Hollywood muscles Canada

[Charles Anthony]

How is that different from the court determining a property boundary dispute?

Or..someone breaks into my house. ? They too are taken care of at tax payer costs

In principle, they are the same despite the fact that you can hire your own security company who can do a much better job than waiting for the cops to assist you in your right to self-defence.

In practice, they are each enforced VERY differently and RARELY enforced equally.

[guyser]

In principle, they are the same despite the fact that you can hire your own security company who can do a much better job than waiting for the cops to assist you in your right to self-defence.

In practice, they are each enforced VERY differently and RARELY enforced equally.

So does it follow then that you feel all laws should be fought by the individual or entity ?

[Charles Anthony]

So does it follow then that you feel all laws should be fought by the individual or entity ?

Indirectly.

I believe that no individual should be forced to pay for anybody else's law.

Is that not what the Hollywood is trying to do to Canadians?

[guyser]

Indirectly.

I believe that no individual should be forced to pay for anybody else's law.

Then what is left....anarchy? And if so, how does society remain intact or obtain justice.

Is that not what the Hollywood is trying to do to Canadians?

No, not that I can recall from the OP. They were lobbying to have Canada amend the laws applicable.

[Charles Anthony]

Then what is left....anarchy? And if so, how does society remain intact or obtain justice.

You can call it anarchy. I call it a free market.

The profit motive will keep society intact and let you obtain the justice you can afford.

Is that not what the Hollywood is trying to do to Canadians?

No, not that I can recall from the OP. They were lobbying to have Canada amend the laws applicable.

The distinction is morally slight.

[guyser]

Then what is left....anarchy? And if so, how does society remain intact or obtain justice.

You can call it anarchy. I call it a free market.

The profit motive will keep society intact and let you obtain the justice you can afford.

How does this protect the poor and downtrodden amongst us. ( I actually wrote downtrodden? )

Would your idea of free market mean bigger is better , thus relegating equality in the eyes of the law moot?

[blueblood]

The injustice is that little old Joe who might not even know how to read (let alone care to entertain himself by staring at paper) is forced to pay taxes to defend your right to make money out of thin air.

This is the beef that I have. Why do we pick and choose which industries get to make money out of thin air?

Subjecting copyright laws to the free market will ensure cheaper products for consumers, which in my opinion helps the poor and downtrodden directly.

I'll make Gosthacked a deal, if he can make grain and canola grow 50+ bushels an acre in a field without lifting a finger I will stand corrected. It's pretty tough for nature to get them out of the bin/seed bag.

Making money out of thin air is completely proposterous. It should be a one time sale, not gouging the consumers to pay out royalties, if one industry can get away with this, then they all should.

[Charles Anthony]

How does this protect the poor and downtrodden amongst us. ( I actually wrote downtrodden? )

Protect the poor from what exactly? crime? or having to subsidize other people's "intellectual property"?

Would your idea of free market mean bigger is better , thus relegating equality in the eyes of the law moot?

Saying "bigger is better" is slightly ambiguous. Do you mean rich people get better treatment and poor people get worse treatment?

I want you to explain what you mean by "equality in the eyes of the law" too. Do you mean, for instance, how O.J.Simpson gets the same treatment as most other males in America who share his ethnicity?

Please forgive my sarcasm but I am very serious.

Today, poor people get ZERO protection from the law and rich people get the law they can afford. The rest get subsidized one-law-fits-all dished out by civil servants who have no incentive to provide good service and practically non-existent accountability. Be careful of what you use as a baseline.

[guyser]

I edited out a part asking you to ignore what in some cases (OJ) is not equal treatment.I thought perhaps you would assume that. But no problem.

Saying "bigger is better" is slightly ambiguous. Do you mean rich people get better treatment and poor people get worse treatment?

No, what I meant was might makes right. The bigger you are the more you can grab. As for rich people get better treatment, I am not of the opinion that is true. Yes they tend to get better verdicts due to better vigilance in the case from their lawyers, but for many crimes they have to go through exactly what others do. Once they reach the courthouse, things can change.

I want you to explain what you mean by "equality in the eyes of the law" too. Do you mean, for instance, how O.J.Simpson gets the same treatment as most other males in America who share his ethnicity?

