Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright

from the seems-to-be-missing-the-point dept

Fri, Sep 26th 2014 1:39pm — Mike Masnick

As you may have heard, there's a new movie opening today about a transformative year in Jimi Hendrix's life, called Jimi: All Is By My Side. The story sounds pretty interesting, but there's one big element that's missing: Jimi Hendrix's original music. As we noted two years ago, the Jimi Hendrix Estate denied any and all attempts to license his music unless they could have some control over the production (which the producers felt was out of order), meaning that the movie is, in fact, lacking any original Hendrix music. Instead, the only thing you'll see Hendrix performing if you watch the movie, is cover songs of other bands, which the movie's producers were able to license.

I'm just going to repeat what I said two years ago, because it still applies: This is, in many ways, ridiculous. Part of the point of recording and retelling our cultural heritage is the use of the actual music that made it happen. Even the Hendrix estate finds the moviemakers' position confusing (though, it doesn't indicate if it would license the songs without creative say in the flick). Part of the problem is the ridiculous setup of music licensing today. You can do a cover song with compulsory licenses (i.e., without permission), but that's only for audio. Doing video gets you into sync licenses and other issues that require permission. And this is what you get in a society that locks up culture: a movie about Jimi Hendrix that features exactly none of his original music.

This is how we lose out on culture. Culture thrives by sharing it, building on it, doing new things with it not by locking it up and demanding permission or control for everything. Indeed, looking over the reviews of the movie, many are specifically calling out the lack of Hendrix's music as a big part of the problem with the movie. How can you tell the story of an iconic rock star without his music? The music and the star go hand in hand, but you can't have that here. Thanks to copyright.

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: all is by my side, copyright, cover songs, jimi hendrix, licensing

116 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

DogBreath, 26 Sep 2014 @ 1:52pm

and the wind cries copyright...
Too bad it went down like this, when it could have been great, had it gone the other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- there's a solution for that, 27 Sep 2014 @ 12:09pm
  
  Re: and the wind cries copyright...
  all they need to do, to have his music in their documentary is to license it. not hard to do, they're not hard to find, and they are very reasonable to people who don't expect to get things that cost money for free...
  
  don't know when paying for the cost of goods to make a product became controversial. you are suggesting the carpenter doesn't need to pay for the wood to make a house.
  
  that's silly. you are making a silly argument. time to grow up silly boys.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 27 Sep 2014 @ 1:27pm
    
    Re: Re: and the wind cries copyright...
    Read article, then comment.
    
    As we noted two years ago, the Jimi Hendrix Estate denied any and all attempts to license his music unless they could have some control over the production (which the producers felt was out of order),
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 4:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: and the wind cries copyright...
      Use facts when trying to attack the authors on the site, and read the actual arguments, let alone read clearly linked citations on ongoing discussions? God forbid, that would undermine every assumption they base their arguments on.
      
      But, the new troll handle is noted, so we can thank him for a straight out "ignore me, I have no factual argument" plea.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DogBreath, 28 Sep 2014 @ 10:35am
    
    Re: Re: and the wind cries copyright...
    don't know when paying for the cost of goods to make a product became controversial. you are suggesting the carpenter doesn't need to pay for the wood to make a house.
    
    When the carpenter can make decisions on how your house is going to look, come back and try again. Since you obviously didn't read the article this statement will make little sense to you.
    
    that's silly. you are making a silly argument. time to grow up silly boys.
    
    That is ignorant. You are making an ignorant argument. Time to stop being ignorant and learn to read and comprehend.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 2:13pm

Jimi who?
It's funny really, that the group who should be most interested in having more people listen to Jimi Hendrix's music, were instead so focused on maintaining control over it that they've instead decreased the chance that some new fan will come along, hear his music, and decide to become a paying fan.

With such a focus on maintaining control(and this applies to more than just the Hendrix estate) countless musicians or creators will find their works fading into the dust of history over time, forgotten and replaced, only remembered by diehard fans, until even they die out and the creator is forgotten entirely.

With no one able to listen to their music, to become new fans, it's only a matter of time until 'Jimi who?' will become the response to 'Have you ever heard of Jimi Hendrix?'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Whatever (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 6:18pm
  
  Re: Jimi who?
  You would be right if his music wasn't getting played, wasn't on radio all the time, wasn't iconic and used over and over again in all sorts of ways.
  
  it's not as if they have somehow magically locked up his music such that you cannot ever hear it, that you cannot see the many performances filmed, and so on. It's only a case of one film maker attempting to profit from that legend who has been denied certain rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - OldMugwump (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 6:57pm
    
    Re: Re: Jimi who?
    That's because of compulsory licensing.
    
    Without compulsory licensing, there wouldn't be any "music getting played, on radio all the time"...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:04pm
    
    Re: Re: Jimi who?
    It's only a case of one film maker attempting to profit from that legend who has been denied certain rights.
    
    I believe you mean 'attempting to create a documentary showcasing defining moments in his life and how they shaped him'.
    
    If you want to talk about someone 'attempting to profit from that legend', you'd be better off looking at the estate who controls his music, and asking yourself just what they did that influenced the music, and just why they deserve to 'profit from that legend'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Whatever (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 9:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
      Let me ask you this: Your parents own a home. They both pass away (sadly) and you inherit the house. You rent the house out and get income every month.
      
      What right to you have to profit from your parent's hard work?
      
      Think about it for a second.
      
      The Hendrix estate has the same rights to his work as you would to your parents house. The only difference is that a certain number of years from now, the rights to the Hendrix music will expire, and the rights to the home will not (unless it's a leasehold property).
      
