OK, I really am that naive' - what IS the difference between ...?
#26
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by C_Fletch
It is my right if I have bought these movies in any form. Hence the RIGHT in copyright. I have a right to do what I please with my copy!
It is my right if I have bought these movies in any form. Hence the RIGHT in copyright. I have a right to do what I please with my copy!
DJ
#27
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by Jah-Wren Ryel
Given that historical context, Lucas and company are not living up to their end of the bargain. They have works of art for which they have been granted copyright, yet they are not willing to sell it to the public.
Given that historical context, Lucas and company are not living up to their end of the bargain. They have works of art for which they have been granted copyright, yet they are not willing to sell it to the public.
Instead relying on the recent and immoral trend of indefinite copyright extensions to eventually, maybe, one day, bring the product to market. As they aren't living up to their end of the bargain, neither should the public be required to live up to their end of the bargain either.
DJ
#28
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
djtoell - Your analysis would be valid except for a few reasons.
First, the low hanging-fruit. You say, "there is no general rule of law the extinguishes copyright protection on unavailable works." I say, of course there is, it used to be called "expiration." We've got hundreds of years of experience with that general rule of law, pre-dating even the founding of the USA.
Along those lines, as you have quoted, the continuing process of indefinite copyright extension has thrown the entire social contract out of whack. The original term of copyright duration was 28 years, it is now pushing 100 years and was even retroactively extended by the recent passage of the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" (aka "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act"). Under the original terms, Star Wars would be entering the public domain in a couple of years. But, unless impoverished, as long as authors (or now owners or distributors) can expect their monopoly in trade of their creations to remain indefinitely, there is little to no incentive for them to make them available for sale in a manner reasonably accessible to the public.
Second, with the advent of digital media, both the marginal cost of duplication and the marginal cost of transportation approach zero for many kinds of artistic creation. Making it far easier for an artist to extract the same relative amount of value today in far less time than the 28 years it once took. Thus, the cost to the public (due to the granted monopoly) of this social contract would still be greater at 28 years than it once was due to the evolution of technology. In other words, the bargain the public struck with artists is no longer as great of a bargain for the public as it once was. It needs to be re-evaluated such that the term of the monopoly is enough to bring the same relatively value to the artists as 28 years once did. As a SWAG, I'd say half of the original term would be a reasonable starting point for consideration.
However, this re-evaluation is not going to happen as long as the entrenched powers remain so entrenched. Until then, it may not be legal to make and distribute copies of otherwise unavailable works, but in the general case it is morally valid.
First, the low hanging-fruit. You say, "there is no general rule of law the extinguishes copyright protection on unavailable works." I say, of course there is, it used to be called "expiration." We've got hundreds of years of experience with that general rule of law, pre-dating even the founding of the USA.
Along those lines, as you have quoted, the continuing process of indefinite copyright extension has thrown the entire social contract out of whack. The original term of copyright duration was 28 years, it is now pushing 100 years and was even retroactively extended by the recent passage of the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" (aka "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act"). Under the original terms, Star Wars would be entering the public domain in a couple of years. But, unless impoverished, as long as authors (or now owners or distributors) can expect their monopoly in trade of their creations to remain indefinitely, there is little to no incentive for them to make them available for sale in a manner reasonably accessible to the public.
Second, with the advent of digital media, both the marginal cost of duplication and the marginal cost of transportation approach zero for many kinds of artistic creation. Making it far easier for an artist to extract the same relative amount of value today in far less time than the 28 years it once took. Thus, the cost to the public (due to the granted monopoly) of this social contract would still be greater at 28 years than it once was due to the evolution of technology. In other words, the bargain the public struck with artists is no longer as great of a bargain for the public as it once was. It needs to be re-evaluated such that the term of the monopoly is enough to bring the same relatively value to the artists as 28 years once did. As a SWAG, I'd say half of the original term would be a reasonable starting point for consideration.
However, this re-evaluation is not going to happen as long as the entrenched powers remain so entrenched. Until then, it may not be legal to make and distribute copies of otherwise unavailable works, but in the general case it is morally valid.
#29
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Davie, FL USA
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Dave C
Because when they do eventually make it available legally people who have bought the bootlegs won't purchase it.
Because when they do eventually make it available legally people who have bought the bootlegs won't purchase it.
#30
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with digitized "art" (DVDs, CDs) is that they can be copied. To some, because music and film are art they should enter the public domain after some time. Thus, to some, there is a social contract implied with copyright law. Art is public, and copyrights have 'term limits' if they are to be meaningful in that they recognize public ownership. And there is some truth to this argument.
