Copyright As Censorship: Lawyers Tell Show Inspired By 'The Princess Bride' To Prepare To Die
from the copyright-is-many-things-none-of-them-logical dept
The Princess Bride remains quite the iconic book and movie for tons of people who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s (and, hopefully, other ages as well... but I can only speak from experience). A huge number of lines have lived on from that movie and become mainstays in popular culture. And like all sorts of great culture, it has inspired plenty of additional creativity around the original as well. A guy named Joe Brack created a one-man show called My Princess Bride, in which he intersperses events and stories from his own life with elements of the book and movie:While Brack does snippets of re-enactments, he intersperses such scenes with commentary. For example, during a solo parody of the iconic swordfight between Inigo Montoya and the man in black, Brack explains some of the history behind the obscure names of fencers that are thrown around in the dialogue.And, guess what? Just as the one man show was about to come back, someone stepped in with a cease and desist letter, saying that the show infringed. While Brack won't say who sent the cease and desist, there's a pretty short list of whom it might be.
But there is also plenty of personal material in the show: At one point Brack talks about the death of his grandmother in 2012.
Brack's partner in putting on the show, Matty Griffiths, says they had explored the copyright issues before putting on the show and were reasonably confident that it was fair use -- and it would appear that they have a very strong fair use argument here. But... because of the stupid way our fair use laws work, the only way to definitively know if it's fair use is to spend megabucks on a lawsuit. So, instead, this bit of creativity that people seemed to enjoy... has been shut down. While the two guys seem willing to test it, the theater where they were going to put on the show has bailed out, citing the potential liability.
Yet another bit of creativity completely stomped out thanks to copyright.
Not only that, but it's turning fans of the original into... not fans:
“I’m gutted,” Brack says. “The past two days have been so hard. And whenever I’ve been bummed out and sad, I watch ‘The Princess Bride,’ and I can’t even do that now.”Isn't copyright supposed to inspire creativity, rather than stomp it out?
He owns three copies of the book, and he’s reversed them in his bookcase to hide the titles.
“It feels like I’ve lost a friend,” he says.
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: culture, fair use, inspiration, joe brack, my princess bride, one man show, the princess bride
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
Do you know how many versions of Hercules, King Arthur, Sigurd, Beowulf, etc., exist?Did you know that many of those legends are a "close copy" and derive their work from prior work?
Hell, read the legend of Sigurd/Sigfried of the Norse, you'll notice how DAMN close it is to both King Arthur and Achilles.
Hell, every legendary hero has roots from the Epic of Gilgamesh, the first written Hero from over 6,000 years ago.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
According to that old, outdated paper called the Constitution yes. According to the MAFIAA it's supposed to secure a steady and endless stream of money towards their pockets with very little effort.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blackmail
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In this case it's obviously not, but due to how the law works, it doesn't matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
Anyhoo, those who START with large clearly attributable amounts of the works of others are at best second-handers leveraging the prior. Who the hell cares? Nothing lost here. In fact, this is a GOOD use of copyright, prevents clowns from ruining whatever value the original had -- especially if mixing it in with the dross of dull lives: who the heck wants their ideal fantasies soiled by every execrable half-wit hack?
Where Mike daily proves the value of an economics degree.
05:34:39[g-157-3]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If he can't put on the play in any way, shape, or form, the �Princess Bride� copyright owners have stopped him from expressing himself in that specific way.
This is clear-cut censorship � and, since it involves the use of copyright, it�s also clear-cut government-sanctioned censorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
: a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.
This does not fall under that definition, e.g. the one that most people envision when presented with the world "censorship".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
Copyright exists to control the right to copy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Technically, all copyright infringement is censorship (the point of the enforcement is to get someone to stop speaking).
NOT TRUE. "Infringement" means using the exact expression (and usually gaining money from it), and borderline is to use the material (here blatantly COPIED) but in NO case is it "censorship" to stop people from using one's own expression and make them say ideas their own way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wahoo for copyright
05:34:39[g-157-3]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
That still counts as censorship, no matter who actually takes responsibility for it. It�s not technically against the law thanks to copyright, but it does rub up against actual Free Speech and First Amendment issues � especially given how Fair Use exists only as a legal defense instead of a right.
Calling it censorship does little to dilute the �common� usage of the term. Copyright-driven censorship is still censorship (and government-sanctioned, to boot).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
William Goldman and Rob Reiner
That is just a heart wrenching comment.
They have turned a mega-fan into someone filled with great regret and loss.
Perhaps someday he'll go after those who sent the letter and say:
"My name is Joe Brack, you destroyed my enjoyment of the Princess Bride�.Prepare to die."