      The movie makers have no direct rights, in the same manner that your neighbors can't use your pool without permission.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 10:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        Do I even need to point out that the house is a scarce, rivalrous, physical good and music is not?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2014 @ 12:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        Do I need to point out what a moronic statement this is?
        
        Go create a musical work that is as desired as one Jimi Hendrix created.
        
        Happy to wait. Not holding my breath.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 27 Sep 2014 @ 2:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        Ah good old ad hom, 'When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger'. I notice you didn't actually address his comment, which was pointing out one of the big differences between a song and a house.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        Ah, good old reading comprehension fail.
        
        A Jimi Hendrix song is both scare and rivalrous.
        
        No idea why you brought up "physical thing". So what?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 9:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        From
        wiktionary:rivalrous (economics, of a good) which can be consumed by no more than one person at the same time.
        A song is never a rivalrous good, and a recording per se also is not a rivalrous good. An individual record, CD or DVD, or ticket for a live performance are rivalrous goods.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 5:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        Point out any facts you want, he's picked his faulty argument and by God he'll stick with it no matter which fallacies you point out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 10:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        There are some slight differences between property law and copyright law.
        
        When you own a house, that's your house, the public isn't involved in the process(buying, renting, selling) at any point. Copyright however was meant to be a deal between the creator and the public("We'll give you exclusive rights and related legal rights for a limited time to your works, so you can be incentivized to create more, but in exchange once that limited time is over with the rights to it go to the public so people can build off of what you've created"), it was never meant to be a welfare system for heirs and 'estates' like actual property.
        
        This is one of the big reasons I believe that any copyright term lasting past death(at most) is excessive, the creator at that point is dead, they're not being given incentive to create squat, so at that point it's time for the public to receive their half of the deal.
        
        Also, I've seen this mentioned before when the subject has come up, but if you believe that copyright should be treated the same as any other property, do you believe that is should ever go to the public domain? You don't have to give your car up after X number of years, nor your house, if copyright is just another category of property, why the difference?
        
        As well, if a copyright is a property like any other, well, you pay taxes on your house and car based upon their worth, clearly paying taxes on a copyright is only fair as well. I'm sure the likes of Disney would love that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2014 @ 11:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        You may want to reconsider the statement that the public has no role in the purchase/sale/rental/lease of a home. In fact, the public is deeply insinuated in all aspects of the process. What is different is the type of public involvement...but involved it most definitely is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Whatever (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 9:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        When you own a house, that's your house,
        
        Not in the case of a leasehold. You own the house, but you don't own the emplacement, which means at some point, you either move it or lose it.
        
        As well, if a copyright is a property like any other, well, you pay taxes on your house and car based upon their worth, clearly paying taxes on a copyright is only fair as well. I'm sure the likes of Disney would love that.
        
        I suspect as a low percentage of value ( like a home, typically around $1 per mille valuation) you would likely not get much argument. However, if they pay tax, they will demand services just like property owners, and that would include much more profound enforcement of the rights of copyright holders against piracy. Do you really want that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DogBreath, 28 Sep 2014 @ 9:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        However, if they pay tax, they will demand services just like property owners, and that would include much more profound enforcement of the rights of copyright holders against piracy. Do you really want that?
        
        So you think they'll pay a tax to the government, and then demand to get more profound enforcement and it will work? Good luck with that, because that is not how government actually works. If you want something above and beyond the standard run-of-the-mill "service", you must pay bribes (which Disney already does to get their "copyright extensions" passed, and to get their federal investigations going because "Terrorism" and "Think of the children" blather).
        
        Once the government taxes you and takes your money, it is theirs. "For services rendered"... or not. If it helps, think of the government as one big mismanaged HOA, of the United States of America.
        
        "Once you have their money, never give it back". It is the Ferengi way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2014 @ 5:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        "and that would include much more profound enforcement of the rights of copyright holders against piracy. Do you really want that?"
        
        So, you know, basically what we have now? Where they can say a website (RojaDirect) is releasing for download copyrighted meterial and have it seized by the U.S. government (until the copyright holders can find "the smoking gun") seemingly indefinitely until they just give it back (when no evidence of any copyrighted material being given out without permission is ever presented)? Or would you prefer the now infamous example of the U.S. government "asking" the New Zealand government to do a SWAT style/involved raid of Kim Dotcom's home and then absconding with "evidence" they couldn't legally take from New Zealand?
        
        Mhm. Yeah, we don't want that. Yet we're already getting it.
        
        By all means, if you're going to go for the "do you really want that" bullshit argument/play at least make sure there aren't examples that shoot your argument to shit out there already.
        
        I'm still of the opinion that you would literally die if you didn't defend such shitty actions and behavior on the part of copyright holders and law enforcement officials.
        
        Oh, for the record, PaulT is signed in as himself and I, yet again, am someone completely different.
        
        Here's a tip for you, genius (and I use that word very loosely), writing styles are about as unique as fingerprints. You can attempt to emulate someone, but there'll be a noticeable difference for anyone with a clue. PaulT and I might voice similar things about you (that you don't ever present citations to back up your assertions, that you disappear when directly called out, that you resort to labeling people "troll" when they do call you out, etc etc etc) but we are not the same person and we do not have the same writing style. Not even remotely.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - CK20XX (profile), 27 Sep 2014 @ 2:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        What hard work? You didn't say that they built the whole darn house by themselves, and even if they had, it wouldn't be the same thing. A house occupies a very finite amount of space, for one, while music spreads all around the globe. Can you reasonably claim the whole world to yourself?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Andyroo, 28 Sep 2014 @ 12:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        UMMM NOOOOOO!!!! you are so wrong it is funny, a house is a physical thing a song is not.
        
