By that argument, why limit the term of copyright at all? Why not just let the estate (or whatever company ultimately ends up owning the copyright) keep it for eternity? After all, that house you compared copyright to never reverts back to public ownership.
> If you finally have a bestseller but die soon after.
Copyright isn't there to make sure the artist can make as much money as possible or to support their family after their deaths. Copyright is merely supposed to give you an incentive to create.
An author might invest sweat equity in creating something, but their ownership of the right to make use of it is at the expense of the public and culture at large. That's why they don't have complete and total ownership of the creation, and that's why it's not a retirement plan, even though some people depend on it as such.
> Even on a bestseller, some of those royalties may not arrive until a decade or more later.
That's more of a problem with the publishing industry than a problem with copyright.
This analogy is terrible and doesn't take into account the purpose of copyright.
Copyright isn't a retirement plan. It's not a pension.
It's a pact the government makes with creators that that says we will temporarily let you control copies of your work so that you can try to earn a living from it (although it's not required that you earn anything) because society considers that valuable.
Copying is a natural act that all people do. Copyright is a government imposed restriction on that act for the benefit of culture (not the benefit of creators). It's an incentive for you to create, not an end-of-life financial plan.
You take that money you earn off copyright and put it into a retirement plan for your family, or build your house with it, but saying it should belong to your heirs the same way a house does is damaging to culture (read the above article) and denying it to the rest of the world.
Just because some people (the lucky few whose IP is actually valuable) see it as a gravy train that doesn't stop until long after they're dead doesn't mean that why copyright exists or should exist. And sadly all the non-valuable IP has been drug along with it, making a century's worth of culture inaccessible.
If you registered a pre-1978 copyright, it would likely be in the public domain by now. Automatic copyright changed all that by retroactively extending the life of copyright beyond what it was when you registered it.
If Cannes was about the streaming business, or cable business, or broadcast business - maybe. But it's about the cinema exhibition business. If a movie isn't going to exhibit in French cinemas, why should Cannes consider it? Just because people think it's good? Most of the people that think the latest Netflix film is the best thing ever hasn't probably seen half of the Palm d'Or winners of the last 20 years to even compare the quality.
The law wasn't created by Cannes. Cannes changed their own rules to comply with the law. They simply want the competition films to receive a theatrical release. Protectionist? Yes. But it's the law that's horrible, not Cannes.
No question the French law is to blame here, and Cannes should urge a changing of the law, but they're right to deny Netflix for not wanting to comply with the law.
Netflix says, "We want our films to be on fair ground with every other filmmaker”
They are on fair ground with every other filmmaker.
All the other filmmakers (some of whom don't have cushy Netflix distribution deals) have to comply with the French law. Netflix is the one that wants to have its cake and eat it too.
But you could say the same thing about cable producers like HBO and Showtime and AMC and Hallmark. They are subscriber based just like Netflix, and should be competing with them in the home distribution market, not movie studios in the cinema distribution market, which is what Cannes is all about.
They're two different businesses, which is my whole argument. The fact that both make feature length movies doesn't mean they're the same. The audience might not see the difference because for them it's all funneled to the same viewing device and they don't see how it's all bought and paid for and how much money and effort went behind making audiences decide to watch this over that, but from a business perspective it's apples and oranges.
I think the French would argue that the law is there so that they don't have to compete with Hollywood in the marketplace. This allows French filmmakers more freedom to focus on art instead of populism. I'm not sure I entirely agree with it but that seems to be the intent.
That's a good point, although the difference is that Netflix is only giving these movies a release to be Oscar eligible and they still have a distribution deal with Netflix, where for many of those other films, this is their only release, and it's betting its whole future on getting an Oscar nomination. But yes, it's a muddy area and if Netflix is following the rules it shouldn't be an issue.
Yes, he's not speaking in common parlance. He's speaking in business parlance. Then he goes on to praise the quality of television - but everyone ignores that, and the fact that he made Band of Brothers, The Pacific, and Five Came Back for TV or that his own studio has a television division and streaming service.
> Netflix actually tried to get day and date released with its first batch of movies before the theatre owners whined about it.
Sure, but that's a different subject.
But Spielberg's comments make much more sense in the actual context of the interview. People are pulling out that one quote like he's attacking everyone's beloved Netflix and is behind the times, when in fact it's clear he knows exactly what's going on in the business and where it's headed, which is one of the things that makes him Spielberg.
> the festival is not nearly as universal as its reputation might paint it.
It was never as universal as its reputation. The films for competition have always been limited (as it is at most film festivals) but big studios, including Netflix, can still show their films outside of competition if they want the glitz and glamour and hoopla of Cannes.
I work for a film festival. None of the big budget Hollywood films that screen are part of the competition, because that would destroy the whole point of the festival, which is to recognize indie films that don't have distributors or huge marketing budgets.
Yes, the same Spielberg that produced an award-worthy show on Netflix last year.
