Movie Marketing vs The Lawyers
Anyone who does online marketing work for a media behemoth knows that ‘the online copyright issue’ is an endless source of frustration. I’m working with Fox on X-Files: I Want To Believe doing online marketing and promotion. As a geek film fan, working on films that you love is just the best thing in the world… except for the meddling of the legal departments.
Last week, I received a copyright infringement notice from Google because I have the X-Files teaser trailer on my YouTube account. I am working for Fox, to promote a Fox film and I got served with a copyright infringement notice.
OK, so Fox’s legal department didn’t know I’m working for Fox, therefore I was treated like ‘any old schmo’. They reported me to Google, Google told me they were removing the trailer. Unlike ‘any old schmo’ I was able to get in touch with Fox and was put on a whitelist to protect my account. Fine.
The X-Files trailer in my account has had over 160,000 views. It’s the most popular one on YouTube. A quick guesstimate, however, is that there have been 300,000 views of both the X-Files teaser and the new theatrical trailer on all of the YouTube accounts hosting them. That’s coming up to half a million views of the X-Files trailers. All of them on ‘unofficial’ YouTube accounts.
The demographics available on the teaser trailer in my account:
68% of viewers are male
32% female
23% are 35-45 years old
19% are under 18
18% are 25-35
17% are 18-25
16% are 45-55
7% are over 55
45% of the views have come directly from within YouTube
55% have come from either embedded players or external links
I’m going to assume that the statistics for the trailer are the same on everyone else’s channel. First, that means that the trailer is reaching *exactly* the gender and age demographics that the film industry goes after for a sci-fi, action, thriller. It also means that over half of the views are coming from OUTSIDE YouTube- on blogs and websites which have embedded the trailer. By allowing huge numbers of people to host the trailer on their own YouTube channels, and allowing the trailer to be embedded, it is reaching far more people than from inside YouTube. Also, people viewing it within YouTube are *looking* for it, the people viewing it from outside YouTube are more than likely not searching for it, instead are watching it at one of their regular sites.
So, what might the rationale be for Fox’s legal department to attempt to remove the trailer from YouTube?
1. Maybe they think that Fox should have its own ‘official channel’ and all views should be through that. Well, they *do* have an official channel except, they only put the X-Files theatrical trailer up 3 days ago *and* they labeled it wrong:
Consequently, they’ve got a low rating and a comments page filled with things like:
“this is the x files u noob”
“WTF THIS ISNT THE HAPPENING RETARD”
“whos the stupid fuck who posted this,such fucking ignornace that i want to kill myself”
“It’s the X-files 2 trailer, not the Happening… Be more professional, you are representing your studio on You Tube.”
And so on.
It’s got 25,000 views, but I suspect 100% of the viewers were expecting to see a trailer for The Happening, not the X-Files. Hence the negativity in the comments. What’s most interesting to me is that it’s been three days, yet they’ve not fixed it.
2. Maybe they think that they are losing money by allowing users to host the trailer on their YouTube accounts. Fair enough, they want to earn some money, they are a business after all. Well…
Number one, they need to sort out their official channels first (see above).
Number two, they need to accept that official channels get fewer views (They do, trust me. People would rather embed a video hosted by ‘any old schmo’ than the film studio. Why? That’s an essay in itself.).
Number three, restricting people from using your stuff in YouTube isn’t going to stop them from putting it online anyway.
If a person has an X-Files trailer on their YouTube account and has AdSense, the likelihood of them earning any real money is minuscule. Very few people earn decent money from AdSense. But let’s say like Break A Leg (thanks for the info, Colin!) someone gets 2 million views of the X-Files trailer on their YouTube account and earns $1600. That’s enough money to keep an X-Files fan college student in beer for a while at least.
That works out to be $.80 per 1,000 views. Let’s say that only 1% of the people who watch the trailer end up going to see the film. The film industry earns about $6 per person going to the cinema. That works out to be $60 per 1,000 trailer views on YouTube that Fox earns from ticket sales. So, is Fox more interested in earning $0.80 from AdSense or $60.00 from ticket sales?
Surely, they should be spending time and money thinking of ways to encourage *more* views of the trailer and encourage *more* people to go to the cinema rather than spending that money on the wages of their employees who trawl around YouTube and issuing copyright infringement notices day in and day out removing their own promotional material, making people angry and not earning them any friends.
When TV audience figures are down which affects the number of people viewing TV ads, when the cost of marketing films is going up (because they WASTE huge amount of money imo), does it honestly make sense to try and prevent the number of people seeing the trailers advertising your films? That is what’s going on here. They can try and spin it to say that it’s ‘copyright infringement’, but in reality it’s just shooting themselves in the foot.
Of course, I’m not the only one who has received copyright infringement notices – loads of X-Philes have and not only on YouTube. Some have had their YouTube accounts closed because they had committed the terrible crime of making ‘fan videos’ of the X-Files (clips from the programme cut to music). One of them had over 300,000 views. 300,000. That’s a lot of people interested in a Mulder and Scully shippers video… And now, it’s gone… along with all of those thousands upon thousands of people who would have stumbled upon that video and thought, ‘The X-Files, I loved that show! I wonder what’s going on with the X-Files now…?’
Whereas I think it’s perfectly acceptable for studios to remove full films and programmes from the web (though I honestly don’t think they are losing any money to people who would be satisfied watching a small, pixelated version of a tv show divided up into 10 minute chunks on YouTube, I mean, that viewer isn’t going to be buying a DVD anyway… but… I’ll give that one to them cos of bit torrents), but to go after people for copyright infringement of PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL is stupid. Equally, going after people for fan-made music videos is stupid as it’s “PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL” of another kind.
The X-Files is a brand. Fox needs that ‘brand’ to be spread as far and as wide as possible within the next month. Attempting to restrict that because of ill-thought-out financial reasons will hurt their ticket sales.
Come on Fox, sort out your legal department and quick.
*EDIT* Fox’s official YouTube channel has now re-labeled the trailer as the X-Files.
Looks like you’ve been “Foxed“.
I love that it has its own name. :) Doesn’t make it any less frustrating.
It’s so unbelievably ridiculous. I mean, are they wary after the initial budget outlay for the first film? Is that maybe a factor? Because honestly, I can take Carter, Spotnitz and the rest of the X-F alumni’s code of omerta but as far as Fox are concerned, it’s almost as if they’re determined not to advertise. They should be ramming the ads down our throats by now, especially with a fanbase as devoted as this one who’ll lap it up. It’s a built-in audience for god’s sake! I just… brain….hurts…thinking…..marketing strategy …does…not…compute.
All that can be said is, WTF?!$$£££%%%
That is just beyond ridiculous. It really saddens me that they are so worried about “copyright infringement” or “losing money” that they would remove a trailer with 160,000 views… I mean honestly they should be giving YOU a raise not throwing legal crap at ya. Your viral video’s are probably going to be earning them a lot of money and interest in my opinion and to not even know that you’re employed by them… UGH… so sorry Gia, guess no one can try to help these days… But good luck with getting them to let you put it back up.
