Movie Showing How Music Can Help Dementia Patients Held Up... By The Difficulty In Licensing The Music

from the depressing dept

Tue, Jul 24th 2012 12:28pm — Mike Masnick

My grandfather passed away at 96-years-old just last year. While he remained "with it" for quite some time, in the last few years of his life, he suffered from pretty serious dementia. So, a few months ago, when I saw this somewhat viral video of a dementia patient in a nursing home suddenly being "revived" by listening to the music he grew up with, it was really quite amazing. I just wished I'd been able to test that out with my grandfather earlier. If you haven't seen the video, it's worth checking out (especially if you've ever had to deal with a loved one suffering from dementia):
So I was definitely interested when Bas told me that the folks who made that clip were trying to put the finishing touches on a much longer documentary about bringing personalized music to dementia patients... and were doing so with a Kickstarter campaign. These days, that's completely understandable, but what struck me as most unfortunate and distressing is that the main reason why the filmmaker needs to raise $50,000 is because of the expense of licensing the music so that it can be shown in the film. It's clear from the video just how powerful this film is, and just how useful it might be to get lots of people to see it. And yet, copyright holders are often very, very stingy about licensing music for films -- especially documentaries. As we've discussed in the past, the difficulties documentary filmmakers have in licensing music for their films -- even if the song is a key factual component of the story -- are incredibly disturbing. Rather than helping to spread the music, copyright holders are locking it up.

In this case, in particular, it appears that they're basically locking up this entire film, unless they can raise $50,000. That's not how copyright is supposed to work. The video explanation of what the filmmaker is trying to do is great, but the fact that it's copyright holding things up just seems really disturbing (he explains that's the issue about five minutes into the video):

It's too bad that (1) fair use is such a mess that this kind of thing isn't automatically seen by all involved as fair use, and (2) the copyright holders here, knowing the importance of such a project, can't offer up a free license for the filmmaker.

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: dementia, documentary, licensing, music

142 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 12:48pm

In this case, in particular, it appears that they're basically locking up this entire film, unless they can raise $50,000. That's not how copyright is supposed to work.

Copyright isn't supposed to secure exclusive rights, i.e., the right to exclude? Whatever you say, Pirate Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re:
  Copyright is supposed to get morks works out to the pubic.
  
  Works like this film
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 12:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Meant to say "more", or in common internet useage "moar"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 1:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I was gonna ask are the morks like the moops?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Copyright is supposed to get morks works out to the pubic.
    
    Works like this film
    
    Yes, copyright grants an exclusive, marketable right to encourage the dissemination of works. These works are available in the marketplace. You guys just don't like the price. But it's obviously up to the rightholder to set his own price. And the rightholder can even refuse to license the work if he wants to. This is an example of copyright working exactly as it is intended to. A rightholder is exercising exclusive rights. If they want to a license to use the works, they have to pay for the rights. Just like the Framers intended.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, copyright grants an exclusive, marketable right to encourage the dissemination of works. These works are available in the marketplace. You guys just don't like the price. But it's obviously up to the rightholder to set his own price. And the rightholder can even refuse to license the work if he wants to. This is an example of copyright working exactly as it is intended to. A rightholder is exercising exclusive rights. If they want to a license to use the works, they have to pay for the rights. Just like the Framers intended.
      
      ie Rightsholders are mean and unpleasant people who would rather see dementia patients and their carers suffer than give up a tiny part of their control.
      
      Thank you for clarifying that point.
      
      Perhaps when you are older and find yourself suffering from dementia - or caring for someone who does then you might realise how nasty your current attitude is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why aren't you demanding that the camera manufacturers give them free cameras, or that computer companies should give them free computers, or that automakers should give them free cars, etc. They want to use someone else's property in their movie, this property costs $50,000 to use. Big deal. They can raise that in an hour on Kickstarter, right? Why isn't Pirate Mike actually helping them rather than just using them to whine about copyright working exactly as it should.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, if they had been contacted for that, I would. But the point here is that a generally uplidting film is being held back by what amounts to "Fuck you, that's why!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 9:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, the film is being held back for a number of reasons (not only copyright, it seems). More importantly though, if you are making a movie that includes someone else's work, shouldn't you consider that UP FRONT, rather than at the end?
        
        This is sort of a Nina Paley problem - they made a movie but ignored the cost of the raw materials. When it comes time to actually release it, they realize that they cannot do it until the pay for the raw materials.
        
        It's normal business - except for people who think that everything is free.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 28 Jul 2012 @ 8:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Bringing cures/treatment to suffering patients is more important than your entitlement issues, I hope you get both Dementia AND Alzheimer's and see if you still think the same about it then.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, does the music cost 50,000$ for anyone? What are the reasons behind that price. I think most people are complaining about the volatility of the thing and the encouragement of backdoor dealings in the system.
        The question becomes: What if you put up an open pricing structure and shied away from the backdoor dealings?
        You might end up with a wider use of your copyright, but it is stands to reason that the road to use of the copyright is far less frustrating.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ophelia Millais (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 11:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Most of these copyright holders are not interested in wider use, per se. If they were, they would put their work in the public domain, or they'd charge nothing (or maybe a nominal fee) for licenses.
        
        One factor at work here is that many copyright owners operate under the theory that their works are worth whatever price tag they put on them. If they offer this guy a $500 license instead of a $2500 one, they're declaring the work to be worth that much. To charge less is to "devalue" the work, as no one will then be willing to pay more. This belief is quite common among gatekeepers and creators alike.
        
        Another factor is the hope that at any moment, someone who can afford the higher fee might come knocking. This is why Chuck Berry wants $20 million if you play 20 seconds of "Johnny B. Goode" on TV. He clearly is not interested in wider use of his work. He regards it as a lottery ticket.
        
        Berry aside, most business-savvy copyright owners who want to exploit their works know they need to find a "sweet spot" in license pricing, where the cost is low enough that the work does get licensed on occasion, but not so low that the work has diminished perceived value or that the higher number of licenses doesn't compensate for the reduced price.
        
        There's also the notion of a going rate: creators often feel they've somehow been cheated if their work doesn't go for roughly the same amount charged for comparable works. The big publishing houses and record labels tend to be more pragmatic and strategic in their pricing and will drop the price when it works to their advantage. But in the music world, the publishers are often corporate fronts for the musicians themselves, and expectations are skewed accordingly. They'll stubbornly insist on higher rates, simply because they feel they deserve the same treatment as their peers; they don't want to be regarded as being in the "budget" class.
        
        Lastly, along those same lines, they especially don't want to accidentally license something for cheap and then find that the way the work gets used is not to their liking. They figure, probably correctly, that the lower price they charge, the more likely the work will be exploited in ways that qualitatively cheapen it. If the film turns out to be crap, they don't want their work to be associated with it. In their view, a higher fee helps to minimize this risk.
        
        For most copyright owners, these factors all outweigh arguments about all the public good and wider use that would result from more-reasonable license fees and exceptions for clearly noble uses of their work, such as this film. I'm not saying I agree with it, or that it's in touch with reality, just that it's still the prevailing point of view.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 4:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First off, it's 2 million, not 20 million that Berry wants. That's his right, his choice.
        
        Remember, wider exposure isn't everyone's goal. There is no obligation in copyright to share, any more than there is an obligation to share your house with anyone who might show up looking for a place to sleep at a reasonable price.
        
        It's their choice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BeeAitch (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 6:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "First off, it's 2 million, not 20 million that Berry wants."
        
        Oh, well, that's much better!
        
        "There is no obligation in copyright to share, any more than there is an obligation to share your house with anyone who might show up looking for a place to sleep at a reasonable price."
        
        Analogy fail: real property =/= imaginary property (hint: that's why it's called imaginary property, because it's not real. But you either already know this and choose to ignore it or you are incredibly thick.)
        
        Care to try again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 28 Jul 2012 @ 8:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's their choice.
        
        Hmm. Nope. If it was they wouldn't crying about piracy all the time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your arguments just get dumber and more obnoxious don't they?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 8:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "ie Rightsholders are mean and unpleasant people who would rather see dementia patients and their carers suffer than give up a tiny part of their control."
        
