Francis Ford Coppola On Art, Copying And File Sharing: We Want You To Take From Us
from the first-step dept
Paul Tamm points us to a really wonderful interview with filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola, which touches on a whole variety of different topics, but a couple of quotes are likely to be interesting to folks around here. For example, he's asked about copying works of other filmmakers and whether or not he tries to "veer away" from the masters of the craft to create his own style, and he responds brilliantly:I once found a little excerpt from Balzac. He speaks about a young writer who stole some of his prose. The thing that almost made me weep, he said, "I was so happy when this young person took from me." Because that's what we want. We want you to take from us. We want you, at first, to steal from us, because you can't steal. You will take what we give you and you will put it in your own voice and that's how you will find your voice.While (of course), I always dislike the incorrect use of the term "stealing," I found this to be quite an insightful answer from someone who is certainly in a position to pretend otherwise. However, throughout history we've heard similar (if much less eloquent) claims from others. Ray Charles famously made similar points about copying his music (shamelessly) from others to create his own unique sound (and invent soul music in the process).
And that's how you begin. And then one day someone will steal from you. And Balzac said that in his book: It makes me so happy because it makes me immortal because I know that 200 years from now there will be people doing things that somehow I am part of. So the answer to your question is: Don't worry about whether it's appropriate to borrow or to take or do something like someone you admire because that's only the first step and you have to take the first step.
Immediately after this, he's asked about business models, and he notes:
This idea of Metallica or some rock n' roll singer being rich, that's not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I'm going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?While some will misinterpret this to mean that artists shouldn't make money, that's not what he's saying at all. He's saying it shouldn't be presumed that they automatically must make money -- or that if they are to make money, that it needs to come from the film directly.
In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you'd be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, "Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money." Because there are ways around it.
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: art, copying, francis ford coppola, free, sharing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He's a great artist, so he stole it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Good Artists borrow; great artists steal." - Steve Jobs
"Bad artists copy. Good artists steal." - Pablo Piccaso
---
"Bansky was full of himself" - Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Piccaso .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas Lehrer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pirate's now, revolutionaries later
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pirate's now, revolutionaries later
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pirate's now, revolutionaries later
Yup, and with today's copyright laws, it will be in a long long time in a galaxy far far away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pirate's now, revolutionaries later
I really hope so, because us "pirates" need our captains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pirate's now, revolutionaries later
Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free, you are a pirate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pirate's now, revolutionaries later
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tickets to the new destination
Interesting point, maybe in a world not run by money options open up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tickets to the new destination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great
This is, without question, the absolute best attitude to take away from "copying." It doesn't hurt that it was delivered by probably the best filmmaker of the 20th century.
Seriously, is there any possible reason that Coppola can not be considered the best director in the history of film? Because I can't find one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great
If anyone can come up with a direct address, we should all send him flowers, and our thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great
Akira Kurosawa?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
It's refreshing - because in my experience they usually say that before they become rich and then the wealth corrupts their thinking....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
Btw, this blog is really embracing the freetard flag now. Not even trying to hide it anymore.
So what are the other major pirate cheerleading sites besides Techdirt and TorrentFreak?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
Out of a desire to make a troll do some thinking, why do you believe Techdirt is more 'embracing the freetard flag' now than any other time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
But a moronic statement like yours is to be expected on this site...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
"Well you won't sell it to me for the price I'm prepared to pay so I'll get it for free from someone else"
is less like the above definition than:
"I have it and you can't get it from anyone else so you must pay the price I set and I have a whole other organisation (the government) to make sure you do"?
I did quite well at english in school but clearly my comprehension skills are slipping. I bow to the obvious master of language. Please explain by all means for us lesser mortals.
Or is it simply that the words "buyer" and "demand" are only there as place holders and not intended to be interpreted as part of the definition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
Understand now? Or is it time to play the most popular game on Techdirt, Willful Blindness!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
Not sure how that supports your opinion, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
This means that both the buyer and the seller must be free of any interference except for the noted modifier of "demand and supply" in order to meet the definition set in the sentence.
Now, would you like to have another go? Or perhaps explain how a law setting the parameters of the deal externally counts as being within the definition of the permitted exception and therefore meets the criteria for "free market"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
It's the same thing with computers, cell phones, and thousands of other things. There are all sorts of patents issued, and all sorts of alternate solutions sought and found, making for a huge amount of innovation (actual "new idea" innovation, rather than just minor changes to existing models) such that what we have isn't a monopoly, but massive parallel developments streams.
Since we don't face monopolies very often (and when we do, they don't last very long), that argument tends to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
Copyright is a monopoly, monopolies make a market non-free. Therfore anything that busts up a monopoply makes a market free again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
Besides, a free market is about buyers. Taking something without permission isn't buying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
But in essentially all free market economic theory, monopolies are bad. Copyright was deemed a necessary evil - an acceptable monopoly - when it was originally conceived, and perhaps it was, but the massive changes in distribution technology that have occurred since them (not to mention the massive expansion of copyright) warrant re-examining that basic premise.