They’re idiots, unbelievable :-S
Keep up the good work Gia! You rock!!
WOW it does seem that Fox is more interested in the 80 cents than the $60 in tickets sales generated through free advertising and look what happens when the do finally decide to advertise…they label it wrong, leading both fans of The Happening and X-Files IWTB with the impression that Fox cares way more about possible copyright infringement by fans than they do about the success of the movies themselves.
Makes me seriously want to send Fox an email titled ‘Why are you stupid?’
After reading your entry I think IDIOTS has a new definition = 20th Century Fox.
I’ve been doing as much promotion as I can just in personal circles and online across the globe. And what I’ve challenged everyone to is to go see this movie to spite Fox. Because to me its obvious that they are trying to cause it to fail. Maybe because of the whole Chris Carter lawsuit thing – I don’t know. But, they obviously don’t want a third film. So, we’ve got to beat them at their own game, risk the stupid legal crap and promote the h*** out of this movie.
We need a BLOCKBUSTER people!
My Youtube channel was deleted 2 months ago, reaching it’s total views of half million…. Half million of people have seens my videos each promoting The X-Files 2, among them was the selfmade animation/trailer (with no images whatsoever) of the “X” sign announcing the second movie, posted back in november 2007 when it was just announced and when there was nothing related to the movie on Youtube yet….
I am angry at Fox, I literally spent hours making videos and promotiong their product, The X-Files, and I didn’t do it for money, I did it because I love their show and who tried to help their promotion and to reach out to people who know or don’t even know about this fantastic tv show and the new movie… that’s what fans do. This is why their product is where it is today, because of the fans.
I think they need to drastically change their strategies, maybe go and try to fight the REAL piracy, the copies of their dvd’s being selled in so many countries, for example, but If they think they’ve done something great by deleting an account of one fan, then I feel bad for Fox…
I can say for sure that Fox isn’t trying to make any of their film fail at the box office. The marketing department is actually the most forward thinking of the major film studios… It’s just that for years and years and years the legal department has clearly been given ALL the wrong information and advice about the internet and “piracy”… and like the music industry before them they are shooting themselves in the foot…
Their legal department seems to be operating within some idea bubble which existed in 1999 and hasn’t progressed past that.
Well the technology is advancing and going forward, as well as is internet and back in 1999, well it was different.
I don’t know much about the movie industries and how it all works, but from what I see, they’re chasing in the dark, with time there will be more and more video and multimedia sites, it would be insane in shutting everything down, they better focus their energy and ressources on something more constructive then shutting down fans who promote their material. I don’t mind that they close accounts or sites offering integral movies or episodes, but hey, why shutting down fan sites, fan vids etc? That’s more of a retorical question, I guess we all know the answer.
I wish Fox would listen to you Gia, what they’re doing right now is just making me sick, besides I hope it doesn’t get worse after the movie is out…
Gomnitus.
This whole situation with Fox is far beyond absurd.
I understand copyright, trademark and intellectual properties laws. I understand what they’re there for and why. In fact, I agree with Fox (and anyone else) from which entire films, TV episodes and even entire seasons of their shows have been intentionally pirated to make money for the pirate. It makes sense that Fox — or any other studio, company or corporation — would want to close them down.
What I *don’t* understand — apparently like everyone else — is why Fox is so aggressively attacking the fans who are doing NOTHING but presenting their joy, affection and, yes, love of The X-Files by making fan videos, etc. In the case of Gomnilus above, he/she created an “advertisement”, for want of a better word, FOR the SECOND X-Files film (before Fox ever bothered to do any advertising of its own) out of respect and desire to let others know that X-Files was back.
YES, of course, there is the occasional person out there who produces videos — uses AdSense or some other program — and actually makes a few dollars. But they are in the ABSOLUTE MINORITY; I’m guessing considerably LESS than 0.5% of the whole.
The explanation that Fox’s legal department not knowing what Fox’s marketing department is doing is an EXCUSE, plain and simple. I’m not disagreeing with YOU, Gia, I just don’t completely buy the excuse as that is the usual, typical and extremely lame excuse for happenings such as these.
Fox’s in-house Intellectual Properties (legal) team needs to talk to their outside counsel and have whatever meetings WITH marketing that are quite obviously necessary to “get their act together.” They need to do their research — FAST — recognize and realize that they are wasting time in their oppression of the X-Files fans, and spend their time, not to mention in-house legal’s and outside legal’s undoubtedly EXTREMELY HIGH billable hours. on MARKETING of “The X-Files: I Want To Believe” instead.
If Fox would do *that*, they would actually HAVE more than enough to produce an “average” job of marketing the film, which would be infinitely better than what they have done so far.
I’d give a great deal to know how much Fox’s IP legal and outside legal have padded their “miscellaneous” bills on their expense accounts while on this avenue of aggression toward the fans. The attorneys are, no doubt, making unbelievable and unconscionable hourly billing rates and miscellaneous bills, which add up to more than I can possibly calculate. And all of that on top of a salary that few fans could rival.
Fox is spending their money in the WRONG arena.
It aggravates me to know, in my heart and from experience, that Fox’s attorneys, paralegals and clerks are likely working overtime on this little anti-X-Files fan venture — and are ordering pizza for dinner at ungodly rates of over $50 per hour for a “pizza courier,” just because pizzerias such as Domino’s are beneath them.
In the final analysis, Shakespeare was right about lawyers.
All things being equal, Shakespeare would probably make the same statement about Fox and its affiliates and subsidiaries.
I agree with Laura. To say that its a matter of communication between the departments or a lack thereof is not good enough. These are intelligent or at least educated people. It doesn’t take a genious to understand that removing fan sites in pure attack mode would antagonize the fans. It takes a moment on You Tube or The X-Files original site to know that the fans communicate with each other. We know whats going on. And its getting old. And we’re getting angry.
If its not X-Files related – I’m not going to give a dime to Fox or its affiliated companies. I can’t turn away from XF, but I can put my foot down about spending any of my hard earned money on future Fox projects. As far as I’m concerned they turned their backs on the fans a long time ago.
But, I do appreciate your efforts Gia and I applaud you for it.
I agree with the YouTube commenter:
“whos the stupid fuck who posted this,such fucking ignornace that i want to kill myself”
which is still making me laugh.
in spite of my rage.
i know it’s too easy to bash lawyers. but they are rampant. they are making work for themselves. very, very well paid work. and nobody is telling them to stop. the marketing division can’t. in-house counsel definitely won’t – their bonus depends on this kind of stupidity.
i’m sure any direction to the lawyers to back off needs to come from board level. and you can imagine how well the board of directors of Fox understand the social web… I mean, as an indication, look at how Sumner Redstone at Viacom dealt with Youtube.
“such fucking ignornace that i want to kill myself”
Why should you have to do the backbreaking work of trying to explain the obvious to them, if they’re too stupid to understand how their own business has changed. Let them kill themselves with their ignorance. sorry, ignornace.