Harsh, I know, but applicable to the circumstances.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And copyright does so how? By giving authors certain exclusive rights, i.e., rights to exclude others from misappropriating the protected elements of their works. It's not hard. Why pretend like this isn't part of the bargain?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wahoo for copyright: again with the "out-troll" tactic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
There is certainly no value in something that has no value at all. Any value in the said screen name was most certainly devaluved by your own use in using it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
This is some revelation? This action is because reasonably deemed a close copy, deriving its value and actual material from the prior work. That's COPYING, therefore it's proper to use here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Censorship claims from copyright violation assertions are one of the best weapons we have to argue for copyright reform - conflating them with bog standard copyright cases is dulling that weapon considerably.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I agree. Censorship is when an idea is suppressed because the censor doesn't like that idea. Enforcing property rights isn't censorship just because those property rights happen to involve speech. Part of the bargain of copyright is that the copyright holder has certain exclusive rights over his protected speech. That control isn't "censorship" when exercised.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
Manifestly, dolt, it riles you. If that's all I can get out of you -- A COMPLETE LACK OF SUBSTANCE ON-TOPIC -- then it's FINE with me! One of my goals is to elicit your sort of CRAP stupidity because that's the TRUE measure of the site. ... [To any reasonable who might drop in out of the blue as I did: Geez, the fanboy-trolls are so stoopid you can't get the obvious across to them that by commenting at me, they're helping me and proving my points!]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
So what? Your comment�s value comes from copying part of my prior comment and adding your own commentary to it. That doesn�t make my comment any less valuable (in the grand scheme of �valuable Techdirt comments�, mind you).
The original work still exists. People still gleam value from it. This guy's show did nothing to destroy that value, and it may have even added value to the original (e.g. the explanation of the fencers� names used during the fencing scene in the film). How could anyone think this one-man show has somehow destroyed both the original work and its value as a part of pop culture?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wahoo for copyright: again with the "out-troll" tactic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Does that truly not count as censorship?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
"Substance" and "on-topic" being two concepts that you cannot grasp, instead just blather. YOU are a prime example of Techdirt fanboy-troll.
Copyright holders wanting to be paid is NOT tyranny, no matter how much you want pornz for free.
On the other hand, Google tracking you continually to affect at least your buying and no way to stop its assaults has intrinsic tyranny: tracking, control, helpless to resist.
06:05:51[h-26-6]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except this guy appears to have a solid case for Fair Use of the �Princess Bride� clips, and he can�t actually assert that defense without spending a ton of money to fight the case in court.
Even if you believe that copyright enforcement doesn�t equal censorship in and of itself, this guy has a solid-enough case to fight the charge in court, but can�t because of the excessive costs of staging a legal battle over Fair Use.
He had to shut down this potentially-legal mode of expression because copyright law essentially forced him to shut it down. It�s clear-cut censorship via copyright law (which makes this government-sanctioned censorship).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If infringement doesn't have to be proven to stifle art, then the laws are dysfunctional and need to be fixed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
How does it feel? Blood pounding in your head? Knowing that we bested you? That you lost? You're looking a lot more fragile now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
It doesn't rile me at all to see you show that you cannot comprehend at all judging by the fact that you are easily disproved by people on here considering your LACK OF SUBSTANCE ON TOPIC every time you comment and that is FINE with me!
"One of my goals is to elicit your sort of CRAP stupidity because that's the TRUE measure of the site. ... [To any reasonable who might drop in out of the blue as I did: Geez, the fanboy-trolls are so stoopid you can't get the obvious across to them that by commenting at me, they're helping me and proving my points!]
The only goal that you are successfuly showing is your own elicit sort of CRAP and STUPIDITY, off topic posts and lack of comprehension that you post every time which shows just how stupid that you are being which is helping everyone to prove their points on here very easily indeed!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
Who said it has, Mr Strawman? But the right to control copies of the work and derivatives that use much of it, the major if not only value in those derivatives being the original, then that's where the recognized right to control copies comes in.
Now, since you tacitly agree it's COPIED, I see no further value to replying. You'll just have to either copy my words and then gainsay them, or -- horror of horrors -- attempt to say something original on topic.
The most influential, the most commented-at, the most mocked! And the only commenter honored in SONG!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Blue
06:17:19[h-290-1]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
How does it feel? Blood pounding in your head? Knowing that we bested you? That you lost? You're looking a lot more fragile now.
Umm, okay...
[Note to the hypothetical reasonable visitor: THIS IS TECHDIRT AT ITS BEST.]
Techdirt. A "safe haven" for pirates. Weenies welcome. Vulgarity cheered.
06:20:46[h-401-1]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
In part. How does partially copying a work � and adding new cultural commentary on top of the work � destroy the original work�s value or existence?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
You did.
" In fact, this is a GOOD use of copyright, prevents clowns from ruining whatever value the original had"
Also...my god the sheer arrogance. You honestly have lost all sense of reality, of what time is, to think that all those uses of the name Out_of_the_blue, WHICH PREDATE YOUR APPEARANCE ON TECHDIRT, are somehow named in honour of you.