Monopolies are bad. Nobody disagrees with that, and if you do, then you fail free market theory. The question is whether some monopolies are necessary evils, and whether copyright is one of them. There are a lot of reasons to believe it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
You are invading the public space, you are trying to rob people free interactions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
Mr. Mike Masnick doesn't condone piracy, he very often notes that it will take a miracle to stop it and that efforts should be focused on other things that could help artists to make money instead of wasting time, money and effort trying to stop something that has no solution at the moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
So instead of lawsuits, they should focus on prayer! ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
Music:
Jamendo (Free Music)
Beat Pick (Free Music to listen, paid license if it is to be used)
SectionZ (Free Music)
Opsound (Free Music)
Pod Safe Audio (Free Music)
Magnatune (Free Music)
CCMixter (Free Music)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
That is not hard just go to any news website and look at the comment sections, people hate your guts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
Every time someone says something like this or an alternative method of making money to the current status quo works in some situation, someone pipes up and explains why that's an exception and doesn't work in general.
In this case "because he's already rich from it" was the obvious one and I'm almost suprised it wasn't followed up by something like "If he really thinks that why doesn't he give away all his copyrights or something?"
I'm curious though what the argument would have been if he'd been a poor or unknown film maker. I'm guessing either "Well he's not got enough experience for his opinion to count for much" or possibly "Well of course you can give little films away for free, but you could never do that with a big film, they cost just too much to make!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
That's the one. It's rather amusing to watch, actually. Show a small artist succeeding, and they say it would never work for big artists. Show a big artist succeeding, and they say it would never work for small artists. Show a red artist succeeding and they say it would never work for blue artists. Show them all sorts of artists of all scales and media succeeding at once, and they usually say something like "that's pathetic, they shouldn't have to be doing that, I bet they hate it, they should just be selling their art"
Then show them those same artists saying they love it, and they say "whatever they just suck you freetard"
It goes nowhere...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
This is called Masnick's Law. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
Piccaso once rightly said "you can not learn technique" . Whilst there are no original ideas in art , all performances are unique , original.
A particular business model for cultural production, based upon what were natural monopolies over production and distribution of copies of,
A performance is coming to a end.
"men come , men go, all things remain in God"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YES!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've always loved Ian MacKaye's thoughts about this. That art/music is free (and always will be free), because art/music is like water. It's essential to us, and we can go down to the stream anytime we want to drink. But sometimes you might want to drink in your car or in your home, and so someone puts that water in a container to make it more convenient for you. And it's the container/convenience you pay for, not the art/music inside it.
Although I realize this wasn't specifically what Coppola was getting at with that line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember to put it in YOUR OWN voice. Adapt it. Work it. Add what is your own... then I don't mind.
it's when lazy little wannabe's just take it and put their name over mine without making any changes at all... that pisses me off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you really have wannabes (plural) plagiarising your work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any of us can take a song we hear on the radio and sing other lyrics we make up to it. That is easy. Someone learning to play the piano (or even the Ukulele) can learn to play someone elses music, and perhaps play it in their own way. That is much closer to pure replication than it is to influence.
FFC says "You will take what we give you and you will put it in your own voice and that's how you will find your voice". That is what influence is all about. Watch our movies, see how we do it, make your own. It doesn't imply in the slightest that you should just replicate, or duplicate. As he said, in making a movie, even taking is only the first step. It isn't an end in itself.
200 years ago, we had no simple way to distribute music in a manner that could be purchased for enjoyment. The only way you got music was to attend a concert. Now we can have music 24 hours per day from hundreds of different sources. Concerts aren't the only way to get music, many people never attend a live show. They still enjoy music. As FFC says, maybe music should be free. It isn't a definitive statement that it should, only that it is something to consider.
Oh yeah, I agree with Anonymous on this one, TD really is hoisting the freetard flag the last little while. I attribute that to the fact that they are finally seeing that government and private legal actions are having an impact on the online world, and that perhaps the all you can eat buffet of free stuff is getting curtailed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Such as?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Such as?
Giving incentives for the development of the next generation of distributed and encrypted systems (like the proposals for distributed P2P DNS).
Reducing political apathy on people who depend on what he called the "online world" (the creation and rapid rise of the Pirate Parties can be attributed to this).
Leading to the formation of vigilante groups dedicated to fighting the abuses (like Operation Payback, which had as its greatest success the ruining of ACS-Law).
So yes, I can see a real impact on the "online world". I can see no reduction on "the all you can eat buffet of free stuff", however. From what I have read here and on torrentfreak, for every site or system which is shut down, a new and higher quality one shows up to take its place, sometimes several of them. And for every normal person who gets sued, there are over nine thousand who do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
P2P DNS is like anything else: It does nothing, because the traffic still goes over the same networks and goes through the same IPs, and the same infrastructure, and the traffic will still have the same profile and will still easily be blockable by even simple systems. Better, the entire DNS system will be easily hijacked and turned against people. It's a fail all around.
The Pirate Parties are single issue, narrowly focuses special interest groups that will never have enough of a wide appeal to get anything done. They may elect a few members, but that is more to do with proportional representation rules rather than any real victories. Another fail.
Operation payback are a bunch of DDoS'ing kids. Giving them a shout out sort of gives me an indication of your age (and grade level in school, which is about 10)
What you should learn from Torrent freak is that every time a big site is taken down, another site comes up in a country they think they can hide out in. The list of countries tolerating the crap is getting smaller and smaller, and soon everyone will find themselves hosting in Sweden and Turkey and trying hard not to get arrested. That isn't exactly progress.