It’s sad and frustrating that they’re taking down your hard work and other people’s support, creativity and passion with them… but YouTube and the other crappy video sharing sites aren’t the only game in town.
There are other places to share fan stuff – places where it’s not so easy for highly paid Park Avenue whiteshoe dicks to find, issue a C&D and charge $800 to their clients for 30 seconds work.
Hiya Rupert! Yes, YouTube isn’t the only game in town and there *are* technically better video sites out there. The problem is, for me, that I have to try and get as many people to see stuff as possible. YouTube has the numbers. Also, I much prefer Vimeo and Blip for their technical beauty, but they really aren’t the kind of place for trailers and shippers’ videos. ;)
One of the reasons why I’ve never shied away from criticising Fox for their outmoded policy (was it ever inmoded?!) is that doing online film marketing isn’t the only thing I can or want to do. I’m not in fear for my job – if Fox don’t want to hire me again because I call them up on their silliness – then I’ve got plenty of work elsewhere… I am INCREDIBLY lucky to have worked on films that I genuinely love… but I honestly, honestly hope that in 10 years’ time (5?) I’m not *still* paying my bills by sitting around having to wait for Fox Legal to approve the release of a fucking movie still. ;)
It’s a LOT harder for people employed by Fox or who have started companies who specialise in online film marketing to criticise these things. They are stuck. Their jobs depend on towing the line, whether or not they agree with it. And I know, for a fact, that most people who do online do NOT agree with it… But everyone takes a breath and resigns themselves to following Legal’s rules…
Excellent post, Gia – you really summed up a lot of the frustrations around online hosting and the numerous benefits of unofficial hosting… we ourselves lost a Daily Motion channel when Fox had them take down Damien’s 28 Weeeks movies, although they have allowed them to survive on YouTube.
We lost our entire YouTube channel this year – a few thousand views shy of 1,000,000 as well – because of complaints about a bare bottom that featured in one of the videos. I find it particularly frustrating that the comments section can be filled with the worst kind of hatred, sexual language, personal insults, racism and adverts, but considered pieces of work can end a persons account because of a comedy nipple. That, of course, is a debate for another day.
Anyway… excellent article, really enjoyed it.
Hey Dear Gia!
Oh well! Fox IT’S RETARDED! JESUS! They are freaking having PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL FOR FREE and they are chasing the people who wasted their time doing that. Ew!
And for the trailer (ok, it’s correct now, but for what is worth) I guess that I have the answer:
THE HAPPENING it’s one of the worst movies that I ever watched in my entire life. REALLY. It’s like the “Gigli” from the sci fi movies. Sooo, they named the XF trailer “The Happening” to try fool people and have them to watch that horrible movie “Th Happening”. :-P
cheers
marke;)
What? This is far too stupid to be even comical. I imagine there are layers of suits to pilfer through before getting to the suit who calls the shots, and even then I’m guessing there might be little comprehension regarding the net/YouTube and how this translates into free advertising. And though there are other sites, YouTube certainly has product branding. It would be nice if someone from Fox did their homework.
I hope you sent this to FOX as well.
When movie studios and record labels realize they are no longer in control of the content and that they are virtually just big marketing companies, the world will be a better place. The people and communities control the content, not you MSM. Once you accept that, we can all live in peace and harmony. And people such as Gia and myself can do our jobs a lot easier.
FOX= retarded most of the time unfortunately.
Sad too because this film already has an audience, imagine the larger numbers FOX could get if they started actually promoting the film? When this movie becomes a success, and I believe it will be a success, it won’t have had anything to do with FOX. Do they not realize how many people they brought to the show with the first film? Do they not realize they are going to do that again with this film? Imagine the ultimate X-Files collection sales, they will spike.
Thanks for the withering, right-on critique, Gia. (You’ll probably get a flame mail from some dumb-ass at Fox Corporate Legal Affairs whining about how you made the company look bad–i.e. s/he got in trouble with somebody upstairs and had their per diem docked.)
1) One of things that you’re confirming for us is that if XF:IWTB is a hit it will be IN SPITE of Fox’s various direct, corporate efforts. Heavy sigh. (Thank God that the production budget was only around $35,000,000. Thank God they have you waging the intelligent advertising campaign on the sly.)
2) And we can pick on Fox all we want, but in reality it’s just the larger Hollywood culture and socio-economic structure. The various Hollywood power blocs are so entrenched in a model that really went through its last major evolution/iteration in about 1965. They are just fucking clueless about reaching audiences today–especially audiences that WANT TO embrace their product.
Anyone who wants to see that the agentry/managers/other parasitic life forms are just as (or possibly even more) stupid than 20th Century Fox should read digital property maven Keith Boesky’s great blog entry from a month ago: http://boesky.blogspot.com/2008/05/uta-caa-endeavor-you-just-dont-get-it.html
3) Your online stats continue to give me hope that maybe this film can be, like the Sex and the City movie, one of those sly surprises that come along ever summer
Jim,
There is a thread on Haven which is about the audience reactions to the trailer in the cinema last weekend. The vast majority of the reactions around the US were positive- ranging from excited murmuring after they heard ‘Mulder?’ ‘Scully?’ in the trailer, to whistling the song, to clapping and squeeing. The negative reactions were few and far between and ranged from total silence to laughing at the trailer in Texas.
If the RIDICULOUSLY HUGE numbers of fans online are anything to go by, there is a large audience for this film worldwide (I was just contacted by the Brazilian X-Files community over 22,000 members of their site!)
I’m very hopeful. We just need to get the word out far and wide!
You can bitch all you want, but the fact is, if person A owns something, it’s that person’s right to use it anyway he wants to. No matter how dumb, wrong, stupid, etc. Person B can bitch and complain all she wants. Does not change the fact that it is person A’s thing and he owns the rights to do dumb things with that something.
Copyright is an ownership of a piece of art on a tangible medium. If someone takes that without permission, person A can take legal steps to get it back. No matter how much “good” person B is doing with it. The ends does not justify the means.
It actually sounds like the legal department is doing their job fine. There is just a communication breakdown at FOX. They should give me a call…we’ll take care of them…and you too Gia.
The issue is, Alex, that this is PROMOTIONAL material. It’s like handing out a stack of fliers and then going after everyone who takes one. It doesn’t make sense.
I think everyone agrees that full films and episodes etc should not be made available to download for free. But *trailers*? Someone received a copyright infringement notice from Fox because they had screengrabs from the trailer on their site. Seriously.
If they want to be like that then they will HAVE to step up their game and invest considerably MORE money in promoting their material… because they are getting rid of people who want to do that work for them FOR FREE.
Copyright exists upon creation of the work. Even if that work is for a promotional purpose.
Sure a stack of fliers can be handed out, but it does not mean someone who takes that flier can scan the picture/image from the flier and start using it as if they “own” the image on the flier.
Agreed that the copyright laws as they exist right now may not make much sense, but that is entirely a different discussion (more of a legal history).