My online handle is named after a character I enjoyed, but I don't go around saying that my handle came first, and the character was named in honour of me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
That's rich coming from you, Blue. Too funny. Carry on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would argue that it can be completely legitimate censorship, but it's still censorship. Not all censorship is bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You killed my pasttime. I'm prepared to die.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torrent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
Did you know that many of those legends are a "close copy" and derive their work from prior work?
Hell, read the legend of Sigurd/Sigfried of the Norse, you'll notice how DAMN close it is to both King Arthur and Achilles.
Hell, every legendary hero has roots from the Epic of Gilgamesh, the first written Hero from over 6,000 years ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So in your words, copyright is there to protect those who come first from others, who are not fortunate to be born first from coming along and building on that work. If that is the case, hope, no pray, that someone who comes before you doesn't claim you stole their work. Copyright gives authors exclusive rights (for a limited period of time) to copy their work. Derivative rights are an abomination to science, reality, and human nature, and hopefully will someday be destroyed.
Nothing is born in a vacuum. Not ether, not copyrighted works, nothing. All works are born from works that came before. Everything is derivative. To claim otherwise is to tilt at windmills.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
not any more. it's main purpose is to make someone plenty of money without having to create anything new after that one time!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
In all fairness, my entire argument was based on arguments that came before (though one I truly believe in.) So I only accept the last word on behalf of everyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "copied"
How is what he does (using TPB-inspired material in his own works) an imitation or reproduction of an original?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my show. Prepare to die.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Just to be crystal clear, you have just stated that giving authors the right to exclude others from misappropriating the protected elements of their works inspires creativity. This is about the most braindead thing I've ever read, and proves beyond doubt that you don't have a creative bone in your body and have never created anything of worth.
"It's not hard. Why pretend like this isn't part of the bargain?"
I suggest you avoid mentioning the "the bargain", since the current state of copyright law has completely broken the bargain copyright holders are supposed to have with the public. You're on the wrong side of that argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't see the need for personal attacks. What I said is the classic presentation of the copyright bargain. The exclusive rights are the incentive that get people to create original works in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Please define "real theft." And while you're at it, explain how it is that theft is applied to situations where nothing tangible is stolen. For example, if you sneak into a movie theater and watch the movie without paying, that is defined to be theft of services in many states. The point that I think you're missing is that theft doesn't only refer to taking something away from somebody. It can also refer to receiving something of value without paying for it. It's the latter meaning which is employed when infringement is equated with theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Does that truly not count as censorship?
In my opinion, no, it's not. Imagine if I own a plot of land, and there's a certain spot where people congregate to listen to other people make speeches. I can run the people off of my land if I don't like their speeches, and I can permit people whose speeches I do like to remain on my land. I'm not censoring those people I run off even though I'm doing it because I don't like what they're saying. I'm simply enforcing my property rights. The problem only arises because the speakers decided to use my property without permission in making their speeches in the first place. It's not censorship since they are free to spread their ideas without using my property in the process. The same holds true for intellectual property, like copyrights. The law privileges some uses of other people's copyrighted works without permission just as it permits some uses of other people's land without permission. But the person who uses other people's works or land runs the risk that the property owner won't agree that it's privileged, in which case he may assert his rights. Trying to frame it as "culture" doesn't mean much legally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
A classic presentation that a good group of us find corrupt and perverted. A copyright bargain based on a flawed view of creation, instead of one based on evolution. A copyright bargain that has no basis in reality and serves only to make those who managed to get there first the rulers over those who came later.
The belief that, as you say, without incentive, no original works will be created. Copyright is a recent invention (a flawed one,) and for many years before copyright existed, people created works. And copyright isn't giving much of an incentive right now for Hollywood to make original works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nothing is born in a vacuum. Not ether, not copyrighted works, nothing. All works are born from works that came before. Everything is derivative. To claim otherwise is to tilt at windmills.
Yes, everything is derivative to some degree. But that broad meaning of derivative is not the meaning of the legal term of art derivative. Every single day, original works are created. Your post to me is an original work of art that is protected by copyright, even though you could say it's derivative in the broad sense of the word. You're conflating your nonlegal meaning of derivative with its legal meaning. Despite being derivative in that broad sense, works are still considered to be original and thus protected by copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"What I said is the classic presentation of the copyright bargain."
Absolutely wrong. The actual bargain is that copyright grants limited control of a work for a limited period of time and then it forever becomes part of the public domain. All three aspects of that bargain have been mangled beyond recognition by copyright maximalists and supporters, so the bargain is well and truly broken and should be ignored on principle.
"The exclusive rights are the incentive that get people to create original works in the first place."
If you were a creator you'd know this is completely wrong. That's not a personal attack, it's just a statement of fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's a view that recognizes that, while certainly creativity builds upon what's come before, it nevertheless realizes that it's easy to create something original in the technical sense.
The belief that, as you say, without incentive, no original works will be created.