On the other hand, car manufacturers need few copyright protections, because people aren't going to go home, 'burn' a few new Hummers and sell them for cheap.
Why is art any different from a car? Whoever has an authorized work can do whatever they want with it, except copy and sell it. And whoever owns the rights to manufacture the good can do whatever they want with that right, in perpetuity, including not manufacturing that good.
I surely want Star Wars out in full, in versions with and without edits, etc. But I have no rights to those disks. It will be my good fortune to own those disks one day, I hope. But it is not my right.
And speaking of art, do I have a right to copy a Van Gogh and sell it as an original? Most everyone would cry foul (very loudly too) and I'd be in jail ASAP.
On the other hand, car manufacturers need few copyright protections, because people aren't going to go home, 'burn' a few new Hummers and sell them for cheap.
Why is art any different from a car? Whoever has an authorized work can do whatever they want with it, except copy and sell it. And whoever owns the rights to manufacture the good can do whatever they want with that right, in perpetuity, including not manufacturing that good.
I surely want Star Wars out in full, in versions with and without edits, etc. But I have no rights to those disks. It will be my good fortune to own those disks one day, I hope. But it is not my right.
And speaking of art, do I have a right to copy a Van Gogh and sell it as an original? Most everyone would cry foul (very loudly too) and I'd be in jail ASAP.
Last edited by DrS; 07-16-03 at 10:21 AM.
#31
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The edge of insanity
Posts: 2,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can appreciate the animosity toward Lucas for prolonging the inevitable, however, you cannot condone bootlegging to justify your displeasure. Public Domain argument aside, copying someone else's work and selling it is wrong. The bottom line is, Lucas is sticking it to his fans by keeping the series under wraps. Unfortunately, he has every right to do so. In the meantime, why not enjoy the vhs versions of the films and look forward to the official release of the films. Personally, I am looking forward to getting these also, but I don't feel compelled to have the film on a silver shiny disc. The illegitimate copies floating around may be from laserdisc transfers, but they haven't been remastered for DVD. Why support the livelihood of some criminal overseas? If you really want the series that bad, find someone that has the laserdisc and burn a copy for yourself for home use. Believe me, I am not putting anyone down for wanting these, but I think in the long run, waiting for the official release will be worth it. Unless of course, Lucas refuses to release the unedited versions...
#32
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by Jah-Wren Ryel
djtoell - Your analysis would be valid except for a few reasons.
First, the low hanging-fruit. You say, "there is no general rule of law the extinguishes copyright protection on unavailable works." I say, of course there is, it used to be called "expiration."
djtoell - Your analysis would be valid except for a few reasons.
First, the low hanging-fruit. You say, "there is no general rule of law the extinguishes copyright protection on unavailable works." I say, of course there is, it used to be called "expiration."
We've got hundreds of years of experience with that general rule of law, pre-dating even the founding of the USA.
Along those lines, as you have quoted, the continuing process of indefinite copyright extension has thrown the entire social contract out of whack. The original term of copyright duration was 28 years
it is now pushing 100 years and was even retroactively extended by the recent passage of the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" (aka "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act").
Under the original terms, Star Wars would be entering the public domain in a couple of years.
But, unless impoverished, as long as authors (or now owners or distributors) can expect their monopoly in trade of their creations to remain indefinitely, there is little to no incentive for them to make them available for sale in a manner reasonably accessible to the public.
Second, with the advent of digital media, both the marginal cost of duplication and the marginal cost of transportation approach zero for many kinds of artistic creation.
Until then, it may not be legal to make and distribute copies of otherwise unavailable works, but in the general case it is morally valid.
DJ
Last edited by djtoell; 07-16-03 at 10:47 PM.
#33
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buy from Hkflix.com or XploitedCinema.com. .. They sell legit copies.
I don't think it's vague. Use common sense. If you see some seller on Ebay selling a hundred copies of "Hero", for $6.00 dollars a pop - when other stores are wanting $15 - $20, than most likely it's a bootleg.
Just because it's Region 0 does not make it a bootleg. There are plenty of Korean DVD's that are Region 0 and there are even American DVD's that are Region 0, infact Blue Underground's releases are always Region 0.
I don't think it's vague. Use common sense. If you see some seller on Ebay selling a hundred copies of "Hero", for $6.00 dollars a pop - when other stores are wanting $15 - $20, than most likely it's a bootleg.
Just because it's Region 0 does not make it a bootleg. There are plenty of Korean DVD's that are Region 0 and there are even American DVD's that are Region 0, infact Blue Underground's releases are always Region 0.