Even screengrabs can be an infringement on someone’s copyright. It’s like saying, “I only took a little sip of your soda” as if that is OK, or “I only touched you slightly” (of course that would depend on where you were touched). Imagine if someone took the last page of a 200 page novel and published it – giving away the ending. It is “only a page” but it is still a major violation of someone’s work.
There is another legal issue at work here. If one does not protect his rights vigilently, that fact can be used against him when he truly wants to protect his rights against a serious infringer. Just as with real property rights, wherein one can actually lose ownership of his real estate via continued trespass and/or adverse possession, by NOT protecting his rights in intellectual property can lead to loss of rights and/or severely limited damages.
Of course even if someone violates another’s copyright there are some affirmative defenses…factors include newsworthiness and amount of the work that is “taken” among others. But just because one has a fair use defense, it does not mean the material was not “taken” – possibly without permission – and we all know that taking something from someone without permission is BAD.
It is odd that we all learn this growing up in our society, when it comes to digital media or the “internet” people seem to have trouble accepting this idea.
Sorry if this sounded like a lecture. It is what I do – I help people/companies protect their ideas and brand.
Alex- there’s a huge difference between misappropriating copyright material i.e claiming it as your own work and consuming that work be it as an audience member or a fanvid maker. In this particular case, Fox agressively targeted X-Files fans who were using and consuming officially released resources which in addition, were ALL correctly credited with having originated from Fox and never laid claim to any of the images as their own.
In fact it seems to be a defining characteristic of ‘Philes the world over that they are incredibly respectful of the work and are at pains to stress the origins of it. Carter, Spotnitz et al are held in the utmost esteem. Fox on the other hand are not and the fact that they held up production on this film because they themselves withheld profits from the creators is testament to the fact that they don’t deserve it. But I digress.
Would you also argue that the writers of X-Files fan fiction are in copyright breach despite the internal code of conduct within that community, which cites that all authors must credit Carter etc with artistic ownership along with Fox corporation with copyright status?
Your argument smacks awfully of corporate hegemony but of course Fox have the monopoly on that. Something which, as you say yourself, you help to promote.
Calraigh – giving someone credit is fine and good…but it still does not change the fact that it was taken and used in a manner that the creator of the works did not agree to. PERMISSION is the key word here. If you like a book, say J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, and started copying pages of it and posting them on the internet, giving proper credit to the author of the book still does not change the fact that you were not given permission to do it. Just because one is a fan of a show or a movie does not automatically give that person permission to start posting and copying and making derivative works.
The facts regarding production of the film, or that the fans are being respectful does not change the fact that the work was taken and used without permission.
Just like I would need your permission to use your car – without which would be considered a theft – these fans should ask permission before they use it. It’s that simple. Without permission, it is theft.
It’s not just corporations that are interested in protecting intellectual properties…we represent artists who create wonderful works of art…and when some idiot takes a photo of a painting and post it on the internet, our clients get pissed off. The idiots should know better…but the “internet community” despite whatever “internal code of conduct” they may follow, does not seem to understand that the work was not created by the internet community.
If you take someone’s work of art and post it on your own blog, and people come see it on your blog, you are becoming famous by using someone else’s work. You are gaining something by stealing another’s work. Without permission. Without consideration being paid. That is wrong. Period. Further, if you are selling ad space or banners on your blog, that makes it worse. You are profiting from giving people stolen material.
Downloading stolen music or buying fake louis vuitton purses or trespassing someone’s land…are all wrong…are all illegal. Why is that concept so difficult to understand?
Creating fan fiction may be considered creation of derivative work – which is again a copyright violation.
Further, if certain parts are trademarked, then the “fan fiction” may also be a trademark infringement.
What is the lesson here? Go make your own original works of art. Don’t steal someone’s idea. Stealing is bad. Making original works of art is good.
Alex- you’re ridiculous. Carter et al didn’t create these works of art( which is what they are) to exist in a vacuum. Fox don’t exist to solely defend copyright. They exist to distribute and promote these works of art as well as ostensibly, to assist in their production. Art is created as an expression of someone’s interpretation of the world and functions as a means to communicate that interpretation TO OTHER PEOPLE. You seem to think permission is only given in these instances if there’s a formal letter or some such ridiculous formality in place. Carter createD this series( because that’s what we’re talking about here) FOR AN AUDIENCE. Fox distributes that series FOR AN AUDIENCE. There is a HUGE difference between a user/consumer/ and a criminal, which is what you seem to be striving to erode. The more you argue your erroneous point, the more convinced we all are that commerciality supercedes all artistic endeavor in Fox’s case.
A live play is performed on stage…for an audience. The audience paid for a ticket to view the play. That ticket is a license – a permission slip if you will – to view the play. The ticket (permission) does NOT give anyone in the audience the right to videotape the play and post it on Youtube. If someone does, then the owner of the play (yes, I.P. is like property rights and can have an owner) can sue that person.
Did that make sense?
Once a user/consumer misappropriates someone else’s idea or work, that user/consumer becomes a thief.
Again, just because you are a user/consumer, that does not give you the right to the work (art) you are enjoying…because, simply put, it’s not YOURS. Someone else created it.
As soon as you take someone else’s idea and make it yours – by fan fiction or taking screenshots and changing things – you have just stolen someone else’s work and violated that person’s legal rights.
It’s not only ME who thinks permission is important – our society, and governments all over the world believe permission is important. As a society, we have decided that I.P. is valuable, and thus deserves legal protection. That’s why there are laws and international treaties regarding intellectual property rights.
And as far as “ridiculous formality in place” – it’s not ME who thinks that is required…the law says it is required.
Although you may have a different philosophy regarding whether I.P. should be protected or not, your opinion doesn’t matter. Laws, as currently exist, override your personal opinion.
It’s not personal – so don’t get all emotional – it’s just the way the world works. Just accept and move on.
Moreover, I am not saying (and no one would agree) that the current state of I.P. laws are perfect…especially those that involve copyrights.
This is great thinking, I love this blog post. Internet marketing is hard to control because it is such as big thing, in other words, it is a power marketing tool. Further innovations into this post will only cause losses of sales for Hollywood and other people will gain the upper hand. It is like the 1950′s when the government intervened with the split of the movie theatres from the studios. The independents rose up until the mid 1970′s when blockbuster films were created. We will see what happens in the future..keep posting, like I said this is good thinking..
Jonathan
http://moviedistributionfacts.wordpress.com/
Condescending much, Alex? Didn’t realize I was being emotional, then again you’re an expert at blowing things out of all proportion ;)
Yet again, you’ve entirely missed the point. I’m not talking about intellectual property rights-I’m an artist! I need them! I’m talking about users CONSUMING officially released material i.e enjoying it, watching it, whatever. You seem to blur the distinction between this, which I, as an artist and ALL artists RELY on in order for our work to thrive, and misappropriation of material i.e. passing off other people’s work as one’s own.