It's not about being inferior or jealous, it's about the rules the Academy has put in place to define what's worthy of consideration.
Spielberg's not an idiot or an old man yelling at clouds. He knows the business as well as anyone. In fact he praises the quality of today television and options it offers filmmakers. People seem to think that calling it "TV movie" is demeaning, but I'm sure he doesn't mean it that way.
> “The television is greater today than it’s ever been in the history of television. There’s better writing, better directing, better performances, better stories are being told. Television is really thriving with quality and heart, but it poses a clear present danger to filmgoers.”
The guy loves the movie-going experience and wants to keep that option viable for filmmakers. Nothing wrong with that.
Perhaps instead of complaining that Netflix isn't eligible for Academy Awards, we should stop giving this one particular award so much importance. Netflix can proudly tout its Emmy wins, and maybe Emmy > Oscar.
It's not as simple as "these movies are great and therefore should be competing." Cannes tried and failed to get Netflix to comply with French law.
> For the 2017 festival, Netflix tried to get temporary permits to screen the films for less than a week in France, allowing for a day-and-date release so the films could be seen in theaters and online at the same time, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
> However, this move clashed with the French law, which mandates a 36-month delay between a movie’s theatrical release and streaming date, the New York Times reported. The rule also requires a percentage of all box office, DVD, video-on-demand, television and streaming revenue to be pooled to fund homegrown films and help finance foreign films, according to the New York Times.
> “The festival asked Netflix in vain to accept that these two films could reach the audience of French movie theaters and not only its subscribers,” according to a statement from the festival to the New York Times in 2017. “Hence the Festival regrets that no agreement has been reached.”
Maybe the law needs to be changed, but that's not on Cannes, who actually tried to get Netflix to adhere to the rules and failed.
And Netflix isn't banned from showing films, just from competition.
> Although the new rule effectively bans Netflix and other streaming services from entering their films in the competition, Fremaux said the films can still be selected to be shown at the festival.
Re:
For something to be called "corruption" it has to go against the legal system. If the legal system permits it, it's not "corrupt" but "unjust."
The U.S. isn't corrupt, it's unjust.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eternal Copyright
By that argument, why limit the term of copyright at all? Why not just let the estate (or whatever company ultimately ends up owning the copyright) keep it for eternity? After all, that house you compared copyright to never reverts back to public ownership.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eternal Copyright
> If you finally have a bestseller but die soon after.
Copyright isn't there to make sure the artist can make as much money as possible or to support their family after their deaths. Copyright is merely supposed to give you an incentive to create.
An author might invest sweat equity in creating something, but their ownership of the right to make use of it is at the expense of the public and culture at large. That's why they don't have complete and total ownership of the creation, and that's why it's not a retirement plan, even though some people depend on it as such.
> Even on a bestseller, some of those royalties may not arrive until a decade or more later.
That's more of a problem with the publishing industry than a problem with copyright.
Re: Re: Eternal Copyright
This analogy is terrible and doesn't take into account the purpose of copyright.
Copyright isn't a retirement plan. It's not a pension.
It's a pact the government makes with creators that that says we will temporarily let you control copies of your work so that you can try to earn a living from it (although it's not required that you earn anything) because society considers that valuable.
Copying is a natural act that all people do. Copyright is a government imposed restriction on that act for the benefit of culture (not the benefit of creators). It's an incentive for you to create, not an end-of-life financial plan.
You take that money you earn off copyright and put it into a retirement plan for your family, or build your house with it, but saying it should belong to your heirs the same way a house does is damaging to culture (read the above article) and denying it to the rest of the world.
Just because some people (the lucky few whose IP is actually valuable) see it as a gravy train that doesn't stop until long after they're dead doesn't mean that why copyright exists or should exist. And sadly all the non-valuable IP has been drug along with it, making a century's worth of culture inaccessible.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Eternal Copyright
If you registered a pre-1978 copyright, it would likely be in the public domain by now. Automatic copyright changed all that by retroactively extending the life of copyright beyond what it was when you registered it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The movie business is the cinema exhibition business. TV, streaming, cable, etc. are different business models.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Cannes was about the streaming business, or cable business, or broadcast business - maybe. But it's about the cinema exhibition business. If a movie isn't going to exhibit in French cinemas, why should Cannes consider it? Just because people think it's good? Most of the people that think the latest Netflix film is the best thing ever hasn't probably seen half of the Palm d'Or winners of the last 20 years to even compare the quality.
Re: Re:
Thanks. That article explains Netflix's position better.
Re: Re:
The law wasn't created by Cannes. Cannes changed their own rules to comply with the law. They simply want the competition films to receive a theatrical release. Protectionist? Yes. But it's the law that's horrible, not Cannes.
(untitled comment)
No question the French law is to blame here, and Cannes should urge a changing of the law, but they're right to deny Netflix for not wanting to comply with the law.
Netflix says, "We want our films to be on fair ground with every other filmmaker”
They are on fair ground with every other filmmaker.