        You are a victim of yellow journalism again - complete with graphical content.
        
        Mike wants you to focus on the "suffering" of a few, while at the same time wanting you to ignore whatever pain might be inflicted on others as a result.
        
        Re-framed, do you think the copyright holder should give up their rights because of a single dementia patient? Would you like to give up your rights to drive your car because one person on your block is bothered by the noise?
        
        I guess Mike can add "Think about the dementia patients!" to his list of canned refrains.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 4:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can gt ticketed if your car is too loud here.
        
        So, yes.I would want th asshole with the loud car to keep it quiet. If you get too many tickets, you lose the right to drive.that's just how it works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 5:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        while at the same time wanting you to ignore whatever pain might be inflicted on others as a result.
        
        Ignoring delusions of things that don't exist is generally a good policy.
        
        Over and over and over again, we have asked for proof of harm for copyright infringement. Real, quantifiable, evidence of harm.
        
        That you have never shown any tells us all we need to know.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Josh, harm? How simple can it be?
        
        If under the law they can charge for the rights to use their music in other ways (such as movies), and suddenly you can you can no longer do that, is there not harm caused? Are they not economically hurt?
        
        Further, what happens if the music is used in relation to something the writer, composer, or performer specifically does not agree with? Imagine a Vegan's music used to sell McDonalds burgers, or a pacifist's music used in a documentary about nuclear weapons or highly violent video games. Is there not harm there by their being forced to be part of something they don't want to be part of?
        
        It's been told to you over and over again - you just fail to listen.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are they not economically hurt?
        
        So point to a specific example. Clear, quantifiable, evidence of harm. Not theoretical potential profits. If it is so simple, then do so.
        
        We're waiting.
        
        We have dozens of specific examples of copyright directly harming people individually and society as a whole. We have multiple studies with clear and open methodolgy and verifiable data showing these are not outliers. You have shown no specific examples or verifiable data supporting your position. If you have, please point me to it.
        
        If all you want to do is talk theoretical potential profits, then allow me to rebut with a few potential profit streams the music industry is missing out on through their own incompetence:
        - Setting up an easy to use licensing system for all their works, and charging small amounts for personal videos, documentaries, and such could generate all sorts of profits.
        - Lowering licensing costs to streaming providers, and stop suing or sabotaging them, such as Grooveshark, Spotify, and other such services would encourage more services and more people to use them, generating enormous potential profits.
        
        Further, what happens if the music is used in relation to something the writer, composer, or performer specifically does not agree with?
        
        There is nothing stopping the writer/artist/composer coming out publicly against the things he/she disagrees with. It is actually pretty stupid for a business or politician to use a work for promotional without making sure that the artist would support it for just this very reason. It ends up looking very bad for that business, and giving the artist a nice tall pedestal and audience to rant against whatever the business was trying to promote.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kuroyume (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Re-framed, do you think the copyright holder should give up their rights because of a single dementia patient? Would you like to give up your rights to drive your car because one person on your block is bothered by the noise?"
        
        Giving someone the permission to use your song without violating a copyright does not:
        a) Let them use it for whatever purposes they want to
        b) Stop other people from having the ability to pay you for using it as well
        
        In addition, your phrasing, "bothered by the noise", is in poor taste given the subject of the article you've commented on. Good job both missing the point completely and being such an incompassionate human being.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Benjo (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You think the Framers intended songs to still be under copyright 60+ years after their release? If you're going to act like a constitutional scholar, provide some reasoning.
      
      Something being lawful is different than it being moral, economically stimulating/useful, or acceptable by society.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 4:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This is an example of copyright working exactly as it is intended to.
      
      Err, no.
      
      Copyright was originally intended to be for a limited time, after which time the copyrighted work would enter the public domain. But with the constant retroactive expansion of term length, this no longer applies.
      
      At the time, it would take days just to get a small amount of information, such as a letter or book, from one end of the country to another by the fastest means possible, a horse carrying a courier. Now we can move that same information farther in fractions of a second, or the entire contents of the Library of Congress in minutes.
      
      At the time, it cost an enormous amount of resources to publish a book and distribute it. This can now be done at little cost by anyone with the time to write something.
      
      "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea,"
      Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac McPherson (1813)
      
      "But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good."
      James Madison, �Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments� (1819)
      
      Just as the framers intended, eh?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 8:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Copyright is supposed to get morks works out to the pubic.
    
    Works like this film"
    
    Umm, no, it's not. Copyright is suppose to get more artists to create NEW works. It wasn't specifically created to encourage re-use.
    
    If you want to encourage re-use, you get rid of copyright. The issue there is that the cure is worse than the cause, with artist discouraged from making NEW work, while re-use reaches a new high.
    
    Would you like to eat nothing but yesterday's leftovers for the rest of your life?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Danny (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 11:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Except one thing. Copyright originally had limits, 2 years after creation = public domain.
      
      There would be no licencing costs if this was still the case.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hfbs (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 4:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yep, copyright is suppose to get more artists to create new works. It does this by getting their previous works out into the public domain so they can't rest on their laurels and use them as unlimited money for their entire life.
      
      Thanks for playing :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re:
  Well, it certainly isn't encouraging any creativity from you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 1:17pm
  
  Re:
  You, troll, are an evil sub-human son-of-a-bitch and an enemy of the human race.
  
  You and your entire evil soulless cabal will suffer painfully, horribly and eternally in hell.
  
  You are fucking dead, shitbag.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 1:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And you kiss YOUR MOTHER with thaat mouth?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You, troll, are an evil sub-human son-of-a-bitch and an enemy of the human race.
    
    You and your entire evil soulless cabal will suffer painfully, horribly and eternally in hell.
    
    You are fucking dead, shitbag.
    
    Forget the meds today?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 3:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Forget the meds today?
      
      Want me to link to dozens of comments from *you* that are that and worse?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 4:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, Pirate Mike. I want you to be a big boy and respect your anonymous commentators' privacy. But you and I both know that when it's a dissenting view, you'll go to any lengths to try and discredit them--including revealing information that you shouldn't. Nothing desperate or scummy about that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 5:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So why only him needs to be a big boy and take it and you can't?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 7:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I want you to be a big boy and respect your anonymous commentators' privacy."
        
        Can you explain to the class how this would be disrespecting anyone's privacy?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "But you and I both know that when it's a dissenting view, you'll go to any lengths to try and discredit them--including revealing information that you shouldn't. "
        
        So you admit that actually identifying the bile you've inflicted on this site would make you look like the obnoxious hypocrite you are? That merely linking to your own comments is enough to discredit you? Nice of you to be honest for once.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, Pirate Mike. I want you to be a big boy and respect your anonymous commentators' privacy.
        
        Pointing out your long history of being a complete douchebag does not disrespect your privacy. No one knows who you are. They just would confirm that you mocking that commenter makes you the biggest hypocrite seen around these parts.
        
        That seems like useful information that does not touch on a single personally identifiable characteristic.
        
        But I will note that you don't deny that your comments were worse than the commenter above. Confirming what everyone knew: you can't help but be a total douchebag. Thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 6:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I love how you have all the time in the world to debate the small stuff, but you can't/won't explain/defend your post.
        
        You said: "In this case, in particular, it appears that they're basically locking up this entire film, unless they can raise $50,000. That's not how copyright is supposed to work."
        
        I responded that this is exactly how copyright is supposed to work. Copyright is supposed to give people the right to exclude. You, of course, and as always, haven't actually addressed this point.
        
        Let's talk about that. I know you won't though, 'cause you know that what you said is complete bullshit.
        
        You always run away from the debate. You always try and change the subject. You're doing it again here and now. The fact is, the reason I give you so much grief is because I know you are intentionally dishonest about copyright. Your statement, the one you refuse to defend or explain, is a great example. All you do is stomp your feet and try and chance the subject.
        