The internet and digital media is not going away Alex, you and your ilk have to face that. I.P is hopelessly outdated and Digital Copyright Law is in it’s infancy. Fox in particular, haven’t adapted to an internet audience and more importantly don’t understand the way audiences will be consuming media 3 years from now let alone the next decade.
Fans will still keep loving shows like the X-Files and making fanvideos, writing fanfiction and designing internet art and in the process, will keep the XF franchise and other franchises alive in the process. This is actually in corporations INTERESTS and the sooner they realize that, the more fruitful their coffers will be and ironically, the happier the consumer. The law as it stands actually hinders my progress as an artist. That’s a fact.
Answer me this Alex, if I go out tonight and play a gig in the city centre and play a cover of a popular song or better yet, I wake up in the morning, get into the shower and sing (tunelessly, I might add) the same song-am I a criminal? Have I just misappropriated another artist’s work or have I used the material in the way in which the original artist intended?
You ready to move on yet?!
I would also like to point out that David Duchovny has talked MANY TIMES (including last night) about watching an X-Files vidder’s video on YouTube and how it made him, for the very first time, see the X-Files from outside.
He said last night that when they all watched that clip (including Gillian), they all teared up a bit and he thought, ‘Whoa, I’ve got to deliver.’
A perfect example of how fans can, in albeit a small way, influence filmmakers.
I expect that video he watched has now been taken down by Fox. But… if that video can have that effect on people who MADE the X-Files, what kind of effect would it have on people who DIDN’T spend most of a decade absorbed in it? What effect might that video have had on someone who maybe only watched seasons 1-5 but really really loved it?
This is why Fox is wrong. They don’t understand human psychology. And that’s what marketing (and many other things) is all about.
Law does not factor in human psychology (often).
“I’m talking about users CONSUMING officially released material i.e enjoying it, watching it, whatever”
Consume all you want as long as you have permission to do so. For example, buy a ticket and watch a movie. But, if you sneak in to the theatre and watch a movie for free – that’s a crime. You did not have permission (a ticket or a license) to consume it.
Also, “whatever” is what gets people into trouble. Again, did you have permission to do the “whatever?” If not, then that’s a crime.
“Answer me this Alex, if I go out tonight and play a gig in the city centre and play a cover of a popular song …”
Public performance of a song you did not write – yeah that’s infringement.
If you made money by playing someone else’s song – shame on you.
“get into the shower and sing”
That’s not a public performance. So sing away! But not too loudly because if your neighbors can hear you that may be a crime – disturbing the peace comes to mind ;-)
“The internet and digital media is not going away Alex, you and your ilk have to face that. I.P is hopelessly outdated and Digital Copyright Law is in it’s infancy.”
Hmmm…yeah I worked with people at NCSA – you know the people who gave YOU the WWW (Mosaic). I was one of the first people to have an e-mail account (the e-mail client and all my e-mails on a floppy disk – and we used VAX). I made my first VoIP call from U.S.A. to Australia in 1992. So, yeah I do understand that the “internet” is not going away – well actually it is because we will run out of addresses and Internet 2…aww forget it.
I.P. laws are not hopelessly outdated (patents and trademark laws are in general OK). Copyright laws are a bit outdated, sure. I believe I already conceded that point as a strong possibility.
But just because you consider certain laws to be “outdated” it does not mean you can go on breaking it. Well, I guess you can break the law – but that makes you a criminal.
The reason why copyright laws may be draconian is because it is so simple and easy to steal – and there can be a lot of money that’s involved.
But in general, no matter how much of a fan you are, just because you are a fan, it does not give you the right to take someone’s work.
Look…the title of the post said “the movie marketing vs the lawyers” as if we lawyers are the evil people.
We are not.
As I said before, the lawyers are doing their job, protecting the interests of the client. It’s an apparent communication breakdown which led to Gia being targeted. Generally, most of these issues can be resolved by asking permission before hand. Or letting someone (decision maker) know what you are posting and where – again IF you have permission to do so, as Gia apparently does. I on the other hand do not – so I won’t be posting anything on my blog.
As I said before, you and I may not agree with the laws, but if you want to remain a part of this society and enjoy all the benefits, you have to live within the laws or be considered a “bad” person.
Also, just because you “created” the work, does not necessarily mean you “own” it. And in that regard, sorry David…your opinion on whether watching something on Youtube is cool or not cool is irrelevant (legally speaking). I am a big fan, really!
OK – on a different note. Gia, when are you coming for a visit?
I’m afraid you *are* part of the ”evil” populace Alex, however much you don’t want to be!
Again you’ve completely disregarded my point, to which end I believe we’ll just have to go our separate ways on this.I’m not talking about consuming material on a for-profit basis. Quite the contrary in fact. I’m certainly not talking about ticket sales either-we’re SPECIFICALLY talking about user-generated content from officially distributed and sold material akin to painting a picture of Scully, or penning a ditty about the colour of Mulder’s bloody eyes. Except in digital terms.
My hypothetical gigging scenario also has you hot and bothered-even if it’s a virtual one and again you entirely missed my point. If one covers a popular song in public, NOT for profit (IMAGINE!) will I be hauled off?No. Should I be? No.
1992 and the inception of VOIP calls is 16 years ago Alex. A LOT HAS CHANGED. Therefore the law must change and the only way that will happen is if a challenge to those laws is presented. Which is happening right now, under your nose and you are blithely disregarding it. Quite apart from the fact that what is required is an entire ontological shift in terms of creative output and it’s distribution, laws are made. to be enforced, broken and redrafted. Fact.
The creative world of 2008 bears no relation to that of 1992.
This is not, as you say a ” communication breakdown”, it’s endemic! In addition, if society was populated entirely by people like yourself, civilization wouldn’t move very far beyond the Draconian situation we find ourselves in now.
Your problem, along with the the direct subjects of this post, is that you can’t seem to get your head around the fact that artists who don’t pick up a metaphorical paintbrush before they get paid first are obviously not artists at all.
As for claiming ownership of something that you have created- refer to what I said above about I.P requiring an overhaul…;)
For the record, David Duchovny did not refer to the ‘coolness’ quotient of watching clips on YouTube. He referred to a particularly emotive fan-made video which THE ENTIRE X-FILES ALUMNI WATCHED. You’d know this if you had read the previous post correctly! They found it incredibly helpful in establishing a tone and identifying the defining characteristics of the material that specifically resonate with fans. That kind of insight is a hallmark of where new media is taking audience-driven material. It’s invaluable in helping artists reach out to fans and their respective audiences. Where before, publicity campaigns would hire psychologists in order to get to the bottom of how to market something to people, audiences can now show and tell those strategists what they want.
Brave New World. No laws have been drafted yet that are going to be able to deal with the deluge of material that will abound on the net in the years to come.
As Ed Asner said in, ” The Ghosts Who Stole Christmas” (Season 6, sadly I can’t illustrate my point because the clip has been removed from YouTube by Fox) ” Brick wall? Or BRICK WALL! ”
And I’m out.
I am “evil?” Because I follow the law and help others protect their legal rights?