We are all equal under the law. Yes I know this is not absolute in all eyes as there appears to be many instances where this is simply not true. OJ was treated pretty much the same after he was chased down by the police fleeing at 3mph on the highway.(save for the trip home for new clothes) He did have to go to jail like anyone else did, pre-trial.

What was no different was a man with money, got the best defense he could find. He was treated as anyone else who has that sort of defense team. He was subject to a fair trial . What was not fair was putting those idiots Marcia and Christopher in charge of the prosecution. Frankly OJ got the only verdict that could be applied in my estimation. Was he guilty..?...oh yeah I think so. But a good lawyer NEVER asks a question he does not already know the answer too. And the prosecution forgot that. (is gloves..ie path of blood samples)

Please forgive my sarcasm but I am very serious.

Today, poor people get ZERO protection from the law and rich people get the law they can afford. The rest get subsidized one-law-fits-all dished out by civil servants who have no incentive to provide good service and practically non-existent accountability. Be careful of what you use as a baseline.

I know you are serious, thus why I asked.

I do not subscribe that the poor get zero protection from the law. Do they get "Justice Light" , yes in some cases they do. But even rich people can and have been railroaded. (not as likely I admit)

But through all this, I cannot fathom any other system that would work. If , as you say, one can buy the justice they afford, how would that be different from what you deem to be non-satisfactory about the current way the law is dished out?

[GostHacked]

Blueblood

Look dude, I sympathize withn you and other farmers getting the shaft on the corn thing. I have said in this thread that US laws do not apply here in Canada. But there are some International agreements between countries in regards to copywritten material. Also it has been stated that file sharing in Canada is legal. So copyrite laws are essentialy thrown out the window. But it seems I cannot claim 'The Eagles Greatest Hits CD' as something I have done myself.

If you have a dispute over your "copyright" you will have tax-payer's money at your disposal to enforce it. Simple as that.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, for whatever reason, then one will be provided for you (aka tax payer funded defense) same thing right?? Maybe it is also the government looking out for the person who created said product.

The Government subsidizes a lot of stuff. Should they stop all subsidizing across the board then to make it an even playing feild? If you hesitate at all to answer this question, then it is a resounding NO. Stop subsidizing health care, child care, ect.

I'll make Gosthacked a deal, if he can make grain and canola grow 50+ bushels an acre in a field without lifting a finger I will stand corrected. It's pretty tough for nature to get them out of the bin/seed bag

And if you can produce a book that is original without lifting a finger I will grant you the same. I know farming takes a lot of work. I have had relatives out in Saskatchewan that were farmers. I respect the amount of work it takes. I was out in the tractor riding along while the fields were being seeded. LOTS of work. Machines make it easier, but still a lot of work needed to be done.

You did not make the corn. You did not develope the new strain of corn. You had no say in how it was created. You had no involvement in the creating of the corn. You are an END USER of the corn. You agreed to use Monsantos corn (if that is the case) then you have to deal with whatever terms are on the contract when you signed for it. It must have been explicit and percise. Did you read through all the fine print?? I am not saying that I agree with the copywrite/patent of biological life, I am 100% opposed to fucking with nature and reselling it for a profit, like Monsantos.

Movies/books/music is still much different in my view.

If you want to use my truck to do stuff, you must ask. If you use it for things without me knowing then it is straight out theft. If we made some verbal agreement, then that is different, you may be using the truck to haul off something for a profit. But it is a verbal contract between friends lets say.

Now, you must read my posts again. If the person SELLS the book/IP/copywrite to someone else, then that is stipulated and a contract is drawn up and all parties have agreed to said terms. If I only license the book for publishing distrobution, then I still own the book/IP/copywrite. HUGE difference between then two. That is what you must understant.

I used to be a DJ, and ran a record pool for a couple years in Sudbury Ont. We got a lot of promo material from record companies. They have said and we agreed to the terms that if they wanted to recall all the music, then they have that right. And since it was all promo music, (not released officialy yet) I could not even sell it or I have broken the agreement. I was also a member of the Canadian Disk Jockey Assosiation. I payed dues in order to use the music I had for public use and to make a profit on the gigs I did. So I paid a fee so I can use the music in my possesion to use as a DJ. Any DJ who does not belong to the CDJA or something of the like then they are breaking the law. Simple as that. Does that mean it is right? No, but at the same time, you did sign a contract and agreed to said terms in order to use the music.

Ok then I agree the laws should change, however, they should not be abolished altogheter.