        Why so scared?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Copyright is supposed to give people the right to exclude" with the end goal of creating more works.
        Which this isn't doing.
        This isn't a post about scrapping copyright (no matter how you like to keep reading these articles and leaping to that conclusion), it's about how copyright is working against the idea of creating new content. Primarily because some people can't see the difference between price and value.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Micaela (profile), 28 Jul 2012 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You always run away from the debate. You always try and change the subject. You're doing it again here and now. "
        
        "All you do is stomp your feet and try and chance the subject.
        Why so scared?"
        
        :-O PMSL! Have you not got any self-awareness at ALL?!
        
        Also, are you the same guy/girl posting inane/insane comments over at Torrentfreak as well? Surely there is no way there can be two different people with this much moronic stupidity going around trying to refute nearly every other post with an almost gung ho attitude, and ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF other then their own opinion on the given subject.
        
        I'm affraid that you are confusing us with people who can't actually look for this information ourselves without needing writers like Mike to point it out for us. Unlike you (obviously) i research multiple sources before making my mind up on any given subject. Nowadays, only the uninterested and gulible are unable to find the correct information for whatever subject interests them the most.
        
        But please don't stop. Between this comment tread and the one over at TF i just spent an amusing 30 mins. :-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 1:29pm
  
  Re:
  Whatever you say, Pirate Mike. = Yo mamma. Welcome to the third grade.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Just a reminder to all that he's a artist-hating, pirate-defending manipulator.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You mean like Sony BMG, who put malware onto their disks masquerading ad DRM?
      
      You mean like Universal, who have a numer of lawsuits about their contractual obligations to artists?
      
      You mean like Lucasarts, whose entire business model demands that they re-release their biggest three films, yet still hasn't properly paid residuals to its defining acting performance?
      
      Yeah, Mike's the hater here, ofc!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 3:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Just a reminder to all that he's a artist-hating, pirate-defending manipulator.
      
      Must be why I highlights tons of artists making money and celebrate when they do.
      
      For you to call me an artist hater is flat out ridiculous and anyone who can read (apparently not you) can tell that it's ridiculous.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 4:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't hate artists by trying to help them. You hate artists by not supporting them if they choose to exercise their statutory rights. You hate artists by always siding with the pirates and making excuses for piracy. You hate artists by running a blog where you incessantly demean people who disagree with your alternative ideas. You hate artists by being an arrogant and despicable manipulator who will do anything to destroy and discredit anything having to do with copyright. If you really didn't hate artists, you wouldn't run the biggest pirate-apologist blog on the planet. Sorry, Pirate Mike, but the fact that you might help some artists, so long as they choose to accept your alternative theories, does not disprove that you hate any artist who doesn't agree with your worldview. Can you point me to the articles where you explain how an artist stood up for their rights against someone who willingly violated their copyright rights? Nope. I can point to TONS of articles where you make excuses for piracy and take a view that pirates generally agree with. Are your comments sections bursting with thank you's from all the artists who think you've got their backs? Nope. It's full of piratical thieves who openly admit that they hate copyright and intentionally violate artists' rights. Now why do they feel so at home here, Pirate Mike? Hmm...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 5:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well of course you want find Mike saying anything positive about copyrights and your ridiculous parameters.
        
        But he does in fact say good things about artists that have let go of the notion they need a granted monopoly to survive in the market.
        
        To me he is doing more to help artists find a way to not only cope with "piracy" but also thrive in the face of it, making use of it to make some money, on the other hand we have you, that running about everytime somebody copies something, like a dog chasing wheels, it will never catch it, and even if he does it probably hurt him,
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nigel (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 6:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I can point to TONS of articles where you make excuses for piracy and take a view that pirates generally agree with"
        
        We are not pirates fucktard and we are waiting for said tons of articles.
        
        I am however going to download something whether I want to watch it or not in honor of your bullshit every time you flap your gums without facts. Now we can blame piracy on failed, deprecated business models AND YOU.
        
        Nigel
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 7:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You hate artists by not supporting them if they choose to exercise their statutory rights. You hate artists by always siding with the pirates and making excuses for piracy. You hate [blah, blah, blah]..."
        
        That's an impressively emotional list, but none of them are actually examples of hating anything, much less artists. Perhaps if you weren't so ridiculously hyperbolic in your claims you might get taken a bit more seriously.
        
        "If you really didn't hate artists, you wouldn't run the biggest pirate-apologist blog on the planet."
        
        Or you could just double down on the hyperbole. Yeah, that'll work...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 8:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        IP is a privilege, not a right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I can point to TONS of articles where you make excuses for piracy and take a view that pirates generally agree with"
        
        Go on then, link away. I'll bet you that you can't find one that doesn't have some other legitimate interpretation that your single-minded idiot brain has chosen to ignore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't hate artists by trying to help them. You hate artists by not supporting them if they choose to exercise their statutory rights.
        
        Explaining how exercising their gov't granted monopoly privileges won't help them grow their fanbase or help them make more money seems like a way to HELP them adapt to the future so they can make more money by NOT BEING A DICK to their fans.
        
        I guess it doesn't surprise me that you can't understand this concept.
        
        You hate artists by running a blog where you incessantly demean people who disagree with your alternative ideas.
        
        This from someone who's never posted a single comment here without insulting those who disagree with you? Spare me.
        
        Are your comments sections bursting with thank you's from all the artists who think you've got their backs? Nope.
        
        You should see my email. You'd be surprised. Of course, lots of people don't jump in the comments because they point to total jackasses like you and wonder why they'd want to bother arguing with people who clearly don't get it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 6:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So someone who "steals" from an artist is just that artist's friend and fan? LOL! Yeah, and bank robbers are just fans of the Federal Reserve.
        
        Noticeably, you make no comment about the fact that your comments sections are teeming with pirates. Funny how you don't deny or explain that. But you and I both know why that is: You've established a very pirate friendly place here, Pirate Mike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Arr, ye have the right of it there matey. We all be pirates here and our timbers are truly shivered.
        Twat.
        Maybe this is a pirate-friendly place, but maybe that's because the people like you are in the minority and most people are happy to have a sensible debate without a load of pointless abuse?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 5:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Disclosure: this comment isn't mean to be a childish insult. I just wanted to give you and everyone a reminder that your mother is indeed, very very fat. So fat that she has her own gravitational pull.
      
      Just a friendly reminder.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mason Wheeler (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re:
  Copyright isn't supposed to secure exclusive rights, i.e., the right to exclude?
  
  Yes it is, but only insofar as it promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. When the exclusivity is impeding said progress, as it is in this case, then you've got the tail wagging the dog.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes it is, but only insofar as it promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. When the exclusivity is impeding said progress, as it is in this case, then you've got the tail wagging the dog.
    
    Promoting the progress has never meant that would-be licensees can just do whatever they want with the copyrighted work. The Framers intended that the progress would be promoted BY GRANTING THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE. You need to look at the big picture. These works, the ones that the filmmakers want to license, are such valuable property that they cost thousands of dollars to license. Wow. Copyright created some really great works! And when they fall into the public domain, filmmakers can do whatever they want with them. This is exactly the copyright system the Framers envisaged. Techdirt tries to rewrite history and pretend like copyright benefits the public first, foremost, and only. But that's not the truth. It's intentionally misleading lies from a semi-closeted, piratical propagandist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DogBreath, 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Copyright created some really great works!
      
      "Copyright" never "created" anything, unless you consider "headache" and "pain in the ass" a "creation".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright created the very works that these filmmakers want to use. The works are so valuable that it costs $50,000 just to use them. That's amazing. Thanks, copyright. Another win for Clause 8. Cracks me up how you guys deny that copyright ever creates anything good, but then you are willing to break the law just to get works created by copyright. The stuff copyright creates is so good that folks are willing to break the law to get it. That says it all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No. People create stuff. Copyright restricts access and use of said stuff.
        Interestingly people created a whole wealth of stuff before copyright came along and would continue to do so if it stopped tomorrow.
        Being as you're on a bit of a constitutional rant this evening, would you agree or disagree that the current length of copyright (and the fact that it continues post death) still meets the desires of the Framers?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DogBreath, 24 Jul 2012 @ 3:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright doesn't create, people do. The only thing copyright creates these days is a way for some company to cheat writers, artists and actors out of paying them for a rightful share of the work they created, based on a contract the company wrote out to benefit themselves, and only themselves, alone.
        