Aren’t you getting a bit emotional about this?
“If one covers a popular song in public, NOT for profit (IMAGINE!) will I be hauled off? No. Should I be? No.”
Well, actually the correct answer is “YES.”
Why?
For violating someone’s Public performance rights.
You did not write the song and you did not get permission to play that song, so you trespassed on someone’s rights. It does not really matter whether you did it for money or not.
Here, I’ll make it simple so you can understand why:
It is like if I walked into your home to use the bathroom without getting your permission…or worse, I open the door to the public to let the general public come use YOUR bathroom…NOT for profit (IMAGINE!)
Now do you get it?
If I write a song, I own the rights to play that song. If I don’t give you permission to play my song to the public (for money or not), you are not allowed to do it. Because it’s not yours to play. It is MINE. MINE. MINE. MINE. NOT YOURS. NOT YOURS. YOU MAY NOT PLAY IT.
Now do you get it?
And if I play my song to the public, and I allow you to listen to it – that does not give you the right to record my concert and post it on Youtube. Why? Because I did not give you permission to do so. Did you ask me if you could record me playing my song? Did you ask if you could distribute a recording of me playing my song?
Why is this not allowed?
Because it is MINE. MINE. MINE. MINE. NOT YOURS. NOT YOURS. YOU MAY NOT RECORD OR DISTRIBUTE IT.
Now do you get it?
Even if I post a video of my own concert on my blog, I am giving you permission to watch my video on my blog. Can you take that video and post it on your blog without getting my permission? NO. Why?
Because it is MINE. MINE. MINE. MINE. NOT YOURS. NOT YOURS. YOU MAY NOT TAKE IT.
How about now? Clear yet?
I am presenting you with the law. You are arguing philosophy of how the world “should” be. I am not missing your point at all – I am dismissing it as irrelevant. Because it does not matter what you “think” the rules should be. It only matters what the laws “are.”
” Aren’t you getting a bit emotional about this?”
”It is MINE. MINE. MINE. MINE. NOT YOURS. NOT YOURS. YOU MAY NOT PLAY IT”
Em, Alex? Are you kidding me? I think you just blew a fuse there.
You also reinforce the stereotypical image of a condescending, sneering lawyer-type but that’s not surprising at all; ” Here, I’ll make it simple so you can understand why”. Heh, Alex, I understand. I am that artist.
The sheer fact that you’re so eager to continue this debate and fight your corner, defend your position, reveals that you’re insecure about I.P
IT’S BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.
THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED. I can’t actually state it more blatantly than that. It’s Draconian, it hinders an artists progress, limits their audience and curbs corporations profits.
The ridiculousness of the argument that to publicly perform someone’s popular work needs legislative permission (Elvis, Frank Sinatra, George Gershwin, Tchaikovsky…) is defended by a law that is barely enforced anymore.
” Because it does not matter what you “think” the rules should be. It only matters what the laws “are.”
Spoken like a true fascist. Why exactly did you engage in this discussion if that was all you wanted to say at the end of the day? We’re all well aware of the law. That’s what the point of the post was.
Coming on to a blog to preach to the well-aware is the height of irrelevancy and this blog ostensibly deals with new media and new media concerns. Not anachronistic legislation. The two don’t gel, the sooner you realize that, the sooner you won’t have to waste your precious time ” making it simple so I can understand why”. Although, by the sounds of it I think you get a kick out of being condescending so maybe not!
I understand the law, hypothetical situations aside. I know it and I deal with it every, bloody, day. You can recite I.P to me until you’re blue in the face and I and millions of others will still not agree with it. There are lots of laws that I do agree with but this is not one of them. Whether it’s written in stone or not Alex, it will be challenged again and again and again until it’s changed. You can retort with your ususal guff about how it’s irrelevant what I think but it’s not. I’m a citizen with a voice and a RIGHT( a law I do agrre with) to dissent.
That’ s all I have to say darling!
I’m sure you’ll come back with some rambling diatribe about how irrelevant my opinion is but in the context of this blog and society at large, it is. Everybody has a right to consume art/ an original artist’s work in whatever way they please.
It’s been simply wonderful chatting like this ! Do hope we run into each other again-hopefully not in a courtroom though! Oops!
Bye!
Hmm…I didn’t blow a fuse – the capitals were my attempt at humor.
I am sure we would have a lovely live discussion on this.
“THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED. I can’t actually state it more blatantly than that. It’s Draconian, it hinders an artists progress, limits their audience and curbs corporations profits.”
I agree that laws should be changed. I already said the laws are draconian.
But they do not “hinder” the things you say. There is a reason for draconian laws…it’s because people keep violating the laws and rights of the owners. And it’s because it is getting easier and easier to do so.
“Spoken like a true fascist. Why exactly did you engage in this discussion if that was all you wanted to say at the end of the day?”
I’m not fascist. I’m a lawyer. I believe in protecting I.P. and the value of I.P. Perhaps I wanted to educate the readers about I.P. and why it’s not OK to take someone else’s property and treat it like it’s yours. It’s called capitalism…facism has nothing to do with it. I guess we could all go back to Kings and the Church funding all works of art (and artists)…and we would only get songs, operas, and paintings all about God and his glory. Would you rather we go back to the middle ages? May be we can have more paintings of Jesus riding dinosaurs. ;-)
“Although, by the sounds of it I think you get a kick out of being condescending”
Well, I was trying to make it simple so people will understand that I.P. is like real property…if that sounded condescending to you then I cannot help that.
“I understand the law,”
Hmmm…actually I am not so sure that you do. You tend to think public performance of songs you did not write is OK. Philosophy aside, legally, you don’t have the right to do that. You can state that it should be allowable as long as no profit is gained from it – but that also depends on the definition of “profit” or “gain.” What if you become famous because of that performance? Did you gain something by using someone’s work? See it’s more complicated than simple performance for an audience to spread someone’s work.
“it will be challenged again and again and again until it’s changed.”
Really? I look forward to that. By whom I wonder.
“I’m a citizen with a voice and a RIGHT to dissent.”
Sure you are a citizen with a voice…not so sure if you have a fundamental right to dissent. I did not see that in the Bill of Rights.
If you dissent before laws are changed, guess what you become…yup…a criminal.
A proper way to change the law is via your participation in government elections and by lobbying your representatives. Bitching and complaining about how illogical the laws are on a blog won’t change anything – it is irrelevant. Use your energy constructively. Go vote.
“I’m sure you’ll come back with some rambling diatribe about how irrelevant my opinion is”
Oops…
“Everybody has a right to consume art/ an original artist’s work in whatever way they please”
Wow that sounds like anarchy. Hmmm…I guess I failed to teach you…actually that’s a NO.
It is actually up to the ARTIST as how “everybody” is allowed to consume the work. If you don’t have the ARTIST’s permission you are not allowed to do so – or you have violated the artist’s rights.
Just because you enjoy having a computer connected to the internet does not give you the right to take works of art created by others and use it anyway you want.