[Charles Anthony]

If you cannot afford a lawyer, for whatever reason, then one will be provided for you (aka tax payer funded defense) same thing right?? Maybe it is also the government looking out for the person who created said product.

Your example proves my point: rich people get rich law and poor people get ZERO law.

CAVEAT: I beg all lawyers (most particularly lawyers who take on legal-aid cases) not to take offense. I am not suggesting that they do nothing. I am saying that they get virtually ZERO resources with which to defend their clients. Despite my disdain for our public monopolization of the court system, I have a LOT of respect for lawyers. I understand why people want a lawyer in the family.

The Government subsidizes a lot of stuff. Should they stop all subsidizing across the board then to make it an even playing feild? If you hesitate at all to answer this question, then it is a resounding NO. Stop subsidizing health care, child care, ect.

Hesitate? You are making a mistake. My answer is a resounding YES: stop subsidizing health care, child care, waiting in line care, stealing and wasting tax-payer's money care, etc.

To be realistic, I do not care what the Government subsidizes but rather I deny the Government the right to take our property.

I am not saying that I agree with the copywrite/patent of biological life, I am 100% opposed to fucking with nature and reselling it for a profit, like Monsantos.

I am curious: Why do you treat biological life differently?

Now, you must read my posts again. If the person SELLS the book/IP/copywrite to someone else, then that is stipulated and a contract is drawn up and all parties have agreed to said terms. If I only license the book for publishing distrobution, then I still own the book/IP/copywrite. HUGE difference between then two. That is what you must understant.

Your ability to enforce your monopoly of your product (book/IP/copywrite/whatever) and your marketing is subsidized by tax-payers -- people who might not care about your product. That is not fair.

So I paid a fee so I can use the music in my possesion to use as a DJ. Any DJ who does not belong to the CDJA or something of the like then they are breaking the law. Simple as that. Does that mean it is right? No, but at the same time, you did sign a contract and agreed to said terms in order to use the music.

Wait a minute. Why do you think it is not right?

For the record, I would like to insert a reference to the following thread:

Are you a thief? -- Do you or have you used pirated music, software, or movies?

which further examines these issues.

Guy and Ghost,

since some of your questions to me are expanding into the realm of law in general (and since my opinions are not originally my own -- you could say that I pirated them!) permit me to address some of them in a different thread:

Not enough cops -- Why does crime go unpunished?

which, for partisan reasons, I particularly like but more importantly provides a concise foundation for my peculiar line of thought.

[GostHacked]

I am curious: Why do you treat biological life differently?

Biological life has been around for millions of years. It has a personal sacred air about it. For now it is just corn and wheat and some plant life that they have patented (corporations) even some bacteria has been patented by companies. Slippery slope, next up we are going to modify the human genes to create a new human and have it patented. If you are geneticly created then you become the property of a company. No rights. Kind of an extreme example, but the human race has always managed to take things to the extremem eventhought the majority of the people out there are against this kind of thing.

In my view, you cannot, should not patent any kind of life form. The US coropations are allowed to hold patents on life , so they can claim that corn as their own, and the like. Now as we have seen with farmers and the Monsantos corn then having the surrounding farmers sued for wind blew some of this geneticly modified corn from one farm to the next. How can you control that?

Also it is a concern of health and balance of the ecosystems of the planet. I was watching Jon Stewart last night with the Daily Show and he mentioned how a company is trying to develope a mosquito that is resistant to malaria , they want to release this into the wild and have it take over and replace the other malaria carrying mosquitos. Who knows what this will do in the wild.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/19...o.ap/index.html

When they fed on malaria-infected mice, the resistant mosquitoes had a higher survival rate than nonresistant ones, meaning they could eventually replace the ones that can carry the disease, according to a report in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

So when you give corporations patents and copywites on biological life, you can expect thigns to get out of hand. And since the ecosystems on earth are balanced (well untill humans really started to come along) and everything we introduce to this ecosystem to replace certain parts of it, this delicate machine is going to break and that will affect all of us, not just a few who had not gotten profits from a book that was pirated.

My personal morals goes against allowing patents for biolilfe. And this by no way stops these companies from producing geneticly modified plants/animals.

A pirated book/cd/movie/software does not upset this balance of natural ... NATRUAL nature.

I agree that the judicial system has been flawed, and it has been like that for many decades. If you have money you can get spectacular defense. This is a problem with lawyers wanting to much in pay for their services.

