Kickstarter-Funded Movie Wins Oscar For Best Documentary
from the crowdfunding-coming-of-age dept
Earlier this year, in noting just how many movies were getting funded by Kickstarter, we also mentioned that two films that had been funded via the site had been nominated for Oscars in the past -- and that there were quite a few documentaries that were "shortlisted" to be nominated this year, including Inocente. And now it turns out that, not only was Inocente nominated, it won for best documentary, making it the first Kickstarter-funded film to win an Oscar, though I doubt it will be the last. Hopefully this means we can kill off the line we've heard too many times from some industry folks about how Kickstarter isn't for "real" content creators.
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: crowdfunding, documentary, inocente, oscar
Companies: kickstarter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kickstarter's great. Let's you beg for money on a grand scale. Sweet stuff. But let's not forget to thank copyright too. Available for only $7.99 on iTunes. https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/inocente/id602411134?ls=1 Thanks, copyright! You rock!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What does that have to do with anything? You can buy lots of stuff that's out of copyright too.
Selling something is not a reason to "thank" copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[/sarc]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That wasn't a REAL Oscar win! It didn't count! LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Selling something is not a reason to "thank" copyright.
I thought the point was rather obvious. They aren't giving away copies for free, so your point about stuff that's out of copyright misses the mark. The point is that they are relying on copyright for their business model. Kickstarter didn't supplant the copyright business model. You can thank copyright for this project because its incentives are clearly working here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Clearly, this is a lie
I mean, you CAN'T, you just can't. The system would fall apart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Kickstarter allows people to beg from lots of people at once. Hence, grand scale. You're referring to the amount this project brought in. I'm referring to the platform's reach.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This one won best documentary SHORT, not documentary feature.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not quite Kickstarter-funded
I suspect (without much boldness) that large Kickstarter success stories are still dependent on a preexisting support structure of funding and promotion, and perhaps that rather than functioning as a kind of crutch or welfare system for starving artists the site is simply a way of outsourcing more of the costs of their chief financiers to the eventual consumers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not quite Kickstarter-funded
That is, without a doubt, true. Still, it must be noted that I have backed some artists I never heard before because I liked their idea. Like this one and this one. Sometimes, the strength of one's ideas alone is enough to say "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not quite Kickstarter-funded
$52k was the budget, though they may have gotten it wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't mean that there aren't people who pretend to be artists for profit. Quite the opposite, there are so many of these crass commercialists out there that they create a thicket of junk we must wade through if we hope to find competent and original creations. Production companies spend a lot of money constructing and promoting puppet artists (when they aren't stealing directly from the real artists). The sad thing is that the true artists create the demand while these leeches get to cash in on it, using copyright to keep the profits from the real creators who are left starving in the gutter.
Not that my opinion or the opinion of any other artist will ever matter to shortsighted self-centered profiteers. In fact I expect it to be either ignored or belittled because if too many people realized the truth and learned to appreciate the difference between real and imitation art they might stop supporting those whose profits are built on the backs of said artists. Which is funny in a sad way, because nothing is likely to ever stop the 'walmart people' from spending their money on artificially created fads and imitation art. Certainly the truth won't.
Sorry for the rant. What can I say, successful troll is successful. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I was told that it would never work because anyone who donated would be considered a shareholder(?) and would want a say in how the movie is made.
Fast forward seven years and the system I suggested is a reality which seems to be working well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not quite Kickstarter-funded
Sarcasm aside, I don't mean to imply that you are wrong. At the very least I expect they had a lot of non-financial help in the form of equipment loans and consultation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The real story: $52527 /294 = 178.66 average contribution...
First, as already noted above, that's just the promotional costs, doesn't seem to cover any of the normal production.
2nd, it's minus the 5% Kickstarter rakes off. I find that too much for merely hosting a web site: it's definitely out of line with the low budgets for the actual content. I'd say Kickstarter is run by weenies who make out like bandits by preying on the aspirations of artists and get-rich-quick types: cheerleading both types is one of the most reliable methods of actually getting rich quick.
3rd, WHO the heck contributed $178.66 average just to help promote this (already made) movie? That's a fairly well-heeled and dedicated crowd. -- And I'd wager there's just about exactly 294 of them in all the world.
I must conclude that "crowd-funding" is not going to work as general means. It's just plain impractical, especially because when you get to release point, costs balloon as you're sucked into the normal channels.
Nor is there anything new about Kickstarter for raising funds even though it's on the Internet. Ed Wood (of "Plan 9" fame) kept his costs down with the same techniques (and we're all amused by his results).
Free products, free money, and free labor are essential to Mike's notions. -- As is free content for this site. Geez, he writes one short paragraph and expects others to fill out the page. -- I'd do more except even opposition benefits him, and he's not even a good cheerleader.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh that's right NOTHING! Though you being totally blinkered in your approach to anything Techdirt has can not distinguish the reality from your warped sense of insane ramblings.
Oh and a point of fact.. Copyright has NOTHING to do with whether it sells well or not, Marketing and whether it is any good or not is the only criteria for if it sells well. Copyright which has been proven over and over is NOT about 'sales'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let me introduce you to an amazing new platform that is all about begging (and gambling) for money. It started under a tree a few centuries ago so its not really that new but anyway.. The STOCK EXCHANGE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
In fact a lot of films, doco's, animations etc are made for less than $500K and some even less than $100K. Especially documentaries that are normally also funded by Government Subsidies (bugger all money there) or Non-Profit Entities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The real story: $52527 /294 = 178.66 average contribution...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
All business models are begging for consumers to give them money, some beg in different forms but all at the end of they are equal in one point, they all are asking people to give them money.
Copyright doesn't change that, it only allows some people to exclude others from begging with you.
Copyright only protects you from other beggers it doesn't stop you from having to beg LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, what does giving it away for free have to do with anything? I never said that you had to give stuff away for free. Again, as I pointed out in the comment you are responding to, plenty of people are SELLING public domain materials. And that's cool. There's nothing wrong with asking people to pay for what you have.
I don't see what that has to do with copyright, though.
The point is that they are relying on copyright for their business model.
No, they're relying on selling a good. You seem to think that means copyright. It does not.
