|
|
Posted by Bill on 02/06/07 20:23
I'm not mistaken. I'm not speaking as a lawyer about the law. You are,
and I'm happy to leave you to it. (Which is not so say that citizens
don't have a right to have an opinion about the law.)
I am speaking from the point of view of a reasonable person who can
observe that there is not much that is really new-- or "original" under
the sun. My point is that, for example, the Lion King is "stolen" from
"Kimba the White Lion". As a lawyer, you would likely succeed in
convincing a jury or a judge that the elements of "Kimba" that are
copied in "Lion King" are unprotected and public domain. (On the other
hand: Kimba/Simba...) I am glad to leave the legal issues to the
lawyers and the courts.
But speaking as a human being, when someone gets sanctimonious about
protecting his "original" work, I am more than happy to point out that
the Beatles and Stones robbed the blues, Shakespeare robbed Ovid, Ovid
robbed the Greeks, Spielberg robs everybody blind (ever see an obscure
German movie called "The Bridge"?), etc.
Now before anybody thinks that this is purely academic, I would
recommend that people read up on the origins, and on the fundamental
principles of the original copyright laws in France, Britain, and the
United States. They are not what most people think they are. Among
other things, it is asserted that products of the creative imagination
are never produced in isolation, that all creators benefit from the
existing storehouses of ideas, concepts, language, symbols, images,
etc., and that, in an important sense, the products of the creative mind
belong to all people. That said, the law, with the intent of
encouraging the publication of original works, gives the author a period
of exclusive publication rights.... there is lots more if someone gets
curious and wants to read about.
To me, that means documentaries about the civil rights era should be
able to reproduce portions of the music that accompanied the marches and
church services without having to pay a fortune for the privilege...
And before anyone creates a straw man here-- I am quite in favor of
copyright protection. I'm just occasionally nauseated when an industry
that has played fast and loose with the rights of musicians, composers,
and writers suddenly gets all high and mighty about the "sacred" rights
of intellectual property.... I also get exceptionally annoyed when
hardware is altered to protect this industry (like the Zune), to the
disadvantage of people who want to use it to.... ta da... create
original works.
Anyway, I know this has already been flogged up and down the block a few
times, so I'll leave it and accept that my position is a minority one.
My only consolation is that so far, the technology keeps outwitting the
majority...
PTravel wrote:
> "Bill" <trash@chromehorse.net> wrote in message
> news:2eOdnd_zuczND1XYnZ2dnUVZ_tGsnZ2d@golden.net...
>
>
>>The "principle" of copyright is indeed in trouble. The trouble is that
>>people don't really understand the original purpose of copyright. The
>>trouble is also that people have this illusion that Walt Disney's "The
>>Little Mermaid", for example, is "original" (Disney stole it, along with
>>"The Lion King" and most of everything else they produce). Most
>>rock'n'roll is derived from long established models of chord progressions
>>and riffs. Art steals from landscapes or objects (Warhol's Campbell Soup
>>cans). Ever see a TV episode in which one major character seems to have
>>forgotten another major character's birthday? Lucy? Mr. Ed? Gilligan?
>>Edith? Maude? Homer?
>
>
> Unfortunately, I think it is you who does not understand the principles of
> copyright protection. What you've described as "stealing" is merely using
> material that is unprotected and in the public domain. Public domain is
> public domain -- anyone may use it, and no one can claim copyright
> protection in it. Do a google search on "scenes a faire" if you want to
> learn about the particular that doctrine that applies.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|