Yet another sad, disturbing and pathetic example of big media squashing free expression.
Hollywood simply can't handle today or the future.
Gotta love the HDMI "Standard" -- lots of way for content companies to goof around with access.
This is an excellent post with good, solid data, but BIG MEDIA (Hollywood) will say that user-generated content is not all that good... of course, I disagree. UGC can be good, and the main thing is that ANYONE can create today.
YouTube alone levels many playing fields, but still, Hollywood dislikes anything other than what it creates. Of course Hollywood gave us such gems as "Sucker Punch" and "Dude, Where's My Car?" -- such awesome stuff that deserves 95 years of "protection."
Looking at this set of exceptions it brings up a potentially interesting way to loosen the grip of our US Copyright system. Basically allowing non-commercial uses of works is a gigantic move. of course, we would need to spell out what that means, but the concept is amazing. Imagine applying the same fair use right to copy a legally purchased CD, turning them into MP3's or whatever... imagine that being applied to Blu-ray content, to material you have on your DVR, etc.
I think at the core of this type of idea is that copyright holders, in the future, may not be able to rely on monetizing EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION of their material... like it or not.
This is yet another case of IP law out of control. In theory, would it help the comic publisher to simply re-name the characters (I am not familiar with the comic series)? How about using "Joe Cartier" -- probably TOO SIMILAR.
I can see this very thing happen decades from now when Marvel character's stories begin to enter the public domain... Disney will use every trick in the book, including trademark, to kill off attempts at using their characters.
I don't think we are going to see this guy's direction change... there's too much money on the table. It's sad, but it's true.
Let's also look at the possibility that these players may have signed away their likeness by agreeing to some sort of weird contract. It's idiotic to call this identity theft but it's not idiotic to think that if the player DID NOT agree to their likeness being used, they might have a case.
The right of publicity is a strange law, and I sort of understand it in terms of living people wanting to protect themselves from corporations using their likeness w/o consent... WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR PICTURE TO BE ON A BOX OF WHEATIES w/o being paid, or at least being asked? Where the law falls apart for me is right of publicity and dead people. The estate of James Dean racks up a lot of money every year from a really crackpot concept that the likeness of a dead celebrity can be "PROTECTED" and licensed. This is totally stupid, and it needs to end. I should be able to print tee shirts with James Dean's face on it all day and not be threatened with a lawsuit.
Well, at least they are speeding up their eventual demise. I have zero sympathy for any of them.
This is our system at work... love it, hate, whatever.
By not being able to REDUCE the duration of copyright, it basically makes this entire situation one sided. Of course, that's what Hollywood and the other proponents of PERPETUAL copyright terms want.
You have to wonder, how did it get to this point? Sickening.
As usual, Mike gets it right.
This is unbelievable. We live in a twisted world.
The duration of copyright is not just an issue in the UK, it's an issue worldwide.
I guess it's easier for companies to sue or threaten legal action than to actually innovate. At some point, this has to end. How long does a technology/software patent last?
I guess it's easier for companies to sue or threaten legal action than to actually innovate. At some point, this has to end. How long does a technology/software patent last?
This is a bad way to handle this sort of issue. The comment issue alone pretty much destroys the argument. Name calling is also fairly pathetic.
At some point this type of legislation efforts need to end. What a waste of time.
Funny...
Yes, I am sure Pallante is really worried about books. Books existed before our moronic copyright system was instituted, and they will ALWAYS exist in multiple ways and formats. You DO NOT need copyright to have books.