Posted by Bill on 12/05/06 16:44

Very stern, Steve. Okay. Let's say we start looking at where Disney
stole "Lion King" from-- and shall we punish Disney "vigorously"? How
about all those movies and tv shows that recycle the same plot
endlessly: Lucy/Gilligan/Archie/Monica thinks everyone has forgotten
her birthday... How about I, IV, V in jazz or rock'n'roll?
Compression in recording? The steadicam shot? The idea of a talking
animal?

The most ridiculous idea to come out of the digital age is that
copyright is "absolute". It is not, never has been, and never was
intended to be. For one thing, there has always been and always should
be "fair use" even if all the Republicans in Washington are doing
everything they can to eliminate it. Nobody creates in a vacuum, and
nobody invents a new technology (musical instrument, paint, or language)
everytime they create an "original" work of art. There is always some
degree of borrowing, and that is the reason by no copyright is
"absolute". You benefit from the work of others that came before you
and the ones who follow benefit from your work.

Those aren't "psychopaths"-- they are mostly kids who want to share the
touchstones of modern culture with each other. They could be forgiven
for thinking that that is exactly the aim of the music/television/film
industry.

People of good sense want to find a balance that allows creative people
to profit properly from their work while preserving open cultural
dialogue and keeping history in the public domain. It is absolutely
wrong, for example, that "Eye on the Prize" is going to become
unavailable to an entire generation of students because of the greed of
copyright owners and their congressional toadies.

Steve King wrote:

>
> This is the "little bit pregnant" argument. One has either infringed on a
> copyright or not. As far as benefits to the copyright holder, that is for
> the copyright holder to decide, not the full range of individuals from
> children to psychopaths that post to You Tube. The quality of the copy has
> nothing to do with it. Nothing. Usurping the copyright holder's decision
> where and when to publish under what terms is a crime, which should be
> punished vigorously.
>
> Steve King
>
>

[Back to original message]