Even so, I'm still not sure of your point. I'm sure that the filmmaker did, in fact, copyright the work. So what? Nothing in the story had to do with copyright anyway. It was about business models.
Kickstarter didn't supplant the copyright business model.
"Copyright" isn't a business model, so I'm not sure your point. Nor did anyone ever suggest that Kickstarter "supplanted" any other business model.
As per usual, you seem to think I've said something I have not.
You can thank copyright for this project because its incentives are clearly working here.
How do you figure?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Quote:
Source: Wikipedia: Iron Sky
The world is going crazy, participatory financing(i.e. Kickstarter), participatory film making(i.e. Wreck a Movie).
Wow, that crowdsource shite really works!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
When Dover sells an edition of Shakespeare's works, they aren't "giving away copies for free" either. And, historically, many works were sold without copyright protections at all (especially prior to 1976, when registration was mandatory).
For example, these guys aren't "giving away copies for free" either:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/night-of-the-living-dead-1968/id295364111
In fact, if no copyright on this film existed, the filmmakers would have exactly the same right to sell copies that they do right now.
Furthermore, the goal of copyright is not to provide a business model for copyright holders. It's to provide an incentive to create new works, and make them more widely available to the public.
You know what utterly failed to do that in this case? The "copyright business model" you're espousing. If the initial funding came from a post-publication monopoly on selling copies for their business model, the film would never have been produced.
So, your entire point misses the mark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not quite Kickstarter-funded
Per IMDB there were sixteen producers for the film - one of whom is John Leguizamo - and six different production companies. There are five distributors, one of which is MTV Films. It's technically possible I suppose that all of these people and companies were "deferring costs" until the Kickstarter campaign but it seems extremely unlikely. There appears to have been a great deal of support and finances in place well before the fundraiser, enough to raise the question as to why the latter was really needed at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep it beggars belief!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The real story: $34527/282 = 122.44 average contribution?
Without those, the math would be: $34527/282 = 122.44 average contribution, not nearly enough for a successful funding...
Wouldn't really surprise me if some of those 12 were a sponsor nudging this cheap marketing campaign to success,
they barely made it to the goal as it is. :/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, you're not. You brought up some irrelevant bullshit about it being sold on iTunes (as if that meant something), and dismiss Kickstarter as "begging" (guess what going to traditional investors is?). The reach of the platform was its audience, which managed to fund the movie without having to sign over creative control, which in turn led to an Oscar. Sales as a result of that Oscar are the icing on the cake, but are irrelevant to the discussion about production finance and production quality.
It's typical, really. You people can't admit that new business models have a future, so you deflect. First it was "nobody's using Kickstarter", then it was "nobody will pre-pay before the content's produced", then it was "they can't raise enough money to make a decent product". Now, we're down to "well it's just begging and people still sell copies afterwards". The goalposts are moving so quickly, you're forgetting which game you're playing.
How many times do you need to deflect before you can admit that the people you constantly attack here may have actually been right about something? Face it, even if the corporations you love aren't going to be financing Transformers 6 through Kickstarter, many quality movies will. Those films have an audience, and they're willing to pay, and pay to the point where those movies are financially profitable without ever having to beg for money from the studios for production or distribution. Deal with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The thing is, they're wrong on both things that this attitudes suggests - that low budget cinema can't be mainstream and that low budgets don't lead to anything important. We have the obvious examples - The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, Napoleon Dynamite - that cost peanuts to make but found their audience to the tune of hundreds of millions.
But, to me the interesting thing beyond that are the low budget movies that have launched great careers in the past. We all know the likes of Clerks, El Mariachi, Pi, The Evil Dead, Bad Taste, She's Gotta Have It, Reservoir Dogs etc. that launched successful careers on virtually nothing. Hell, I was playing around with an inflation calculator and noticed that Night Of The Living Dead, Mad Max and Eraserhead would cost less than $2 million *put together*, even without considering the cost savings that modern technology would allow. Why wouldn't the next major auteur fund his movies through Kickstarter rather than traditional investors, credit cards or other more extreme means (Robert Rodriguez checked himself into a medical research centre to fund El Mariachi, and made his movie on less money than Inocente).
To ignore all of this just because the current system isn't churning out multiplex movies is folly. Kickstarter is still maturing, and audiences are still working out what they want from both movies and the platform. By the time a breakout hit occurs, the next generation of filmmakers will already be using it to create great works, and people will be more generally open to crowdfunding. Maybe some of those filmmakers will move to big budget studio pictures rather than remain independent - but maybe Kickstarter will already have started funding the multi-million dollar productions their critics crave.
Time will tell, but it's ridiculous to dismiss them at this stage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The entire premise of the documentary is that he sold a shit ton of albums in South Africa, yet he was completely unaware of that fact. That he was presumed dead by most of his fanbase there. How is an artist *not* screwed when people are profiting from his work but he's not even made aware of his fanbase?
I haven't seen the documentary yet to see how all of this plays out, but the premise seems to be clear that he's been wronged.
"These days deals are done by lawyers."
Whatever deal was made, it was made in 1967-70, not "these days".
"the creator made a deal with a full understanding of what it was."
Do you honestly believe that musicians are fully aware of the truth of every legal aspect of the deals they sign? History would like a very long word with you if so. You can argue that they *should* know, but record contracts are intentionally complicated so that they take as little of the risk and as much of the reward as possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's almost as if people are insecure.
If you think this is good, just wait until a big band like Radiohead starts experimenting with all the profits they can get from something like this (as they've already proven themselves with experimenting with other things and very nearly approaching what they wanted). I promise you, people will stop sounding so cocky.
Same goes with when somebody like Justin Bieber tries it. THAT will be hilarious to watch... millions of pledges, tens of millions of profits...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The real story: $52527 /294 = 178.66 average contribution...
So?
"I find that too much for merely hosting a web site"
So would I. Luckily, Kickstarter provide far more than that. Perhaps one time, you would like to read up on what they actually do before you criticise them. Well, at least you're one step above paywall bob I suppose...
"3rd, WHO the heck contributed $178.66 average just to help promote this (already made) movie?"
