I did say so in the post, and it says "iPhone case" and "your iPhone" many, many times on the Kickstarter page. As an Android user I understand your frustration, but do you understand why a small manufacturer crowdfunding a brand new product can't immediately offer it in a wide variety of models? And either way, don't take it out on me, or pretend they are being deceptive when the word "iPhone" shows up on their page 25 times AND there's a question & answer in the FAQ specifically about other phones.
You're right, I was distracted by the numbers in the campaign. Though, there are still a lot of projects for which the amounts while surmountable would still be significant (keeping in mind also that if you end up needing to make changes, you probably have to pay the fee multiple times - though I admit I'm just guessing that, maybe UK bureaucracies are friendlier...) At least this filmmaker clearly takes issue with it.
On the other subject: as far as I understand it, the BBFC is not actually a government body - it's an organization founded by film studios, much like the MPAA/CARA. The key difference is that in the UK, there are actually laws that prevent or limit the sale/screening of unrated movies, and which designate the BBFC as the ratings authority, but the government doesn't actually control the board — whereas in the US, film ratings are "voluntary" but there's an oligopoly of cinemas and retail stores that all play along and making selling an unrated film essentially impossible.
The result for the filmmaker and the public is pretty much the same in both cases — though I'm not surprised to learn that the BBFC may be somewhat less subservient to industry whims than CARA. I'd also be curious to know what it's like interacting with them, as one of the biggest problems with the MPAA ratings is the opaque process that gives filmmakers few hints about how to get the rating they want.
Well, I think it's largely about calling attention to the fee structure, and the general problems with the rule in principle.
If you've gotta have censors, I suppose it's best to have thoughtful, measured, reasonable censors — but there's still a bigger argument for not having them at all. Plus, when you're forced to pay the censors by the minute, it's a bit galling, and it unfairly punishes small filmmakers (a few thousand pounds is nothing to a major studio picture, but could easily represent a double-digit percentage of an indy's entire budget).
Re: Thanks. My wallet and I appreciate Google Books
It never ceases to amaze me when people contort themselves into absurdity just to reject an objectively amazing piece of technology and progress.
"What's that you say? All the wealth of human knowledge at my fingertips, made searchable and mineable and accessible all around the globe? A staggering and transcendent information revolution that would have made all the great minds of history weep in joy at its beauty and utility? THIS WILL NOT STAND!"
(Also worth pointing out: games have moved far, far beyond "shoot em up games" in the past decade. Some of the prime candidates for VR gaming are immersive narrative experiences like Dear Esther, Gone Home, The Stanley Parable and Amnesia.)
That's true, but I suspect you are fully aware what I mean when I refer to the region of the Turkish Straits as the link between Europe and Asia, as it's been referred to as that for some twenty-plus centuries...
Can you provide a real-world example of this whole "customer service" argument that you keep pushing? Because it sounds to me like nonsense. Scratch that, it is nonsense. I can't think of a single situation that relates to what you're saying, or any meaningful way in which copyright would effect it. Give it up, it's a terrible argument and it's not convincing anyone.
Cover bands? Nice deflection, but what we're talking about is someone ripping off the Beatles and selling recorded versions for profit. You're saying as long as the masses are ok with that, then tough shit for the Beatles.
You brought it up dude. I turned it into a realistic example of something that actually happens - you, meanwhile, only have absurd hypotheticals to support your argument.
Believe me, it's very clear I've thought this through far more than you, because you just get angry and stop thinking immediately. To answer your question in your silly hypothetical: yup, I have no problem with that, and "tough shit" (not actually that tough or shitty) for the Beatles.
It's not sociopathic, it's a different and much more nuanced understanding of how culture works and has worked for centuries than you seem capable of grasping. And it's a view that will inevitably triumph - that already does, as unflagging piracy and sharing demonstrates - despite all your whining and flailing.
That would mean I could just rip off Beatles songs all day long- as long as "lots of people enjoy and are moved by" it.
Sure! More power to you. Many cover bands have had happy, long careers as local performers doing exactly that. Of course, the number of venues able/willing to accommodate such bands has been shrinking as the copyright collection societies have have been boosting their fees by hundreds or thousands of per cent... Hurray, another victory for copyright!
