Honestly, it seems more like the industry padding for more money. You can look at my thoughts above, but I think it just shows how out of touch the movie industry really is nowadays.
"Anti-trust laws put an end to studio ownership of theaters."
That's already known, but has it done a good service to them?
"Ummm, ever hear of Hulu? It's a joint venture of NBC/U, Fox and Disney."
Point taken, but it seems they're killing Hulu for competing in a different market instead of offering an actual service, provided by each company, individually.
" But what he's doing doesn't seem like a way to receive a decent return on investment. "
As compared to...?
"Unlike many filmmakers who are not as wealthy as Smith, they actually need to seek a greater return than Smith does with his hobby-style filmmaking"
Um... What? Kevin made sure to not get sucked into MPAA Accounting. So if he does this, has already made his money back, and other film makers are in debt to the studios, who's come out on top?
"Also, though I haven't seen the film, I doubt it has many expensive bells and whistles and expensive talent."
Are you sure? I'd recheck the IMDB on this because you might be surprised.
" Also, being successful and wealthy, he has the luxury of easy access to capital and enough of a rep so he doesn't get much real creative oversight."
Stop. You're really not understanding when he made his Sundance speech and talked about the problems of the movie industry. Unless you've seen that 30 minute video, displaying why he chose not to sell his movie and decided to make this one for 4 million dollars and not sell it out to the highest bidder, then I believe your message is truly flawed.
"But... the Motion Picture Academy is not known for changing with the times or being willing to adapt to the way films are watched these days. So it "requires" certain things to happen to have a movie "qualify" for the Academy Awards, and that apparently includes a week's worth of screenings at a "real" theater... and newspaper advertising. Why? Who the hell knows"
I recall some information that Paramount pictures used to own movie theaters. As Sehlat puts it, whatever the customer wanted, the movie makers would produce. Now, there's a disconnect between movie studio, movie theater, and consumers.
I find it very doubtful that the movie industry has changed much in the last 50 years. It's taken until this new millenium to have a ratings system favorable to independents. The major studios still have yet to set up a service for streaming media that's available for consumers. What I mean is, if the rules for the MPAA organizations have a very top-down structure, so would the award systems.
This means the Academy takes cues and remains intent on older structures of doing business. I would think, in years past, the movie studios did heavy advertising to promote new movies in their theaters. It would make sense to advertise heavily. But now, with all of the ways to advertise without a lot of money involved, it doesn't make sense.
Here's what you said: " aWhat they do say is that without copyright, there may not be as much investment in art, there may not be simple and direct systems to reward artists for their efforts, and the potential is that in many cases, art that would have been created might not happen. Why? Because the artist who use to get paid (example to write a song) now has to spend their life performing their old songs to make a living, or worse, is working a 9 to 5 job to afford to live, because writing songs isn't a paying business anymore."
To which I've responded by showing other platforms that artists can use. They don't have to do exactly what you're explaining, but they have alternatives.
The part in bold? That's subjective on your part. Artists find other ways to finance their hobbies and talents and copyright does not do this. Seriously. This is what copyright does. It stops innovation. It's a retroactive civil punishment for doing something new with older media.
Now you're demanding proof and it's been given. Or are you still denying reality?
Well, forgery is because of the security placed on the dollar by central banks. We're supposed to be secure in our money that we borrow from the Feds for our high debt and...
At this point, you've found a number of people that have replied to your response and found the answer. You continue to deny reality and ignore those claims until they satisfy YOU personally. They will not. However, as far as I see, since you have yet to actually reply to these comments with actual facts that directly contradict them, it seems you've conceded defeat in your tantrum throwin.
"It's a strawman until someone brings proof that it isn't."
Wow... I've never seen such obtuse thinking from someone that shills professionally.
Anyway, my post is above. I'm sure you're going to say "that's not how it works" or something to that effect. I just find it sad how you want to move what you qualify as success in regards to you, and not the artists.
"How does copyright stop someone from making and distributing new art?"
Stop right there.
Copyright has always been about making a mini-monopoly on distribution. Copyright is used to prevent anyone else from profiting on Mickey Mouse other than Disney. In the art realm, it's used to prevent anyone else from making your artwork and putting it in say... France for example. The creation and distribution are as far apart as can be.
"Considering that the licensing of music (the actual performance or the written music, song, lyrics, whatever) is a signficant source of income, destroying that system would clearly hurt artists."
And what others criticize is the shifting of those words. Somehow, I doubt you've taken into consideration the new ways to make business transactions in this day and age. Just because it's licensed a certain way now, does not mean that is the way to do business in the future. Point being, newer artists seem to have a lot of success with other ways of making income. Crowdsourcing, personal appearances in front of fans along with other ways of doing business, have come up that unlock a lot more potential for artists. While copyright creates a framework, it's not the only that can be created.
"Copyright defines the rights of the artist, and in doing so, created the ability for the artist to resell those rights, and systems are in place which allow for those rights to be sliced and licensed as needed, in a standard manner that everyone involved can understand."
"The other choice? Ever time an artist wants to license music, they would have to get a lawyer, draw up a custom contract, and hire people to do collections for them for the contract."