If you actually read more of these stories to work out what actually happens, you'd probably know already. Look at the Humble Bundle offerings.
"I must conclude that "crowd-funding" is not going to work as general means"
I conclude that you're an annoying dick, and I have far more evidence to back me up.
"Ed Wood (of "Plan 9" fame) kept his costs down with the same techniques (and we're all amused by his results)."
So did Sam Raimi, Martin Scorcese, John Carpenter, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, the Coen brothers, Peter Jackson... I could go on. Sorry, are these not convenient to your self-chosen narrative?
"Free products, free money, and free labor are essential to Mike's notions. -"
Yet again, you have to lie. Why are you such a dishonest person?
"As is free content for this site."
Such as the idiotic attempts at responding to the articles that lead to hours of entertainment and increased traffic. Provided voluntarily by you for free. Ironic, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The real story: $52527 /294 = 178.66 average contribution...
I hit submit before I finished my thought here... The Humble Bundles usually consist of a large number of people paying an average amount (below $10 normally), bolstered by a select few paying a few grand each. That might skew the stats and the average price, but it means that some people are paying because they believe in more than just the end product (e.g. with the bundles, they're usually giving to charity). That's exactly what's happened here.
In fact, if ootb wasn't so busy being such an abject moron, he'd see the exact breakdown on the link itself. 4 of the people paying paid $2500 or more each to get a signed print of a painting from the film and 8 paid $1,000 or more for another print. However, 145 backers paid less than $50 for other rewards. In other words, the average person was paying far less than the amount he tried to claim, and in many cases paid no more than they would have done if they'd have waited for the distribution to take place under traditional methods.
If ootb wasn't so busy coming up with hypotheticals based on his predetermined conclusions, he'd notice that he was proven wrong by the very evidence he's criticising. It's sad that our regular detractors round here have to stoop to such blatant lies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The real story: $52527 /294 = 178.66 average contribution...
Which is why their list of righteous defenders and heroes includes John Steele and the Internet Copyright Law Enforcement Agency.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you insist on lies and fantasy? Is it because the reality of what people are saying is too complicated, or because you know it's true?
"I just bought a copy."
So did the people funding it through Kickstarter, which enabled it to get the distribution required for Academy consideration, which I would guess is the only reason you heard about it in the first place. Did you buy the other Oscar winners/nominees, or is this just a childish attempt at proving a "point"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a straw man. Their own Kickstarter page ( http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1131717127/inocente-homeless-creative-unstoppable ) mentions how they plan to market the film to the educational market. Not give it away for free, but market it using their exclusionary rights. Thank goodness for copyright! It's amazing to me how you guys live in such denial.
Did you buy the other Oscar winners/nominees, or is this just a childish attempt at proving a "point"?
I just ordered the "Argo" DVD as well. Ultraviolet edition. Can't wait to see it. I buy tons of stuff. Over a thousand DVDs in my collection. Probably close to two thousand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who said it had to be given away for free? That's the strawman. Alternative business models do not require anything to be given away for free, although they may may the rabid fear of piracy unnecessary. Got it?
"Thank goodness for copyright!"
That has nothing to do with copyright unless I'm hallucinating those copies of public domain DVDs on sale in many stores, and the copyrighted work I'm prevented from buying. Choose a different strawman - this one's ridiculous.
"It's amazing to me how you guys live in such denial."
It's amazing that you've been here so long without understanding the most basic arguments being discussed.
"I just ordered the "Argo" DVD as well. Ultraviolet edition. Can't wait to see it. I buy tons of stuff. Over a thousand DVDs in my collection. Probably close to two thousand."
Any short films? It just strikes me as being an unusual thing to boast about unless you're sticking to a particularly stupid "I bought so there" argument.
Fair play to you - I have similar numbers of DVDs, paid for over nearly 2 decades, which is why I get so annoyed when idiots either accused me of piracy or support atrocious business models that makes my continued support of the industry so difficult.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, case in point - Ultraviolet's so ridiculous, so restrictive and such a bad move for the industry that I choose not to support it. Boasting that you buy into that crap - which only exists to try and justify removing your first sale rights - is not a good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, public domain works can be sold on DVD. This is not a public domain work. Email them and ask if it's OK to put the whole film on YouTube. I suspect the answer will be "no" as they themselves have not done this. They instead are choosing to market the work, exercising their exclusionary rights. This isn't difficult to understand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Yes, public domain works can be sold on DVD."
So, you admit that the presence of copyright is irrelevant as to whether or not a work is available on DVD. Why are you trying to argue that it is necessary?
"Email them and ask if it's OK to put the whole film on YouTube"
No, I'd rather buy the DVD or a digital copy if and when it's available to me, or perhaps watch it on TV/Netflix if and when it appears. Or maybe pay money to another project on Kickstarter that hasn't made its funding target yet. Is that a problem?
I don't know who you think you're arguing with, but you're agreeing with everything except the relevance of your assertions.
"This isn't difficult to understand."
Except for why you're blathering on about it as it's irrelevant to the discussion everybody else is having.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, each to their own, I suppose. I fail to see why you're so accepting of something that only exists to erode your rights and offers nothing that being able to rip your own movie and store it on a cloud service wouldn't offer. But, then I suppose you haven't come across the many unnecessary problems that it causes. Most people buying DRMed music files were also OK with it until they tried moving to a different device or has the DRM servers turned off.
Your opinion is your opinion - but the same service you love makes me actively avoid DVDs and Blu Rays from certain labels. That's OK - they have competitors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh? Just because a public domain movie can be sold on DVD, it doesn't follow that copyright is irrelevant to all movies sold on DVD. Many, many, many movies are sold on DVD where copyright is very relevant and integral to the business model.
Why are you trying to argue that it is necessary?
I didn't say it was necessary. I admitted the obvious fact that public domain movies can be sold on DVD. What I am saying is that in this particular case, the movie is being sold AND the owners are not allowing others to give it away or sell it. In other words, they are exercising their exclusionary rights under copyright as part of their business model. They could have chosen to forgo their copyright rights, but they didn't. Copyright is part of their business model. Another success story for copyright!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, except here's the actual text of that package:
So, yeah, they are "giving stuff away for free," not "locking it up with copyright."