        Damn I was going to write an explanation but I know you know you are talking rubbish.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 6:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
        " a house is a physical thing a song is not."
        
        So what?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:59pm
    
    Re: Re: Jimi who?
    That still makes no damn sense. If I buy a hotdog, there'd better be a hotdog in that bun. How does it make sense for people to be promised a hotdog without a hotdog?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 9:35pm
    
    Re: Re: Jimi who?
    The article here certainly tries to make the argument that the movie was short changed by the estate not licensing original work, but nowhere indicates this was ever even an issue with the movie's producer. Interestingly, the site Rotten Tomatoes lists 52 reviews by movie critics, only a couple or so of which made any mention whatsoever about the music in the movie. Perhaps the movie was not intended to be a showcase of original music, but more a personality study that did not depend upon what the artcle here attempts to portray as an important element.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 10:21pm
    
    Re: Re: Jimi who?
    wasn't iconic and used over and over again in all sorts of ways.
    
    So where's the harm in allowing his music in this movie?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 5:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Jimi who?
      They seem interested in telling the truth about history, not a whitewashed, bastardised version the matches whatever they want to sell. That's why they wish to contrail the music - they can't rewrite history any other way. Of course, lying morons like Whatever don't see the problem with this...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 2:13pm

Wasn't this an episode of 30 Rock?

They wanted to do a Janis Joplin biopic, but all of the rights to Janis Joplin music were locked up in copyright, so they had to delete all of the music.... and change the name the movie to "Jackie Jormp-Jomp?"

This news a shame, we finally could have gotten that Joomy Hand-Hind movie I've always wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 2:29pm

I just want to remind everyone that Jimi Hendrix has been dead for 44 years, and his music will never enter the public domain in my lifetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 3:08pm
  
  Re:
  Welcome to eternal copyright, where nothing created in your lifetime or even relatively close to it will ever enter the public domain.
  
  And of course, to make it even better, you still have greedy parasites insisting that copyright needs to be even longer, as though 'effectively forever' isn't long enough.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mmrtnt (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 2:33pm

Wow
Talk about a spoiler...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JWH, 26 Sep 2014 @ 2:41pm

Fair Use??
If it's a biopic, why not use some short snippets of his music (a minute or less) call it fair use, then dare the Hendrix estate to come after them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- squall_seawave (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 2:54pm
  
  Re: Fair Use??
  because they can come after them and even more they could win fair use is a tothless beast there is no way anybody will risk fair use trial because at best they will pay lawyer fees and at worst it will lose all their hard work
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 4:21pm
  
  Re: Fair Use??
  Because "Come at me bro" is not a sound legal strategy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 5:08am
  
  Re: Fair Use??
  Because the producers aren't the ones with the money and the probable backing of major corporations willing to pay millions to defend their broken industry. They'd be bankrupt before the end of the discovery period.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 4:13pm

Culture and copyright should be complementary, not war-mongering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ACasey (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 4:14pm
  
  Re:
  I wrote this; I forgot to log in.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeezer (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 4:16pm

The Beatles
It is amazing the the most revolutionary rock band in history is so limited in finding new fans. Similar to this, the movie "Backbeat" could only use songs the Beatles covered because they could not afford any Lennon/McCartney songs. When the movie "Ferris Beuller's Day Off" used "Twist and Shout" it became a hit again 20 years after it first charted. How many new fans and 2nd hits could there be if movies and TV could afford to license their songs? I subscribe to Rhapsody and when I did a search for the Beatles all that came up out of the hundreds of their recordings was a few early album tracks and the work they did with Tony Sheridan. They could have paying customers downloading that instead will choose to pirate. My great grandchildren will be in their mid 50's when they are public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2014 @ 12:35am
  
  Re: The Beatles
  You should try something crazy and go buy some Beatles albums.
  
  They're all good and all on CD.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - OldGeezer (profile), 27 Sep 2014 @ 2:06am
    
    Re: Re: The Beatles
    I'm already a fan since I was 12. I had everything they ever recorded on vinyl and nearly everything now on CD. For a long time there have not been a lot of new fans because their music is too expensive to be heard much beyond my generation. I wonder which would be more profitable for the copyright holders; A few million on the very rare occasions a movie or TV show are willing to spend that much or millions more fans. Exposure = sales.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 4:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Beatles
      I had everything they ever recorded on vinyl and nearly everything now on CD.
      
      You have your license(s), download away!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 27 Sep 2014 @ 2:07am
    
    Re: Re: The Beatles
    And maybe you could in turn realize that the days of buying CDs are passing by, people are more interested in streaming and picking up individual songs, listening to music on their terms, not the terms dictated by the ones pushing plastic discs in the era of digital.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - OldGeezer (profile), 27 Sep 2014 @ 4:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Beatles
      I've been burned more than a few time when I heard a great song on the radio and went out and bought the CD and realized it was the only good song on it. On Rhapsody you can hear a song before you decide to buy it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 27 Sep 2014 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The Beatles
        That is indeed one of the larger reasons CD's are losing popularity, people got tired of basically paying $15-20 for one or two good songs, so when the labels were dragged kicking and screaming into offering people the ability to buy songs individually, it's hardly a wonder people jumped at the opportunity, and stopped buying CD's.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 12:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Beatles
      "listening to music on their terms, not the terms dictated by the ones pushing plastic discs in the era of digital."
      
