States need to build local film industries the way Austin did and design everything so Hollywood can't take advantage of them (even though they will find a way somehow). It may take a few years to establish a homegrown film community but once it is, it will attract filmmakers and offer a unique voice that isn't filtered by big studio thinking.
Unfortunately, state governments only do these subsidies to brag about getting movie stars to visit their states, and the local filmmakers support it because they all dream of working on big Hollywood movies.
How can a copyright owner prevent fair use? They can go to court and attempt to prevent it, but if the court declares that it is fair use, then the copyright owner can do nothing.
The privilege belongs to the copyright holder, not the fair user. The law grants the copyright holder a privilege (mistakenly called a right, which the way you argue semantics seems to be whole source of the problem) that says even though copying is the most naturally instinctive thing in the world, only the copyright holder may do it except in certain circumstances. Fair use is a restriction on the copyright holder, not the public.
It helps your perspective if you consider that fair use came first.
Before there was copyright law, I could take anything I found in the world and make a copy of it. It was a natural thing to do.
Then along comes copyright law that says "you cannot copy these things without permission," and they called it the right of the creator, but it really infringes on the rights of everyone else that naturally would copy things.
Thankfully it was recognized that giving creators such absolute powers was detrimental to society, and so their powers were restricted to say that in such and such cases, their exclusive right to make copies cannot be enforced. People may make fair use for some purposes just as they could before copyright law came along.
There are legitimate means to watch these films... in the U.S.
But other countries sometimes have to wait months to be able to watch these films, and the only reason for that is the industry won't offer it to them.
Fair use is not a right. A would-be fair user has no legally enforceable claims against anyone that they should do or not do some act. I have lots of books on my bookshelf. You have no legally enforceable claim against me as to my books. You can make fair use of the works contained therein, but only if you can gain legal access to them first. I have no duty to produce the books to you because you have no right. You can't sue me to produce the books because you have no right.
What a misguided analogy. The right isn't that I can forcibly take YOUR books and make fair use of them, but that YOU can take YOUR books and make fair use of them. Why would I want to make fair use of your books when I have my own? You're again mixing up physical property with intangible property.
To use your terms - the copyright owner owes the would-be fair user a duty. They cannot stop you from making copies, and you do not need their permission to do so. That's is the right to fair use.
If that's the case, then basically all film promotion is a cause of piracy. They should just stop running ads, showing trailers, or mentioning a movie exists.
Thank you! This seems to be the root of all the controversy here on Reddit - the blind belief that all law is just and good simply because it is the law, whereas the whole point of Techdirt is to question the laws themselves.
On the post: US Court Rules That Kim Dotcom Is A 'Fugitive' And Thus DOJ Can Take His Money
Re: Re:
They know the populace isn't going to rise up en masse and take over the government, so it's not like people having guns changes anything.
On the post: US Court Rules That Kim Dotcom Is A 'Fugitive' And Thus DOJ Can Take His Money
Re: Hells bells!
On the post: US Court Rules That Kim Dotcom Is A 'Fugitive' And Thus DOJ Can Take His Money
PEOPLE THAT MAKE MOVIES!
This is the real piracy folks.
On the post: Have You Been Debating What Color Some Random Dress Is All Day? Thank Fair Use
Re: Re: Brown and blue-tinted white
On the post: If You Want To See What The U.S. Broadband Market Really Looks Like, Take A Close Look At West Virginia
On the post: Evidence Copy Of 'CitizenFour' Needs To Be 'Locked Up' Claims Plaintiff Suing Snowden, Filmmakers For Billions
Re:
On the post: Despite Losing Money Year After Year, States Still Wondering How They Can Hand Out BIGGER Subsidies To Hollywood
Unfortunately, state governments only do these subsidies to brag about getting movie stars to visit their states, and the local filmmakers support it because they all dream of working on big Hollywood movies.
On the post: As Blurred Lines Trial Starts, Take A Listen To The Special 'Copyright Only' Remix That Jurors Will Hear
Re:
On the post: Reminder: Fair Use Is A Right -- And Not 'An Exception' Or 'A Defense'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably not a "right" in the US (but should be!)
On the post: The Guardian Details The Horrors Of Chicago Police's 'CIA-Style Black Site'
Re: This is America?
On the post: The Guardian Details The Horrors Of Chicago Police's 'CIA-Style Black Site'
Re: Re: And yet another attrocity the DOJ would never touch
On the post: Reminder: Fair Use Is A Right -- And Not 'An Exception' Or 'A Defense'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Reminder: Fair Use Is A Right -- And Not 'An Exception' Or 'A Defense'
Re: Re: Re:
The privilege belongs to the copyright holder, not the fair user. The law grants the copyright holder a privilege (mistakenly called a right, which the way you argue semantics seems to be whole source of the problem) that says even though copying is the most naturally instinctive thing in the world, only the copyright holder may do it except in certain circumstances. Fair use is a restriction on the copyright holder, not the public.
On the post: Reminder: Fair Use Is A Right -- And Not 'An Exception' Or 'A Defense'
Re: Re:
Before there was copyright law, I could take anything I found in the world and make a copy of it. It was a natural thing to do.
Then along comes copyright law that says "you cannot copy these things without permission," and they called it the right of the creator, but it really infringes on the rights of everyone else that naturally would copy things.
Thankfully it was recognized that giving creators such absolute powers was detrimental to society, and so their powers were restricted to say that in such and such cases, their exclusive right to make copies cannot be enforced. People may make fair use for some purposes just as they could before copyright law came along.
On the post: Apparently The Best Way To Decrease Movie Piracy Is To Get Rid Of The Oscars
Re:
But other countries sometimes have to wait months to be able to watch these films, and the only reason for that is the industry won't offer it to them.
On the post: Reminder: Fair Use Is A Right -- And Not 'An Exception' Or 'A Defense'
Re:
What a misguided analogy. The right isn't that I can forcibly take YOUR books and make fair use of them, but that YOU can take YOUR books and make fair use of them. Why would I want to make fair use of your books when I have my own? You're again mixing up physical property with intangible property.
To use your terms - the copyright owner owes the would-be fair user a duty. They cannot stop you from making copies, and you do not need their permission to do so. That's is the right to fair use.
On the post: Apparently The Best Way To Decrease Movie Piracy Is To Get Rid Of The Oscars
On the post: This Week In 'The NSA Knows F**king Everything': How It Hacked Most Hard Drives And SIM Cards
Re: Re:
On the post: This Week In 'The NSA Knows F**king Everything': How It Hacked Most Hard Drives And SIM Cards
Re:
On the post: Elon Musk Clarifies That Tesla's Patents Really Are Free; Investor Absolutely Freaks Out
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>