Is that not what the music industry does now at the major labels? It seems that in order to know what your rights are, you have to be one of the Big guys.
If nothing else, you're not saying anything that helps your argument. the main ones to force a copyright are the ones with the money to pay for it. The case against Andy Baio for pixelated art is proof positive of that. Further, there's a time from ~10000 BC to 1709 AD that seems to disagree with you that copyright is needed for all financial motivation.
"It's safe to say that you have never created anything that needs a contract, otherwise you would understand the sort of structure that copyright brings to the table."
And you would be wrong. The reason I learned the DMCA and copyright law was because I was to be part of a band. At the time, I was the main one learning the law and the guys wanted to sign with a major label. When I looked at what was offered, I told them my feelings on it.
Sadly, my band split over personal differences. It is what it is. At the time, that was the main way to get through the industry. Make a name through a label, get out when the advance ran out. So I know how shady the contracts can get. I know how badly money changes friends. Copyright is a lot more insidious than you seem to think.
" She obviously saw no reason to recuse herself, and as a new judge, you'd think she'd be sensitive to the issue, erring on the side of caution in case of doubt. It seems to me that your judgment is clouded, not hers"
So you ignore the conflict of interest in the fact that she crafted the laws she is now upholding... Very telling.
"Double-think is a requisite skill for all highly-placed government employees; especially those in the DOJ."
So the prereqs must be Cha 9 Wis 7 Int 13.
+4 to bluff
The NPC is able to hold two lines of paradoxical thought meant to obfuscate and alter reality in others. If used, players have to roll 13+ on a d20 or fall susceptible to thinker's expressed opinion.
If unsuccessful, all prevailing checks suffer a cumulative -2 effect.
" When you take away the structures that allow artists to enter into contracts for their works, you take away the ability for the artists to get paid easily, or to sell their rights in standard ways."
I could swear Nina actually had a post about this here, where she goes on about how the law makes it even harder to allow art to be shown, but I can't seem to find it.
There's more litigation involved because you have to make sure to ask for permission to use pieces of work, or even to make copies in some cases. Honestly, and I say again, where does this incentive to control distribution actually help more artists make more money?
On the post: Kevin Smith Explains Why He Had To Waste $9,316 On Movie Ads That He Didn't Want Or Need
The rules were made to be Broken
On the post: Kevin Smith Explains Why He Had To Waste $9,316 On Movie Ads That He Didn't Want Or Need
Re:
On the post: Kevin Smith Explains Why He Had To Waste $9,316 On Movie Ads That He Didn't Want Or Need
Re: Seems simple enough: a movie /advertised/.
On the post: Kevin Smith Explains Why He Had To Waste $9,316 On Movie Ads That He Didn't Want Or Need
Re: Re: A possible explanation?
That's already known, but has it done a good service to them?
"Ummm, ever hear of Hulu? It's a joint venture of NBC/U, Fox and Disney."
Point taken, but it seems they're killing Hulu for competing in a different market instead of offering an actual service, provided by each company, individually.
" But what he's doing doesn't seem like a way to receive a decent return on investment. "
As compared to...?
"Unlike many filmmakers who are not as wealthy as Smith, they actually need to seek a greater return than Smith does with his hobby-style filmmaking"
Um... What? Kevin made sure to not get sucked into MPAA Accounting. So if he does this, has already made his money back, and other film makers are in debt to the studios, who's come out on top?
"Also, though I haven't seen the film, I doubt it has many expensive bells and whistles and expensive talent."
Are you sure? I'd recheck the IMDB on this because you might be surprised.
" Also, being successful and wealthy, he has the luxury of easy access to capital and enough of a rep so he doesn't get much real creative oversight."
Stop. You're really not understanding when he made his Sundance speech and talked about the problems of the movie industry. Unless you've seen that 30 minute video, displaying why he chose not to sell his movie and decided to make this one for 4 million dollars and not sell it out to the highest bidder, then I believe your message is truly flawed.
On the post: DailyDirt: Trains, Trains, Trains. I've Got a Thing About Trains...
San Diego is using Mag Levs.
I just wish I knew what as the main hold up to better technology in trains, in the US, in this day and age...
On the post: Kevin Smith Explains Why He Had To Waste $9,316 On Movie Ads That He Didn't Want Or Need
A possible explanation?
I recall some information that Paramount pictures used to own movie theaters. As Sehlat puts it, whatever the customer wanted, the movie makers would produce. Now, there's a disconnect between movie studio, movie theater, and consumers.
I find it very doubtful that the movie industry has changed much in the last 50 years. It's taken until this new millenium to have a ratings system favorable to independents. The major studios still have yet to set up a service for streaming media that's available for consumers. What I mean is, if the rules for the MPAA organizations have a very top-down structure, so would the award systems.
This means the Academy takes cues and remains intent on older structures of doing business. I would think, in years past, the movie studios did heavy advertising to promote new movies in their theaters. It would make sense to advertise heavily. But now, with all of the ways to advertise without a lot of money involved, it doesn't make sense.
