I still find it astonishingly ironic the 4 clauses found in US Copyright law infringed on Patry's original works nearly 30 years ago.
I'm with Baio on this one. No reason to take a chance when there's far too much at stake, both financially and of reputation.
As for the "standing up and defending yourself" side of the argument, great in theory, poor in execution, when our entire legal system is designed for people to take the low road (of guilt) rather than an expensive trial. Plea bargains exist in criminal courts and bribery payments in civil courts.
Great in theory, poor in application. Attribution is the entire reason why copyright exists.
No one puts value into a works other than me, for it is I who deem them valuable.
This concept is lost, especially on many artists out there, who feel it's their responsibility to place this attribution on their works.
Hence why they seem to try and control it.
Some artists are figuring out this internet thing can build this attribution for them, but it's still bogus to call it "intellectual property", as though it's a tangible product requiring a say to distribute as the artist sees fit.
It's why I hate CC licenses, which is being used as some ridiculous tool to pretend the artist has control over their works.
Attribution once had another value, back when slaves were used in early America. That didn't turn out well, either.
Fans will support what they like, whether it be sharing works with others to build an audience, or financially.
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of artists telling me what I can, and can't do, with their "property".
I've said it once before: if they don't want people sharing it and dislike it when we break their "rules", keep their works to themselves.
"Intellectual Property" is the biggest offense out there, and I find it incredulous this term is used as though it has meaning.
I can't sell a person's transformation from an idea to a canvas, word processor, song, or film. I can only do so once the transformation is turned into actual property, which I can hold, sell, trade, lend, etc.
If you want to talk about intellectually offensive uses of the digital era, start with "intellectual property" and how it's the very reason why there's a copyright law to begin with.
People always assume their ideas are protected, simply because they are transferred into tangible property, which is then wrapped in a multitude of draconian laws.
Sorry, Leigh, but you dropped the ball on this one by using the most offensive term out there.
Other than that, I concur with the position. It's rather telling people will placate these issues as though there's some reason behind why it should cost them $5 for a "24 hour rental" of a digital file which can be infinitely reproduced.
At least Blockbuster had a reason to charge that much. Not only did the industry blackmail their profits, but they only had a limited number of copies on hand, per store, so it was a perfect setup for bilking customers who didn't want to spend $20 (or more!) for the movie.
Aren't most bills passed into laws these days financially benefiting someone else?
It's par for the course. Hell, even when this country was facing an economic crisis, thanks to the housing market crash, an emergent "bailout" couldn't get passed unless it was including benefits to make someone else rich.
I hate our government. I really, really hate our government.
Perhaps I'm confused, but Haong isn't ticked off at IMDB for investigating her real age, but then turning and posting the information on her page once it was discovered to be accurate than the info currently being displayed.
Normally, I would agree with her, but in this case, I can't. IMDB is used by everyone, including businesses looking for actors, and to lie on the page is no different than lying on a resume.
While it may be true one isn't asked for their age, they most certainly are asked on their job application.
If she's been lying on these job applications, she may very well be in for more trouble than she anticipated.