        Of course, those same writers, artists and actors are getting wise to the ways of "the business", are tired of being shafted and are fighting back using the law (i.e. suing) to punish the lawbreakers (RIAA/MPAA/EMI/Harlequin Enterprises Limited/etc...) for their contracted share of the profits, or haven't you been keeping up with Mike's very informative posts lately?
        
        P.S. Your original paragraph needed a few corrections. Here is what I would suggest it say:
        
        "People created the very works that these filmmakers want to use. The works are price so damn high that corporate thugs demand $50,000 just to use them. That's outrageous. Thanks, soon to be dead business model. Another nail in the coffin for Clause 8. Cracks me up how anyone can claim that copyright ever creates anything.(period), but then companies are willing to break the law just to steal copyrighted works created by people. The stuff people create is so good that companies and corporations are willing to break contract law to screw a fellow human being over with "creative accounting practices", and yes, copyright didn't even create that.
        
        That says it all."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 3:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright created the very works that these filmmakers want to use. The works are so valuable that it costs $50,000 just to use them. That's amazing. Thanks, copyright. Another win for Clause 8.
        
        Holy fuck. Can you please take an economics class before ever opening your mouth again?
        
        I could charge you $50,000 to comment here. That does not mean that my barrier actually created $50,000 in value. And, even more importantly, claiming that copyright gets the credit for the creation is wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How is it wrong to give copyright the credit? Obviously these works are being licensed via copyright. Obviously the business model is copyright based.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 5:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Obviously then you will equally shows us all how many works did not get made because of copyright? right? right?
        
        Or are you like the idiots that cross the street that only look to one side and ignores the other side?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        zippy, 24 Jul 2012 @ 3:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would tell you to have a heart, AC, given the subject matter of the film, but that would be asking you for something you don't have.
        
        Your face needs to meet your desk. Repeatedly. Until you get the MBA/MAFIAA brainwashing out of that huge melon on top of your neck and start acting like a human being rather than another of big business' corporate vampires.
        
        Not even Picard could facepalm enough for this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 5:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Copyright created the very works that these filmmakers want to use. The works are so valuable that it costs $50,000 just to use them. That's amazing. Thanks, copyright. Another win for Clause 8. Cracks me up how you guys deny that copyright ever creates anything good, but then you are willing to break the law just to get works created by copyright. The stuff copyright creates is so good that folks are willing to break the law to get it. That says it all."
        
        Plain sophistics in action and on repeat. Copyright doesn't create. Artists do.
        
        Just like hating major corporations abuse does not equate to hating artists, as another frequent false syllogism.
        
        At best copyright would enable creation. If it really worked as intended and hadn't so much been hijacked by the larger corporations over-obsessed with how much financial value the "property" is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 5:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright created the very works that these filmmakers want to use.
        
        Yet you accuse the people on this site of being "anti-artist," when you won't even properly attribute the creator of an artistic work!
        
        YOU, sir, are anti-artist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 28 Jul 2012 @ 8:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dude take your fucken meds.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If copyright isn't supposed to benefit the public than what's the point of copyright?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It does benefit the public in the long run, i.e., after the work enters the public domain. And it benefits the public during the time the work is copyrighted to the extent that the owner allows the public access to the work. It is the owner's prerogative, though, to control the public's access to the work while it's copyrighted. It has never been the case that the public benefit is measured by how much public access exists for a work while it's still under copyright protection. That's one of the myths spread by Pirate Mike and his "break the internet," "cat signal" cartel.
        The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.
        Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984).
        
        Notice the part I bolded: "to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired." Pirate Mike pretends like the public should get all the benefits up front while the work is under copyright. That has never been the way copyright works. Nor was it ever "supposed" to work that way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        At least, that the theory. In practice, well...not so much.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Care to tell us when something last entered the public domain then?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 3:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It does benefit the public in the long run, i.e., after the work enters the public domain.
        
        Which is never these days, thanks to regular copyright extension. So, you are admitting that copyright today does not benefit the public and thus is not Constitutional.
        
        Thanks for proving the point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 4:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is an absolute falsity. Copyright is for a limited time, and you know it. Your buddy Pirate Larry tried those arguments--and lost. Big time. But you know this. Do you have any substantive arguments that haven't been shot down by the federal appellate courts? I'd love to see you explain exactly how the situation complained of in your post actually runs contra to the purpose of copyright, as you have claimed. But you can't actually make that argument, can you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 5:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Limited LoL
        
        Life + 75 years is limited LoL
        
        Lets have you get paid after life + 75 years and see if you think that timeframe is limited.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 6:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So if you can't afford it you have to wait until you're dead to use it. Fantastic logic. I think we'll lock you away for whatever misdemeanours you committed, lasting the rest of your life. Hey, it lasts less than how long copyright lasts, and therefore it's limited! Shouldn't matter at all, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 8:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Copyright is for a limited time, and you know it."
        
        Your definition of unlimited has gone well beyond any reasonable definition of the word in this context. It's absurd to think any creator needs life+70 to both encourage future work and make a living. I'd love to see you explain exactly how such a ridiculously long time is needed, and why it needs to be so much longer than was originally intended.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is an absolute falsity. Copyright is for a limited time, and you know it.
        
        Bullshit. Almost nothing has entered the public domain in the US in years and it won't happen until most of us are dead. That's not limited.
        
        Just because the court got it wrong doesn't mean it's actually limited. Your problem is that you're such a homer for law and order you have no sense of reality. It's no way to go through life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 6:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Bullshit. Almost nothing has entered the public domain in the US in years and it won't happen until most of us are dead. That's not limited.
        
        LOL! Yes, since the CRA and the CTEA were enacted, some works have had their copyrights extended. So what? It's still for a limited, finite time. This argument is so dumb, and has been so forcefully rejected by the courts, that I can't believe you're even trying to make the argument. I helped someone negotiate a 99-year lease a few weeks ago. That lease will expire after me and everyone else who was there is dead. But that doesn't mean the lease is unlimited. Your argument is just desperate. Shall I quote the Court on the issue?
        
        Just because the court got it wrong doesn't mean it's actually limited. Your problem is that you're such a homer for law and order you have no sense of reality. It's no way to go through life.
        
        It's not wrong. Life + 70 is a finite, limited amount of time. You're just too intellectually dishonest to even admit this. It's funny how you complain that I'm such a slave to the law. What a cop out. It's no surprise though that someone like you, who disagrees with copyright law as a religion, would hang onto the argument. Apparently you don't know what "limited" means. Shall I quote the dictionary?
        
        This is just sad and stupid, Pirate Mike. And I'm still waiting for you to explain how this isn't how copyright is supposed to work. Can you not even try to defend that statement? I guess not. I hope all your readers can see that you don't have any valid arguments, and when called out in the comments, you offer no substantive arguments that pass the laugh test. No wonder you won't debate me: You can't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 6:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If it is limited why not get paid after life + 70 years?
        Sure you can endure that little time can't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 28 Jul 2012 @ 8:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No wonder you won't debate me: You can't.
        
        No one can debate against a mentally disturbed person, you just end up fucked in the head like them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 6:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Just because the court got it wrong..."
        
        I am no fan of the 1978 change to the length of copyright necessitated by the US's agreement to accede to the Berne Convention and its progeny, all in the name of international harmonization, but to say that the court got it wrong is a declarative statement without backup. It bears repeating that Mr. Lessig's arguments did not carry the day before the court by a 7-2 margin.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 7:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pirate Mike has run off, with his tail between his legs. He won't be back to explain how life + 70 years is unlimited, nor will he explain how this story is an example of how copyright is not supposed to work.
        