Not to mention that the whole thing was produced by Shine Global, "a 501(c)3 non-profit film production company." So, obviously, making a profit is not the primary incentive.
Plus - and this has been pointed out to you many times already - they would be able to market, and sell, the film to the educational market even if copyright didn't exist. Just as they would be able to sell downloads if copyright didn't exist.
As you look at the details, it becomes more and more obvious that this is anything but a "copyright success story."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, as has been stated here repeatedly over the last decade and proven with case studies, perhaps the problem is the business model? Not with whether copyright is being enforced in the infinite and draconian ways that some are insisting, but that the basic foundation is shaky due to due business realities?
You're actually almost getting the arguments when you don't insist on attacking people and cherry picking quotes. Perhaps if you started addressing these instead of going off on to irrelevant tangents, these arguments might get somewhere.
"What I am saying is that in this particular case, the movie is being sold AND the owners are not allowing others to give it away or sell it."
Which, yet again has sod all to do with its Kickstarter funded - the element of the production being discussed. It's your insistence on attacking things that people aren't claiming nor discussing that's a major problem here. Why are you incapable of joining the discussion everyone else is participating in? Could it be that you can't fault the actual words people are saying and so have to construct your own target?
If I get a free legal download of a movie, does that make the DVD side of their business irrelevant? Does that invalidate any funding model they had? What if free copies are available with or without their permission? Of course not. Why then are you bringing this stupid deflection into the conversation?
"Another success story for copyright!"
Sigh... You think that if you want. It's a lie, but whatever helps you avoid admitting that the argument actually being made is correct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Finally, we are also writing free, downloadable companion curricula for teachers and creating an arts workshop template for community organizations that will incorporate the arts into core subjects and explore the themes and issues of the film to make it more attractive to the educational market.
So, yeah, they are "giving stuff away for free," not "locking it up with copyright."
Yes, Karl, the materials are free. But not the movie. That's locked up with copyright.
Not to mention that the whole thing was produced by Shine Global, "a 501(c)3 non-profit film production company." So, obviously, making a profit is not the primary incentive.
Yes, Shine Global gives away profits. What about the rest of the people involved?
Plus - and this has been pointed out to you many times already - they would be able to market, and sell, the film to the educational market even if copyright didn't exist. Just as they would be able to sell downloads if copyright didn't exist.
Yes, they could sell it while allowing others to sell it or give it away for free. This they are not doing. They are selling it and excluding others from doing so, i.e., they are exercising their copyright rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Production Companies:
Salty Features
Shine Global
Fine Films (II)
Unison Films
Screen Pass Pictures
Gold Glove Productions
Shine Global is but one of many.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The real story: $52527 /294 = 178.66 average contribution...
Another thing, we don't say it's the be-all-end-all of funding anything in this world, it's ONE way of funding your project, another would be to go to angel investors, or raking up humongous credit card bills, or having a rich mommy and daddy, or going to a major movie studio and demand 10+million USD for your own project.
And we also never said that it was *new*. It's just now becoming easier to do on a global scale.
Kickstarter is nothing but a fancy ESCROW service.
BTW, where are these free products? People paid to get the movie funded, and people who want to watch it are asked to pay to see it (either through a movie ticket or through itunes or some other distribution platform).
Three strikes, Out_of_the_blue, I'm afraid you're out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course there is copyright on the bloody movie, it's after all published in this day and age, where everything is copyrighted by default.
And of course are the makers allowed to ask money for the sale of the discs and the digital goods, they are and people are paying to see the movie.
No one (absolutely no one) has said that the makers can't ask money for their product.
You keep insisting that the point of Techdirt is that stuff be available for free all the time, which is blatantly false, and a complete strawman of your own devising. Free stuff can be used for promotional goals, but it doesn't have to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They can sell stuff that's not covered by copyright. But you're too stupid to accept that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, really? This should be obvious:
The point of the article and the following discussion is tha - despite repeated claims that Kickstarter funding is either not mainstream enough to be useful or will never result in quality product - a film partially funded in such a way has just won an Oscar. It's a further proof that such funding is an interesting growing market that due to part of its nature - the parts of the works funded are already recouped before the product is released - opens up a lot of interesting and exciting possibilities. It blows another hole into the fallacy that only the legacy industry models can produce worthwhile product, even partially.
Your derailing of the thread concentrates on some tangential bullshit about how this doesn't matter because they've retained their copyrights and haven't just given everything away blindly - something NEVER suggested either in this article or any other. You started with some crap about how Kickstarter is "begging", then you moved the goalposts when challenged.
It's not just that you're not addressing a point directly. It's that you're addressing points nobody is making, and completely avoiding the ones that are actually being made.
"How are they not exercising their exclusionary rights?"
Where did I claim they weren't?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The real story: $52527 /294 = 178.66 average contribution...
It was labeled "Abby Normal" and rejected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The real story: $52527 /294 = 178.66 average contribution...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Translation: "That wasn't a REAL Oscar win! It didn't count! LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
callnotes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple question: why do you keep insisting that this point matters? You seem to think we advocate giving everything away for free. That's simply not true.
You also seem to think that you need copyright to charge. Also not true.
This is why we keep asking you to stop debating with the STRAWMEN in your head. We never said you had to give stuff away for free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You also seem to think that you need copyright to charge. Also not true.
This is why we keep asking you to stop debating with the STRAWMEN in your head. We never said you had to give stuff away for free.
I know you don't care if people sell their works. It's the exclusivity, where they exercise their rights to prevent others from giving it away or selling it, that bothers you. Why does that exclusivity bother you so? Why won't you talk about fundamental issues, like unfair competition and unjust enrichment, directly?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What exactly is "unfair competition" to you and who gets to define the "unfair" part? Just curious.
...and unjust enrichment, directly?
That is bizarre wording there. Almost an oxymoron. The word "enrich" is usually used with positive undertones, as in "enrich one's experience by traveling" or "enrich soil". That you can see such things as "unjust" somehow is interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unfair competition means lots of things, and it covers all sorts of tortious behavior. It encompasses all of trademark law, and usually refers to palming off or reverse palming off, but it's also broader than that. In general it means conducting one's business in a way that is dishonest. It's a body of common law centuries old, so that's where you'd look for the definitions and examples.
