From: Freya (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2008 - 02:46:59 PDT
Much of the recent threads on here are mired in
misconceptions of what copyright is and in ideas of
copyright as property.
Copyright is NOT property.
It is insulting to compare the ideas behined copyright
as being akin to stealing a can of coke or some
petrol. Copyrights are exactly what they sound like,
the rights to copy a work (in whole or in part!). When
you copy something illegally you aren't just stealing
off someone, you are infringing on their rights.
The idea of intelectual property is one very much tied
up in corpoations. Corporations want to OWN the ideas
and concepts and thus keep trying to shift copyright
further and further in that direction. They have
created the idea of copyright as property to this end.
They do not OWN the ideas, only the rights to
reproduce the ideas and they want to change that.
Please, please do not dumb down the idea of copyright
by talking of it in terms of property. It may seem
more easy to understand in that way given the kind of
society we presently live in but in speaking about it
in this way you are changing the whole idea of
copyright and are destroying meaning of it and it is
an idea that has been damaged enough already.
Copyright is a wonderful thing. It is a right given to
artists and other creators to try and protect them
from unscrupulous companies who just wish to exploit
them. It is the right which makes such things as gnu
and creative commons possible. It is a right that
helps protect the free flow of ideas and protects us
from the domination of ideas by the corporations (at
least to some extent)
Corporations wish to destroy copyright because they
wish to own the ideas, wholly and forever, in the way
that they might own a building or some other asset.
Please do not help them towards that goal.
love
Freya
--- Jorge Amaro <email suppressed> wrote:
> Could Bruce Conner made A Movie having that in mind?
> Could dozens of
> found footage film makers have done anything at all?
> The concept of
> property is somehow confusing for me. The idea of
> nullify the found
> footage films I love so much over a concept of
> property is weird. And
> no one will think that a videotaped event from some
> museum or
> screening will substitute the film, and i think what
> matters is that
> people see the work, isnt it for that reason people
> make them in the
> first place? If they made it over an idea of
> property they could close
> it in drawer and throw away key, that alone is the
> only option if you
> dont want to see copies of your work.
>
> j.
>
> 2008/6/11 James Cole <email suppressed>:
> >> That's like saying a
> >> postcard of the Mona Lisa is the intellectual
> property of Leonardo.
> >
> > Is that really such an absurd idea? I mean, it
> seems pretty clear
> > that, were Leonardo alive, it would be his
> property. Certainly you
> > can't be in favor of the postcard manufacturer
> being able to make
> > profits off of the Mona Lisa while Da Vinci has no
> say whatsoever.
> >
> > If it wasn't ubuweb that was using it (an
> organization which is
> > ostensibly in favor of avant-garde film), would
> people really be so
> > allowing? If ubu can show a clip recorded off of
> a monitor, then can
> > the US Army use the same clip in recruiting
> videos? Can McDonalds use
> > it to sell burgers?
> >
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
> <email suppressed>.
> >
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
> <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.