I never said that. I'm incentivized to write this very response to you without copyright.
Copyright is a recent invention (a flawed one,) and for many years before copyright existed, people created works. And copyright isn't giving much of an incentive right now for Hollywood to make original works.
Hollywood makes works that are original in the legal sense. I think you misunderstand what original means in the copyright law context.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Theft of services" is not considered theft in the same line as petty theft/grand theft. It is more akin to defrauding an innkeeper (which most states equate it to.) Much like copyright infringement, it is considered different under the law than theft. However, unlike copyright infringement, defrauding an innkeeper does result in real loss, since the innkeeper has a limited amount of supply and the theft prevents them from selling that supply to another person.
Copyright infringement potentially results in loss of profit, but when there is an infinite supply of product, it is hard to say that the result prevents someone from selling the supply to another person.
Also, please learn to internet. When you respond to someone, press "reply to this." It helps keep things in order and makes following the thread easier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, the rights are limited. But that doesn't disprove what I said about the copyright bargain being the rights exchanged for the works. I don't understand your point.
If you were a creator you'd know this is completely wrong. That's not a personal attack, it's just a statement of fact.
And yet most of the music, movies, books, etc. that people download are the ones where copyright was certainly part of what incentivized the creation and dissemination of those works in the first place. It seems to me pirates complain about copyright not working with one hand, while they're downloading without paying with the other. I don't get it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So the fifth iteration of Transformers and the seventh iteration of Fast and Furious are original. Thanks for the clarification. Also, I'll let the publishers of John Carter know that Disney's implementation is entirely original.
I think you misunderstand what original means in the copyright law context.
The fact that there can be any misunderstanding of the law vs. reality shows how tenuous the law is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
While there are exceptions, I have noted that as a general trend, the more someone supports copyright the less creative they are. The exceptions tend to be the creators that have made a fortune, and have no need to create any new works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But I think you miss the key point of the example of theft of services. Sneaking in to the theater without paying is theft, even if it didn't cost the theater anything as they were playing the movie anyway, because the person sneaking in ACQUIRES something without paying for it. Obviously, not everything we acquire without paying is theft. But certain intangibles, such as theater service, or copyright rights, are capable of being stolen nonetheless.
Copyright infringement potentially results in loss of profit, but when there is an infinite supply of product, it is hard to say that the result prevents someone from selling the supply to another person.
A loss of profits can certainly be a part of what makes it theft. But it's theft even if it's not a lost sale for the reasons just mentioned. The infringer acquires something of value without paying the part who has the right to exclude from acquiring that thing without paying for it.
Also, please learn to internet. When you respond to someone, press "reply to this." It helps keep things in order and makes following the thread easier.
I apologize for the replies not showing up correctly. That is beyond my control. I am clicking "reply" in the normal fashion. If you view it in "Flattened" view, it's easier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not so if I download a movie. The argument can be made that I have received something of value without paying for it (which is an extremely bad grouping of words for you to use; a properly functioning demo of a game has value to both the studio and the end player, but no-one would think to say that because I receive it for free means I somehow have defrauded or cost a loss to the developers), but not in the same vein as theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm certainly left-brained and analytical, but I do play several instruments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Which is why sneaking into the movie theater is usually not charged as theft of services/defrauding an innkeeper, but as commercial trespass. The movie theater tells the person to leave and the police give the person notice of trespass. If the person returns, they go to jail on misdemeanor trespass charges. A lot easier than going to court and dealing with $6-10 in damages.
A loss of profits can certainly be a part of what makes it theft. But it's theft even if it's not a lost sale for the reasons just mentioned. The infringer acquires something of value without paying the part who has the right to exclude from acquiring that thing without paying for it.
This has been debunked so many times here. It is not true based on the law or based on reality. A lost sale is not theft (at least until Congress passes a law that mandates profit.) There are many cases where an infringer acquires something of value while paying but not receiving what they paid for, or receiving the value they thought they were going to receive by paying.
I apologize for the replies not showing up correctly. That is beyond my control. I am clicking "reply" in the normal fashion. If you view it in "Flattened" view, it's easier.
Like every other argument you've made...it is easier (according to you) to do what is easier for you, instead of doing what is easier for everyone else. How entitled are you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, those movies have original, and hence protectable, elements. You do realize that when a work is copyrighted, not everything about that work is necessarily protected, right? You have to separate the protectable from the nonprotectable elements. Those movies, without question, have original, protectable elements.
The fact that there can be any misunderstanding of the law vs. reality shows how tenuous the law is.
Originality has a certain meaning in copyright law, just as many other terms have certain meanings in their legal sense. I don't see how that shows the law is tenuous. I don't think it means what you think it means. The law would be tenuous if it didn't use terms of art.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is absolutely not true. For example, in libel cases, it is almost never the government being libeled. But granting a TRO or injunction in libel cases is often rejected because it would be censorship under the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You can't really say that copyright incentivized their creation because everything created is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is put onto a fixed medium.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: William Goldman and Rob Reiner
William Goldman and Rob Reiner probably have nothing to do with it, as Goldman probably assigned his copyright to his publisher, and Reiner (by law) never held any part of the copyright in the movie.