        Typical Pirate Mike. He won't back up the claim, but you know he'll certainly state it again and again as though it were a settled fact. When you don't have the law or facts on your side, you pound the table, right? He must be wearing through the finish on his desk, he pounds it so hard and so often.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 7:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "He won't be back to explain how life + 70 years is unlimited"
        
        Possibly because it's been explained several times in this thread alone and is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain. Feel free to re-read if you still can't grasp it.
        
        "When you don't have the law or facts on your side, you pound the table, right? He must be wearing through the finish on his desk, he pounds it so hard and so often."
        
        I can see the work Mike's been putting into other articles and his other business work, so I'm sure he's not considering the childish ramblings of a fool who claims he's worng. What does your desk look like?
        
        It's a damn shame that *this* is the level of discourse you're trying to maintain, and it's not helping your cause.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        zippy, 25 Jul 2012 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just take it in stride, Paul. This is what it looks like when a troll goes Carreon. He has no heart, and therefore no compassion. The only thing that matters to him is money. He's simply incapable of ever admitting to being wrong or of providing the evidence we've repeatedly asked him for. And he doesn't grasp the fact that insulting the other party automatically nullifies his arguments. Sad, really. But that's too often what happens to human beings when they go to law school.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, I know, I just find it amusing. Here we are with a very simple concept (life +75 years might as well be infinite for everybody alive today), and he starts picking apart semantics to avoid admitting defeat. He either lacks the intellect to grasp the obvious, the honesty to admit he's wrong or is trolling for the lulz.
        
        Either way, that makes him a moron by that book, but getting a few more comments with the civility of a toddler helps undermine whatever point other people might be fooled into thinking he has.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 9:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Life + 70 years is a finite, limited amount of time. It's not perpetual, it's limited. The limited times argument has been heard by the Supreme Court and soundly rejected:
        Petitioners' Copyright Clause arguments rely on several novel readings of the Clause. We next address these arguments and explain why we find them unpersuasive.
        
        Petitioners contend that even if the CTEA's 20�year term extension is literally a �limited Tim[e],� permitting Congress to extend existing copyrights allows it to evade the �limited Times� constraint by creating effectively perpetual copyrights through repeated extensions. We disagree.
        
        *209 As the Court of Appeals observed, a regime of perpetual copyrights �clearly is not the situation before us.� 239 F.3d, at 379. Nothing before this Court warrants construction of the CTEA's 20�year term extension as a congressional attempt to evade or override the �limited Times� constraint.16 Critically, we again emphasize, petitioners fail to *210 show how the CTEA crosses a constitutionally significant threshold with respect to �limited Times� that the 1831, 1909, and 1976 Acts did not. See supra, at 775�776; Austin, supra n. 13, at 56 (�If extending copyright protection to works already in existence is constitutionally suspect,� so is �extending the protections of U. S copyright law to works by foreign authors that had already been created and even first published when the **784 federal rights attached.�). Those earlier Acts did not create perpetual copyrights, and neither does the CTEA.17
        Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 208-10, 123 S. Ct. 769, 783-84, 154 L. Ed. 2d 683 (2003).
        
        Pirate Mike is trying to make a constitutional law argument (that copyright violates the limited times restriction in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8), but he, of course, fails to mention that the Supreme Court has already decided that issue--and it's exactly the opposite of Mike's interpretation. Not too surprising--the law doesn't agree with Mike's views, so he pretends like the law doesn't exist when making legal arguments.
        
        Funny how Pirate Mike ran off and refuses to have a substantive debate. I'll add this thread to my incredibly long list of bookmarks of comments sections where Mike ran away and stomped his feet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Care to comment on the point (made several times already, including by Mike) that it's expanding before it reaches its limits? Hence at it's current rate things will never reach the public domain (oh look, that's starting to happen now).
        Please do.
        Oh yes, and whilst you're adding this to your list, add it to the list of threads where you threw around a load of insults, spouted a load of bilge* and then didn't actually address any of the arguments raised against you but just repeated the same point again and again and again.
        
        * can't get away from those pirate references hey?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Supreme Court, in the quote I posted from Eldred, answers that argument. Yes, it's been extended in the past. Yes, it's for a long time. But, no, it's not for a perpetual, unlimited time. The argument that life + 70 years IS a perpetual amount of time, because they *MIGHT* extend it again (even though there's no evidence of any plan to do so, and the reason they did it last time (to harmonize with other nations) is no longer present) makes no sense. Is it for an unlimited time? No. The argument is so silly that I'm surprised you guys are harping on it. And the fact that a majority of the Supreme Court addresses the issue head on means that it's res judicata. Get over it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2019 @ 12:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The argument that life + 70 years IS a perpetual amount of time, because they MIGHT extend it again (even though there's no evidence of any plan to do so, and the reason they did it last time (to harmonize with other nations) is no longer present) makes no sense
        
        Yeah, it makes no sense... which is why they used that argument for an extension every fucking time they demanded for one.
        
        You're a tard, average_joe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 6:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So your point is "We demand another extension. You gave it to us before. This is not unlimited because we can write it with a number that's not infinity."
        
        No, you really just repeated the same point over and over. You're not explaining why people should simply accept this aside from the fact that a few people decided everyone else should just roll over like dogs and take it.
        
        I think it's pretty clear that you're the one harping on this validity without even bothering to think that other people might find it slightly bizarre.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 1:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...and again you're just wanking over semantics rather than addressing the actual point raised. You're actually too stupid to read, aren't you?
        
        I don't give a crap what a court says, or whether "life + 70 years" is technically less than infinity. The fact is that if an author dies after I'm 8 years old, according to the average life expectancy in the US (78 years), I will never get to access that work in the public domain. For works that are deemed uncommercial, that means I *never* get to access those works. If a work is not available in the public domain while I'm alive, it may as well be infinite.
        
        You'd possibly then argue that the public domain would be there to benefit later generations, but I don't trust you people not to extend it again and again, as you already have during my lifetime.
        
        Now do you want to stop being an asshole and address the actual concerns, or are you just going to continue ignoring reality?
        
        "Funny how Pirate Mike ran off and refuses to have a substantive debate."
        
        You're yet to raise one. Do you want a list of the other threads where you've disappeared like the lying coward you are and refused to continue once proven utterly wrong about every argument you try to bring to the table, or are you scared of seeing how much of a hypocrite you are?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 12:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am no fan of the 1978 change to the length of copyright necessitated by the US's agreement to accede to the Berne Convention and its progeny, all in the name of international harmonization, but to say that the court got it wrong is a declarative statement without backup. It bears repeating that Mr. Lessig's arguments did not carry the day before the court by a 7-2 margin.
        
        Read the book "No Law" by Lange and Powell. Chapter 4 contains a complete dismantling of the majority ruling in Eldred and an explanation of how Ginsburg appears to have misunderstood almost every important issue at play.
        
        I'm perfectly willing to admit that the Supreme Court doesn't think that there's anything wrong with copyright law today. But I think that anyone with any sense of REALITY knows that's ridiculous. And, as Lange and Powell demonstrate quite comprehensively, the basic legal concepts just don't add up in the Eldred decision.
        
        The court got it wrong, and we all suffer because of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2012 @ 5:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Read the book "No Law" by Lange and Powell. Chapter 4 contains a complete dismantling of the majority ruling in Eldred and an explanation of how Ginsburg appears to have misunderstood almost every important issue at play.
        
        I'm perfectly willing to admit that the Supreme Court doesn't think that there's anything wrong with copyright law today. But I think that anyone with any sense of REALITY knows that's ridiculous. And, as Lange and Powell demonstrate quite comprehensively, the basic legal concepts just don't add up in the Eldred decision.
        
        The court got it wrong, and we all suffer because of it.
        
        You point to a book that takes an extremist, absolutist view of the First Amendment as evidence of what? That someone made some counterarguments?
        
        It's intellectually dishonest to state categorically that copyright law violates the "limited times" provision of the Constitution when that issue has been rejected by every court to ever consider it, including the Supreme Court. That copyright law does not violate the "limited times" provision is the law of the land. To go around claiming the opposite, without even mentioning the fact that what you're saying is contra to the actual law that is decided and res judicata, is the paragon of dishonesty.
        
