|
|
Posted by PTravel on 02/07/07 04:33
"Bill" <trash@chromehorse.net> wrote in message
news:2NSdnZHeNfzEflXYnZ2dnUVZ_rSjnZ2d@golden.net...
> 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.)
You can have any opinion you want. Unfortunately, your opinion is
misinformed, and what you stated as fact is simply wrong.
>
> 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.
What do you think the meaning of "stolen" is? Not legally, but
colloquially. Hint: it's not stealing if you're allowed to take it.
>
> 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.
Apples and oranges. You can take what you're allowed to take. You can't
take what you're not allowed to take. First of all, you're confusing ideas
with the expression of ideas. Ideas are not protected, never have been,
(except in the context of patent, which is not relevant here) are available
to anyone to use. Original expression of ideas is protected, has been for
centuries, and is afforded protection for a very specific reason that has
nothing to do with protecting "big corporations."
>
> Now before anybody thinks that this is purely academic,
For it to be academic, you would have had to study the subject first.
Sorry, but your generalizations are simply wrong -- not "technically" wrong,
but completely misstating the protections afforded intellectual property by
society. If you want to bitch about it, at least find out what it is you're
bitching about.
> 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.
Nope. You're still confusing expression, which is protected, with ideas,
which are not.
> 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, under some circumstances, they can.
>
> 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.
DRM is not a legal issue, but a business one (with the exception of the DMCA
which was drafted by lobbyists to enforce it).
>
> 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]
|