They can speak out about it (and I think should), but legally there's absolutely nothing they could do about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm not sure what you're basing that on. There are all kinds of theft statutes that consider the receiving of something of value without paying to be theft. Look at theft of cable service. That's theft because it's taking something of value without paying.
For example, in New Jersey: "A person is guilty of theft if he purposely obtains services which he knows are available only for compensation . . . to avoid payment for the service. "Services" include . . . cable television . . . ." N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:20-8(a).
Or in New York: "A person is guilty of theft of services when . . . [w]ith intent to avoid payment by himself or another person of the lawful charge for any telecommunications service, including, without limitation, cable television service . . . which is provided for a charge or compensation . . . ." N.Y. Penal Law 165.15(4).
Taking cable service without paying is theft, even though the cable company is pumping that same signal through those same wires whether you obtain it or not. It's the taking something of value without paying that matters. And it matters because it costs the cable company real time and money to provide that service. Just like it costs copyright owners real time and money to create the copyrighted work. They are given a property right in exchange for this effort.
This has been debunked so many times here. It is not true based on the law or based on reality. A lost sale is not theft (at least until Congress passes a law that mandates profit.) There are many cases where an infringer acquires something of value while paying but not receiving what they paid for, or receiving the value they thought they were going to receive by paying.
How does that disprove my point that copyright infringement is like theft of services because in each case someone obtains something of value--value created by the property holder--without paying the expected amount?
Like every other argument you've made...it is easier (according to you) to do what is easier for you, instead of doing what is easier for everyone else. How entitled are you?
I am hitting "reply" in the proper fashion, as I said. I have no control over why TD doesn't display my replies appropriately. I merely suggested that it would be easier for you to use flattened view, since you can control that. I wasn't saying I'm entitled to anything. I'm not sure where you're coming from this stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But those people put it into a fixed medium in the first place because they knew they'd get the copyright. Do you not see how, say, Warner Bros. knows they're going to get the copyright, and so, based on that knowledge, invests time and money into their next movie?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Exclusive rights are the mechanism, not the purpose. If that mechanism acts counter to copyright's purpose, it is a failure.
Also, "exclusive rights" don't necessarily mean "the right to exclude others," though it often does. It can also mean "the exclusive right to income," even if that income does not come with the right to exclude others from using the work. That's how statutory royalties work, for example.
Why pretend like this isn't part of the bargain?
Because it isn't. Copyright law was not supposed to stifle derivative works that also have a significant element of original expression, or that transform the original in significant ways.
This is why fair use exists, and has existed as long as copyright has been around. Even when a copyright holder objects to that usage, the law has acknowledged that the usage should be allowed. Otherwise, copyright is acting against its sole purpose of providing the public with new works of art.
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose
In this case, the use of "The Princess Bride" was most likely a fair use - and thus, a use that copyright is designed to promote. The fact that copyright was used to prevent that work from appearing, is not only censorship, it is acting against the very purpose of copyright itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Yes, the rights are limited. But that doesn't disprove what I said about the copyright bargain being the rights exchanged for the works. I don't understand your point."
My point was that you raised "the bargain" as if copyright supporters have any moral ground to complain about broken bargains.
"And yet most of the music, movies, books, etc. that people download are the ones where copyright was certainly part of what incentivized the creation and dissemination of those works in the first place."
Please don't confuse the creative processes of authors, filmakers, musicians, etc with the desire of the content industry corporations to make as much money as possible. Copyright provides incentives for the latter, but not the former.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Uh, yeah, it is. The moment you consider speech to be "property," is the moment speech can be suppressed by the speech's "owner."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"But those people put it into a fixed medium in the first place because they knew they'd get the copyright."
Anyone who creates anything knows (more than likely) that they'll receive a copyright as soon as they put pen to paper or what-have-you, but it is not the primary reason they do so. Seriously, why are you arguing this? Copyright law is barely 3-4 centuries old, and there were plenty of creative works done before that.
I too am a creative person, but I don't want copyrights on my works. However, I receive them automatically as soon as I put them onto a medium.
As for WB and other studios, they view copyright as a tool, not the end goal. They don't say "Let's make this movie so we have a copyright on it. Great! We've made the movie, only we can distribute it, job well done people!" They create the movie with the intent to sell it and make a profit, and (wrongly in my opinion) view copyright as a tool that helps them do that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm using a VPN. The reply button doesn't function because of some issue with my VPN and the TD website. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
My point was that you raised "the bargain" as if copyright supporters have any moral ground to complain about broken bargains.