        The same goes for your trope about copyright not being property. You readily admit that copyright is property as the word property is used in the Constitution. To then say that copyright is not property, without any qualifications or explanations, is to intentionally mislead.
        
        You're trying to make legal arguments (copyright is unconstitutional; copyright is not property), but purposefully ignoring and failing to mention the actual law. You seem to think that if you can find somebody, somewhere who makes an argument (even if that argument has been directly shot down by the courts and is an extremist, minority view), then you can claim that that argument is the way it actually is. That's like saying that African Americans aren't "persons" under the 14th Amendment, despite decades of jurisprudence to the contrary, because some guy wrote a book and argued the opposite.
        
        I'm starting to understand why you won't ever have a legal debate and why you run away from discussions about your beliefs: They don't withstand any scrutiny, and all you're doing is intentionally lying to your readers to further your agenda. If you cared about having an open, human, and awesome debate, you'd acknowledge that the actual law is contra to your legal views when you make legal arguments. But being truthful and honest isn't your bag. All you care about is manipulating people to your way of thinking.
        
        But, yeah, point to the "No Law" book that in its own preface admits that it's accurate to describe the book as "legal fantasy." Point to a book that takes extremist, minority views and pretend like those views are the only ones. And whatever you do, just keep ignoring the actual law when making your legal arguments. It's what all the manipulators are doing.
        
        And keep on pretending like there's nothing morally wrong with piracy. That shows us all what you *really* think of artists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 7:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, you're consistent at least. If you can't challenge the argument, rubbish the source. Good work there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2012 @ 7:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can't challenge the argument? I'm sorry, Drew, but you're not making much sense. The absolutist, extremist view taken by the authors of that book (and Mike) has always been a minority view. That has never been the law. The courts have never adopted that view. Not sure what you think needs to be challenged. Why aren't you asking Mike to explain why pretends up is down and left is right when making his legal arguments? Why don't you ask Mike why he lies and manipulates readers?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The argument that you're failing to challenge is the one that states that if the copyright term is lenghtening faster than the items that it covers age then the "limited" part of this is effectively redundant.
        You ask why we would expect this to continue and we point you to every change in copyright law in the last 30 years.
        Not once has that time-frame gone backwards.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2012 @ 10:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Supreme Court definitively and unequivocally said that argument is a loser. I quoted the exact text already in this thread above. Not sure what you think I'm ducking. Did you read the language I quoted? It says that perpetual copyright is not what's happening now, and the Court completely rejected the argument that Congress is doing that. The CTEA was not a pretext to perpetual copyright. The U.S. law is now harmonized with the rest of the world. There is no plan to expand it again. The issue has been settled by the highest Court in this land. What else do you want me to say? I really don't think you know what you're talking about at this point. Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 10:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not being funny, but I don't care what the supreme court said. An appeal to their authority doesn't change the fact that nothing is currently entering the public domain because copyright terms are expanding faster than the time passing.
        "There is no plan to expand it again." Really? You can guarantee that? So I can either take your word on this, or I can look at the behaviours of the content industry over the last 30 years. Hmmm.
        You claim this is just to bring the US into line with the rest of the world, so if, in a couple of years time, the EU extends copyright to Life + 95 years, what then? More international obligations to be met at the expense of the public domain?
        Surely you can see why people don't believe that this is the desired end-state for the content industries?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2012 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nothing currently entering the public domain? I thought Techdirt created works and abandoned copyright on them everyday. Lot's of stuff goes into the public domain. As far as the stuff that had it's copyright automatically renewed or extended, yes, I understand that the entry into the public domain has been delayed. But it's being delayed and will enter the public domain at a later time. I cannot guarantee that there is no plan to extend it again. I can only point out that you're worrying that there is such a plan but without offering one iota of proof that anyone is actually planning this. I understand your arguments about what *could* happen. But like the Supreme Court, I'll look at the facts of what is happening. Copyright is life + 70 years. That is a limited amount of time. Your parade of horribles is not the least bit persuasive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Nothing currently entering the public domain? I thought Techdirt created works and abandoned copyright on them everyday"
        
        You don't understand the difference between public domain and simply not enforcing draconian copyright? Figures, I suppose.
        
        "Copyright is life + 70 years. That is a limited amount of time"
        
        The life of a giant redwood is also limited. I wouldn't be planning my cultural heritage over when it dies of natural causes, though.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 11:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I can only point out that you're worrying that there is such a plan but without offering one iota of proof that anyone is actually planning this."
        This is true, I have no proof, but I have precedent: the 1790 Act, the 1831 Act, the 1909 Act, the 1962-74 acts, the 1976 act and the 1998 act.
        The facts of what is happening is that copyright terms are being expanded with an increasing frequency.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2012 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I understand that you think copyright lasts too long. But that doesn't make it a constitutional issue. You're doing what Pirate Mike always does--trying to impose constitutional limits on the parts of copyright he doesn't like. It's just boy-who-cried-wolf whining. I mean, the Supreme Court has explicitly said that copyright law today does not violate the limited times provision in the Constitution. But that's not good enough for Pirate Mike. He ignores and purposefully omits the parts of the law that he doesn't like when discussing the law. As I said, the paragon of dishonesty. I mean, think about it: If I proclaimed with African Americans are slaves, without any qualification, you would say I'm a liar. That's not the law. But according to Pirate Mike's twisted and snake-like logic, it wouldn't be wrong to say that African Americans are pirates. In his world, you can pretend like something that isn't the law is the law when discussing (what purports to be) the actual law. See my point? It's dishonest to say that x=y if you know for a fact that the law is settled that it doesn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2012 @ 2:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oops. Should be: "But according to Pirate Mike's twisted and snake-like logic, it wouldn't be wrong to say that African Americans are slaves" (not pirates!).
        
        And don't get me wrong... It's OK to disagree with the majority view. I do so myself sometimes. The dishonest part is that he isn't forthright with the fact that he's expressing a dissenting view on a settled issue of law. If he argued some of the stuff he does in court as an attorney, he could be sanctioned. Why? Because it's dishonest.
        
        Believe it or not I actually agree with Pirate Mike on several policy issues. It's his lies and manipulations that disgust me. And the incessant pirate-apologism, of course.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2012 @ 6:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you take precedent that says that complaining about length of copyright isn't acceptable, but you ignore precedent that consistently demands longer extensions, based on precedent that extensions were granted in the past so extensions must be granted now.
        
        Fantastic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "He ignores and purposefully omits the parts of the law that he doesn't like when discussing the law" - I just don't see where you're getting that. The fact that the supreme court made that decision has been brought up here loads of times, including by Mike, and no-one is suggesting that that's not the law. What a number of people are suggesting is that it was the wrong decision. The supreme court may be the ultimate ruling authority but it doesn't mean it's automatically right - that way lies divine right.
        Out of curiousity, do you accept that those who think copyright is out of kilter have resonable grounds to fear further expansion of both duration and coverage?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2012 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When it comes to copyright terms, I save my arguments for those who are the real culprits...primarily Europe. US law prior to 1/1/78 provided a term of 28 years, with the possibility of a second 28 years term if requested and certain requirements met. When the US acceded to the Berne Convention and its subsequent instruments, the US was required to significantly lengthen copyright terms, grant certain rights to foreign authors whose works were still under copyright in their countries of origin, eliminate all formalities, change federal copyright from "first date of publication" to "date of creation", etc.
        
        Yes, the excesses of what was then the norm in Europe are now part of US law, but if I am inclined to point a finger it will be directed to the other side of the Atlantic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 9:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would agree with the other AC here.
        
        Your mentor Mr Lessig tried to run this sort of thing past the courts, and they pretty much unanimously shut it down - it's a non-starter. The "limited time" is not a hard number fixed in the constitution, it's something that the constitution specifically allows the Congress to set and adjust as they see fit.
        
        Are you denying that there are works that have entered the public domain since the founding of the US?
        
        It's a weak argument, one the courts have already killed off. Why do you keep trying to work with it? Get over it. The limited time is set by congress, and if they move the bar (either direction) it is the law of the land.
        