The reality is that governments are more and more aware of the economic impacts of piracy, and even countries like China are showing that they understand the value of IP. What you see today short run (the all you can eat buffet) isn't what you will see in the long run.
Can we talk IPv6? It's coming. More and more companies are getting converted, more and more of the network infrastructure can handle it, and it will only be a matter of time before it comes out. IPv6 will do away with much of the need for shared or ever changing IP addresses, and will make it easier to identify an individual user based on IP address. The same IP address can be offered back to the same MAC address all the time, etc. There will be less and less legal need for proxies, and over time traffic from known proxies is likely to be denied by networks, making it even harder to hide out.
The wild west didn't stay the wild west for long. There are reasons. Learn and understand what is really going on, and by the time you actually make it to university, you might be ahead rather than behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yes, I did spend a lot of time thinking about file sharing and Internet freedom issues. Unsurprising, since I have been worrying about them for a long time.
What I mentioned was only a small sample of the reactions from the "online world", or as people called it much earlier, the "electronic frontier", to attacks on it. I focused on just a few recent reactions and of different kinds, since they were just an example. An example of how, instead of cowering in fear or giving up, the "online world" is fighting back.
Distributed P2P DNS is only the tip of the iceberg. It is an immediate reaction to an immediate issue: the abuse of the control one country has, for historical reasons, over the "global" gTLDs. There are other initiatives, some which tunnel over the Internet in such a way the origin and destination of the traffic are disguised. It is a tradeoff: the more secure these solutions are, the more heavy they are, so they tend to be unused until a need is felt for them. In Japan, where copyright enforcement is more draconian and bandwidth is plentiful, heavily encrypted solutions such as WinNY, Share, and Perfect Dark, are very popular.
The Pirate Parties are, as you noted, very narrowly focused. That such a narrowly focused political party could get that much popularity in a short amount of time is impressive. It also points to a trend of greater political mobilization of what you called the "online world".
Operation Payback is more than just "a bunch of DDoS'ing kids". It is a demonstration of how easily a vigilante mob can form on the Internet, to fight for whatever issue they are worried about. It is the dark side of the reactions to these "government and private legal actions", and we are lucky they did not go much farther than DDoS.
Hopping countries is not the last resort these sites have. It is only the current one. Spammers and malware peddlers are ahead in this game, and they have already shown a few tricks which no doubt these sites could also use if needed. And there is always the true distributed option, in which the server is in no country because there is no central server.
I expect the "all you can eat buffet" to increase, but not in the way you are thinking. Think of things like Jamendo, for instance. I paid zero for the operating system I am currently using. And the pirated stuff will still be available, even if it is a bit harder to find.
Yes, IPv6 is coming. Have you heard of RFC 4941, which I make sure is enabled on all my computers? From what I have heard, Windows enables it by default.
To close this already long reply, yes, the Internet will change and become more "civilized". It is unavoidable. But we cannot yet see what form it will take. If this form allows for free communication between people, which I believe is the most probable scenario, you cannot prevent piracy (read the Darknet paper for the reason). If, however, this form does not allow for free communication between people, I can predict that an alternative to the Internet will appear, and be even harder to control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copytardo, stay away from tech talk you are not good at it.
People can create their own secure channels over the infra-structure that exists and the traffic will be indistinguishible from any other traffic except in the amount that is being send, there is no patterns to search for in those instances, a million dollar deep packet solution can be defeated by simple doing 2 things at the same time like streaming audio or video and using another software, how will you separate the two if you don't have the ability to know what it is inside the packets?
Further there are already solutions to DNS hijacking(i.e. government seizures), try looking at TOR hidden services and Osiris Serverless Portal System, not to mention complete solutions for network protocols that are decentralized, encrypted and anonymous like Netsukuku.
I can cite the Prime Minister of Japan who elected some people to just pass the legislation he needed as proof of your inability to understand how things work. Try searching for Kozumi Children.
If ever the Pirate Party do a search to see the things people want and promise to change the laws accordingly, they probably become the most powerfull party on earth, the tools are here, you just need a forum where people propose laws and vote on those laws using encrypted keys to assure only one vote for person recording they physical location to plot a graphic on a map of how things are welcome or not.
So saying they will never be able to do something is not a risky proposition is just stupid, have more respect for something that could rock your world hard.
Yep their are mostly kids, no argument there, kids are impatient and don't know they have other options, still that is just a sign that there is feroucious opposition to your kind and that is not going away anytime soon either LoL
Or people just start using anonymous networks overlays, that are today impossible to probe. Retroshare is a good example of one, Omemo is another, StealthNet is yet another and next generations could embed audio and video inside other videos and that would by pass any filters based on fingerprinting in existence today, is not progress beautiful?
Governments care about other aspects of IP laws, those laws are perfect for censorship.
But it doesn't matter that much the all eat buffet is just getting started I can post here a mile long(no kidding) list of free content that is free to share and distribute legally, like it or not you will need to compete with free or board the free train if you want to stay on the market, no government is going to pass laws forbiding people from creating content and saying others can give it away for free. Also the open source philosophy values cooperation and stimulates a better market, where production is local but creation is a global affair, everyone can make money not just the choosen few.
Your daddy(i.e. goverment) can't help you and it won't be able to do anything about it. Your days are numbered.
