ChatterBank6 mins ago
Copyright Infringement
Having read today that One Hour Photo is in fact a breach of copyright, with an existing short film depicting the obsessions of a photo-lab worker having identical plot and detail, I can only wonder how on earth the film and recording industries can complain about copyright infringement against themselves. On this one film alone, they stand to make more money than most 'pirates' do put together, and this is certainly not the only questionable case of originality. Comments?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lisaj. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think that if someone has stolen something from you, be it a car, some money or the plot to a film then you are entitled to recompense. Piracy is also theft - for the casual home pirate this tends to be overlooked, mainly because of the difficulty of finding and prosecuting guilty individuals and the low return of doing so. However many software creators say that their software would be far cheaper if it was not pirated. Personally I do not believe that theft of any sort can be warranted - and I believe that if you are a victim you should be free to seek recompense.
As with so many other answers on this site, I am perfectly well aware and accept that piracy is a form of theft, and that two wrongs do so rarely make a right. However, the question is are we seriously expected to play along with this 'Do as I say, not do as I do' message, and if so, why? It reminds me of 'baddies' in films, who whilst perfectly happy with the concept of killing innocent people left, right and center, feel hard done by when one of their own is killed in return. It's this way of thinking that I'm questioning, rather than the ethics in their purest legal sense.
record and film companies claim piracy is damaging sales, maybe if original songs were released instead of the continous amount of covered rubbish that doesnt add or compare to the original they wouldnt be in this mess. likewise films all follow the same tired predictable formula with only a small percentage being watchable.
I don't follow your argument lisaj, I assume that the original film and One Hour Photo are made by different companies, and the original makers are protecting their copyright - what's the problem? If you are questioning the ethics of the makers of One Hour Photo, making a movie which breaks copyright - ah yes, I'm with you now (sorry, can take me a long time to work out the intracacies!). I'm a soft touch for excuses - perhaps they did it by mistake - the writer or director saw the original and then made this copy without consciously referring back to the original. Perhaps the writer offered the script to two companies together. I would be surprised if the makers of OHP were stupid enough to make a direct copy on purpose, but I suppose anything is possible. Sorry about my earlier confusion - good question!
The argument (if you can call it that, since I'm not arguing rather than invoking discussion) is that, along with documented cases involving the likes of Michael Jackson & Britney Spears, the large record and film companies who so desperately cry that they are hard done by with online piracy, do themselves steal the works of unknown artists. This seems to be done in the full knowledge that they will most likely never be taken to task on it since they have both more expensive lawyers, and the option to quietly buy off anybody who stands in their way should they be found out.
As for SnotMonkey's suggestion that music is atrocious these days, offering nothing more than a remake of a tune that in some cases was released barely five years ago, I couldn't agree more. After all, it has already been proven by independent research bodies that digital piracy has had no effect on sales, rather than a simple drop in the quality of the product. The way I see it, the turning point will come when the record companies, along with every other industry currently facing an economic slowdown, realise that multi-million pound extravagances and private jets are simply not needed, and are in fact the sole reason why they need to charge so much in order to balance their bottom line.
As for SnotMonkey's suggestion that music is atrocious these days, offering nothing more than a remake of a tune that in some cases was released barely five years ago, I couldn't agree more. After all, it has already been proven by independent research bodies that digital piracy has had no effect on sales, rather than a simple drop in the quality of the product. The way I see it, the turning point will come when the record companies, along with every other industry currently facing an economic slowdown, realise that multi-million pound extravagances and private jets are simply not needed, and are in fact the sole reason why they need to charge so much in order to balance their bottom line.
And along the same lines what about the recent harry porter fiasco in the US where an author of some children's books where the hero was called Larry Potter had her work flagrantly plagerised but as is the way with legal systems money talks and she lost. anyone who doesn't belive the similarities should check out www.realmuggles.com
Just to respond to the comment about 'muggles', here is a review of the book that points out the differences: http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/muggles.h
tm Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary has references to the word 'muggle' going back to 1205.
tm Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary has references to the word 'muggle' going back to 1205.
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
News21 mins ago
Body & Soul21 mins ago
Jobs & Education23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