That is bizarre wording there. Almost an oxymoron. The word "enrich" is usually used with positive undertones, as in "enrich one's experience by traveling" or "enrich soil". That you can see such things as "unjust" somehow is interesting.
Unjust enrichment is another centuries old concept that has been a part of the common law, yet Mike is unable, he claims, to state an opinion on it. It basically means obtaining a benefit unjustly. It's when one party is enriched to the unjust detriment of another. I understand that Mike has no problem with people selling their works. It's that he has no problem with everyone else being able to do so as well, in direct competition with the owner and to the owner's detriment, that I'm questioning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm betting that they hold the copyright on the free educational materials, too. And that's kind of my point. I't just as nonsensical to say "Thanks, copyright" for selling the movie, as it is to say "Thanks, copyright" for the educational materials being free. Both are possible without copyright protections. Copyright does not equal "selling a good."
Yes, Shine Global gives away profits. What about the rest of the people involved?
Non-profits don't "give away" profits. They still use money. It's simply that they're not driven by the profit motive. Their incentive is something other than simply to make money. Just as it appears it was with the production of this documentary.
And I've known tons of people who work for non-profits. They all get paid.
Yes, they could sell it while allowing others to sell it or give it away for free. This they are not doing. They are selling it and excluding others from doing so, i.e., they are exercising their copyright rights.
The fact that they are doing it, does not make it their primary (or even secondary) incentive to create the movie. Moreover, the usual justification for that monopoly don't apply: a monopoly on post-publication copies could not fund the creation of the film. If it could, they wouldn't have needed to go to Kickstarter in the first place.
It is quite obviously an example (of many) where reliance on a post-publication monopoly as their primary business model would have totally failed. There is no reason to view this as a "copyright success story." It's a story on the how ineffectual copyright is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It means selling or giving away the good while preventing others from doing the same. Are the Inocente people allowing others to sell or give away their movie? I see no evidence that they are. Their business model incorporates copyright.
Non-profits don't "give away" profits. They still use money. It's simply that they're not driven by the profit motive. Their incentive is something other than simply to make money. Just as it appears it was with the production of this documentary.
And I've known tons of people who work for non-profits. They all get paid.
They like to get paid and care about how much money their investments bring in, nonprofit or not. The fact that they are selling a download for $9.99 while preventing others from selling it or giving it away shows that they are trying to make money.
The fact that they are doing it, does not make it their primary (or even secondary) incentive to create the movie. Moreover, the usual justification for that monopoly don't apply: a monopoly on post-publication copies could not fund the creation of the film. If it could, they wouldn't have needed to go to Kickstarter in the first place.
Huh? Clearly, their business plan is to sell the film while excluding others from doing the same. Copyright incentivized their creation of this work. They are in this for the money. If they chose to give it away or let others market it or give it away, that would demonstrate that they are not motivated by exclusionary rights. But they aren't doing that.
It is quite obviously an example (of many) where reliance on a post-publication monopoly as their primary business model would have totally failed. There is no reason to view this as a "copyright success story." It's a story on the how ineffectual copyright is.
They wanted to make a movie and profit from it to the exclusion of others giving it away or profiting from it. And they appear to be doing quite well at it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is an incredibly broad definition. It would mean that trashing your competition in an advertisement would be "unjust enrichment."
The fact is, copyright law presupposes, without evidence, that the mere use of someone else's work is "unjust," and that it "enriches" the infringers "to the detriment" of the copyright holders.
That's often not true at all. The infringement may "enrich" the infringer in some way. But if the copyright holder is better off because of it, how is that "to the detriment" of the copyright holder? Why, in this case, should it be considered "unjust?"
For that matter, copyright's entire purpose is to "enrich" the general public - not commercially, but through increased access to artworks. Thus, if the public is getting enriched in this way, it's not "unjust" at all, it's copyright serving its intended purpose. How does that square with the current view of "piracy," which is the non-commercial access to works by the general public?
The answer is: it doesn't - and copyright is no longer about "unjust enrichment."
And it never was, really. The copyright monopoly was not granted to prevent "unjust enrichment," but to provide an incentive to create. The only thing that was ever "unjust" about infringement, even commercial infringement, was that it might be detrimental to the public's supply of artworks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a very broad concept. Trashing your competition could unjustly enrich you, I suppose, but that would probably fall under unfair competition if it were actionable at all. Not everything that can possibly be described as unjust enrichment is actionable.
The fact is, copyright law presupposes, without evidence, that the mere use of someone else's work is "unjust," and that it "enriches" the infringers "to the detriment" of the copyright holders.
That's often not true at all. The infringement may "enrich" the infringer in some way. But if the copyright holder is better off because of it, how is that "to the detriment" of the copyright holder? Why, in this case, should it be considered "unjust?"
Infringement creates liability because it's a violation of someone's proprietary rights. If that infringement benefits the copyright holder, that fact would go to damages, not liability. If I break into your house and clean your messy kitchen, I'm still a trespasser. The fact that I caused no harm and in fact only did good would go to the issue of how much money I owed you. I have violated your rights regardless of that number.
For that matter, copyright's entire purpose is to "enrich" the general public - not commercially, but through increased access to artworks.
That's not the entire purpose of copyright.
Thus, if the public is getting enriched in this way, it's not "unjust" at all, it's copyright serving its intended purpose. How does that square with the current view of "piracy," which is the non-commercial access to works by the general public?
It's unjust to allow an infringer to keep the profits of their infringement because they expended no time, effort, or money creating the work that they are profiting from. The public interest is better served by disallowing this injustice, otherwise the exclusionary rights of copyright and the incentives they provide are meaningless. Copyright is not just about enriching the public. It's also about authors' rights. It's the recognition that giving authors exclusive rights in turn benefits the public.
The copyright monopoly was not granted to prevent "unjust enrichment," but to provide an incentive to create. The only thing that was ever "unjust" about infringement, even commercial infringement, was that it might be detrimental to the public's supply of artworks.
Even before the 1909 Act, courts would, in equity, disgorge an infringer's profits and give them to the copyright holder because otherwise the infringer was unjustly enriched. This has been a part of copyright law, and the law in general, for centuries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hope you realise that everyone who ever wrote a negative review of anything probably wants to beat you up for this. Just sayin'.
If I break into your house and clean your messy kitchen, I'm still a trespasser.
I know you want to believe copyright infringement is the same thing as trespassing, but it just ain't so.
Also, if you broke into my house and cleaned my kitchen, then nobody would consider that "unjust enrichment." Tresspassing laws have absolutely nothing to do with unjust enrichment.
That's not the entire purpose of copyright.
It absolutely is, and you know it. Stop being a lying, hypocricical scumbag who's afraid to debate m... oh, sorry, for a moment there I reverted to your normal mode of discourse.
It's unjust to allow an infringer to keep the profits of their infringement because they expended no time, effort, or money creating the work that they are profiting from.
This is a "sweat of the brow" argument, which we both know does not apply to copyright. If this is your definition of "unjust enrichment," then you're just proving my point that copyright infringement is not unjust enrichment.
Copyright is not just about enriching the public. It's also about authors' rights.
Absolutely false, which you know.
giving authors exclusive rights in turn benefits the public
...full stop. And how do those rights benefit the public? They "must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts." (Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken.)
So, exactly what I said.
This has been a part of copyright law, and the law in general, for centuries.
No, it has not. For one thing, copyright law did not exist for "centuries" before the 1909 Act. The first fedeeral copyright law was in 1790 (the purpose of which was "encouragement of learning" - not a word was spoken about "authors' rights"), which was not "centuries" before the 1909 Act. The first general copyright law, enacted by the Connecticut General Assembly, was in 1783. Before that, copyright did not exist at all in the United States. Not a whit, none of it. The Statute of Anne didn't apply in the Colonies, and publishers everywhere put out anything they liked, without ever once being convicted of "unjust enrichment" off of the works of other publishers.
For another thing, copyright did not base its statutes on "unjust enrichment" laws. Those had been around in England since the early 1600's - more than a century before copyright existed in any part of the world - but did not really take hold in the U.S. until the 1930'S, with the American Law Institute's Restatement of Restitution in 1937.
So, no. Different histories, different objectives, and entirely different timelines. None of this "has been a part of copyright law" at all, much less "for centuries."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And such a review is probably not actionable under either an unjust enrichment or unfair competition claim.
Also, if you broke into my house and cleaned my kitchen, then nobody would consider that "unjust enrichment." Tresspassing laws have absolutely nothing to do with unjust enrichment.
You were saying that infringement can make the victim better off. I was explaining that, even if that could be proved, there would still be liability for the infringement. The issue you're referring to is damages, not liability.
It absolutely is, and you know it. Stop being a lying, hypocricical scumbag who's afraid to debate m... oh, sorry, for a moment there I reverted to your normal mode of discourse.
It has never been the case that copyright is ONLY about the public good. Never. I debate you all the time, at length.
This is a "sweat of the brow" argument, which we both know does not apply to copyright. If this is your definition of "unjust enrichment," then you're just proving my point that copyright infringement is not unjust enrichment.
Sweat of the brow, without creativity, is not protected. Copyright = sweat of the brow + creativity.Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954).
Absolutely false, which you know.
Your claim is just idiotic. It's always been about authors' rights to. What does the Constitution say to do? Give authors exclusive rights.
...full stop. And how do those rights benefit the public? They "must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts." (Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken.)
So, exactly what I said.
Yes, authors' rights and the public good are complimentary.
No, it has not. For one thing, copyright law did not exist for "centuries" before the 1909 Act. The first fedeeral copyright law was in 1790 (the purpose of which was "encouragement of learning" - not a word was spoken about "authors' rights"), which was not "centuries" before the 1909 Act. The first general copyright law, enacted by the Connecticut General Assembly, was in 1783. Before that, copyright did not exist at all in the United States. Not a whit, none of it. The Statute of Anne didn't apply in the Colonies, and publishers everywhere put out anything they liked, without ever once being convicted of "unjust enrichment" off of the works of other publishers.
For another thing, copyright did not base its statutes on "unjust enrichment" laws. Those had been around in England since the early 1600's - more than a century before copyright existed in any part of the world - but did not really take hold in the U.S. until the 1930'S, with the American Law Institute's Restatement of Restitution in 1937.
So, no. Different histories, different objectives, and entirely different timelines. None of this "has been a part of copyright law" at all, much less "for centuries."
Infringers were disgorged of profits under the common law, and then later, under statutory law. Why? Unjust enrichment. The principle of unjust enrichment appears in all areas of law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is a documentary, so it's not "real" content creation! It's merely an expropriation of OTHER people's content!
Everyone knows that there is no real artistry behind making a documentary. After all, how many Oscars go to films depicting historical events!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But by your standards, there's no reason it shouldn't be.
You were saying that infringement can make the victim better off. I was explaining that, even if that could be proved, there would still be liability for the infringement.
And, again, "liability for the infringement" is not the same as "unjust enrichment." If the rights holder is better off, then there is no "unjust enrichment," even though there is liability for infringement.
It has never been the case that copyright is ONLY about the public good. Never. I debate you all the time, at length.
Yeah, and you've always been wrong.
Sweat of the brow, without creativity, is not protected. Copyright = sweat of the brow + creativity.
What is protected by copyright is creativity. "Sweat of the brow" has nothing to do with it. Copyright protects a doodle I did on a napkin exactly as much as a $200 million movie.
Mazer v. Stein
...agrees with me, not you. It is the "encouragement" (not "protection") "of individual effort by personal gain", as a method "to advance public welfare."
Congress agrees: "the limited monopoly [...] should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product."
You are conflating copyright's purpose with its method. Yet again.
What does the Constitution say to do? Give authors exclusive rights.
The Constitution doesn't "say to do" this. It gives Congress the option of granting authors exclusive rights, if it "promotes the progress of Science."
Yes, authors' rights and the public good are complimentary.
Not exactly. If the copyright statutes are written properly, then authors' rights and the public good are complimentary. The copyright statutes we have now are not written properly, and as a result, authors' rights damage the public good.
