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.

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…!

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!

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.).

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…;)

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.

“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.

”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.

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.