RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs?

RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics

Message

Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 6:36:42 PM)
quote: A brief history lesson. The modern Copyright Laws was birthed in Great Britain in 1662. In the Eighteen Hundreds most soveriegn Nations sign on to one set of copy right laws. It was not until 1989 that the US signed on to the same set of Copyright laws. So considering their age I have serious doubt about the influence of the Big Corporations. The general idea was birthed in 1662 but the modern details were probably influenced by big media owners. After all, who in Great Britain heard of a VCR in 1662? Or Napster? Those details are where I'm thinking the big dogs unleash their bite. Its not even the major issue that concerns me about big media corps, that would be the relaxing of the rules about owning too many media properties in a market (example: in Tampa, a local TV station owns one of the two major newspapers). There's some government influence there. Thanks for the history lesson. I'll freely admit I did not know that.

Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 6:49:58 PM)
quote: Anyway--with regard to the large company that bought out the small one: it wasn't so much a matter of the large company's product being "better," it was more that they were, in effect competing with the studio and buying them out put an end to that. I know you think that proves your point about the "little guy," but it was more about their wanting to be rich and famous. Nah, they chose to sell. It just seemed a bit over the top to start talking about the common man (or woman) and how the copyright laws are there to protect them when the initial topic of discussion was a TV series owned almost as an afterthought by no one involved in its creation. They weren't even the producers of the series, a smaller company called Filmation produced it. I think Time Warner has a right of first refusal or somesuch with DC comics characters and thats why they have the DVD rights to Shazam. Doesn't mean their rights evaporate, lets just be clear who is being "hurt" here. Because if it doesn't matter then why bring up writers, painters and musicians in the first place? But I learned much about copyright law from your posts and others, honed my debating skills and have food for thought. My argument didn't carry the day but if I wanted an easy time of it on this issue I would have posted on a more "liberal" site. Thank you all.

Ps103 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 7:51:59 PM)
[:)] You are a pleasant person to discuss things with, Rufas. Even when we do not agree, you are a nice guy and it is a joy to talk to you. I have enjoyed this thread. [sm=thumbsup.gif]

Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 9:27:49 PM)
Why thank you. And back at ya'. [:)]

Qtman -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 9:28:08 PM)
Me too. Rufas has not called me an idiot or a heathen once so far.[:D] Just goes to prove people can disagree and still be civil. Well at least some people can. Edited to correct a stupid typo.

Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/21/2008 9:30:12 PM)
quote: Me too. Rufas has not called me an idiot or a heathen once so far. Yeah I found that calling people idiots and heathens isn't the best way to make friends, online or otherwise. quote: Just goes to prove people can disagree and still be civil. Vigorous debate is a good thing, personal attacks are not. And again thanks for the info on copyright law. I do teach history so it interests me greatly.

SteveSund -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/22/2008 9:38:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rufas2000 Nah, they chose to sell. It just seemed a bit over the top to start talking about the common man (or woman) and how the copyright laws are there to protect them when the initial topic of discussion was a TV series owned almost as an afterthought by no one involved in its creation. They weren't even the producers of the series, a smaller company called Filmation produced it. I think Time Warner has a right of first refusal or somesuch with DC comics characters and thats why they have the DVD rights to Shazam. Doesn't mean their rights evaporate, lets just be clear who is being "hurt" here. Because if it doesn't matter then why bring up writers, painters and musicians in the first place? The artists behind the series made this deal. I don't know the nature of the deal, but it is quite possible that they were compensated very well (or not). OTOH, George Lucas made a great deal when it came to licensing and copyright in regards to Star Wars, which was by no means a guaranteed success. I just don't see how your notion of certain works belonging to the 'people' would benefit the artists any more than the current laws. Copyright laws benefit the owner of the copyright. There is nothing in the law that makes it easy for the big corporations to get these rights.

Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/22/2008 10:16:50 PM)
quote: Copyright laws benefit the owner of the copyright. There is nothing in the law that makes it easy for the big corporations to get these rights. True enough but big corporations have a much bigger say than the average painter, writer or musician in adjusting the copyright laws to benefit them. If it was just about the "little guy" I don't think we would have copyright laws. Our government (and I suspect most governments) respond to organizations with great wealth and power or to huge blocks of voters. The "little guy" artists have neither the wealth nor the numbers to affect change. Fortunately they are offered copyright protection because big media companies benefit from those same laws. Last time, my point is that the copyright law is said to be a just law because it was created to protect "little guys". I disagree on why the law was created. Its an important point because it has been discussed whether copyright laws are "just" and bringing the "little guy" into it creates an emotional connection. Problem is that stealing any works of independent artists ("little guys") was never considered. I know it sounds anti-government and its not meant to but thats the way I see it. At least in America (and other democracies / republics etc.) the voters can affect change if they "shout" loud enough. It seems a great number of people concur with me (about the way our government works, not necessarily copyright laws) because McCain has won and Obama will most likely win their party's Presidential nominations based in large part on platforms that feature change from the politics as usual in DC. Its clear that the American people feel their government doesn't work for them. The real ironic thing is that both of these candidates who are going to create change are currently working as Senators (one for over 20 years), about the most DC inside position you can get. But I digress. [:D]

Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/22/2008 10:30:08 PM)
quote: I just don't see how your notion of certain works belonging to the 'people' would benefit the artists any more than the current laws. More people involved with the creation would get paid when those works are released on DVD or whatever. Illegal DVDs never entered the picture in my "vision" of a revised copyright law. My vision would allow copyrights to be made available to other companies with compensation to the original owner. Its just an idea skeleton and I do have some details in my mind but I haven't put them all together. I'm not saying its the greatest idea in the world but it was never about allowing bootleggers fre reign but I was thinking about public domain a bit. Anyway not very important except to answer your point and show what I was thinking (and not thinking).

Strider33 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/23/2008 6:53:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Qtman A brief history lesson. The modern Copyright Laws was birthed in Great Britain in 1662. In the Eighteen Hundreds most soveriegn Nations sign on to one set of copy right laws. It was not until 1989 that the US signed on to the same set of Copyright laws. So considering their age I have serious doubt about the influence of the Big Corporations. Thanks for making this point. Most of us, myself included, have been oversimplifying this discussion. Your comment helps. Having said that, I think one could carry the idea that "corporations are evil" back to the time frame of 1662. The Hudson Bay company comes to mind. They dealt with beaver pelts more than intellectual property, but the concept is the same. As for me, I attribute the evil that corporations do to people who act as agents for the corporation. One could say the same thing about the good that corporations do. The ultimate source of that evil is the prince of this earth. I think that corporations and powerful individuals have had an influence on the direction of copyright laws during the age of information. And that influence has impacted the fairness of those laws. But I think that's it's in the nature of commerce, rather than in the copyright laws, that the abuses other responders have been pointing at have arisen. The big complaint is that once an author or performer sells the rights, that person no longer has the rights that he sold. Reminds me of Esau. The solution to that is simple: don't sell the rights. But that means you need some other way of staying afloat until you make it big. Isn't that why the Beatles created their own record label? Of course, they had already sold the rights to their early work, but at least they were able to stop their losses. Lets bring the conversation full circle. In what way does a person who makes a bootleg DVD of a movie help the cause of the poor struggling artists? The justification was that the powers that be have decided not to bring it out in DVD format, so it's valid to sidestep the laws that forbids making that bootleg copy. Is this really right?

Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/23/2008 7:11:06 AM)
quote: In what way does a person who makes a bootleg DVD of a movie help the cause of the poor struggling artists? It doesn't really help but it doesn't really hurt them in the context of what I was talking about, which was my point. Also, bootleg sales show demand and the copyright holders may decide to release official versions. Most fans will buy those because they'll be more professional, have special features and be remastered from the original footage instead of taped off someone's VCR and run through a computer clean-up program (if that). In the expanded liner notes for Deep Purple's "Made in Japan", one of the reasons for making it was to "dry up the market" for bootlegs.

SteveSund -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/24/2008 3:47:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rufas2000 quote: Copyright laws benefit the owner of the copyright. There is nothing in the law that makes it easy for the big corporations to get these rights. True enough but big corporations have a much bigger say than the average painter, writer or musician in adjusting the copyright laws to benefit them. If it was just about the "little guy" I don't think we would have copyright laws. Our government (and I suspect most governments) respond to organizations with great wealth and power or to huge blocks of voters. The "little guy" artists have neither the wealth nor the numbers to affect change. Fortunately they are offered copyright protection because big media companies benefit from those same laws. I will admit that I am ignorant of the finer points of copyright laws, so could you point out what part of the US Code gives a benefit that is only available to large corporations? quote: My vision would allow copyrights to be made available to other companies with compensation to the original owner. How? What if the copyright holder didn't want to release it? How do you determine fair compensation? quote: Last time, my point is that the copyright law is said to be a just law because it was created to protect "little guys". Who says this? I think it is a just law because it benefits the copyright holder. If an artist makes a deal with a corporation that includes giving them certain rights, then that is their choice. They could just raise the capital on their own and avoid this, but that isn't always realistic. There is nothing in any of the copyright laws that force a person or even encourage a person to make this kind of deal.

Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/24/2008 4:31:56 PM)
quote: Who says this? I think it is a just law because it benefits the copyright holder. Second page I think. Someone said copyright laws were created to protect "little guy" artists. Not true, our government creates law to satisfy lobbyists not to protect little people (unless there are enough of them to affect an election). Copyright holders more often than not tend to be bigger companies so it benefits them more. Just like across the board tax cuts benefit the rich more, at least in terms of total dollars. Just the way it works. quote: I will admit that I am ignorant of the finer points of copyright laws, so could you point out what part of the US Code gives a benefit that is only available to large corporations? The response doesn't match the quote you used. I specifically said everyone benefits (I suspect not equally though but I don't know for sure) but the government would not be intervening in intellectual property rights law (or any law) unless it involves large companies or groups with lots of money or huge amounts of voters. The protection "little guys" get is incidental, not the intent of the law as some have stated. That is my bone of contention: the intent not the effect. The easy answer would simply be asking who can afford the better attorneys? [;)] We may have to obey our government and I can accept that. The Romans were no treat and Paul said to obey the law with them in charge. America is better than that (just the fact that legally everyone has the same rights attests to that) but its a dangerous idea to think that our government as an entity* is ever acting in the best interests of the "common folk". *Note the word entity, I understand that our government has some well meaning people within it. Some even are able to truly work on behalf of the people and not just the powerful. But organizations take on a personality of their own and in total our government is not looking out for us. The only reason I say any of this is because I think people have misunderstood my point.

Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/24/2008 4:35:11 PM)
quote: that is why the laws became enacted to protect artists like me from people, who think like you, who think it is okay to steal artists(writers,painters,singers, any owner of a work) work and sell it. This is the quote I've been responding to. The bold part is the key point of contention.

LoyalFriend -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/24/2008 10:08:08 PM)
Is breaking copyright laws ethical? NO. Is breaking the law right? NO. Both are wrong to do.

Strider33 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/25/2008 8:09:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rufas2000 quote: that is why the laws became enacted to protect artists like me from people, who think like you, who think it is okay to steal artists(writers,painters,singers, any owner of a work) work and sell it. This is the quote I've been responding to. The bold part is the key point of contention. I would suggest that the quote is correct, if you consider the purpose behind the British copyright laws of 1662, or the laws made in the US following the adoption of the US constitution of 1787. I'd also suggest that lawmakers of the eighteenth and nineteenth century were generally blind to the growing influence andpower of corporations. You and some other responders have suggested that the laws of today are pursuant to the interests of the corporations or, by extension, greedy people of power and influence. There's some merit to that claim. Nonetheless, I think that the copyright laws still do protect authors and artists, to some limited degree. And undermining those laws does, to some limited degree, undermine the legitimate rights of creative people. And I think that justifying making bootleg copies based on the idea that nobody gets hurt is rationalizing bad behavior. I'd really love to hear some informed opinion on the subject of whether a DVD made from legitimately obtained material such as broadcast shows, and using that DVD for private viewing, is really against the law, or is really fair use. This is about to become more relevant next year. The broadcast standards are switching from analog to digital. That might mean that one could make a high quality recording of over-the-air material, directly onto DVD. If that's fair use, a lot of our debate will become moot.

Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/25/2008 11:10:32 AM)
quote: I would suggest that the quote is correct, if you consider the purpose behind the British copyright laws of 1662, or the laws made in the US following the adoption of the US constitution of 1787. Good post. This statement I would respond to by saying that its the details on enforcement where corporations wield their influence, not the original idea. Technology has grown by leaps and bonds. I assumed the poster was talking about the current copyright laws and not the British ones of 1662 which did not even consider DVDs. And DVDs are what is up for discussion. quote: And I think that justifying making bootleg copies based on the idea that nobody gets hurt is rationalizing bad behavior. I agree but lets discuss who is really getting hurt and how bad (or not) in the specific case I mentioned, not just say you're killing the "little guy" (I'm beginning to hate that term) to bolster the argument. I do understand its a slippery slope and if we allow some things (bootleg DVDs to be made where the rights are owned by large companies) then it may trickle down to an erosion of the protection the "independent" artists, writers and songwriters enjoy. But that is what needs to be said, not this: quote: I have written those books...ME...from my own hand and it was not easy with life happening, bills, kids, school, work....it is not right for anyone to take someone else's work and distribute it as they please...that is why the laws became enacted to protect artists like me from people, who think like you, who think it is okay to steal artists(writers,painters,singers, any owner of a work) work and sell it. And it is even worse if one is a believer because judgment begins first in the house of God. So please think of us, the artists and do the right thing. I never proposed obtaining bootleg stuff from a small independent writer, neither did Mcfatty (whom the post was addressed to). It could be argued that buying bootlegged copies of "Shazam" (or any out of print TV series)can only benefit the writers, actors and other creative talents that put the show together. Don't think the big studios are unaware of the bootleg market and if it sells well on the black market it is more likely it may come out legitimately. This would (depending on the deal they had) provide money for those artists. Let me be clear: that doesn't making buying or selling bootlegs OK, I'm just saying that I did think of the creative people and I would have never considered it if they were being hurt. I think it unlikely there is any potential injury to those people in the specific case I presented. But I know it doesn't justify breaking the law. If I'm wrong fine but judge what I said and don't engage in hyperbole. Once again let me commend you and all (or at least most) of the responders. We have had a very mature discussion here. I know I've learned stuff and have been provided food for thought.