Thus, you have ignorant author Terry Deary claiming that "libraries are cutting [authors'] throats and slashing their purses", or the UK Publisher's Association saying that the British Library supports "tawdry theft." Sounds like they've been listening to you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point of the article and the following discussion is tha - despite repeated claims that Kickstarter funding is either not mainstream enough to be useful or will never result in quality product - a film partially funded in such a way has just won an Oscar. It's a further proof that such funding is an interesting growing market that due to part of its nature - the parts of the works funded are already recouped before the product is released - opens up a lot of interesting and exciting possibilities. It blows another hole into the fallacy that only the legacy industry models can produce worthwhile product, even partially.
Kickstarter is great, as I said above. I have never heard anyone say that it's "not mainstream enough to be useful or will never result in quality product," so to me that sounds like a straw man. Kickstarter has had remarkable growth and reach, and it's helping fund some great projects. Not sure why you're asking me about this since I've never said otherwise.
Your derailing of the thread concentrates on some tangential bullshit about how this doesn't matter because they've retained their copyrights and haven't just given everything away blindly - something NEVER suggested either in this article or any other. You started with some crap about how Kickstarter is "begging", then you moved the goalposts when challenged.
I'm just reminding people that Kickstarter is not a replacement for copyright, as I believe many people think it to be.
It's not just that you're not addressing a point directly. It's that you're addressing points nobody is making, and completely avoiding the ones that are actually being made.
I'm just adding to the discussion. I think it's correct to credit Kickstarter for this successful short film, but I also think it's worth noting that copyright should be thanked as well. One thing I've noticed about TD is that there is no recognition whatsoever that copyright actually incentivizes people to invest time, effort, and skill into creating works. Just look at how Mike tries to deny it above. It's ridiculous.
Where did I claim they weren't?
Just above you said it was a "lie" to thank copyright. I think it's a lie to pretend like they aren't motivated by their exclusionary rights. The evidence is that they aren't letting other people market and profit from the work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, what you said above was it "Let's (sic) you beg for money on a grand scale.". Implying that the "great" comment before was sarcasm. Then you derailed the conversation away from Kickstarter.
Either you're a poor writer and you're implying things you're not saying, or you think that "begging" is great - which suggests you need to find a different descriptive word for it.
"I have never heard anyone say that it's "not mainstream enough to be useful or will never result in quality product," so to me that sounds like a straw man."
I've read many, both here and elsewhere. i can link to them later if you wish as I haven't time to search for them now. Believe me, I've seen many such comments - usually from the same people who attack every new business model. However:
"I'm just reminding people that Kickstarter is not a replacement for copyright, as I believe many people think it to be."
Got a citation for that? If not, it's funny how you attack my perception above then immediately follow it up with an unfounded assertion of your own. That's where the strawmen come in - you're attacking your assumptions about people rather than their actual positions.
Either way, the words in this article and thread had sod all to do with copyright till you brought it up. I certainly don't believe that Kickstarter replaces copyright. In fact, I believe that the funding model and copyright have nothing directly to do with one another. For example, not long ago there was a Kickstarter project specifically to bring a work into the public domain if the target was met. Conflating the two is at best an attempt to pretend that Kickstarter supporters and piracy advocates are the same - a trick strangely usually tried by anonymous cowards on this forum.
"I think it's correct to credit Kickstarter for this successful short film, but I also think it's worth noting that copyright should be thanked as well."
Except, everything you're "thanking" copyright for would be equally possible whatever copyright model was used. Public domain movies can be sold for $7.99 on iTunes just as readily as those locked up by restrictive copyright and other blocks. Your assertions that they can only sell copies due to copyright is ridiculous.
"One thing I've noticed about TD is that there is no recognition whatsoever that copyright actually incentivizes people to invest time, effort, and skill into creating works."
Another lie, or a tendency to read into things whatever you assume beforehand.
"Just look at how Mike tries to deny it above. It's ridiculous."
Deny what? That your stupid assertion that sales are only possible due to copyright is incorrect, or the flat out ridiculous idea that the work would only be created if copyright existed? What particular part of his reply are you reading saying what you're claiming, because I don't see it.
Note that I'm not against copyright personally - in fact I think it has its place. But the current system is broken, gamed toward legacy players, negative impacts consumers in many cases and the current enforcement tactics actively harms both consumers and artists alike. That's not to say copyright is fundamentally bad, but it's not the cure-all you seem to think it is, nor is it always positive.
We can discuss this if you like, but it's very much off topic for this thread.
"Just above you said it was a "lie" to thank copyright."
How does that state that they're not claiming their rights, which is what you asserted I said? Stop distorting, address the arguments presented.
"The evidence is that they aren't letting other people market and profit from the work."
Which, again has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article nor whether or not they would be successful
All we have here is that makers of a movie have been successful by using new outlets to fund part of their movie while retaining some legacy models. If it works for them - fine, I don't fault them and they can do what they wish. But don't pretend this proves anything just because you want it to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. My "standard" was a one sentence explanation of a legal principle that has been developed for centuries in both common law and continental law systems. It comes up in every branch of the law and covers many diverse situations. Obviously there's a LOT more nuance to it than my one sentence could possibly capture. This is just beyond stupid, Karl. I wasn't saying that my one sentence captured centuries of complexity. Give me a break with this stupidity. As I said, not everything that can conceivably described as unjust enrichment or unfair competition is so actionable. There are literally centuries of nuance to consider.
And, again, "liability for the infringement" is not the same as "unjust enrichment." If the rights holder is better off, then there is no "unjust enrichment," even though there is liability for infringement.
I never said that liability for infringement is the same as unjust enrichment. I said that the principle of unjust enrichment operates in copyright law just like operates in every area of law. It's unjust to profit from someone else's copyrighted work since you didn't put any time, energy, money, or skill into creating it. This is why infringers are not allowed to keep their ill gotten gains.
What is protected by copyright is creativity. "Sweat of the brow" has nothing to do with it. Copyright protects a doodle I did on a napkin exactly as much as a $200 million movie.