That is unless the laws change.
Bitching and moaning about it on a blog, however, won’t do that.
And until the laws change – with your constructive lobbing – I am sad to report that your opinion about how “everybody should be able to consume anything they want” is indeed irrelevant.
And I do try not to go to court. It’s always easier to settle things nicely.
Despite the enjoyment you derive from being condescending-it’s there in black and white Alex!
I really can’t see what end you’re striving for here. You believe I.P is a genuinely beneficial legislative construct. In some respects I agree with that. I really do. However you can’t make a blanket law to govern art and it’s consumption. It’s impossible. Art is produced by human beings who are subjective by nature. In theory, an artist who, for example, writes a song, gets a record deal and therefore signs away ownership of said song, could be walking in a park and hears someone playing his song for friends. Said artist could think, ”Wow, this is what it’s all about”. Then a record company exec could walk by, who by now ‘OWNS’ the song, and have the player arrested. Despite the fact that the ACTUAL ARTIST is not only NOT bothered by this but actively encourages it. Tell me, in what world does that make sense?
I’d like to take a moment to point out here that this anecdote, right here Alex? This actually happened. The other stuff above? FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES.
Lets cut the crap here. I.P functions mainly as defence strategy for corporations. Fact.
No true artist worth their salt would ever, EVER object to the average person performing, writing, creating work inspired by their own. We’re not talking about taking another artist’s work and passing it off as one’s own for profit or notoriety. We’re talking about using material as the original artist intended. You can’t seem to grasp that concept at all.Then again you don’t seem to have a grasp on comprehension in the main. Allow me to illustrate..(See? I’m down with the condescension buzz too)
I stated before that I.P will be challenged again and again and again until it’s changed. I now know that that strikes fear into your heart because you responded with this alarming remark,
”Really? I look forward to that. By whom I wonder.”
Volumes spoken. Yes, they will change and millions of people are lobbying for change and no they’re not just ‘bitching and moaning’ on a blog.However you’re unaware of this? Tsk, tsk Alex, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the state of play quick smart. Then again you’re also unfamiliar with the right to dissent; IT’S CALLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I guess I ”failed to teach” you..
”.. complaining on the internet about how illogical the laws are on a blog won’t change anything – it is irrelevant. Use your energy constructively. Go vote.”
I’m sorry, were you actually giving me advice there on how to change the law? Or was that just your condescension showing? I’m going with the latter seeing as you clearly would prefer it if everyone would just keep their heads down and toe the line and live in fear of ‘the man’.
Ironically then you’d be out of a job…;) Which segues nicely into this:
”Hmm…I didn’t blow a fuse – the capitals were my attempt at humor.”
Gimme a break. I’ll accuse lawyers of a lot of things but having a sense of humour is not one of them. Don’t give up your day job! Oh wait..
I can see why you try and avoid court. Your argument and the law doesn’t apply to true artists in 2008 and until it changes(gasp! take your pills, quick) I’d imagine your batting average would be rather low. I’d argue that it rarely ever has applied but there’s only so much unidirectional thinking I can take in a day..*Sigh*
I’m still unclear as to why you’re still responding to me- you evidently think I’m a potential criminal, what with my anarchic ‘philosophy’ and all, I don’t agree with you and never will and yet you persist in trying to ‘teach’ me something I in fact, already know. Nobody on this thread, let alone this entire blog agrees with you and yet…you’re still here.Plugging away, dragging out the rule book over and over. We get it Alex! YOU’RE A LAWYER. It’s your job. We just don’t agree with the law and argue for change.
I want the largest audience possible for my work and to that end I’ll use every means possible to spread the word. Unless I’m earning millions of dollars I don’t have an immediate, in-built audience but that doesn’t mean my work is any less worthy. However those ‘artists’ that make the big bucks are afraid of their life of their sales lessening and close ranks when their fortunes are dwindling. Same ol’, same ol’.
What more can you add, really, at this point? Refute everything I say? You’re right, I’m wrong?The law is the law is the law? I and everyone here won’t be swayed.
That’s why we’re here! I’m not sure why you are.
The law in this case Alex, is an ass and in the words of a much wiser man than you or I, ” people will believe what they want to believe”.
The defence rests.
Hey I’d like to see this on Seesmic. I’d love to see how Alex and Calraigh look in such a heated debate. When replies get this long it is hard to jump in.
It is hard to argue with a logic that makes sense and your blog post laid it down well, Gia. You are considered an insider by Fox and the rest of us are considered outsiders by Fox even though we are the reason the show is a success.
1) Why not have more insiders?
2) Why not sub license your work and host it on your own version of you tube or you tube partner site? All under your umbrella.
3) Why not charge a fee for every derivative work. Make money profiting from your fans instead of suspending their accounts. They’ll hate you for it but at leas you provide a way for them to express themselves.
4) Add a proviso that says any fan made video must also include an add for Fox and or it’s partners. They’ll hate you for it but again this is better than no outlet and you can forgo charging them actual money.
They will just have an ad for Nip/Tuck next to their work of art.
What I don’t understand is where are the alternatives. Certainly there must be a way Fox can profit from this. I can’t believe they not have exploited such an opportunity but instead go for the censorship route.
Also haven’t they seen the show? Don’t they understand that the show mirrors the same kind of suppression of truth that the characters and fans both seek to expose?
Sprint offers 20 bucks to the first 1,000 people to put its product in a you tube clip.
http://gizmodo.com/5019228/put-the-instinct-in-a-youtube-clip-sprint-will-give-you-20
Aren’t they stupid. They should charge people 20 dollars for the privilege to place their product in their you tube vid. C’mon Fox why write checks (to lawyers) when you can cash em. You’ll make more money than giving away free tickets in a DVD that costs about 17 dollars.(Sarcasm abounds). Talent is not limited to those who on the payroll and some of these “kids” out there know more than some. At least they know what is “happening” out there.
The truth is out there and it’s in the fans.
“Art is produced by human beings who are subjective by nature. In theory, an artist who, for example, writes a song, gets a record deal and therefore signs away ownership of said song, could be walking in a park and hears someone playing his song for friends. Said artist could think, ”Wow, this is what it’s all about”. Then a record company exec could walk by, who by now ‘OWNS’ the song, and have the player arrested. Despite the fact that the ACTUAL ARTIST is not only NOT bothered by this but actively encourages it. Tell me, in what world does that make sense?”
I don’t think you still “get it”…an artist (person A) who makes a beautiful chair (work of art) and then sells it to someone (person B). Random people come over and sits on the chair (work of art)…and the artist (person A) looks at that and thinks “wow this is what it’s all about”…then person B comes by and sees these random people sitting on HER chair…and calls the cops.
Is that such an unreasonable concept? It’s called ownership…control…property rights include right to exclude others from using that property. Work of art is property.
You keep making personal attacks on me, but all I’m doing is stating what the laws are (currently). I am not arguing what my own personal philosophy is. This is starting to be like arguing religious views. My god is better than yours! ha ha…how’s that for humor? No? Not even a smile? OK I won’t give up my day job.
This whole post started as an attack on lawyers as if somehow it is OUR fault. It isn’t The laws exist as they are because artists failed to become active and participate in government.
Let’s “cut the crap” … how many artists do you know who actually vote and participate in government?
How many people who get arrested or are charged with copyright violations vote and participate in government?
If you don’t sit at the table, you won’t get a piece of the pie.
I was trying to make THAT point…by telling you to go vote. I know way too many young people who are amazing artists and are creative beyond words…yet they don’t even know who their representatives are.
“I want the largest audience possible for my work and to that end I’ll use every means possible to spread the word. Unless I’m earning millions of dollars I don’t have an immediate, in-built audience but that doesn’t mean my work is any less worthy.”
OK that’s your right…you can do whatever you want with your work (as long as you didn’t sell them to another). See we can agree on something.
And money does not always correspond with value of work…so I am sure your works of art are very worthy. Another thing we agree on.
BUT…if you take someone else’s work…and that is what we are talking about…your own personal opinion as how that work should be treated is IRRELEVANT…because YOU don’t own it. Just like it doesn’t matter what you think I should do with my car, or house, or whatever.
I hope you agree with that point.
And as far as why I come here to post…I’ve been visiting and posting on Gia’s blog for a while now…I’m family you see. Thanks to Gia, I’ve met many of her incredibly talented (and brilliant) friends.
I also don’t like people who purport to “know” everything…when that everything is nothing but personal opinion (insert religion here).
You say your opinion is shared by millions. Well, I know that my statements are shared by millions…and they sit at the table and they make sure they get a piece of the pie.
And as far as how good I am at my job…well, I am actually pretty darn good.
Oh and that “freedom of speech” right…yeah, that’s not a blank check to say whatever you want. Government can actually control that. If you don’t know that…well…all I have to say is that your opinion of how bad my statements on law are is derivative of your lack of legal knowledge.
Oh and point of order…you rested so you can’t reply to this.
I’m always right sometimes.
…Except the case was thrown out of court, due to the fact that it was erroneous to begin with, based on your quite frankly, blatantly prejudicial statements:
”I don’t think you still “get it”…
”Is that such an unreasonable concept?”
” ”Let’s “cut the crap” … how many artists do you know who actually vote and participate in government?”
”The laws exist as they are because artists failed to become active and participate in government.”
”I also don’t like people who purport to “know” everything…when that everything is nothing but personal opinion (insert religion here).”
”Oh and that “freedom of speech” right…yeah, that’s not a blank check to say whatever you want. Government can actually control that.”
——————————————-
I’ve heard your opinion and I’m aware of the facts of the law. I think the principles upon which I.P is based are deeply flawed and outdated and that it needs to be revised.
Lawyers work to uphold that law. You are a lawyer. Therefore I disagree with you.In my utterly irrelevant, anarchic, ill-informed, governmentally ‘inactive’ opinion of course.
” ”I’m always right sometimes.”
You said it Alex.
Wow my every attempt at humor passes over your head.
“the principles upon which I.P. is based are deeply flawed and outdated”
REALLY???
The principles upon which I.P. and especially copyright is based upon is the U.S. Constitution…you know…like the freedom of expression thing you value so much?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution empowers the Federal government thusly:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
So are you saying the Constitution is outdated and deeply flawed?
Really…you should read some books on the legal evolution of copyrights (and other I.P.) before you start arguing how they are flawed and needs change.
While we are on this topic…here is some recent news.
Fifty artists in Norway recorded Prince cover songs. The recording, “Shockadelica,” had reached No. 8 on Norway’s album charts.
Under the Norway’s copyright law, if someone records and sells another’s song, that person must pay the compulsory licensing fee of about 10 cents per song.
Norway’s C+C Records distributed 5,000 of the box sets but didn’t think they had to pay the licensing fee to Prince…you know, the guy who actually wrote the songs and owns the rights to the songs.
10 cents per song….$8 per unit sold…that is all C+C Records had to pay Prince. But like “some people” they didn’t think they had to pay or get permission.
Idiots.
1) Sigh. I did indeed note your, ‘attempt’ at humour. I stress ‘attempt’…
2) Finally Alex, you’re starting to get it. I do disagree with large tracts of the Constitution. I can’t quite believe it took 7 long comments for you to absorb that fact.
3) I agree. They’re idiots. They were selling the covers for profit.
Thank you so much for that entirely irrelevant news item.
4) Em, (*awkward face*) Do you maybe want to go for a drink? I don’t even get this much attention from guys who tell me they fancy me…;)
1) My attempt at humor is better in person – I promise.
2) IMHO, the U.S. Constitution is a wonderful document. But that’s an entirely different discussion we can have, I am sure.
3) HEY! You agreed with me! You’ve made my day.
4) Drinks and more *heated” discussion??? Sounds fun. Any time and any where…as long as it’s in Minnesota, and after work – which is usually after 8 p.m. on a week day, unless I am working on a deadline then I usually can’t have drinks and only after 11 p.m. but I have to wake up at 5:30 a.m. so I cannot stay out too late (meaning 3 a.m.).
Ha! There’s hope for humanity after all…
Unfortunately, as much as I’d love to continue our ahem, ”heated” discussion, I’m an Irish, in Ireland and so sadly, despite the interesting prospect of more *ahem*, ”heated” discussion, our drinks will have to wait forever, un-drunk on a lonely stretch of Minnesotan bar.
I enjoyed this though and look forward to round 2!
P.s If you’re related (even if it’s only by marriage!) to Gia you can’t be all bad…right?!;)
Adios, until we meet again!
Well, we can always have a “drink” over the internet…I’ll grab a tall glass of Guiness here, and you can do the same in Ireland.
If you know Gia, then you can get her to give you my e-mail etc.
I’ve always wanted to visit Ireland – most of my friends growing up were Irish Americans…(capital of MN being “St. Paul” and all – yeah we have separation of church and state in the U.S. – ha!)
Now I have more reasons to visit!
Ha! Well that’s nice to hear! (Drinking Guinness as I type;))
Unfortunately I’ve never met Gia, just become accquainted with her over a shared love of the X-Files and the fact that she has now been officially crowned patron saint of X-Files fandom. We Twitter and I love this blog but y’all should come to Ireland some day soon, we know how to show people a good time here. Oh yes we do!
P.s If you’re ever near Minneapolis, say hi to Prince for me. I have a *ahem* SLIGHT crush on him. Still. I know, I know…!
Very clear and concise post. Thanks.
More and more being known for material is what is lucrative. The power is in the content’s ability to distribute ideas or information, so the idea is to generate as many viewers as possible and use the film as a vehicle to raise awareness. This can result in ridiculous overly product placement vehicles like the last Bond movie or it can lead to higher brand/product visibility while the companies sponsor clever, creative content (thus generating the production of more clever, creative content). Striking the balance seems to be the goal of the media industry at the moment. Well, the media industry that isn’t Fox.