All the other filmmakers (some of whom don't have cushy Netflix distribution deals) have to comply with the French law. Netflix is the one that wants to have its cake and eat it too.
Re: TV and Film what's the diff
The diff is all the people that make a living on that path to the small screen.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Old man yells at cloud
But you could say the same thing about cable producers like HBO and Showtime and AMC and Hallmark. They are subscriber based just like Netflix, and should be competing with them in the home distribution market, not movie studios in the cinema distribution market, which is what Cannes is all about.
They're two different businesses, which is my whole argument. The fact that both make feature length movies doesn't mean they're the same. The audience might not see the difference because for them it's all funneled to the same viewing device and they don't see how it's all bought and paid for and how much money and effort went behind making audiences decide to watch this over that, but from a business perspective it's apples and oranges.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Old man yells at cloud
I think the French would argue that the law is there so that they don't have to compete with Hollywood in the marketplace. This allows French filmmakers more freedom to focus on art instead of populism. I'm not sure I entirely agree with it but that seems to be the intent.
Re: An odd quote
That's a good point, although the difference is that Netflix is only giving these movies a release to be Oscar eligible and they still have a distribution deal with Netflix, where for many of those other films, this is their only release, and it's betting its whole future on getting an Oscar nomination. But yes, it's a muddy area and if Netflix is following the rules it shouldn't be an issue.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Old man yells at cloud
Yes, he's not speaking in common parlance. He's speaking in business parlance. Then he goes on to praise the quality of television - but everyone ignores that, and the fact that he made Band of Brothers, The Pacific, and Five Came Back for TV or that his own studio has a television division and streaming service.
> Netflix actually tried to get day and date released with its first batch of movies before the theatre owners whined about it.
Sure, but that's a different subject.
But Spielberg's comments make much more sense in the actual context of the interview. People are pulling out that one quote like he's attacking everyone's beloved Netflix and is behind the times, when in fact it's clear he knows exactly what's going on in the business and where it's headed, which is one of the things that makes him Spielberg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hTTvO50QTs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Old man yells at cloud
> the festival is not nearly as universal as its reputation might paint it.
It was never as universal as its reputation. The films for competition have always been limited (as it is at most film festivals) but big studios, including Netflix, can still show their films outside of competition if they want the glitz and glamour and hoopla of Cannes.
I work for a film festival. None of the big budget Hollywood films that screen are part of the competition, because that would destroy the whole point of the festival, which is to recognize indie films that don't have distributors or huge marketing budgets.
Re:
um... they've always been judged by how they're delivered.
Re: Re: Old man yells at cloud
Yes, the same Spielberg that produced an award-worthy show on Netflix last year.
It's not about being inferior or jealous, it's about the rules the Academy has put in place to define what's worthy of consideration.
Spielberg's not an idiot or an old man yelling at clouds. He knows the business as well as anyone. In fact he praises the quality of today television and options it offers filmmakers. People seem to think that calling it "TV movie" is demeaning, but I'm sure he doesn't mean it that way.
> “The television is greater today than it’s ever been in the history of television. There’s better writing, better directing, better performances, better stories are being told. Television is really thriving with quality and heart, but it poses a clear present danger to filmgoers.”
The guy loves the movie-going experience and wants to keep that option viable for filmmakers. Nothing wrong with that.
Perhaps instead of complaining that Netflix isn't eligible for Academy Awards, we should stop giving this one particular award so much importance. Netflix can proudly tout its Emmy wins, and maybe Emmy > Oscar.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-thinks-netflix-films-should-not-qualify-osca rs-1097351
Re: Re: Re: Old man yells at cloud
It's not as simple as "these movies are great and therefore should be competing." Cannes tried and failed to get Netflix to comply with French law.
> For the 2017 festival, Netflix tried to get temporary permits to screen the films for less than a week in France, allowing for a day-and-date release so the films could be seen in theaters and online at the same time, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
> However, this move clashed with the French law, which mandates a 36-month delay between a movie’s theatrical release and streaming date, the New York Times reported. The rule also requires a percentage of all box office, DVD, video-on-demand, television and streaming revenue to be pooled to fund homegrown films and help finance foreign films, according to the New York Times.
> “The festival asked Netflix in vain to accept that these two films could reach the audience of French movie theaters and not only its subscribers,” according to a statement from the festival to the New York Times in 2017. “Hence the Festival regrets that no agreement has been reached.”
Maybe the law needs to be changed, but that's not on Cannes, who actually tried to get Netflix to adhere to the rules and failed.
And Netflix isn't banned from showing films, just from competition.
> Although the new rule effectively bans Netflix and other streaming services from entering their films in the competition, Fremaux said the films can still be selected to be shown at the festival.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/26/cannes-film-festival-bans-net flix-films-from-competition-also-no-more-selfies/?utm_term=.ccac1b297946
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Old man yells at cloud
A cinema is a movie theatre. I think I did miss something? What?