If there is no sweat of the brow, then how could there possibly be an original work of authorship? Sweat of the brow is necessary, but not sufficient, for copyright protection. Copyright incentivizes, via exclusionary rights, new works by rewarding those who commit time, energy, money, and skill into the creation of new works. Without that time, energy, money, and skill, there'd be no new work to protect.
...agrees with me, not you. It is the "encouragement" (not "protection") "of individual effort by personal gain", as a method "to advance public welfare."
You are purposefully ignoring the Lockean overtones the Court used there, just as they use many other times. "Sacrificial days devoted to such creative activities deserve rewards commensurate with the services rendered." Don't skip the parts that you don't like.
Congress agrees: "the limited monopoly [...] should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product."
Yes, it rewards authors which in turn rewards the public. The two are complementary.
You are conflating copyright's purpose with its method. Yet again.
No, I'm acknowledging that the two are intertwined. Said the Court:Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 212 n.18 (2003). I guess you think that 7/9 Supreme Court Justices are wrong too.
The Constitution doesn't "say to do" this. It gives Congress the option of granting authors exclusive rights, if it "promotes the progress of Science."
Yep, the Constitution gives Congress the power to create copyright laws. It's an enumerated power. As to how best interpret the "promote the progress" preamble, I'm sure we disagree. I know of four interpretations. I don't think any view is conclusively the correct one. But I think it's a minor point since, as the Supreme Court says, Congress gets to decide what it means to promote the progress. It's not some secret economic function like Mike wants it to be. It's simply whatever Congress says it is. And because it's an enumerated power, the Court gives great deference to whatever Congress decides. This is why copyright laws get mere rational basis scrutiny.
Not exactly. If the copyright statutes are written properly, then authors' rights and the public good are complimentary. The copyright statutes we have now are not written properly, and as a result, authors' rights damage the public good.
Says you. Congress says otherwise, and they're the ones who get to decide what promotes the progress. I think copyright does a great job of promoting the progress. Just look at this short film that won the Oscar. Thanks again, copyright! I know you and Mike and the rest of the TD crew can give copyright no credit, but I think it's obvious that it incentivizes lots of wonderful works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said that liability for infringement is the same as unjust enrichment.
Here's exactly what you asked: "Why won't you talk about fundamental issues, like unfair competition and unjust enrichment, directly?"
And you have your answer: copyright infringement is fundamentally not about "unfair competition" or "unjust enrichment." Something can be "unjust enrichment" (under your one-sentence definition) without being copyright infringement; something can be copyright infringement without being "unjust enrichment;" and many cases of "unjust enrichment" are not (and should not be) unlawful at all.
Personally, I would love it if copyright infringement was limited to just "unjust enrichment." But that would mean a total revision of copyright statutes: decriminalization of non-commercial infringement, elimination of statutory damages, placing the burden of proof upon the rights holder to show actual economic harm, and so forth. But that's not how it works.
Sweat of the brow is necessary, but not sufficient, for copyright protection. Copyright incentivizes, via exclusionary rights, new works by rewarding those who commit time, energy, money, and skill into the creation of new works.
No, it rewards anyone who authorizes a creative work. It matters not one whit how much time, energy, money, and skill went into that creation.
I could invest years of time, and many thousands of dollars, to go to college for music theory, write a symphony, hire musicians to perform it on a recording, and release it. Or, I could release a recording of me throwing my roommate's guitar down the stairs. And copyright protects both works equally.
If this were not true, then damage awards would be different depending upon the sunk costs that went into each recording. They are not.
You are purposefully ignoring the Lockean overtones the Court used there
And "overtones" they must remain, for if they meant it as anything other than dicta, they would be at odds with hundreds of years of Supreme Court copyright rulings (including the very first) and Congressional opinions that say the opposite. I've already quoted dozens to you, I don't see the point in doing it again.
They would also be going against the copyright statutes. If copyright really was designed primarily to reward "sacrificial days devoted to such creative activities," then the amount of "sacrificial days" would affect a work's copyright status. It does not, in any way, shape, or form.
No, I'm acknowledging that the two are intertwined.
Of course the method is intertwined with the purpose of that method. It would hardly be a method if it didn't. That doesn't mean we should confuse the two, or put them on equal standing.
I guess you think that 7/9 Supreme Court Justices are wrong too.
No, because nothing in that passage contradicts anything I've been saying. Pay attention to the wording. The purpose - the goal - is "to advance public welfare," "the proliferation of knowledge," and "the progress of science," and to "serve public ends." Copyright is the "encouragement," "the incentive," or "the engine" - that is, the method by which that purpose is achieved. The Supreme Court said merely that the method is effective in achieving its purpose, nothing more. Justice Stevens' quote from U.S. v. Paramount may have been considered "overstated," but it is not false.
They are not saying, as you seem to be, that authors' rights are synonymous with the public good - that granting authors more rights will automatically benefit the public. That idea is absurd.
As to how best interpret the "promote the progress" preamble, I'm sure we disagree.
But the Supreme Court doesn't. It is "the proliferation of knowledge," "the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts," "to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius."
Or - as I phrased it - to "enrich" the general public through increased access to artworks. Unless this is the ultimate result, rewarding authors does not "promote the progress."
Congress gets to decide what it means to promote the progress. It's not some secret economic function like Mike wants it to be. It's simply whatever Congress says it is.
And since Congress represents the general public, it is the general public who is supposed to decide what it means to promote the progress. Not publishers, labels, studios, or artists' unions. Pity that Congress has totally ignored this fact.
Also, Mike has never said it is "some secret economic function." By design, copyright statutes are a set of government regulations granting monopoly rights to certain producers. There are standard economic theories that deal with those, none of which are a secret to anyone.
Says you. Congress says otherwise, and they're the ones who get to decide what promotes the progress.
As far as my first sentence goes, Congress says exactly what I said:
So, I guess you're referring to my second sentence - that current copyright statutes decrease the "broad public availability" of copyrighted works. I don't think this is even debatable. Especially since current "anti-piracy" efforts focus almost exclusively on non-profit sharing of works among the general public.
Our contemporary Congressional leaders have written bad laws that run counter to copyright's purpose. It's not the first time Congress has put the desires of wealthy special interest groups ahead of the public welfare, and it won't be the last.
[ link to this | view in thread ]