103 pages of mental masterbation as two ideological sides talk past each other, neither side willing to consider the position of the other, because they have mutually exclusive principles.
Maybe you as well would like to comment on the following statement by me:
If you wish to address why you believe a
particular film would just magically come into being in the absence of those who created it,
By what logic must I address any particular film? What makes any particular film worthy of support contrary to principles? Would Spielberg have created E.T., or even developed the wealth and prestige to do so? Probably not. Is the particular movie that we know as E.T. worthy of special consideration under the law? No. Spielberg's wealth is predicated upon a monopoly on distribution of works, a monopoly enforced by government agency. This is pretty much what the OWS protestors are protesting, the unjust favor of government of one group over the remainder of the people for unjustifiable (according to the remainder, anyway) special treatment under the law.
or wish to address why you believe you can deny compensation to those who put forth a huge effort to make a film, then do so.
I'm not denying them compensation at all. That's a fallacy. I, personally, would pay the asking price or simply not see the film. It's the idea that the producers have the right (in addition to the monopoly provided ability) to deny that others can see the film, or produce derivitive works based upon the film, 70 years after the original copyright holder has died. As already pointed out, current films don't really depend upon copyright laws for their revenue stream; they largely depend upon contracts. Steam doesn't even depend upon that, only on the technical difficulty in subverting their system compared to the cost of convience of voluntary participation of users. Copyright law doesn't substantially affect the first run profitability of a major motion picture, but does on the 'long tail', which limits who can see the film or produce derivitive works of the film, including upon the decendents of the copyright holders themselves who may not have even been born yet. You never did address Nina Paley's right to freely sell her own magnum opus, which just happened to included modern versions of old blues songs. Does she not have the right to earn a living as well?
Either a film exists or it does not. If it does not exist, then nobody is duplicating it. Once the film exists (by virtue of effort), then why can't you respect the individuals who made it, by continuing to enforce a policy that only seeks to prevent others from doing what they never could've done before anyway?
Your concept of IP is narrow. You assume it comes down to simply copying. Oftentimes it's not about a direct copy at all, but simply a similarity. The band that recorded "Under Pressure" sued over five notes that were substantially similar to five notes in "Ice Ice Baby". They won that suit, even though it came down to
five notes. They did not contend that the songwriter could not have come up with five notes on his own, nor did they contend that his song was substantially similar to theirs, only that they had a copyright on the song, including 'samples'.
Parodies are protected under free speech, and thus are considered exempt, but producers of parodies get sued under IP laws all the time. What about all those artists? Do they not have a right to an honest living?
In other words, it's physically impossible to duplicate that which does not exist.
Nor is it possible to parody pop culture that does not exist. Again, your concept of IP is narrow.