I was making only a descriptive argument about the traditional view of the bargain. I think the calculus of that bargain is different now, as things are automatically copyrighted at fixation instead of upon publication. And that's certainly a good point to raise, one which I think shows that the purely utilitarian model is incomplete. But that's saying nothing about any normative view about the morality of it all. I think the moral argument is pretty simple. People put time and effort into creating works of art and are given property rights to promote such efforts. They get those rights because they earned those rights. They have a moral desert claim to them. There's all kinds of countervailing interests, as you well know, but at bottom the moral part of the argument is simple. There's other less-Lockean views as well which similarly conclude that the author has a moral claim to his works.
Please don't confuse the creative processes of authors, filmakers, musicians, etc with the desire of the content industry corporations to make as much money as possible. Copyright provides incentives for the latter, but not the former.
I think it's all one big system. The rights are what the authors and musicians have to bargain with. Without the authorial rights, there'd be no promotion and distribution system. Those copyrights are integral.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not really. Aside from what I posted above, the "copyright bargain" is not supposed to inspire creativity per se, but to encourage a commercial market for creativity. That commercial market is considered necessary for the publication or works that would (in unproven theory) otherwise never make it to the public. In other words, it is not creativity itself, but the dissemination of that creativity to the public, that is the goal of the "copyright bargain."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've said this several times already. I am using it. It doesn't work for me. I think it's my VPN messing things up. Sorry about it.
Anyone who creates anything knows (more than likely) that they'll receive a copyright as soon as they put pen to paper or what-have-you, but it is not the primary reason they do so. Seriously, why are you arguing this?
I was talking about the movie, music, and book markets that are copyright based. The ones, coincidentally, which produce the movies, music, and books that the majority of people want.
Copyright law is barely 3-4 centuries old, and there were plenty of creative works done before that.
Of course. And even today there's many great works not incentivized by copyright. I'm fully in agreement. I'm talking about the popular, mainstream stuff that is incentivized by copyright. The stuff I pay $175 per month to get from my cable company. Like HBO.
I too am a creative person, but I don't want copyrights on my works. However, I receive them automatically as soon as I put them onto a medium.
And you can choose to give it away to whomever you want on any conditions you want. Copyright gives you many options.
As for WB and other studios, they view copyright as a tool, not the end goal. They don't say "Let's make this movie so we have a copyright on it. Great! We've made the movie, only we can distribute it, job well done people!" They create the movie with the intent to sell it and make a profit, and (wrongly in my opinion) view copyright as a tool that helps them do that.
Yes, it's the tool that incentivizes them to invest in their next movie. They know that they will have the right to exclude others from copying it, and that is significant in their decision to make the movie in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In other words, sweat-of-the-brow. A concept in copyright law that was rejected in Feist v Rural Telephone Service.
"Without the authorial rights, there'd be no promotion and distribution system."
Really? You assume that to be true? So without copyright, an author wouldn't be able to sell a stamp of approval on goods (this is something that copyright wouldn't address, this would be under advertising laws). So if there were no copyright, George R R Martin wouldn't be able to license a stamp of approval to certain companies to sell products based on Game of Thrones?
Distribution? Excuse me while I have a laugh. Distribution (unless you're using a completely different definition) is the moving of items from one place to another. Copyright law merely says that an author has the right to distribute their works, but doesn't in and of itself create the distribution system (e.g. newspaper, books, CDs, the Internet)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Then you must think copyright law is terribly immoral, since copyright is not granted "because they earned those rights." (This wouldn't surprise me in the least.)
You must also think that "work for hire" is completely immoral, since the people who put time and effort into creating works never hold any kind of property rights in those works at all.
And you must also think that most employment is completely immoral, since chefs, carpenters, plumbers, welders, and so on put in a lot of time and effort into creating works, but none of them are ever granted property rights in the works they create.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I fail to see where, why and how the fact that something is mainstream suddenly merits a work protection under the law.
"Yes, it's the tool that incentivizes them to invest in their next movie. They know that they will have the right to exclude others from copying it, and that is significant in their decision to make the movie in the first place."
The idea behind incentivization sounds great in theory: only you can distribute the movie and thus, you can more or less ensure you have an income, but look at what must be done in the modern world for that
1) Lockdown of computer hardware, despite the fact the hardware is bought and paid for
2) Online DRM that functions by presuming every nanosecond you are a freeloader and thus, every nanosecond you must be checked - equivalent to a store clerk demanding your receipt every time you read a word in a book
3) Self censorship (like in this article) because it's far too costly to defend oneself in court.
Long story short, exclusive rights sound great, but society has to pay an extremely high price to enable them. Too high a price if you ask me, a price I refuse to pay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, if it's fair use, then copyright doctrine says that it promotes the progress. But I don't see how it's "censorship" to send a cease and desist. The copyright owner, if we suppose good faith on his part, thinks it not fair use. And like most such things, there's colorable arguments for either side. But I think it's disingenuous to say that such a copyright owner is a "censor." We don't normally call people who enforce their property rights "censors." If I kick the uninvited prophet off my lawn, I'm not censoring him. He'll just have to spread his message without use of my property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Sorry, but using the law to keep people from speaking is considered censorship by most people. And also by the courts, as it turns out.