Good luck telling the Academy to come into the 21st century though. If anything, that would be like asking Fox to stop being hypocritical about abuses of power and bribery
On the post: Would We Have Art Without Copyright Law?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To which I've responded by showing other platforms that artists can use. They don't have to do exactly what you're explaining, but they have alternatives.
The part in bold? That's subjective on your part. Artists find other ways to finance their hobbies and talents and copyright does not do this. Seriously. This is what copyright does. It stops innovation. It's a retroactive civil punishment for doing something new with older media.
Now you're demanding proof and it's been given. Or are you still denying reality?
On the post: Does The Punishment Fit The Crime? Is Manslaughter An Equivalent Crime To Copyright Infringement?
Re:
On the post: Does The Punishment Fit The Crime? Is Manslaughter An Equivalent Crime To Copyright Infringement?
Re:
Oh, wait...
On the post: DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Would We Have Art Without Copyright Law?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did he just say, that?
Ninja's reply
Chuck Norris' Enemy's reply
At this point, you've found a number of people that have replied to your response and found the answer. You continue to deny reality and ignore those claims until they satisfy YOU personally. They will not. However, as far as I see, since you have yet to actually reply to these comments with actual facts that directly contradict them, it seems you've conceded defeat in your tantrum throwin.
On the post: DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty
Re: Re: Re:
The best time for it was when they did it.
The only other thing I could see is that they're watching the government's actions, seeing how their argument unfolds.
On the post: Would We Have Art Without Copyright Law?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow... I've never seen such obtuse thinking from someone that shills professionally.
Anyway, my post is above. I'm sure you're going to say "that's not how it works" or something to that effect. I just find it sad how you want to move what you qualify as success in regards to you, and not the artists.
On the post: DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty
Re: Re: Re: Doublething
On the post: Would We Have Art Without Copyright Law?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop right there.
Copyright has always been about making a mini-monopoly on distribution. Copyright is used to prevent anyone else from profiting on Mickey Mouse other than Disney. In the art realm, it's used to prevent anyone else from making your artwork and putting it in say... France for example. The creation and distribution are as far apart as can be.
"Considering that the licensing of music (the actual performance or the written music, song, lyrics, whatever) is a signficant source of income, destroying that system would clearly hurt artists."
And what others criticize is the shifting of those words. Somehow, I doubt you've taken into consideration the new ways to make business transactions in this day and age. Just because it's licensed a certain way now, does not mean that is the way to do business in the future. Point being, newer artists seem to have a lot of success with other ways of making income. Crowdsourcing, personal appearances in front of fans along with other ways of doing business, have come up that unlock a lot more potential for artists. While copyright creates a framework, it's not the only that can be created.
"Copyright defines the rights of the artist, and in doing so, created the ability for the artist to resell those rights, and systems are in place which allow for those rights to be sliced and licensed as needed, in a standard manner that everyone involved can understand."
What's amazing is that piracy (or rather copyright infringement) continues to show us that those infringements drive the industry far more than knowing what the law is.
"The other choice? Ever time an artist wants to license music, they would have to get a lawyer, draw up a custom contract, and hire people to do collections for them for the contract."
Is that not what the music industry does now at the major labels? It seems that in order to know what your rights are, you have to be one of the Big guys.
If nothing else, you're not saying anything that helps your argument. the main ones to force a copyright are the ones with the money to pay for it. The case against Andy Baio for pixelated art is proof positive of that. Further, there's a time from ~10000 BC to 1709 AD that seems to disagree with you that copyright is needed for all financial motivation.
"It's safe to say that you have never created anything that needs a contract, otherwise you would understand the sort of structure that copyright brings to the table."
And you would be wrong. The reason I learned the DMCA and copyright law was because I was to be part of a band. At the time, I was the main one learning the law and the guys wanted to sign with a major label. When I looked at what was offered, I told them my feelings on it.
Sadly, my band split over personal differences. It is what it is. At the time, that was the main way to get through the industry. Make a name through a label, get out when the advance ran out. So I know how shady the contracts can get. I know how badly money changes friends. Copyright is a lot more insidious than you seem to think.
On the post: US Copyright Group, Hurt Locker Producers Sue Dead Man & Others Unlikely To Have Infringed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you ignore the conflict of interest in the fact that she crafted the laws she is now upholding... Very telling.
On the post: DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty
Re:
On the post: DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty
Re: Re: Doublething
So the prereqs must be Cha 9 Wis 7 Int 13.
+4 to bluff
The NPC is able to hold two lines of paradoxical thought meant to obfuscate and alter reality in others. If used, players have to roll 13+ on a d20 or fall susceptible to thinker's expressed opinion.
If unsuccessful, all prevailing checks suffer a cumulative -2 effect.
On the post: Would We Have Art Without Copyright Law?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Would We Have Art Without Copyright Law?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I could swear Nina actually had a post about this here, where she goes on about how the law makes it even harder to allow art to be shown, but I can't seem to find it.
There's more litigation involved because you have to make sure to ask for permission to use pieces of work, or even to make copies in some cases. Honestly, and I say again, where does this incentive to control distribution actually help more artists make more money?
Next >>