      I don't understand this argument at all. When you are getting your music through streaming services, you are not listening on your terms at all. You are trading the ability to listen on your own terms for the convenience of streaming. In terms of freedom and flexibility, CDs guarantee you can do what you like. Streaming services provide additional restrictions.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The Beatles
        Mostly I was referring to how in the era of the tape/CD, if you wanted to purchase/listen to one song, you were buying the entire CD, whether you wanted it or not, and whether or not the rest of it was any good.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Beatles
        Ah, I understand. I forget about this personally because it's never been a problem. If an album only has one or two good songs, I just don't buy the album. If I can't get the one or two songs, it's no big deal. The single song that I can't live without has yet to be written.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Fitzwilly (profile), 9 Oct 2014 @ 10:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The Beatles
        And CD's sound a lot better than streaming, I'll bet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 5:54pm
    
    Re: Re: The Beatles
    And how would this convince the Beatles to make more music?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 5:09am
    
    Re: Re: The Beatles
    ...and if you don't want a CD?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 2:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The Beatles
      Before? Piracy or nothing. Now? Streaming, 'buy' the song individually if it's been made available, and probably a few other options I'm not thinking of at the moment.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2014 @ 12:27am

So if I wanted to make a biopic about Mike Masnick, and wanted to use whatever you consider your best blog posts, you'd be fine with me doing that and fine with having no say in how I treated the telling of your life? Because trust me, it would not be painted as a pretty picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Sep 2014 @ 6:39am
  
  Re:
  So if I wanted to make a biopic about Mike Masnick, and wanted to use whatever you consider your best blog posts, you'd be fine with me doing that and fine with having no say in how I treated the telling of your life?
  
  Yup. Go for it.
  
  Because trust me, it would not be painted as a pretty picture.
  
  I'm sure. Go for it. Do let me know when it's done.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2014 @ 5:20pm
  
  Re:
  But how would you get the rights to all that footage of chickens?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2014 @ 7:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm sure that'll be made up for by the scene of Masnick beating a woman with a telephone.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 5:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So you're going to get average_joe, Whatever, and average_joe's wife, have an BDSM orgy - and that's your documentary on how Mike Masnick makes your dick angry?
      
      Sad, just sad.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 8:02pm
  
  Re:
  Go ahead. Why don't you ask Lily Allen and see how that turned out?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 5:13am
  
  Re:
  Yep. Just be prepared for proper rebuttals of all your inevitable factual inaccuracies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
hatfieldjimi (profile), 27 Sep 2014 @ 9:04am

A couple of important points take into consideration.
1. The Hendrix estate plans on doing their own full length documentary/Hollywood story one day.
2. All is by my side is not a documentary. A true documentary would probably not do so well at the box office so parts need to be kicked up to make it Hollywood style. A lot of Hendrix's fans, family and friends are not happy about the way he is portrayed in the movie. Jimi's girlfriend Cathy Etchingham is very unhappy about the scene where jimi beats her with a telephone. That scene was completely made up to add some drama to the movie. Be sure to google this for yourself and you will understand why Jimi's family wants nothing to do with this movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 2:18am
  
  Re:
  The problem that's still lurking, though, is that the Hendrix estate has a financial motive for making any documentaries over which they have creative control portray Jimi in the most favorable light possible. There would always be doubt that they allowed anything but sanitized history. By controlling the music licensing, they can try to reduce the quality and impact of anything presenting an alternate narrative. (Not that I'm claiming that All is By My Side is itself an actual documentary, historically accurate, or even any good at all.)
  
  It'd be like having Larry Weber write about the history of email for the Huffington Post. Oh, wait...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 7:31am
  
  Re:
  1. The Hendrix estate plans on doing their own full length documentary/Hollywood story one day.
  
  So what?
  
  All is by my side is not a documentary
  
  No one said it was.
  
  A true documentary would probably not do so well at the box office so parts need to be kicked up to make it Hollywood style.
  
  Again, no one said it was a documentary, just a biopic. What's your point?
  
  A lot of Hendrix's fans, family and friends are not happy about the way he is portrayed in the movie.
  
  So what? I'm sure a lot of fans, family and friends of other famous people (Jim Morrison, Ray Charles, Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley, etc) aren't happy about those artists have been portrayed in movies. But that's not the point of copyright. It's not a right to block representations you don't like.
  
  Be sure to google this for yourself and you will understand why Jimi's family wants nothing to do with this movie.
  
  I can understand why the family wants nothing to do with the movie, but that's besides the point. This is not what copyright is for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 7:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    "I can understand why the family wants nothing to do with the movie, but that's besides the point. This is not what copyright is for."
    
    Yes it is.
    
    Copyright provides rights and protections to the author so that his/her work will be used/not used as he/she wishes. You are fully aware of this so I have no idea why you wrote this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 8:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Copyright provides rights and protections to the author so that his/her work will be used/not used as he/she wishes. You are fully aware of this so I have no idea why you wrote this.
      
      If you can point me to where in copyright law droit morale applies to sound recordings or compositions, I'd appreciate it.
      
      Otherwise, you can admit that you're wrong. Copyright law in the US (other than for certain visual artwork like paintings and sculptures) does not have a moral rights provision relating to a copyright holder's ability to stop the use because they "don't like" how it's used. There are other provisions in copyright law where it *can* be used in this manner, but that goes against the clearly stated goals and purpose of copyright law.
      
      Don't you know the law?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 10:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Funny, my post said absolutely nothing about morals. But you know that.
        
        You need to improve your strawman skills, don't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DogBreath, 28 Sep 2014 @ 11:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        improve your strawman skills
        
        You first.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 3:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Funny, my post said absolutely nothing about morals. But you know that.
        