Sending a C&D to prohibit speech is certainly an attempt at censorship. It actually is censorship if it works. As it did here.
We don't normally call people who enforce their property rights "censors."
And we don't normally consider speech to be "property."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think it is granted because they earned those rights:
"The economic philosophy behind the clause empowering Congress to grant patents and copyrights is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in 'Science and useful Arts.' Sacrificial days devoted to such creative activities deserve rewards commensurate with the services rendered." Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. at 219.
You must also think that "work for hire" is completely immoral, since the people who put time and effort into creating works never hold any kind of property rights in those works at all.
The worker gets paid for his efforts. That's the bargain the worker made with the employer. This is why employees get paid. If I pay you $50 to mow my lawn, I get to keep the mowed lawn despite your having done the work because I paid you for your effort. You have no moral claim above and beyond the $50 I promised you. In a work for hire, we let the employer keep the "mowed lawn" because he paid for it.
And you must also think that most employment is completely immoral, since chefs, carpenters, plumbers, welders, and so on put in a lot of time and effort into creating works, but none of them are ever granted property rights in the works they create.
Not at all. Lots of things exist that we don't provide intellectual rights in. Those services are usually provided in exchange for money, and the effort is rewarded accordingly. I don't think it's amoral to not grant everyone an intellectual property right in everything they do. But I do think that copyright owners have a moral claim nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Here's something you don't factor into your equations. The fact that copyrights are (well supposed to) to end. Copyrights are for a limited time.
You say copyright is moral. So then, what about once the work hits the public domain? Is the copyright immoral then? The duration of the copyright is basically arbitrary; it's not like it's a scientifically determined length.
If it's immoral for me to infringe on a Sega Genesis game from the early 90's, why is it not immoral for me to download a work made before 1923?
Take Alice in Wonderland and the Lord of the Rings. Both are immensely popular books. Alice was once under copyright. Now it isn't. Why and how did the morality of its copyright change simply because an arbitrary number of years have passed? What about LotR? Like Alice, its author is dead. Has been for decades. However, unlike Alice, it still remains under copyright, and thus according to you, immoral.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No one is arguing against workers getting paid for their labor. What you're saying is moral is granting exclusive property rights on the results of that labor, above and beyond being paid for the labor itself.
If I pay you $50 to mow my lawn, I get to keep the mowed lawn despite your having done the work because I paid you for your effort.
But you're arguing that if I mow your lawn, I should have exclusive property rights to your lawn. Mowing your lawn would be my exclusive "property," so mowing it yourself, or hiring anyone else to mow it, should be "theft."
That is the moral argument you are making.
Lots of things exist that we don't provide intellectual rights in.
And, as it turns out, when we don't provide intellectual property rights in them, we get more of those things.
When we compare industries that both do and do not have IP protections in certain areas (the fashion industry, database rights, etc.), it turns out that the places that do not have IP protections have more innovation and more production.
This should surprise nobody, since it is well-known that monopolies stifle innovation and economic growth, and that is exactly what IP is meant to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Mowing your lawn would be my exclusive "property," so mowing it yourself, or hiring anyone else to mow it, should be "theft."
...Or, perhaps you're one of those people who believes that copyright should be about controlling the work.
Say I mowed your lawn, and the next day, you decided to turn your lawn into a rock garden. You're destroying the results of my labor. All of that hard work, down the drain. And putting in a rock garden to boot! No lawn-mower in his right mind would want to be associated with such a grassless abomination.
Why, the only thing that is moral is to get the government to grant me an injunction against you putting in a rock garden. After all, I put in a lot of time and effort into the work of art that is your lawn, so I have a property right in it, and you shouldn't have a right to destroy my property.
I've seen this sort of argument before. Obviously, I don't think it holds water. There is certainly nothing moral about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
>braindead
It's not a personal attack if it's accurate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Field_%28film%29
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I think it is granted because they earned those rights:
The Mazer v. Stein quote does not say they were granted because they earned those rights. In their own words, "encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare."
And that case itself cited two others, right before the quote you posted, which also make it clear that it is not the reason authors are granted copyrights. "The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration" (United States v. Paramount Pictures); it is granted "to afford greater encouragement to the production of literary [or artistic] works of lasting benefit to the world" (Washingtonian Pub. Co. v. Pearson).
No, copyright is granted to benefit the general public. If the rights do not benefit the public, then they should not be granted, no matter how much authors "earned" them:
- House Report on the Copyright Act of 1909
So, yeah, it's totally immoral according to your standards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So you are a tax dodger? a freeloader? a burden on society?