I think you don't appreciate fully the economic incentives companies and others will have to keep doing the same things that IPv4 did. People won't buy a whole bunch of IP addresses for every device inside their companies when they can just buy a small number and use NAT's to multiply that, ISP's will not buy one IP address for every customers they have dude.
That is right at some point order will come to the chaos and your invasion of the public space will not be tolerated anymore.
You are invading the public space in the name of profits, you are trying to force the vast majority to conform to something they were not consulted about it and will fight back.
Just for clarification it must be noted that piracy have been going on for at least 40 years since the 70's and you are saying that somehow it will stop? and even if stopped miraculously what makes you think people would go and give you any money? do they not have alternatives?
God knows I have found legal free and good alternatives and don't give money to people like you. You are not the center of the universe and you will never see my money, that I can promise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And we already know piracy can never be completely stopped, as it's been around forever, but how many times does it have to be repeated?
Nobody cares if geeks, nerds and dorks steal content.
Wouldn't want to stop how all of you gain inner fulfillment in your empty, worthless lives, now would we? That'd just be mean.
The idea is to stop it from being so easy for normal people to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The stomping feet people are not me, I just choose not to pay you in any form, I also choose to find legal free alternatives and I acknowledge the impossible task that is stopping piracy.
The only people crying foul is people like you, the rest of the population doesn't even care.
Pimpled 10 years old are rocking your world and I'm laughing and that is a hard thing to do when you get old, wait until you are 50, there will not be that many things you will laugh about it anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The most beautiful part is that, there is no technical solution, no political solution and no enforcement solution for "sharing", you can ignore that all you want in the end people will still keep doing what they are doing today and you have no way of stopping that.
But things change and I have absolute confidence that someday people will just realize that they don't need to illegally pirate anything is much more pleasant to pirate things legally.
Jamendo FTW.
Yours sincerely Freetardo the Pirate from the seven networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ignorant Copytardo, that goal is also untainable. Technology is not getting harder is getting easier with each iteration.
Want to see how easy it is to stream something to a lot of people?
DVDFlow was a first attempt to make something like a personal HULU for the masses.
Put that on a virtual appliance and install in a PC and you get your own personal Netflix.
Scary for you, fun to the rest of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you did not notice a small detail, which he did not mention but is very important: piracy has been around forever, and most people doing it were not "geeks, nerds and dorks". They were normal people. Normal people bought cassette recorders and recorded and exchanged music. Normal people bought tape recorders and recorded and exchanged video.
This ship has sailed a long time ago. One of the things we learn about security vulnerabilities is that, no matter how obscure or hard to exploit, some joker is going to create a easy-to-use one-click solution (thanks, HD Moore - NOT). The same concept applies here - no matter how hard it is to do, someone is going to write a software to make it easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could both sides PLEASE stop with the name-calling? It adds nothing to the discussion, and only makes you both look like immature children who have no better argument and so have to resort to calling the other side names.
Focus on the argument, not on the person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
= Experience
That's exactly what Coppola is talking about. First you replicate, then you variegate, then you originate. Even a prepubescent Mozart covered the masters for a couple months before becoming one himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To copy ideas / licks from from another artist is not considered theft if you put your own spin on it. In my artistic world it's called the muse.
Once I watched an interview with Clint Black and was so impressed by him I immediately went to the garage and wrote a country love song.
Did I steal from him? OR was I simply inspired by him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When FFC says "steal my stuff" he isn't suggests "copy my movie and give it away", he is saying to steal his approach, his idea, his camera angle, his pacing, whatever it is that you see in his movies as great, and make it your own. Use it your own way, move forward.
There is a difference (as your song writing example goes) between replication and inspiration. Understanding the difference makes all the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Copyright have that little pesky part about "derivative" works that include everything under the sun and bellow the earth.
Besides I don't see the difference here, everyone trying to do the same thing will do it differently in some form, nobody can copy some else completely in music, se the various orchestras trying to play the same classics and people quickly see the differences.
Was Dracula From Bramstocker(by Coppola) equal to all those other Dracula's out there? He copied everything and it is still unique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That seems to be exactly what he's saying here:
"Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i've actually said this, as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i've actually said this, as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My favorite Coppola Quote
'To me the great hope is that now these little 8mm video recorders and stuff have come out, some... just people who normally wouldn't make movies are going to be making them, and - you know - suddenly, one day, some little fat girl in Ohio is going to be the new Mozart - you know - and make a beautiful film with her little father's camera...corder - and for once the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed. Forever. And it will really become an art form.
That's my opinion.'
It is the closing scene to Hearts of Darkness... Definately worth watching !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coppola, Banksy and common sense
d
ps- love Banksy's work, but just to be fair...
Bad artists copy. Good artists steal.
Pablo Picasso
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does Masnick post a headline when an artist says their art is for sale, not to be taken for free?
Nope!
Because Mike Masnick's agenda is to promote piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He does. Usually also commenting why he thinks the artist in question is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does Mike give away advertising here for free?
Does he give his presentations for free?
Until Mike Masnick starts giving away these things, he's really not connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Masnick allows reposting of all his articles, but he doesn't give free ad space because ad space is limited by what users are willing to deal with. In other words, he's selling the scarce but doesn't sweat the copying of the infinate.......which is exactly what he teaches artists to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I could copy his content to my own website any time I want and Mike would not have a problem with it. I cannot make money from his content. The market will rapidly become aware that I steal content and they will soil my comments. The comments are a big reason people come back to TD. Also, it takes time for me to copy Mike's content onto my site, making TD a more timely place to get the content. I can't compete with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about the ad space here?