        No one said anything about "morals" but about "moral rights" which are a specific thing in the law. And exactly what the entire thread was about. If you don't understand that, all it shows is you don't understand the very basics of copyright law. Please go learn something before commenting again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 4:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one said anything about "moral rights" either; not me- not you in the above blog post. Stop flogging this dead strawman and tell me where I was wrong.
        
        You really need to be able to explain your position better if you're going to constantly complain about artist's protections and rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 5:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one said anything about "moral rights" either; not me- not you in the above blog post. Stop flogging this dead strawman and tell me where I was wrong.
        
        The comment I was responding to indicated that the purpose of copyright was to block a version of the events that the family did not approve of. I said that's not a purpose of copyright. You said it is.
        
        If you knew the slightest bit about copyright, you'd know that what he was talking about -- the right to block someone from doing something you don't like -- is called "moral rights" and they're not part of US copyright law (for music, at least). So, yes, we were talking about moral rights, because the original commenter falsely suggested that the purpose of copyright is what is commonly known as moral rights.
        
        You then, incorrectly, insisted that I was wrong that that moral rights were the purpose of copyright law, though it's now clear that you're so unfamiliar with even rudimentary copyright law that you don't know what moral rights are.
        
        In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about. Please go away now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 5:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OIC, so you really meant this post was about moral rights. Which aren't part of US copyright law, but other law. Yet you still said it was the fault of copyright in the title and blog post.
        
        Want to stop digging yet?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 7:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OIC, so you really meant this post was about moral rights. Which aren't part of US copyright law, but other law. Yet you still said it was the fault of copyright in the title and blog post.
        
        No. Moral rights are, in fact, a part of copyright law -- which you'd know if you knew anything about copyright law. Just in the US they only cover visual arts and not music.
        
        Either way, the post and the title were accurate, because the Hendrix estate was using copyright to block the use.
        
        My response concerning moral rights was to the guy who insisted this was what copyright law is supposed to be used for. He's wrong. And so are you.
        
        Want to stop digging yet?
        
        Only one of us is digging, and it ain't me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My response concerning moral rights was to the guy who insisted this was what copyright law is supposed to be used for. He's wrong. And so are you.
        
        Here's what the other guy said: "A lot of Hendrix's fans, family and friends are not happy about the way he is portrayed in the movie."
        
        To which you responded: "So what? I'm sure a lot of fans, family and friends of other famous people (Jim Morrison, Ray Charles, Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley, etc) aren't happy about those artists have been portrayed in movies. But that's not the point of copyright. It's not a right to block representations you don't like."
        
        It's you, Mike, who are missing the point. The guy's claim was that they aren't licensing the rights because they don't like the film's portrayal of Hendrix. They aren't trying to prevent the film from being made. They're simply exercising their exclusive rights and refusing to license their property. Are you seriously suggesting that it's "not the point of copyright" that copyright owners can choose which uses they like and want to license and which uses they don't? They aren't trying "to block representations" they "don't like." They're refusing to license their works because they don't like the film.
        
        Only one of us is digging, and it ain't me.
        
        No, it's you. You can't seem to admit that copyright gives the owner the right to refuse to license uses it doesn't like. And this has nothing to do with moral rights, as you tried to spin it. It has to do with the rights under Section 106. I know the very thought that copyright owners get to decide how their property is used upsets you greatly--as you made clear in this post, you don't think the copyright owner should have these exclusive rights--but the reality is that copyright law lets copyright owners do just that. And that's what they did here. The horror! A property owner determined how it wanted its property to be used! Oh, no! Sigh.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 8:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You can't seem to admit that copyright gives the owner the right to refuse to license uses it doesn't like."
        
        I don't think anyone's arguing that the copyright holder doesn't have this power. We're arguing that using copyright in an attempt to control how the artist is portrayed is not the purpose that copyright exists for, and so using it in that way is an abuse of copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 9:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think anyone's arguing that the copyright holder doesn't have this power. We're arguing that using copyright in an attempt to control how the artist is portrayed is not the purpose that copyright exists for, and so using it in that way is an abuse of copyright.
        
        Copyright gives the owner the power to licenses uses it likes and to refuse to license uses it doesn't like. You agree with that. But then when the owner refuses to license uses it doesn't like, you think that's abuse? That makes no sense to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 9:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That makes no sense to me."
        
        Obviously. It's pretty simple, though. Copyright exists for a clearly stated purpose. Using copyright for reasons outside of that purpose is abuse of that power. Whether or not it's legal is beside the point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 9:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Obviously. It's pretty simple, though. Copyright exists for a clearly stated purpose. Using copyright for reasons outside of that purpose is abuse of that power. Whether or not it's legal is beside the point.
        
        The purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science. The means of copyright are the exclusive rights given to authors, that is, the right to exclude others from using their works. So you're suggesting that whenever an author exercises those exclusive rights and refuses to license, that's an abuse of power that's contrary to the purpose of copyright? That makes no sense. Why would the Framers say that exclusive rights are the way to promote the progress if the exercise of those rights was always contrary to that purpose?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 10:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So you're suggesting that whenever an author exercises those exclusive rights and refuses to license, that's an abuse of power that's contrary to the purpose of copyright?"
        
        No, I'm saying that if this is done for a purpose that lies outside of the goals of copyright, it's an abuse of the power. Using copyright as a backdoor to gaining some sort of publicity right is an abuse of copyright, for instance. Using copyright to prevent others from using your work in a competing fashion is not an abuse of copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I'm saying that if this is done for a purpose that lies outside of the goals of copyright, it's an abuse of the power. Using copyright as a backdoor to gaining some sort of publicity right is an abuse of copyright, for instance. Using copyright to prevent others from using your work in a competing fashion is not an abuse of copyright.
        