SteveSund -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/25/2008 9:04:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rufas2000 quote: I will admit that I am ignorant of the finer points of copyright laws, so could you point out what part of the US Code gives a benefit that is only available to large corporations? The response doesn't match the quote you used. I specifically said everyone benefits (I suspect not equally though but I don't know for sure) but the government would not be intervening in intellectual property rights law (or any law) unless it involves large companies or groups with lots of money or huge amounts of voters. The protection "little guys" get is incidental, not the intent of the law as some have stated. That is my bone of contention: the intent not the effect. You claim the modern copyright laws benefit corporations over the 'little guy'. I'd like to know what part of the US Code dealing with copyright makes this so. The fact that corporations can afford better lawyers has nothing to do with the justness of copyright law, IMO. quote: Some even are able to truly work on behalf of the people and not just the powerful. I am very skeptical of any government official that says they are doing what they are doing for the people or the 'little guy'. You will never make laws that make everyone happy and frankly, I have yet to see how your copyright laws would benefit the 'people.'

Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/25/2008 10:36:40 PM)
quote: I am very skeptical of any government official that says they are doing what they are doing for the people or the 'little guy'. You will never make laws that make everyone happy and frankly, I have yet to see how your copyright laws would benefit the 'people.' More of their favorite series would be on DVD. [:)] It wouldn't be free day for bootleggers. Copyrights that are sat on would be auctioned off with the proceeds going to the owner of the copyright. Part of the deal would be that the company that won the rights would have to honor any deals with the cast and crew as far as compensation for DVD sales. A company that did not want the "property" auctioned off would pay a renewal fee every ten years (or so). Those that can't afford the renewal fee could fill out a form to renew without the fee. Don't ask me what the fee should be as quite frankly I haven't a clue. But I am presenting an idea, not enacting it. I could research it if I were enacting it. The auction part allows the copyright holder to get the best deal for the rights (there would be a minimum based on industry standards, again I'm not sure what they are). Since copyrights do expire I am simply reducing the amount of time until potential expiration. The copyright holder gets money (but admittedly this won't "benefit" that party but its not a grevious injury either), the cast and crew get a payday (if they would get one anyway, and they could perhaps get a better deal by actively participating in the project) and the people benefit by having more options in the marketplace. The only people who won't benefit (or at least stay status quo) are the bootleggers and quite frankly that's a good thing. This law would be a big step in putting bootleggers out of business, at least the ones that deal in DVDs. Unavailable series are a big market for bootleggers. They could still do movies before the official DVD release I suppose but I imagine that market isn't as good. People know the DVD for any modern movie will come but the same can't be said for vintage TV series. People get impatient and order them from bootleg sites. Doesn't make it right but thats the reality. So again if more of these series come out on DVD this would hurt the bootleggers. Not saying its a great idea but it isn't the end of the world either or horribly immoral either. I forsee someone saying what if the person can't afford the fee and don't want to release the copyright. I would point to my provision to have the fee waived if a person can display that paying the fee would create a financial hardship.

Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/25/2008 10:46:30 PM)
quote: You will never make laws that make everyone happy Doesn't mean we shouldn't expect them to try instead of saying forget it we'll just take special interest money and do what they want. This is a general point and not really related to the topic at hand. Just seems like we should expect more out of our government.

SteveSund -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/27/2008 7:36:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rufas2000 Since copyrights do expire I am simply reducing the amount of time until potential expiration. This doesn't seem like a bad idea and I could get behind it once I heard from all sides in the debate, such as artists, producers, etc. quote: Just seems like we should expect more out of our government. If we could get people to agree on what we should expect, then this may work. Personally, I am leery of some governmental solutions, but that is whole other topic.

Rufas2000 -> RE: Ethics of bootleg (otherwise unavailable) DVDs? (5/27/2008 11:33:12 AM)
quote: This doesn't seem like a bad idea and I could get behind it once I heard from all sides in the debate, such as artists, producers, etc. Thanks and I agree on the necessity of getting the point of view of all sides. That would also include the big corporations I hate so much (not true but you couldn't tell it from, this thread [:D]) and the people in the copyright office who would have to administer it. The government has to be involved in copyright enforcement any way you look at it but if it involves a steep increase in funding and/or the burecratic beast then perhaps its not worth it. quote: Personally, I am leery of some governmental solutions, but that is whole other topic. I agree but this is one issue the government already administers, in my plan they are just doing it a somewhat different way.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI