000 eurosn to James Climent to help pay his fine;
        (7) There is no such thing as IP.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
        Copyright is IP, at least it was the last time I checked. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 9:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
        According to what law? I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you point to a law that actually defines copyright as "intellectual property"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Landon, 15 Sep 2010 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lemme emphasize that to help you out there....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:46am

HADOPI is bad, wait until people see the LOPSI 2 that is gaining track on the french buroucracy.

They want the ability to invade others space in order to spy on them, the French government could become the biggest spreader of legal viruses on the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
statismwatch, 14 Sep 2010 @ 9:50am

IP is a scam
Good for him, and bang on. Carry IP to its intellectual dead end and we'll be sending in micropayments for humming a tune.

Pretty tenacious, though, for something a European princess and a French writer cooked up to keep booksellers happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian, 14 Sep 2010 @ 11:31am

Ravel's Children
So if Ravel's descendants don't get any money from Bolero, then are they then surrendering that money to the corporate interests who surely would continue to profit from it? Or are we to expect that Bolero will be distributed en masse to the public for free at the expense of these businesses for the sheer love of it?

Ideology aside, there is a practical component to profit motive and for intellectual property. The answer lies in fairness and balance, not dispensing with IP altogether!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 1:36pm
  
  Re: Ravel's Children
  The idea is that anybody could do whatever they want with it now. Just like everything currently in the public domain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 14 Sep 2010 @ 4:24pm
  
  Re: Ravel's Children
  Brian spouted:
  
  So if Ravel's descendants don't get any money from Bolero, then are they then surrendering that money to the corporate interests who surely would continue to profit from it?
  
  Look around: do you see many “corporate interests” continuing to profit from Bolero?
  
  I rest my case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian, 14 Sep 2010 @ 11:49am

IMDB Credits
If there was no IP law, how much would he have earned from the movies he's credited for: 93 movies as director, 78 as writer, 41 as editor, 36 as actor, etc?

Had there been no IP law, those numbers might not have been even into a dozen, since the studios could have just produced his scripts without his permission and no compensation for anything more than just his time showing up on set.

He would have had to resort to having a "regular job" to pay the bills and had no momentum in filmmaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2010 @ 1:16pm

"For others it is their creativity. A person deserves to be compensated for their contribution, be it material or otherwise."

People should get paid by the work they do, not for work done that is just a perversion that was allowed to happen.

More those contributions in the realm of the intangible are really just ideas and nobody should own ideas ever it blocks the productive path and inhibits learning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 14 Sep 2010 @ 4:30pm

I tend to agree with this guy. I'm still not clear on why intellectual property rights became assignable... Oh apart from the economic interest of course :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2010 @ 8:49pm

It should be pointed out that Jean-Luc Godard openly admits to being a socialist. Also, he is French.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2010 @ 11:44pm
  
  Re:
  Why are you trying to skew the bias to something that may favor your position more by stating that?
  
  That might be seen as low blow by a low life, or a good catch depending on who you ask.
  
  Want to ask me what I do think about?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Paddy Duke (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 4:10am
  
  Re:
  Curious how the roles have switched. Socialists are trying to get this government interference out of the economy, and the capitalists are clamouring to pull them further in.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 4:21am
  
  Re:
  So, copyright, which is basically a government granted-monopoly, is free-market-think, right?
  
  Then up is down, left is right, black is white, and you get yourself killed at the next zebra crossing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 7:47am
  
  Re:
  In France, neither of those is seen as a bad thing. :-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2010 @ 5:28am

he still contradicts himself, and invalidates his own point
you cant be against it, and then allow "the children" to get a free paycheck for 18 or 21 years for something they had nothing to do with, that's keeping the status quot.

Law?? no, IP is not a legal definition, its a word used to lump in trade marks, patents, copyright, etc... IP should never be used, use the appropriate legal term to describe what your talking about, stop scaring the children with invented umbrella words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2010 @ 12:32pm
  
  Re:
  How does he contradict himself? Copyright != IP. One is a government-mandated monopoly on the distribution of creative works. The other is a completely fictitious creation by the big publishers being used to try and force unreasonable terms for copyright thru the legal system, just so they can lock things up to where they can make money off something for eternity +70 years. I'll let you figure out which is which...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]