        I'm just not following you. The Constitution says the way to promote the progress is to give authors exclusive rights so they can exclude others from using their works. It makes no mention of the reasons an author might have for choosing to exclude others. If I write the greatest spelling book in the world that teaches kids how to spell better than any other book, it's not contrary to the purpose of copyright for me to keep that book all to myself. This is because the Copyright Clause doesn't say that all uses which promote the progress have to be allowed. It says that authors get to chose which uses they want to permit--even if that individual choice doesn't promote the progress. What matters is whether the entire copyright system, taken as a whole, generally promotes progress. So, no, I don't agree that refusing to license Hendrix's works is contrary to the purpose of copyright, because the Copyright Clause doesn't say that the purpose of copyright is to be fulfilled by requiring authors to license all uses that promote the progress. The purpose of copyright gets fulfilled even if uses that would promote the progress are denied. Make sense?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I'm just not following you."
        
        Well, I don't think I can help you much, then. I think my argument is very clear, whether or not you agree with it.
        
        "because the Copyright Clause doesn't say that the purpose of copyright is to be fulfilled by requiring authors to license all uses that promote the progress"
        
        The Copyright Clause doesn't enumerate the fitness of any specific actions (or law) at all. It simply states what the purpose of copyright is, and authorizes congress to enact laws to further this purpose. I'm just saying that doing things under the color of copyright that don't further the stated purpose are abuses of the power.
        
        "The purpose of copyright gets fulfilled even if uses that would promote the progress are denied. Make sense?"
        
        I don't think it does make sense. I'm not talking about copyright law as a whole (whether or not the entire body of copyright law satisfies the goal) -- that's an entirely different discussion. I'm not even talking about the law enacting copyright at all.
        
        I'm talking about the action of the Hendrix estate in this case: that action is certainly not in line with the stated purpose of copyright. Does this make sense?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 11:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm talking about the action of the Hendrix estate in this case: that action is certainly not in line with the stated purpose of copyright. Does this make sense?
        
        Not really. Your position turns on a refusal to license being contrary to the purpose of copyright, but the Copyright Clause makes clear that giving authors the choice of refusing to license is consistent with its purpose. That said, I do appreciate your willingness to defend Mike's position. It's too bad Mike's not willing to do the same.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That said, I do appreciate your willingness to defend Mike's position."
        
        Damn, and we came so close to having a complete, civilized conversation. I'm not defending Mike's position at all. I'm defending my own.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Damn, and we came so close to having a complete, civilized conversation. I'm not defending Mike's position at all. I'm defending my own.
        
        Ha! OK, then. I'm glad you're defending your own position. Blah blah blah Mike. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 4:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your position turns on a refusal to license being contrary to the purpose of copyright, but the Copyright Clause makes clear that giving authors the choice of refusing to license is consistent with its purpose.
        
        The copyright clause of the Constitution mentions authors refusing to license their works?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 6:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The copyright clause of the Constitution mentions authors refusing to license their works?
        
        It says that Congress can give authors exclusive rights, that is, rights to exclude others from using their works. Of course, authors can also choose not to exclude others if they want to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 4:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "...but the Copyright Clause makes clear that giving authors the choice of refusing to license is consistent with its purpose."
        
        Feel free to post the text of the Constitution that explains how refusing to license promotes arts and science. If it's as clear as you claim this should be pretty easy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Lol at this being "reported"(censored).
        
        There is nothing I love more than watching this blog continue to destroy itself :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 6:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The comment I was responding to indicated that the purpose of copyright was to block a version of the events that the family did not approve of. I said that's not a purpose of copyright. You said it is.
        
        If you knew the slightest bit about copyright, you'd know that what he was talking about -- the right to block someone from doing something you don't like -- is called "moral rights" and they're not part of US copyright law (for music, at least). So, yes, we were talking about moral rights, because the original commenter falsely suggested that the purpose of copyright is what is commonly known as moral rights.
        
        You then, incorrectly, insisted that I was wrong that that moral rights were the purpose of copyright law, though it's now clear that you're so unfamiliar with even rudimentary copyright law that you don't know what moral rights are.
        
        I think you're just playing word games. Copyright gives authors exclusive rights to determine certain uses of their works. This means that authors can permit certain uses if they like them and deny certain uses if they don't. The owners of the exclusive rights here are doing just that--denying certain uses they don't like. They aren't invoking any moral rights. They're invoking their exclusive rights under Section 106. They don't need moral rights to do this because the exclusive rights under Section 106 already give them this power.
        
        In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about. Please go away now.
        
        You're such a friendly guy. By the way, I'm glad you explicitly said you don't think the copyright owners here should have the right to exclude this particular use of their property. I have yet to see you ever indicate that you think any copyright owner should have any exclusive rights, and so I've wondered whether you support any such rights. I know you're too scared and/or dishonest to ever just tell us what you really think. But posts like this are nice because we can figure it out through the process of elimination. You won't tell us what rights you support, but if you tell us enough about the rights you don't, like you've done here, I imagine we'll get to the point where we can say definitively that there's no rights you support--there will be none left. Of course, we all know what you really believe. You're not fooling anyone. I'd actually respect you a lot more if you were just honest and upfront about it. It's the dishonestly and obfuscation that gets to me, not your underlying beliefs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 7:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I enjoy watching him squirm. Anyone that encourages removing rights from artists, while carrying water for mega-naire deviants like Eric Schmidt and Kim Dotcom has a special place in hell awaiting him.
        