        If they moved it tomorrow to 50 years, would you consider it the law of the land? Why would it be to the public's benefit at 50, but not at 75? What in that 25 years makes a really big difference for you?
        
        Think about it: The works that come out today, even with only a 50 year copyright, would be in the public domain about the same time that you die. Would that benefit the public? Of course it would. It might not benefit you personally, but the laws weren't written to satisfy your short term personal needs. It's a longer term thing, played out over generations, not over a couple of hours.
        
        Lessig tried to push this impatient view of copyright, and the courts told him to go away. Why do you keep trying to work this disproved theory?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 11:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Same point as above. Copyright extension is expanding faster than the limits. Hence nothing has entered the public domain recently. Which kind of eliminates the argument about "limited".
        But there's a cultural point here as well in that culture shifts over time. There are things that could be done to something that's moved into the public domain that would have relevance 14 years after their original creation that will have no relevance at life +75 years.
        Oh yes, and that nicely brings us back to that old sucker: how much content do dead people create?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why are you so fixated on the status quo of the long length of copyright? So you're saying that as long as the copyright expires after you die, you shouldn't care about how long it lasts because you're too dead to care? By exactly what standards do you judge the generations that came after you, such that they're not allowed this culture until it becomes irrelevant? Is the generation after ours undeserving compared to the generation that comes after, when "life + 70 years" expires?
        
        And what's stopping it from becoming "life + 70+++"? The whole reason why we have "life + 70" now is because those with vested interests (which, by the way, will also expire long before said copyrights and any possible loss they might encounter from losing content to the public domain) demanded it, several times, based on precedents in which they were granted extensions. How does this not equal to limitless? What's stopping these interests from considering generations further down the road from saying, "No, sorry, we've decided you don't deserve this culture either, freetards. Have another 20 years extension"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Public access after life + 75 years is not access now is it.
        I know what you will say so let me preempt that by saying, if it is ok to wait for life + 75 years why won't you wait life + 75 years to get paid then?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- drew (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re:
  Not having seen the movie I can't say but there would be a clear difference in requirement depending on how the music was used. If it was an excerpt to illustrate the central point of the movie, a couple of examples of what people were responding to for example, there would be a strong fair use argument.
  If it's just to add background and atmosphere then yes, licensing as normal.
  Mind you, some folks might think that a free license might be appropriate in a work such as this, but that's a personal decision.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Right. It's not evil to charge someone to use your valuable property. And to pretend that this example somehow shows that copyright is evil is just more yellow journalism from the master of manipulation, Pirate Mike.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - drew (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hmmm. That wasn't the conclusion I'd reached but you go right ahead.
      Whilst you're at it you could find the bits where Mike says that copyright is evil and that he's a pirate. That would save us all a load of time next time.
      Oh yes, and was the documentary any good? I'm assuming you've seen it since you know there wasn't a fair use argument?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 5:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ok get your valuable property out of my public space then, why can't you just keep it to yourself.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RadialSkid (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 5:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Bingo. I've never understood the notion of wanting to publish something for world consumption, but then saying "It's mine! All mine! Maybe I'll offer you the privilege of using it, but only if you pay me a very high sum of money that I've arbitrarily set!"
        
        That's bullshit to me. You don't get it both ways.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tunnen (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 12:51pm

The could always just leave out the music that they couldn't get a licensing agreement for and just leave a note on the bottom of the screen "XYZ Corp. demanded $10,000 for us to be able to play (song title) here for 30 seconds, so we decided to omit it."

Then you can kill two birds with one stone. Release information that could be valuable to other people that have, or deal with, dementia. But, also raise awareness to the silliness of current licensing agreements the music industry uses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:48pm
  
  Re:
  I like this idea but I also like the idea of just never using MAFIAA Type Music in anything you do.Plenty of Artists would be more than happy to support worthy projects like this one.
  I would give my Art away for this project.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ophelia Millais (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, yeah, the filmmaker could swap in music that isn't being held for ridiculous ransoms, and maybe such a strategy works for some kinds of movies, but in this case I think it would severely sacrifice the integrity of his work. I mean, I can't get behind portraying the Alzheimer's sufferers reacting rapturously to some affordable, non-RIAA piece of music, even if it's good, when in fact they were listening to, say, John Coltrane.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bas Grasmayer (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 1:02pm

I'm super sympathetic towards the filmmakers, but I do not respect their choice to go for creating artificial scarcity.

One reward you can get for pledging, is a DVD or digital download... which won't be shipped until after the theatrical run (December).

So:
1) Pay money (July).
2) Film comes out (September).
- artificial scarcity introduced -
3) Film gets pirated and distributed online.
4) Thousands, perhaps millions of people see it without paying (some contribute to music+dementia charity).
5) You finally get access to the film that everybody's talking about and that you paid for 5 months earlier. (December)

I hope they have time to rethink their business model. I don't think creating artificial scarcity is a graceful way to get the message out about something as important as what is covered in this film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phillip (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re:
  I agree but perhaps the deal they had to sign to get it distributed in theaters required the delay, since we all know that theaters think that the delay helps them and are afraid of anything else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah that was my first thought as well. They really shouldn't be imposing artificial limits for a Kickstarter-funded project, especially one that's open internationally to people who would find it impossible to reach a cinema showing the film. Not only does it make it less valuable, the audience they're restricting are the very ones making the project possible in the first place.
    
    However, the film is already complete and the Kickstarter is only for the music licencing and a few other small details. They will presumably have had some other distribution deal in the can before the licencing issue threatened to kill everything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 1:31pm

"In this case, in particular, it appears that they're basically locking up this entire film, unless they can raise $50,000."

It would benefit your readers if you quote what is actually said at the linked site. The word "rights" appears within a laundry list of tasks that need to be performed before it can be released theatrically, and yet this one word somehow magically transforms all into a "copyright hold-up" of the film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re:
  It would benefit your readers if you quote what is actually said at the linked site. The word "rights" appears within a laundry list of tasks that need to be performed before it can be released theatrically, and yet this one word somehow magically transforms all into a "copyright hold-up" of the film.
  
  In the video, he talks about what the money is for and he says "the biggest expense, actually, is we need to buy the rights to some music."
  
  So, uh, yeah. It's not one in a laundry list, it's the biggest expense, and it's holding up the movie, as he explains elsewhere in the video.
  
  Why is it that every time you comment on this site it's to make factually incorrect statements?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I heard nowhere in the clip that copyrights were holding up the movie being released. The creator noted that many things needed to be done prior to its release, and mentioned that securing rights was one such thing as was the largest expense (though what that expense is relative to all other expenses is not mentioned). This is a far cry from your headline that the movie is being held up because of difficulty securing licenses. Given the subject matter of the film, I rather doubt it will prove difficult.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      so, having to raise $50,00 dollars in trder to not get sued isn't a holdup?
      
      I've been doing it wrong all this time!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 3:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I heard nowhere in the clip that copyrights were holding up the movie being released. The creator noted that many things needed to be done prior to its release, and mentioned that securing rights was one such thing as was the largest expense
      
      Um. If they can't pay for the music they can't release the movie. The title and the post are accurate.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 5:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...and if they cannot do the color correction, audio mixing, graphic integration, creation of a digital cinema package, and whatever else may need to be done it will be held up as well.
        
        Your negative fixation on all things "copyright" appears to be influencing a loss of perspective.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        drew (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 11:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But that isn't, in their words, their single largest cost...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your negative fixation on attacking all things "Mike" appears to be influencing a loss of perspective.
        
        FTFY
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...and if they cannot do the color correction, audio mixing, graphic integration, creation of a digital cinema package, and whatever else may need to be done it will be held up as well.
        
        None of which appear to be major costs that this filmmaker is concerned with. The one he is concerned with and has indicated is the biggest cost: licensing.
        
        We stand by the post. But given your history of being almost always wrong (and in the most pedantic way possible), it does not surprise me that you continue to dig in.
        
        By the way, I'm still waiting for you to admit that Bret Easton Ellis has fans, since you insisted such a thing was unlikely. Also you claimed he had not hired a producer... when he had.
        
