-
http://www.computeruser.com/news/01/03/22/news11.html
A bit wordy, but some interesting points.
What are ppl's views on copyright? As an artist should you reserve the right to control your work, or should it be distributed out of your control?
I guess we've all used Napster. We should all know, no matter what the spin, that it is theft.
What if you found all your cinematic masterpieces up on the next generation of peer-to-peer networks.
How would you feed you children then (or your parter, or whatever) ??
By undermining the large corporations (which I believe is good, they need to get off their ass) are we going to kill our own industry?
Personally I believe that a new business model will develop. Whoever discovers the one that works will get very rich and powerful, somewhat ironically!!
Any thoughts?
-
thanks for posting that up miker.
2 things come to mind:
1- this is only relevant if your work is digitised. For most artists thats not the case.
2- if you dont digitise your work then you loose out on mass distribution, and archiving.
as far as lowbudget filmmaking is concerned:
number 1 - make your film (or at least one film) on FILM, and make it good.
number 2 - select a few choice and excellent images and sounds, put them in your trailer and put it on the net for all to see and rip off and use to their hearts content - make sure its an advert for your film.
You can actually digitally sign almost anything, but few people know how to do it.
-
Copyright is outdated and will disappear. In parts of the net it already has. The replacement will be a so called "attention-economic" model where people pay a amount they deem suitable to the artist. Charities prove that such an economy works.
-
So you make your film on film, but you would maintain enough control to disallow distribution by other means, say VHS and DVD??
Then you must be a truly independent film-maker -- that means no investors so you don't need to make a return.
That business model doesn't work! Unless you are already wealthy enough to self-finance. But then how will you get a distributor? Distribute it yourself? How? Cinemas are mostly tied to the big corporations.
And, what's to stop some sod with a camera filming it within the cinema screening and posting up on the internet (a la Phantom Menace) ??
This is a serious subject, one that any serious film maker needs to consider if they want to make a living at this game.
The question still stands...
-
At the moment yes, I am self funding.
Though if the economy (dependant on laws and policies, of which copyright is one and large corporations are another) collapses and I loose my job, I cant make another film.
But thats me.
Is this another example of the technology putting power into the hands of techy people, who have little knowledge of politics and law? He says himself he considers this is Black and white thing. Freedom of everything.
I expect that he is leaving the c
complications: the actual practicalities of protecting peoples creations, to others. Either that or he doesnt give a toss about them. In which case I truly think that his world will be a barren and culturally dead one, since no one in their right mind will create anything. Or do you trust in the 'innate creative spirit that will always shine through no matter what' make artists struggle more, why not.
Copyright laws are there to protect ordinary people, ordinary artists, and do not simply 'stand in the way' of freedom of speech. In fact I dont think they are hardly relaited.
Like the article says this spirit may work well and be important for countries suffering under tight regimes, and for Walt Disney but for the majority of us, it isnt. These things arent black and white.
This is what happens when a scientist gains the power to play at politics.
Maybe assyrix has the answer. Pay to view, and stop all Freeassociation on the net.
Where would Linux and Gnu software be then?