Charles Anthony

Wait a minute. Why do you think it is not right?

Let me resphrase that a bit.

I think I screwed myself on that line!! Wording was horrible. And I am struggling to reword it to make my point ... so I will think about it and try later. But again, I may have screwed myself on that point.

[geoffrey]

CA,

What of the efficency of the system? It's much more effective for my neighbourhood to have a couple cops allocated to it than everyone hiring a bodyguard. What if we expand that to paramedics and firefighters?

I think law and order is one thing that the economies of scale encourage to remain in the public sphere.

Also, there is nothing in the current system preventing you from hiring additional protection if you see fit.

[Charles Anthony]

What of the efficency of the system?

Replied in the Not enough cops -- Why does crime go unpunished? thread.

[rks]

New to this topic but I have to jump in here..

Firstly, Hollywood has every right to let the Canadian Exhibition industry know that they have to do more to prevent pirating.. The industry does not have the technology yet to find exactly where the pirating took place but it does have the technology to find out where it came from, so by rights if there is pirating happening in Canada then it should be brought forth. We are far from the worst offenders, but offenders we are. The same happens in the US and China and everywhere else in this world.

Secondly, the motion picture exhibition industry is not an easy market and pirating hurts the theaters more directly then it does the studios so eliminating piracy is only helping to boost an already deflated market.

Thirdly, Copywrite is copywrite. We don't need people stealing the profits of someone elses hard work.

[guyser]

New to this topic but I have to jump in here..

Firstly, Hollywood has every right to let the Canadian Exhibition industry know that they have to do more to prevent pirating..

As respects Canadian law , not American law.

The industry does not have the technology yet to find exactly where the pirating took place but it does have the technology to find out where it came from, so by rights if there is pirating happening in Canada then it should be brought forth.

Only in a for profit sense. I can copy and loan it to my friend(s), all legal .

Thirdly, Copywrite is copywrite. We don't need people stealing the profits of someone elses hard work.

Agreed.

[blueblood]

Oh come on, defending Hollywood's right to make money out of thin air makes me sick. If they can't market their product properly why should we pay the price?

Hollywood and other copyrighters shouldn't be gouging the rest of us hard workers to subsidize their inefficient industry.

[jdobbin]

Oh come on, defending Hollywood's right to make money out of thin air makes me sick. If they can't market their product properly why should we pay the price?

Hollywood and other copyrighters shouldn't be gouging the rest of us hard workers to subsidize their inefficient industry.

If I sneak into your fields and steal your product, is it because you haven't marketed properly?

[rks]

Oh come on, defending Hollywood's right to make money out of thin air makes me sick. If they can't market their product properly why should we pay the price?

How would you suggest they market their product. Many of the movies coming out are large budget productions. The movie companies need to recoup the costs somehow. Please note I am not on the side of the studios I am on the side of the exhibitor. I do agree that the Box Office percentages heading back to studios could be decreased which in effect would lower ticket prices at the box office but with the amount of big budget films out there it does not seem likely.

Hollywood and other copyrighters shouldn't be gouging the rest of us hard workers to subsidize their inefficient industry.

I don't understand you logic on this one. They are an industry the same as for example the automobile industry. Do you think I would have the right to steal a vehicle out off the production line at Ford or off of some dealers lot just because someone has not purchased that vehicle yet?

The people that work at these theaters are just as equally hard working. It is long hours, typically 12 hour days for an independant operator, working nights all the time, no weekends off, no holidays off, for little return. I don't know of a single theater operator that is making millions by any means.(not talking about large chains)

[rks]

As respects Canadian law , not American law.

I agree that Canada is not bound at all or should be bound by American law but in alot of ways it is not a matter of being bound by a law.

If the Studio's decide that they want to get tough on the pirating all they have to do is delay the release of that product in Canada. For example if Spiderman is supposed to open on May the 3rd the delay it in Canada 2 weeks till the 27th. It is mearly a threat but we must realize in this that Canadian box office receipts amount to a very little amount of the Film's Gross. But to the Canadian Industry it is a huge part of the business cycle to make profits off of that release. It is a Studio decision not the lawmakers by any means.

[rks]

Only in a for profit sense. I can copy and loan it to my friend(s), all legal .

Not from a movie theater though. During the theatrical release of the film if your friend wants to see it he/she can go to the theater to see it.