        All of his problems are, fittingly, products of his own poor life choices and his alone. Not anyone else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 8:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I enjoy watching him squirm.
        
        Me too. That's what keeps me coming back for more. It's hilarious how much he freaks out when anyone challenges his nonsense.
        
        mega-naire deviants
        
        Haha! I'm going to borrow that one.
        
        All of his problems are, fittingly, products of his own poor life choices and his alone. Not anyone else.
        
        No doubt. Yet, I'm sure he'll always be stuck in denial.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 9:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        'It's hilarious how much he freaks out when anyone challenges his nonsense.'
        
        'No doubt. Yet, I'm sure he'll always be stuck in denial.'
        
        Oh the irony...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2014 @ 12:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think it's hilarious how average_joe actually thinks posting insults on multiple IP addresses and his wife's laptop to congratulate himself is accomplishing anything.
        
        Chickens of a feather gotta bawk together, I guess.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 5:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sadly, I think there actually is more than one of these obsessed morons out there. Not many, but all you need is two of them fellating each other to derail a serious thread with outright fiction and/or fantasy
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 4:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Anyone that encourages removing rights from artists, while carrying water for mega-naire deviants like Eric Schmidt and Kim Dotcom has a special place in hell awaiting him."
        
        So now you're going to throw a bit of hyperbolic religious fundamentalism into this argument? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. If you believe in one faith-based dogma it's no surprise you'd believe in another.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 4:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "According to McKittrick, the film was always set in Hendrix' pre-fame era, so neither he or his team ever approached the Hendrix estate. "This is the story of Jimi being discovered as a backup musician and how he went to London and became Jimi Hendrix" "
        
        Which makes your blog post nothing but you trying to slam copyright again.
        
        You really screwed this one up, didn't you Masnick?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 12:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Copyright provides rights and protections to the author so that his/her work will be used/not used as he/she wishes."
      
      This is specifically not the purpose of copyright (in the US. In other countries, it often is one of the purposes.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hatfieldjimi (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 10:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    When you have the rights to the music and how that artists music and image is portrayed in the media, why would you want to give that right to someone who is only looking to make a quick dollar from that artist. The he drix estate has a bigger responsibility over how that artist is portrayed in the media. Hendrix's catalog is actually doing very well with sales. They don't need this movie at all. If they let the producers use his music in this movie it would be the same as giving their stamp of approval. Then the estate puts their own movie out one day that portrays him in a different light. Then you guys will start posts claiming that the Hendrix estate will do anything to make a dollar.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 4:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Very true. I'm sure your post will be reported though; all truthful dissent on this blog is always reported in an effort to stifle speech.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JMT (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 4:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Considered, polite dissenting opinion: not hidden.
        Trollish bleating: hidden
        
        See a pattern?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 6:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Considered, polite dissenting opinion: not hidden.
        Trollish bleating: hidden
        
        See a pattern?
        
        My posts are reported even when there's nothing at all trollish about them.
        
        For example: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140926/12251828651/jimi-hendrix-biopic-opens-today-without-any-j imi-hendrix-music-thanks-to-copyright.shtml?threaded=true#c1104
        
        I love how you guys can't even admit that non-trollish posts are reported regularly. Dissenting views here are hidden from view because you simply don't like the fact that someone has a different opinion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 7:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My posts are reported even when there's nothing at all trollish about them.
        
        It seems fairly clear that in your case, your overall trollish behavior leads to reporting. Perhaps if you didn't constantly troll, it wouldn't be an issue.
        
        I love how you guys can't even admit that non-trollish posts are reported regularly.
        
        The only ones I've ever seen that way come from folks - like yourself - who regularly engage in trollish behavior. The downvotes appear to be because you have no shown yourself able to act in a non-trolling manner. Based on your past behavior, it seems rather obvious that any "good" behavior is merely an attempt to lure people in for trolling.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week -techdirt.shtml#c1210
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        antidirt (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 7:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It seems fairly clear that in your case, your overall trollish behavior leads to reporting. Perhaps if you didn't constantly troll, it wouldn't be an issue.
        
        Challenging Mike on the merits is not trolling. Give me a break. And why no mention of Mike's behavior above? I'll let you in on a little secret. The angrier Mike gets, the more you know he's defensive because he's beat. He can't stand to be proved wrong (yet, it's so incredibly easy to do).
        
        The only ones I've ever seen that way come from folks - like yourself - who regularly engage in trollish behavior. The downvotes appear to be because you have no shown yourself able to act in a non-trolling manner. Based on your past behavior, it seems rather obvious that any "good" behavior is merely an attempt to lure people in for trolling.
        
        Its not a down-vote button. It's purpose is to report "abusive, spam, trollish, or otherwise inappropriate" comments. If the comment being reported isn't any of those, then the button is being abused. It's not a button for reporting people you don't like. The fact that people can't even stand to see anyone challenge the group-think here speaks volumes of their character. I have never seen a group of people so hostile to anyone who disagrees with them. And I've been on the internet a long time.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week -techdirt.shtml#c1210
        
        I love that link. It's the hilarious excuse for why Mike can't defend any of the ridiculous nonsense that he posts. I'm happy to go through that comment line-by-line with Mike, but he never wants to. Whenever Mike needs to duck out of an argument, he posts that link like it's a magic get-out-of-reality-free card. Of course, he can never link to where he (1) ever beat me in any discussion on the merits, or (2) ever gave us an honest answer about his personal beliefs about copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2014 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Quite frankly, to my way of thinking the worst form of "trollish" behavior is a concerted attempt to stymie the free exchange of ideas in a public forum by imposing different rules on participants attempting to engage in the debate. For a site that proclaims support for freedom of expression, that proclamation rings hollow when persons are punished for the mere act of saying something others do not like.
        
