 GrepLaw |
|
|
|
This site is a production of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Please email if you have questions, contributions, or ideas about improving this site.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Copyright and Artistic Freedom
|
|
|
|
posted by mpawlo
on Monday March 10, @10:18AM
from the back-to-the-roots dept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Sweden, the price of a movie ticket is about USD 8-10, depending on the movie. However, the average theatre does not profit from the stubs alone. In order to obtain sustainable revenues, theatres need to sell popcorn and candy. Some theatres tried to focus on the core cinema business and therefore outsourced the popcorn and candy business, but they started to make such losses that the popcorn stands soon moved back into the core business of the theatres.
In the March 8, 2003 print edition, the Economist reports of the new Nigerian movie Critical Assignment (page 46). Rampant piracy and shallow pockets in the audience make big features uneconomic, according to the Economist. Hence, movie producers are dependent on sponsorship from multinationals like Guinness beer brewery in order to make costly special effects and bigger movies. The content is affected accordingly, making the hero of Critical Assignment, Michael Power, a very thirsty hunk. Luckily, there is always Guinness!
Product placement is not a unique phenomenon starting in Nigeria, but it is perhaps more extreme in Critical Assignment than in the latest James Bond movie. Then again, many European moviegoers have already started to be annoyed by the in-movie marketing. Product placement has increased immensely over the last decade and the line between the artistic expression in the movie and the commercial products is getting finer with every production.
Peer-to-peer networks where users might share movies pose a threat to movie producers and movie theatres more severe than lost popcorn revenues. With widespread sharing of movies through peer-to-peer networks profits might decline for movie producers and theatres might lose some of their audience. To some extent, new technology should not be banned to serve the ‘dinosaurs’ of Hollywood, and the Hollywood giants need to adapt to the new media landscape, but an abolishment of copyright altogether may give unintended consequences for the content – that is the movies.
Copyright might ensure artistic freedom, through creating incentives for substantial investments in movies. However, if you – as a movie producer - can not enforce copyright you need to stop producing costly movies or obtain revenues from elsewhere. One way is to let Guinness sponsor your movie, but that might severely limit your artistic freedom. With copyright protection you might instead get revenues from selling stubs and getting a cut from popcorn sales. Too strict copyright rules will stifle artistic freedom, when prior works may ‘block’ new works. Hence, we need balance between protection and freedom to make incentives for the creation of new works. In the light of the U.S. Supreme Court Eldred defeat and the possible subsequent anger and frustration it is important to remember that copyright serves a purpose. Copyright creates an incentive for large-scale productions and possible means for return on investment in the intellectual property. Surely enough, producers may still limit any director’s aspirations for artistic freedom, but in other ways than Guinness would.
Without copyright all movie stars would soon be very thirsty.
Mikael Pawlo
Mikael Pawlo is an associate of the Swedish law firm Advokatfirman Lindahl. On nights and weekends he works as an editor for the leading Swedish open source and free software publication Gnuheter. He is also contributing editor of the Harvard Berkman Center publication on Internet law issues, Greplaw.org.
Please note that other Greplaw contributors might have a different take on the subject.
|
|
|
|
< CIPA Notes-based Oral Argument transcript
| Larry is Back >
| |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Copyright and Artistic Freedom
|
Login/Create an Account
| Top
| 7 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I agree with the overall idea of this argument, the current situation with the infinitely greedy RIAA and MPAA brings a few questions to mind. I, too, would like to see a small amount of copyright protection for creators over a short time period. The current scheme is essentially one of unlimited monopolies (since we will not outlive copyrights granted in our lifetime). So, here are my questions:
- If the movie theaters/producers are given full exclusive rights, will that guarantee that the public will not be on the receiving end of "thirsty hunk[s]"?
- We have heard this argument many times from the MPAA (Jack Valenti's "Boston strangler" comes to mind). Are the arguments of theaters and producers just more smoke and mirrors in a long tradition of lies to keep their stockholders happy?
- If people share movies on the net, does that mean that they are not going to the theaters? (I do not think i will ever be able to afford a 50 foot tall screen for my house!)
- Are the laws currently so restrictive that the absence of such laws would be more beneficial to society?
- Finally, the balance in law argument. Given that the RIAA, MPAA, and book publishers are arguing for the maximum privileges they can obtain from lawmakers, should the people not be looking to gain the maximum freedom from restriction possible in order to obtain the goal of a reasonable compromise?
I suppose only a dictator could answer these questions. But knowing that the RIAA, MPAA, and the publishing industry have lied to me my whole life, I find myself wondering what a world without them would be like. Maybe they are right, and it is a hellish world with no artistic expression. Maybe they are wrong, and it is a world of unimaginable progress. I think, however, that I am currently more afraid that they are wrong than that they are right.
"Anyone who doesn't quote me is paraphrasing."
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday March 12, @12:24PM (#632)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let us remember that before copyright ever existed, artists (painters, writers, sculptors, etc) lived quite well, without laws to "protect" their works. It is today, with easy access to massive copying and distribution, that "creators" worry. But a closer look to stats shows that regardless of MP3 and Napster, music sales of full albums have grown (despite music producers producing less CDs that the year before). That means that easy access to massive copying and distribution may mean a wider exposure to a wider audience, who may sample more for free, but end up also buying more (movies, music, or whatever).
Besides, I work, and get paid. I work next month and get paid again ... why does a copyrighted work have to yield payment for 70 years plus the life of the author??? Shouldn't it be enough with 10 years (per example). Today, in the age of easy access to massive copying and distribution, works can reach consumers much more quickly, therefore the protection time should be less NOT more.
And, one last point: Public Domain. If a work is not being printed, or marketed anymore, then let the Public Domain have it. Nobody is selling it, so nobody is making money out of it ... then nobody looses anything if it is given away, right?
As George Bernard Shaw once said:
"If I have an apple, and you have an apple, and we exchange apples, then you and I still have one apple. But if I have an idea, and you have an idea, and we exchange ideas, then we both have two ideas".
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
 |
Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be
lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.
- Isaac Asimov
|
 |
|
|
|
[
home |
contribute story |
older articles |
past polls |
faq |
authors |
preferences ]
|