Why doesn't Masnick give that away for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because he can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
His blog posts are copy and paste stuff; that's not his content, so it's not scarce.
When he is he going to accept that free is the future and start giving away ad space and giving presentations for free?
We're not going to stop until we get an answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except when it's not. If you'd bother to look through his post history you'd find plenty that's not just quotes. But I'm probably wasting my time as you really don't care about little things like facts and logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First: Value != Price
I can value someone elses opinion without them charging me for it.
On the other hand in a FREE market: Price ALWAYS = value because if your customer does not value something you offer they will not pay for it.
In the case of the adverts, Techdirt charge for them because people are willing to pay. In this case Mike's comments and opinion, whether valuable in and of themselves or have a monetary value, attract an audience with value to the advertisers that they are willing to pay for. Mike offers a scarce resource (us all in one place) and someone else gets to say whether the monetary value asked for it is worthwhile to them.
For ad space it is a resource that cannot be copied. In the case of his words, then these can be copied and used elsewhere and so, while of potential value they have little or no monetary component. BUT just because someone copies Mike's words elsewhere does not transfer the value of them not the attractiveness to advertisers.
Again: You get to sell what people will pay for and attempting to legislate an artificially high monetary value that people do not percive exists is doomed to failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop being intentionally dumb.
Ad space is finite, content is infinite.
Time to make appearances and deliver speeches is finite, content is infinite.
Move along folks, nothing to see here but an AC intentionally ignoring the obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, obviously you don't place much value on that original analysis, and that's totally fine (though it does make one wonder why you bother to come back here every day)
But please, don't make the obviously false claim that the content here is only copy and paste. It very clearly isn't, assuming you have eyes and can read english then you already know that. You are just attempting to insult the quality of Mike's content by pretending it isn't content at all, and that's childish. We know YOU don't place value on Mike's content, but obviously a lot of readers do - and he gives it all away for free.
And no, it's not scarce. Nobody said it was. Content is not scarce. That's kind of our whole point. Do you still not get that? Do you think we are trying to say content is a scarce good, and you are somehow countering that argument? Because wow, you are way off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, are you going to stop pretending the you're a successful businessman? Because you clearly haven't a clue, and the musicians you claim to represent are in serious trouble if they don't ditch you as representation. I only with you'd identify yourself so that these poor souls can be warned and have a chance at switching to somebody with a clue before it's too late...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, most people actually seem to think the content in my posts are free. And the presentations are available free online, so not sure what you mean.
But, again, I'm afraid you're confused about the nature of what we say. We say that you give away the infinite goods for free, and the scarce goods you charge for. And we practice that.
When he is he going to accept that free is the future and start giving away ad space and giving presentations for free?
Weird. I've never said that everything should be free. Why would you make that up? It makes you look silly.
We're not going to stop until we get an answer.
I've given you an answer. And the answer is you seem to not know what we discuss on this site. I'm happy to help you better understand it though, because your confusion is dangerous. Ignorance is no way to go through life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There, now STFU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The content that Mike provides is commentary on other writings, court cases and other sources. Mike definitely does more than just copy and paste. Why do so many people come back every day if he is just ripping off content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never just copy and paste. I'm afraid you may be confusing this site with some other site. Have you actually read this site?
What about the ad space here?
Why doesn't Masnick give that away for free?
Because that's a scarce good -- and as I've always said, you should charge for the scarce.
I'm beginning to think you've never actually read this site. If you wish to make an argument that people will take seriously, it helps to actually know what you're arguing against. Again, feel free to give us a call and we can help explain it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He gives his content away for free, which is also the vehicle he uses to connect with his fans.
His presentations are the scarce item he sells around the content, which is perfectly in line with everything he advocates.
(I'm going to assume you're just trolling, because I refuse to believe someone can be so stupid by random chance.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What does that have to do with anything? We've talked -- at great length -- about selling scarcities and giving away the infinite. Ad space is a scarcity.
Does he give his presentations for free?
Yup. Most of them are free online.
Until Mike Masnick starts giving away these things, he's really not connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy.
Huh? Perhaps, rather than insulting folks around here all the time, you should take the time to actually understand what I've said. It seems clear from your comments here that you've jumped to some incredibly wrong conclusions. If you'd like, I'm more than willing to help you better understand this -- but I'd like to be sure you actually want to understand this.
Feel free to give us a call and let me know that you made this comment. I'm happy to spend some time with you on the phone to clarify some of your confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never said he speaks for all artists.
Why lie?
Does Masnick post a headline when an artist says their art is for sale, not to be taken for free?
Uh, sure, I've discussed plenty of artists who I think are wrong.
Nope!
Why lie?
Because Mike Masnick's agenda is to promote piracy.
Nope. Never have, never will.
Why lie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coppola
Somebody should ask Coppola to pay his old debts before he splits his winnings with posterity and joins the glorious Hollywood pantheon.
Who saved Apocalypse Now for you?
Who gave your daughter Lost in Translation, Eternal Sunshine?
What's with lizarding around my family out in Sand Springs?
You owe me at least an explanation, Francis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coppola
This comment is confusing by itself. The fact that it comes with a 404'd amazon link to something called "epigenetic-pheromones-pathogenesis-sociopathy-ebook" is downright baffling. What are you on about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coppola
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome. Thanks Francis :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So what's the deal? Do I get to go to his winery and take some wine for free or what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm beginning to wonder if they really don't understand the difference between taking something that the other person then doesn't have anymore, versus taking something that then you both have without any decrease to either of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If not you are not welcome to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Because taking a physical good, such as a bottle of wine, is the same thing as taking a digital good, such as a file."
Can you understand now or do I need to explain further?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Absolutely. Go there, copy his wine (either by copying his recipe or by Star Trek-style replicator; whichever is easiest for you) and enjoy.
We won't say anything. I doubt Francis will either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There seems to be two types of stories on techdirt, FUD and DUF. We all know what FUD is. DUF is just the opposite of FUD. This story is all DUF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It has the opposite effect/intent of FUD, that's why I'm calling it DUF. The idea is that instead of using false or misleading information to create unfavorable opinions (FUD), false or misleading information is being used to create favorable opinions (DUF).
I'm working on a good "backronym" to make it work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, interesting idea DUF whether it applies here or not. May I offer "Dubious Uplifting Fluff" for the spirit in which you meant it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is probably totally the wrong thread for this but what the hell it'd lose context otherwise.
Before I started reading techdirt I was of course aware of copyright (and other IP type) and probably in general what I should and shouldn't do with say a song. Reading Techdirt has given me more info and insight into how (US at least) copyright works at a legal level, which actually makes things less clear.
So I'm going to use this as an example and see if anyone can clarify things a bit, and along hte way perhaps demonstrate what I think is so daft about current copyright law.
"Dubious Uplifting Fluff" as I understand it would, as a creative written expression on a website, be considered by default covered by copyright under US law, am I correct? I kinda hope I'm not there because that would be slightly scary, but there seem to be copyright lawsuits that revolve around almost equally small "creative expressions" - the 7 notes of the "Under Pressure" riff, Queen vs. Vanilla Ice many years ago for example. Whether I'm right or wrong on that point, let's assume it is covered for the sake of argument.
The next question is whos copyright is it? Mine since I coined the phrase? Or could AJ claim that the original idea of a "backronym" of FUD is his and therefore my "work" is derivative of his? On the other hand both "FUD" and "Backronym" are pre-existing and both AJ's idea and my expression of that idea are derivative of both. Do they have copyright associated? Are they public domain? I have no idea how I would even go about finding out and had I not started reading this blog probably would never have even thought about it.
Or is it possible that as an expression on someone else's website that Techdirt own the copyright on "my" expression? In this case I didn't see any T&C to which I agreed, but from memory the original "boilerplate" license for Chrome (could be misremembering there but something like that, IE maybe?) assigned all rights of anything you did through it to Google. Well let's assume it's my copyright.
Assuming it's mine, does that then mean that any other use of a "Backronym of FUD" should now be considered a derivative work of mine as the first such expression? Even if it uses totally different words? That seems a stretch, but again there seem to be plenty of suits that on the surface are based on equally tenuous links - Catcher in the Rye seems popular in this space.
And now we come to enforcement (and the even sillier bit). As we've established I "own" the backronymn in question and everything that refers to it I want to make money off it as many would claim is my absolute right. It's valuable intellectual property after all - clearly it has value to AJ, who was looking for the "solution" to his problem that I provided. I've decided that no one is allowed to use "my" backronym without a license fee... $20 should cover it. Hmm that would seem to mean that Techdirt now owe me a license fee if they want to continue to display my valuable property too.. this is getting good.
Except if I do that they'll probably just remove the comment and it won't get around. OK I'll extend a "free" license to Techdirt because of the advertising value. But everyone else is getting charged. I'm sure everyone else will want to pay my entirely arbitary fee.
Except the words are right there. How the hell can I tell who copys them and to where? I know I'll inist Techdirt add some software to their site that allows tracking of copy and paste to protect my property. It is very valuable after all.
Except what if someone just reads them and remembers them and uses them elsewhere? Hmmm well there's plenty of laws about that. I'll get the government to enforce it for me. I'm sure I'll get the same response from the authorities for the THEFT of my property as major studios and record labels get. The law is for everyone after all.
And I've set my price at $20... what should I do if a bunch of people use it and send me $5 each because that's what they're willing to pay? Should I sue them?
And so on. A little trite as an example perhaps. Feel free to tear it apart as I'm truely interested in both sides (if such exists), but bear in mind it's an illustration not reality (I don't think!).
And just as a final thought, contrived though that is, it is derived from the failry extensive information reading comments on this site. That's more information than most people have about how copyright works and I'm willing to accept if someone tells me the whole thing is total b*llocks. Which is kind of the point. How is it reasonable to enforce laws on the population that are not easily understandable and therefore impossible to tell if you are breaking the law? The ultimate expression of that is that no-one dare do anything for fear of being "derivative" or worse, and yet as AJ and I have just demostrated in a very small way, that's exactly how ALL creativity works, though the origins are often more obscure which only adds to the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Laws are supposed to be "for the overall benefit of the people", not "for the overall benefit of the people with enough money to work the system". How do "the people" benefit when it's unclear to a common level of understanding whether they have broken a law or not? Which was at least perenthetically my point - were I to ascribe a wholly artificial value to such a "creation" and insist people pay it if they want to use it, I'm going to get 1 of 2 reactions:
1- People will ignore it and never use it
2- People will just laugh at me and use it anyway because it's right there to be used.
Either way that doesn't work out well for me.
Remind you of any other situation at all? But what you don't know is I'm a secret multibillionaire so I can afford the finest lawyers to sue you for your "derivative" whatever it is when you come up with it. I've got more money than you so I can't possibly lose. Bwa! Ha! HA! HAAAAAA! ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because he doesn't own all of the rights to any of his movies? Very few directors do.
"LOL!"
Are you really that easily amused?
"Fat chance of that."
So you are saying that this invalidates his point of view? Or are you saying that this isn't really his point of view, and he is just pretending to think these things because....?
"There seems to be two types of stories on techdirt, FUD and DUF. We all know what FUD is. DUF is just the opposite of FUD. This story is all DUF."
You've been watching the McLaughlin Group again, haven't you? I can tell because you attempt to draw attention away from inconvenient facts (like a famous director who disagrees with your point of view) by insulting your host yet again. This sort of technique only works on TV, where attention spans are short and people only have a few seconds to get their point across. On the web this technique is much less effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As you know, he does not own the rights. I'm not sure that lessens his opinion. I find it odd that the folks who always claim it's so important to "respect the wishes" of artists then go to great lengths to insult those who think differently than they do.
It's unbecoming.
There seems to be two types of stories on techdirt, FUD and DUF. We all know what FUD is. DUF is just the opposite of FUD. This story is all DUF.
That makes no sense and makes you look childish.
You are more interesting when you add actual insight to a conversation rather than childish retorts that make you look immature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What's stopping Francis from doing the exact same thing?
Let's see him put his money where his mouth is.
You too. When are you going to give away your ad space for free and start making your money with t-shirt sales?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1. Who says that he hasn't?
2. They're already available, so why waste time and energy adding them again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Liability. He'd almost certainly be in breach of actual contracts by doing so, and thus it's a much riskier proposition than an anonymous person on the internet. A shame, as if the artist and the public both agree on how to use 30-40 year old work such as The Godfather, it should be out there, but that's what the pro-corporate drones such as yourself have wrought by attacking copyright. the middlemen have to profit, even if both the public and the artist suffer.
"You too. When are you going to give away your ad space for free and start making your money with t-shirt sales?"
Do you need to trumpet your ignorance in every thread? It used to be amusing, the way you distort Mike's words and attack positions that nobody holds, but it is a little tiresome now.
This comment is a great example. Mike has often promoted using infinite goods to leverage sales of scarce goods. Now, to "put his money where his mouth is", you suggest he ignores this and give away the scarce goods as well? You really haven't been listening.
Again, I ask the question: why are so ignorant and woefully unimaginative that the only scarce good you can conceive of is a t-shirt? Again, I weep for the people you claim to represent, as any musician with you on their side is truly doomed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because they're already available for free without any work on his part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movies as Nineteenth-Century Paintings.
In 1815, the year of Waterloo, there were no cameras. The collective sense of what the battle looked like was formed by paintings, done many years after the fact. Producing such a painting involved getting people to pose for each figure, etc. In its essentials, it was rather like movie-making. One of the more successful painters was the wife of a colonel, who was in a position to borrow her husband's troops for a re-enactment. Still, it has been pointed out that the "factual" content of the images is often impossibly wrong. Things simply couldn't have happened that way. However, people related to the picture as if it were the truth.
The painting of recent battles was a special case of history painting. In the late eighteenth century and the nineteenth century, each country asserted its national identity by commissioning large and elaborate paintings of significant episodes in its historical past. The artists went to great deal of trouble to research all the different elements, making sure that the characters wore the right kind of clothes, etc. When the painting was finished, another artist would engrave an adaptation on a copper printing plate, taking account of the differences between the two media, and the plate would be used to produce paper prints which would be sold in quantity.
However, these pictures were inauthentic in one big sense. They were images of things which, at the time they happened, were not considered worth recording, because the collective mindset was different. Sometimes, the incidents were themselves fictional, invented a couple of hundred years after the fact-- or five hundred, or a thousand, or two thousand. The Victorians were effectively imposing their own values on the past. For a time, they were able to fool themselves by collecting period detail.
In 1863, the year of Gettysburg, photography existed, but the paraphernalia necessary to take pictures filled a whole wagon. Photographers like Mathew Brady drove over the battlefields when it was all over, setting up their big tripod cameras, and taking pictures of the aftermath, and taking the wet glass photographic plates directly into the darkrooms built into their wagons to process them on the spot. At this time, half-tone printing had not yet been invented, so there were limits to the circulation of these pictures. Print media, such as newspapers, made engravings, drawing from various sources, some photographs, some sketch-drawings, and some pure imagination. A large selection of a couple of thousand photographs was eventually published in the _The Photographic History of the Civil War_, in ten volumes, edited by Francis Trelyvan Miller, in 1911. However, the public visual memory of the Civil War was still defined by the big painting commissioned for a public building. This painting drew on the same kinds of sources as newspaper engravings.