For DVD release I agree.

[guyser]

If the Studio's decide that they want to get tough on the pirating all they have to do is delay the release of that product in Canada. For example if Spiderman is supposed to open on May the 3rd the delay it in Canada 2 weeks till the 27th. It is mearly a threat but we must realize in this that Canadian box office receipts amount to a very little amount of the Film's Gross. But to the Canadian Industry it is a huge part of the business cycle to make profits off of that release. It is a Studio decision not the lawmakers by any means.

Yes well, if the simple fact that Hollywood, and by extension the rest of us on MLW , were not whores to money (yes yes me too) then they might do just that. But they dont, and likely wont.

Canada box office is huge for Hwood productions when showing in Van and Toronto areas . They do not want to miss that. Opening weekend is the big time. Making back all or a large % of the costs can be achieved.

Delay showing a film for two weeks here, and if the film sucks, then they just cost themselves millions of dollars. Do the math, hollywood has and it is in their best interests to show the film in as wide release as possible, the exception being small towns.

[rks]

I do agree that the likelyhood or the prolonged likely hood of Hollywood delaying a release is slim but if you look at the numbers on the global market Canada is a small portion.

Statistics for 2005 show Total Box Office Gross at just over 23 Billion dollars. Canada's contribution to that was 690 Million.

We had also felt a 14% decrease in revenues that year.

My argument is only that the pirating should be stopped and if it means them threating the CEO's of the large corporations up here then good. They should have been on top of it in the first place.

[blueblood]

Oh come on, defending Hollywood's right to make money out of thin air makes me sick. If they can't market their product properly why should we pay the price?

Hollywood and other copyrighters shouldn't be gouging the rest of us hard workers to subsidize their inefficient industry.

If I sneak into your fields and steal your product, is it because you haven't marketed properly?

Go ahead and try, that would make as much sense as trying to steal ALL the gold from fort knox and getting away with it.

It is my belief that artist sells I.P. to record company for distribution, "timmy" buys product from record company and redistributes it himself. As far as I'm concerned timmy paid the sale price and can do what he wants. The law and I don't agree on this one.

How would you suggest they market their product. Many of the movies coming out are large budget productions. The movie companies need to recoup the costs somehow. Please note I am not on the side of the studios I am on the side of the exhibitor. I do agree that the Box Office percentages heading back to studios could be decreased which in effect would lower ticket prices at the box office but with the amount of big budget films out there it does not seem likely.

So what if they're big budget, I could care less a bad investment is a bad investment. If they're worried about people taping movies etc. have the theatres search people on the way in, we get searched at bars and the airport. As far as marketing their videos on DVD, that's asking to get copied.

I don't understand you logic on this one. They are an industry the same as for example the automobile industry. Do you think I would have the right to steal a vehicle out off the production line at Ford or off of some dealers lot just because someone has not purchased that vehicle yet?

The people that work at these theaters are just as equally hard working. It is long hours, typically 12 hour days for an independant operator, working nights all the time, no weekends off, no holidays off, for little return. I don't know of a single theater operator that is making millions by any means.(not talking about large chains)

No they're not, they have government protection therefore making it an inefficient industry. W/O government protection the consumer wouldn't be gouged and the industry would be more efficient. As far as I'm concerned if "timmy" paid the 8 bucks to go see the show, he bought and paid for it. If he brings a camera in there and tapes away and sells bootlegs outside that's your problem. Sounds like you guys are being taken by Hollywood, hire some competant staff to search people and no taping will happen.

I'm in the ag industry, i do not need a lecture on being ripped off and hours worked. I play by free market rules, so should the film industry.

[jdobbin]

Go ahead and try, that would make as much sense as trying to steal ALL the gold from fort knox and getting away with it.

It is my belief that artist sells I.P. to record company for distribution, "timmy" buys product from record company and redistributes it himself. As far as I'm concerned timmy paid the sale price and can do what he wants. The law and I don't agree on this one.

Given that some farmers have said there is an increase of theft of livestock and most if not all the thieves have gotten away with it, I'd say a farm isn't much like Fort Knox.

We haven't seen theft of grains but if the price goes up, why not? If people can steal copper from hydro lines and church roofs, why not from farmer fields?

Copyright may have been abused by the huge extensions it has gotten in the U.S. and Canada but is fundamental to the creation of new and original products.