Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Old Neon
How? How has our culture suffered as a result of other people’s works not being free? I’m not trying to be a pain in the arse, but it’s one of those frequently made statements that really cannot be qualified – imo.
|
Great new movies are being suppressed. This movie uses a soundtrack from a 1920's composer, and the company that owns the rights won't release them without fees that an indie film company can't afford. (Note: the composer's heirs don't own the rights, so this isn't about rewarding the artist.)
Math You Can't Use is a book about patented & copyrighted software, and the IP protection laws that are used to stifle competition and increase consumer costs by allowing easy lawsuits for frivolous prosecutions.
Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig mentions:
"Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges between the two, the /60 Minutes/ episode that came out after it ... it would be almost impossible.... Those materials are almost unfindable...."
-------
For most of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of 8 mm film. ... In addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights. And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to locate the copyright owner. Or more accurately, /owners/. As we've seen, there isn't only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is exceptionally high. "But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the copyright owner when she shows up?" Sure, if you want to commit a felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money. For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright expires. But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.
Quote:
|
Sure, why not? How are you, or society in general, harmed by some now sort of obscure author continuing to profit from his or her work 60 years after publication? The work is available for sale, in libraries at no charge, at used books stores, etc – it’s not as if you wont have access to it until the copyright runs out.
|
BOOKS are often available. Movies, tv shows, and radio broadcasts often are not. Copyright owners are not even required to keep a copy of movies on file anymore.