        If you can't admit the basics when your wrong, it doesn't surprise me that you continue to double down in making false statements about what I write. I don't understand what compels someone like you to constantly speak from ignorance and then double down on it when called, but from a psychological perspective... it's fascinating.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 8:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "It's not one in a laundry list, it's the biggest expense"
    
    Yes, but if there are 99 things on that list, and music rights is say double the cost of others, it is still the biggest expense, but not really the only holdup. Music rights might only be $1000, we don't know - because you aren't telling us.
    
    "Why is it that every time you comment on this site it's to make factually incorrect statements?"
    
    When you stop trying to hide behind weasel words, and start actually providing all of the facts, even when they don't support your side of the story, perhaps people will stop asking questions you find annoying. The original poster has the right question: What is in that 50k besides copyright? Clearly this is not the only hold up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ophelia Millais (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Let me see if I got this:
      
      Mike is basically saying that this situation is a pretty good example of how exorbitant license fees impede or otherwise unnecessarily drive up the cost of the creation and distribution of other creative works, and that this is especially shameful when the works are, arguably, of obvious cultural value and public benefit, as this film appears to be.
      
      And you are countering that no, it's not a good example of that, because it's possible that music licensing is only the biggest expense when compared to each of the other line items separately, rather than in aggregate. You also seem to feel that since there are multiple impediments to the film's completion and distribution, none of them can be said to be any more important than any other, even if some do cost more than others. You also toss in some desperate ad hominem, saying that Mike and the filmmaker are deliberately being misleading with their "weasel words".
      
      As for the ad hominem, *shrug*; nice try.
      
      As for the relative importance of the line items in the completion budget, when one expense is greater than another, it's completely normal and reasonable to characterize the one as a "bigger" obstacle to overcome than the other. The fact that the tasks must all be completed to achieve the goal doesn't diminish the fact that expense and difficulty make some tasks "bigger" impediments to completion than others, and makes the most costly requirement the "biggest". And it's perfectly natural to grumble loudly and bitterly if this expense is unnecessarily high, just some arbitrary, unjustifiable number cooked up to maximize the profit leeched from this filmmaker's work.
      
      So tell us, exactly how big a chunk of the $50K would the music rights have to be before you agree that it's a good example of inflated license fees impeding culture, and how did you arrive at that amount? And if it turns out to be that much, are you going to eat crow and acknowledge that Mike is right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 2:25pm

I wonder if a generation of humans might not descend into dementia if their music is freely available instead of only cumbersomely acquired or lost altogether. If you are able to listen to your music every day even into your extreme old age, maybe you can stave off dementia longer. On the other hand, maybe this stuff will stay locked up and lost. Choose your side wisely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2012 @ 3:00pm

if there were a hypothetical charge, do you think the labels/copyright holders would be able to handle that? it would at least appear they were getting something for helping others, even though it may only be to aid in a less confused state before the ultimate end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 5:06pm

Uhhh...
"That is an absolute falsity. Copyright is for a limited time"

Not on planet earth is isn't.. What planet are you on?

If copyright continuously gets extended then it doesn't end. That the media cartel has not de-facto spent enough cash to extend it forever, yet, does not make your argument, or rather lack there of accurate. Thinking that they would have not already done so if they could is laughable at best.

Furthermore, the point and inherent right(as it should be) to post anonymously, has exactly jack shit to do with enabling folks like you to act like a 4 year old.

"But you and I both know that when it's a dissenting view, you'll go to any lengths to try and discredit them--including revealing information that you shouldn't."

Would you care to cite that with something or in any way shape or form elaborate on that?

Calling folks names accomplishes nothing, which is effectively what you accomplish when you post here.

You want some discourse, we are happy to oblige. That assumes we happen to stumble across a fact or two in any of your adolescent, word salad trains of thought you have going on.

Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 3:04am

About dementia, is not the music per se that helps but the connection that those have with the memories they trigger, it could be anything else too, not just music.

Find the memories, and you find the triggers so you can help the people with dementia, which it is a sad difficult slow process.

For those who don't know, when you get "demented" you start forgetting things like your loved ones, you forget who you are, what you are doing you lose the capacity to learn and retain and most get aggressive as in insulting, that is what it makes it hard to deal with, in other times those people would have died alone because they become non functional, incapable of navigating the politics of relationships.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/142214.php

You gotta have a lot of respect and love for someone that is calling you a SOB and saying he/she will kill you if you get near him/her, to keep caring for him/she. The tantrums become incessant and it is exhausting, those who want to learn about it should volunteer at a hospital to take care of old people or people with atherosclerosis, stroke, Alzheimer's and so forth which all can cause dementia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Rossato-Bennett, 25 Jul 2012 @ 5:51am

Music Licensing for ALIVE INSIDE
Hi techdirt community,

My name is Michael Rossato-Bennett and I am the Director of the film ALIVE INSIDE. First of all I would like to thank you all for your interest in our project. The life of millions of people with Dementa and particularly those with Dementia in nursing homes can be greatly improved with personal music. I have seen it and am dedicating a large part of my energy to getting it to them. Imagine giving a person in a desert, dying of thirst, and being given a glass of water! That is the effect I have seen. Unfortunately the reason they live in a desert has more to do with our fear of aging and death than anything else... Getting them music will be easy compared to changing these attitudes-

I think you guys should know a few things from my perspective as a filmmaker-

First, music licensing for films is one of the few remaining revenue streams left for Labels- so they are agressive. $50k is low for the songs I want to use- the actual cost may be more! This is of course because the revenue streams that used to exist are gone.

Second, almost none of the licensing fees goes to the artists.

Third, Music Licensing is a huge beauracrtic process- the top guy can say yes and it is still hard to get a reduction in price.

Fourth, you can not distribute a film through any channel without rights clearance and Insurance

Lastly, you would think a film that is doing such good, that has had 7 million views on its trailer would breeze through Kickstarter- unfortunaly this is not true- we are a story about the things our culture fears the most and we may not make our goal-

If you can, please consider making a donation to his campaign with any amount of money you can spare - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1406732546/alive-inside-a-story-of-music-and-memory?ref=live. If you can't make a donation, would you consider posting a message about the campaign on your Facebook page, or other social media? You can find Alive Inside on Facebook at www.facebook.com/bealiveinside, and on Twitter @AliveInsideFilm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- drew (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 8:36am
  
  Re: Music Licensing for ALIVE INSIDE
  Thanks for commenting here Michael and adding some clarity to the discussion. Best of luck for your film.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ophelia Millais (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 7:28am
  
  Re: Music Licensing for ALIVE INSIDE
  I, too, thank you for coming here and for being so candid. After watching your pitch video, I became enthusiastic about the project, and I made a pledge to your Kickstarter campaign. The perks offered and my skeptical view of what you rightly characterize as "aggressive" licensing didn't really enter into it; I pledged just on the basis of the film being so worthwhile and something to which I personally relate. I hope others do the same.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Debra Markarian, 25 Jul 2012 @ 6:28am

Really needs to be shared!
Remarkable. My mother is getting less responsive just recently. We have her in a memory care unit and she seemed to be striving at first. My sister sent this clip and I feel inspired to give this a try. Thank you so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
relghuar, 25 Jul 2012 @ 7:56am

...copyright holders are locking it up...
You've got it completely wrong Mike.
Copyright holders are definitely not locking anything up! They're perfectly happy with their music spreading as far and wide as it can!

Of course as long as they're compensated in a way THEY deem reasonable - I'm sure you wouldn't suppress this right to the poor artists....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pat Aufderheide, 28 Jul 2012 @ 3:04pm

Unnecessary problem
It's just a shame the filmmaker hasn't read the DOcumentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use (centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use). This document, which is used widely in the business, makes clear when documentary filmmakers can employ fair use. Since it was published in 2005, every errors and omission insurer in the US (this is required insurance, covering copyright errors) accepts fair use claims, usually without incremental charges, when they fall under the Statement. This is a self-inflicted injury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]