        In the context of this thread, for example, many of those who repeatedly hit the "report" button appear to be doing so in the belief that the numerous comments by the author of the article are completely accurate, and those taking issue with some of his comments are lacking in substantive knowledge of the law. Sadly, they are in most instances mistaken in their belief. Moral rights are not relevant here for any number of reasons, so why it was even raised to begin with makes no sense. To say that one who refuses to grant a license is "abusing" copyright law and policy under the circumstances presented here is an argument lacking meaningful merit.
        
        Of course, it would help immeasurably if the author chose to engage contrary arguments on their merits instead of proffering derisive and offensive comments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2014 @ 1:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hi, you must be new here. People like Antidirt tend to be hidden more often due to their past performances. They've damaged their own reputations too much, and no longer get the benefit of the doubt from vast numbers of readers. Hence why seemingly innocuous posts are flagged and hidden. The posts, themselves, remain, however. I am sorry if you see this as 'punishment,' it is just streamlining the comments section for people who do not wish to contribute to the behavior that got the posts hidden in the first place. You are, of course, more than welcome to unhide those comments at any time. You can even disable scripting, and no comment will ever be hidden.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 30 Sep 2014 @ 4:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Dissenting views here are hidden from view because you simply don't like the fact that someone has a different opinion."
        
        Obviously you have a very high opinion of both your own comments and the effectiveness of "hiding" a comment behind one mouse click. Here's a heads-up: you're wrong on both counts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 5:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's great from a marketing point of view. But, your comments openly support a positive, distorted, fictionalised view of history purely to support future sales. Thats just wrong. to say otherwise is to rewrite history, and that is in no way acceptable. It's wrong when Hollywood rewrites World War 2 battles to diminish the input from other soldiers, and it's wrong when people go it to the artists their children listened to.
      
      Nobody cares if the Hendrix estate "needs" this biopic any more than they care if Mozart's estate needed Amadeus or Bush needed the Oliver Stone biopic W. They are part of history, and their stories will be discussed. It would be nice if reality is able to be inserted into that (and yes, I'm aware of the controversies surrounding my examples. But, they still exist)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 10:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Then you guys will start posts claiming that the Hendrix estate will do anything to make a dollar."
      
      Well, this much is clearly true.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- OldGeezer (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 8:03am
  
  Re:
  I just have to wonder what is wrong with taking the life of an interesting person and making an interesting movie about it. It is indeed rare to find a film about an historical person or event that is even remotely accurate. Do they really have to turn a brilliant musical icon into a violent abuser when it just never happened? I find that offensive and an insult to my intelligence. It doesn't have to be a documentary to just make a movie at least close to reality. Maybe the Hendrix family would have been more open to license his music if they hadn't portrayed him as a monster.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - OldGeezer (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 5:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I have to partially retract some of this. Upon doing some reading I found that Jimi did get violent when he was drinking and using drugs and was arrested several times. Still, couldn't they just portray what really happened instead of just making one up?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeezer (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 1:08am

The outrageous fees the big name artists charge is a boon for lesser known artists. A friend I grew up with, Gerard McMahon (records under the name G Tom Mac) has had his music featured in dozens of hit movies and TV shows since the 80's. He's best known for the song "Cry Little Sister" from the movie Lost Boys. He has a considerable fan base all from this exposure. He has written and performed with artists like Chicago, Kiss, Roger Daltery and many others. He has millions of YouTube hits. I'm sure he doesn't get anywhere near what A-list artists charge in licensing fees and that is why his songs are used so much. I'm betting he makes as much or even more than better known artists by the quantity of his work being bought. The list on Wikipedia is nowhere near complete. Most of the music you hear on TV and movies are from artists like him. Why pay millions for a Michael Jackson or the Rolling Stones track when you can get great music for a fraction of their rates?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTdF7dvNCDo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hatfieldjimi (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 10:33am

"It's not a right to block representations you don't like". Of course it is. You can believe it's not right or fair but that's as far as it goes. To argue beyond that is a waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 28 Sep 2014 @ 11:13am
  
  Re:
  I think you are confusing publicity rights of dead celebrities with copyright. Two entirely different things.
  
  The Jimi Hendrix Estate was trying the old backdoor maneuver of enforcing their non-existent publicity rights in this situation (because if they had any, they would have sued the documentary by now) with the "we'll license his music to you, if you let us have some control (i.e. remove anything we don't like) over the production" carrot and stick approach.
  
  Well, the carrot turned out to not be worth it, and I bet someone from the Jimi Hendrix Estate was told what they could do with the stick. Play Stickball, yea that is what they told them they could do with the stick...not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re:
  If this is so clear and obvious that it doesn't warrant any discussion, then please point us to the law that supports your assertion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 5:58pm
  
  Re:
  It's not a right. You have to fight for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 29 Sep 2014 @ 11:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    While I agree that it isn't a right, I just wanted to point out that all rights have to be fought for, constantly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
hatfieldjimi (profile), 28 Sep 2014 @ 6:53pm

"It's not a right to block representations you don't like". Of course it is. You can believe it's not right or fair but that's as far as it goes. To argue beyond that is a waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
syncsolis, 1 Oct 2014 @ 8:53am

Hendrix Copyright
And then there is *this*

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/jimi-hendrix-authorized-biopic/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]