History painting, in general, collapsed at the end of the nineteenth century. Halftone printing had come along, making it possible to photograph works of art, and economically reproduce them on paper. Equally to the point, travel had become cheaper and easier with the advent of railroads and steamships. Instead of making new pictures out of the imagination, it was possible to travel all over Europe and see works of art produced in historic times, and photograph them, and accurately reproduce the photographs for sale. In particular, the Spanish pictures were influential, those of El Greco and Velasquez. Madrid had been a remote city, difficult to get to, and the capital of a country which had once been a great power, but was now lost in its own past. In a sense, the Prado Museum and the Escoril Palace were a kind of lost world. History painting was demoralized. In the old pictures, people encountered a vivid way of life, which was not merely a translocated copy of their own time.
The big new wave of painting in the 1870's and 1880's was Impressionism. In terms of its subjects, Impressionism did not stray very far from home. Impressionist pictures shocked a lot of people because of their unfinished style, but at one level, they were fairly conventional. The pictures were usually of things which fell within the daily experience of the upper-middle-class customers. They painted a quite large number of pictures of little girls, engaged in their normal activities, playing with toys or whatever, and these pictures were commissioned by the parents. Very few impressionist pictures had any kind of public or political import. The people who painted public pictures were becoming artistic second-raters. Poster artists, working for the print media, were often very political, when they were not engaged in their main business of advertising. A very elaborate illustration, showing more than a hundred people, was likely to be an advertisement for a department store-- or a labor union poster. Of course, eventually, advertising switched to photography when photography got good enough, with rich enough production values.
By the time of the World Wars, cameras had become compact enough and automatic enough that a news photographer, someone of the type of Robert Capa, could carry a camera instead of a rifle, and could keep up with the troops to such an extent that he was likely to be killed in battle eventually. Being that far forward, the photographer was able to produce compelling photographs, which could be sent home in the mail as unprocessed rolls of film, and which appeared in newspapers and magazines while the fighting was still going on. These photographs effectively deprived the artist of his ability to craft a collective memory. They were not technically so good as what an artist could produce, but they were comparatively real, and they wound up in every household, in the form of stacks of back issues of Life magazine in the closet or attic. Of course, during wartime, the pictures still had to pass censorship, so they did not show moral decadence or the like.
By the time of Vietnam, ordinary soldiers were often carrying cameras, although they naturally didn't have as much time to use them as a combat journalist would have. Whether the pictures were taken by amateurs or professionals, Vietnam was the great age of the uncensored war photograph, depicting war in all its physical brutality. Only one veil was left: that of inner mentality. Lieutenant Calley still knew enough to lie about what he had done at My Lai. If he was giggling hysterically while he personally killed the small children, there is no record of it.
Iraq took the process one step further. Reasonably efficient press censorship was in place, but cameras had penetrated down to the "moron" level, at places like Abu Ghraib. According to recent press interviews, Lynndie England still cannot understand why what she did was wrong. She simply hasn't the education or intelligence to grasp why abusing prisoners-of-war is shameful. It was someone like _that_, who did not understand the necessity of destroying potential evidence, who could casually create souvenir-pictures, the way a hunter does with a dead deer. And that is what the collective visual memory of Iraq will be.
Now, of course, other things equal, film/video cameras are heavier and bulkier than still cameras, but they are following the same basic trajectory. Photographic images, one might add, tended to "frame" movies, to define the visual look which movie-makers were striving for. At a certain point it will become impossible to make Hollywood movies which compete with the home movies made by the participants. Something similar applies to things like gun-camera films, video which is automatically recorded by equipment. Large sections of a movie will be built up out of commonly available archival footage, so abundant that it has no scarcity value, and is not controlled by a few organizations.
Alternately, film-makers might decide that they simply don't need to pretend to portray certain events realistically. They can provide animation at the cartoon level for "framing content," which can be done inexpensively with tools like Second Life, and concentrate their actual filming on much smaller scenes. A novelist varys his exactness of description according to circumstances. He doesn't tell you exactly what a building looks like, unless it matters. In that case, he may very well draw a picture, or a map, or a diagram. A traditional Hollywood film-maker has to go all-out in achieving exact period detail, because he is trying to convince you that what he is showing you is reality. Once he simply gives up that goal, because it has become unattainable in the light of home movies and surveillance footage, the rules change. He has to give you enough visual cues so that you know what is going on, and where to locate the action. However, that can be done with inexpensive animation and image-processing technique.
Just as painting in the "Grand Manner" went through a fatal loss of confidence, I suspect that film-making in the Grand Manner will also go through a fatal loss of confidence. It will come to be understood that if a movie cannot be made inexpensively, that is a sign that this particular project is not well-suited for film.
Roy Strong, _Recreating the Past: British History and the Victorian Painter_, 1978
Gus McDonald, _Camera, Victorian Eyewitness: A History of Photography, 1826-1913_, 1979[1980]
Max Gallo, _The Poster in History_, 1974, 1975 [abridged translation of _I Manifesti_, 1972]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Movies as Nineteenth-Century Paintings.
Can the same be said for too many words in a weblog comment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Filthy Rich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Filthy Rich
Not that I expect you'll ever come back, but this argument is made all the time and it's been debunked tons of times.
We've covered artists small, medium and big who all encourage file sharing and say that it's helped them build a career and get more attention.
So, no, you're flat out wrong that no artists appreciate it when fans SHARE THEIR WORK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]