Thus it's natural that they would be in control for the whole lifetime of the product
No, it's not. It is not in any way natural. There is no physical property of the universe or biological property of human beings that even makes it possible. Information is not a physical thing, and once it exists there is no way to prevent its replication — except by the creation of artificial strictures such as copyright, which require the consensus of the rest of the world outside the creator. The time spent creating the work has absolutely no bearing in this equation. Nor does it even going in the opposite direction in the world of copyright: the copyright on a drawing made in 5 minutes is just as strong as the copyright on a novel written over 10 years — are you arguing that should be different?
You are using the word "natural" but what you actually mean is "my personal subjective moral assessment of the situation, and the assumptions I'm used to based on very recent and young artistic business models that happened to exist in the era I was born".
Art needs to disappear eventually, to give way for new artists to get their products to the market. Only way to do that, is if everyone followed the copyright rules, and stop distributing illegal works. Once that happens, market will be full of gaps in art distribution, and new artists can utilize those gaps to get their products to the market. Publishing contracts will require that author do not use other channels for distributing the work, and once publisher stops distributing it, the work will disappear from the public, giving free slots for the next artist...
Not to put too fine a point on it, but: you're a fucking lunatic.
Do you honestly believe what you just said? Honestly? Because it's one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. You're advocating for forgotten art and lost history on the basis that our rich, deep and expansive culture somehow holds back the creation of new art... WHAT?
Let's take a clear example that even appears to work in your favour: Shakespeare. I have talked to people in the theatre world who think that the overwhelming favoritism towards Shakespeare in the high-end theatre scene was marginalizing newer, younger work - so do you know what they did? They wrote new plays, opened new theatres, broadened their horizons; the started creating remixes and reimaginings and parodies and critiques of Shakespeare; they sought out and found whole new artistic voices for themselves by actively trying to reject the established ideas; they dug up other historical works from other places and times and started exposing audiences to those; they kickstarted what you might call a modern theatre renaissance — all while still enjoying and engaging with Shakespeare for his undeniable value as well.
What sort of perverse, passionless existence do you lead that you think the world would be better off having forgotten the works of Shakespeare or anything else from history? We as a species and a culture are blessed and enlivened by the fact that we still have the epics of Homer, the plays of Aeschylus, the saga of Beowulf, the lewd poems of the Canterbury Tales, the popular plays of Shakespeare, the novels of Dickens, the films of the early 20th century greats... And that's just one of countless rich cultural veins that connect us to each other and our past.
But I suppose in your world, things like the burning of the Library at Alexandria, or the 1937 Fox Films vault fire, or the destruction of antiquities by ISIS, are all net positives for humanity. Wow.
There's well known fallacy among people who don't like strong IP protections: "more popularity" == "better".
There is? Because I've never heard it. Yes, popular acclaim of a work is something that we put forth to demonstrate that the work has value, and that people would be deprived if it was blocked off, but I've never heard anyone claim that more popularity equals better art. For one thing, there are multiple factors in popularity, such as entertainment value (which is related to but distinct from artistic value). More importantly, what does that have to do with anything?
There could be many reasons why authors refuse to give permission to copy their work. One of them is that they don't want more popularity.
And why, praytell, should they have that right? They of course have the right to not release their work at all - which is an excellent strategy if you don't want it to be popular. But once they've released it, they have no natural control over it whatsoever, and why should they?
You seem to think that copyright is an innate facet of humanity, whereas art is some arbitrary thing we invented. You seem to take it as a given that copyright is immutable and correct, and the first concern of artists should be to contort their art to fit its almighty guidelines.
Dude, your entire universe is backwards. The exact opposite is true. Art is fundamental, copyright is an option. If an amazing piece of art that lots of people enjoy and are moved by is in violation of copyright, that's evidence that copyright has failed, not that the art has.
Re: Re: Re: So you're saying the Google and Microsoft versions are purest altruism, not at all similar?
As I read it, the whole point of those examples was to highlight the fact that "Facebook or nothing" is a false dichotomy and there's a bigger conversation to be had about the best model for getting broadband to the developing world - not to claim that Google and Microsoft are necessarily altruistic or correct in their approach.