Re: The Politics of the Bootleg

From: Lundgren (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jun 12 2008 - 01:53:10 PDT

And it was that right I was arguing for, so what is your point?

I think most experimental artists are more keen on protecting the integrity of their works, not bathing in money.

As I said: The US copyright law is all about money, not about art. Artists should take offence.

And when it comes to the law itself it is pretty strange. How come I have the right to copy other stuff, but not film, music or litterature? This is a very special kind of protection. Atleast here it's okay to make your own Gucci bag, or to paint the Mona Lisa, as long as you don't make money or likewise.

How come it's okay for me to make a copy of a chair from a store and give it to a guy on the street - while I can't give him a copy of a film?

This protectiong is very special, and I think that if it was the same for any protect people would take offence.

----- Original Message -----
  From: Jim Carlile
  To: email suppressed
  Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 7:12 AM
  Subject: Re: The Politics of the Bootleg

  In a message dated 6/11/2008 4:27:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, email suppressed writes:
    Do you know of any case in US that's been about abuse of the artwork itself... That is pan&scan edition, commercials on TV or likewise...?
  No, U.S. copyright law doesn't give anyone a kind of 'final cut' right. If you give someone permission to use your work, it's up to you to control it.

  The classic example is Welles with Kane, the story goes that his contract gave him perpetual control. But it wasn't the law that did it.

  Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 2008.
  __________________________________________________________________ For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.