What is that, they are different when it comes to you having to pay your share of tax, but the same when you can use it in a flawed analogy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Copyright theft is taking things out of the Public domain.
Copyright theft is backdooring in laws that remove my right to a back up copy of my legally purchased media.
Copyright infringment is copying a copyrighted work of art without permission.
Now, can you see the differnce
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Sweat of the brow only counts when it is your sweat. Got it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
No -- you've accomplished that all on your own.
What "Fake "out_of_the_blue"" actually proves is merely that you've become (again, by your own efforts) such an object of derision, that people feel little qualms about openly disparaging you (because, after all, it's not like it harms your reputation or anything)...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I am basing it on my training and experience.
I fail to see how sneaking into a theater is even closely related to theft of cable service. Theft of cable service is also a separate law. And in my experience the theft of cable service has more to do with breaking equipment and removing service from others than it does stealing service.
How does that disprove my point that copyright infringement is like theft of services because in each case someone obtains something of value--value created by the property holder--without paying the expected amount?
I recently purchased (as I often do,) a movie on DVD that I was interested in watching. Usually I use Netflix for this, but the movie wasn't available on Netflix (probably because the company felt it could make more money by stiffing Netflix than it could by working with them, but no matter.) I then ripped it (actually, legally, as the DVD did not have any copy protection, thankfully,) and placed the DVD on to my shelves that have DVDs, and then proceeded to watch the movie on my Linux system using VLC (I don't do Windows, and there aren't any "legal" Linux DVD players out there.) I did not place the video online, and did not "make it available" for anyone to download.
So, what you are saying is that I didn't pay the expected amount to obtain the DVD I paid for because I used copyright infringement to obtain something of value, created by the property holder, for something they determined I should only be allowed to play on a sanctioned DVD player or on a Windows computer? What if I purchased the DVD and then found out it was copy protected and I couldn't play it on my Linux computer? What if, after buying it, I downloaded it from a torrent in order to play it? So all copyright infringement is like theft of service because customers who purchase a DVD or BluRay, expecting it to play, obtain something of value without paying the expected amount?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I administer VPNs as part of my day job, and I have yet to see a VPN do deep packet inspection and screw around with http as badly as you appear to be seeing. If your VPN is causing this difficulty, I suggest you might want to find a different VPN provider, preferably one that isn't such a scam. VPNs should just tunnel traffic from one point to another. (Actually, I tend to see this type of thing more with "anonymizer proxy servers," as in the free ones that tend to be really insecure.)
You might want to hook up here with some of the other folks who use VPNs to access Techdirt, as they have far better success than you appear to be having. Might I suggest out_of_the_blue and Average_Joe... Maybe they can offer some help in setting up your VPN to work with Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Sweat of the brow only counts when it is your sweat. Got it.
Who are you talking to, precisely? It appears to be a reply to my comment, but I never even hinted that I believe any of those things. (Also - "the most useless in our society?" What the fuck?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, that's not much better. I'm not a huge fan of current copyright laws, but even so, calling copyright holders "the most useless in our society" is total BS. (Even if he was only talking about corporate copyright holders.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Blue"
Your Techdirt comments were honoured by songs dating back to 1959? Or you're a narcissistic, obsessive, pathological liar who won't let basic facts and logic get in the way of his posting?
I think anyone can see which is true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In your example, you have taken something that's a finite, limited resource (the use of the cinema seat) and which requires non-zero cost to the provider to give to you (the share of power, staffing, rental of the film print, etc. required to show the film). Ditto for most things covered under "theft of services" - the point being that even if you haven't personally received something tangible, the provider has still lost the resources required to provide that to a non-paying customer.
None of this applies when copying a digital file. It's an infinite product that costs nothing to the originator to supply to you - unless you start basing your argument on faulty logic such as "every download is a lost sale". If you copy a movie file from somebody else's computer, the studio haven't lost a single penny that can be quantified. The argument's much more complex - and usually based on lies and misdirection.
Infringement is not, and will never be, theft. Those two words describe completely different things. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
http://www.academia.edu/268493/Hittite_Religion_and_the_West
www.argyrosargyrou.fsnet.co.uk/Myths 4.htm
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195397703/student/materials/chapter4/summary/
De rivative crap or transformative usage? You decide.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "like all sorts of great culture" that Mike extols, it's derivative CRAP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "copied"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Last Word
“So in your words, copyright is there to protect those who come first from others, who are not fortunate to be born first from coming along and building on that work. If that is the case, hope, no pray, that someone who comes before you doesn't claim you stole their work. Copyright gives authors exclusive rights (for a limited period of time) to copy their work. Derivative rights are an abomination to science, reality, and human nature, and hopefully will someday be destroyed.
Nothing is born in a vacuum. Not ether, not copyrighted works, nothing. All works are born from works that came before. Everything is derivative. To claim otherwise is to tilt at windmills.