Comment by adwn
5 years ago
> What are good reasons for not having this right by default ?
The good reason is that someone or some company paid for creating all those hundreds of hours of footage, so they get the first and final say over who gets to view and/or use it.
> so
there is nothing obvious in that deduction.
For cinema for instance a loooot of the money that serves into making movies come directly from taxpayer money - a figure I can find in the US is 1.5 billion $ of tax per year for instance in one occurence : https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/us/when-hollywood-comes-t... - and let's not get started about public tv which is pretty much mostly public funds.
Likewise for my country, France - only a minority of money invested in movies comes directly from private pockets: https://i.f1g.fr/media/figaro/704x319_cropupscale/2019/03/19...
I just went off on you on your use of of the term “rights” but when you bring up the government subsidies of movies here in the States—-I agree completely. In fact, as far as I’m concerned any government subsidy at all should render the entire production public domain. I’m not being facetious.
Thank you for pointing this stuff out.
> For cinema for instance a loooot of the money that serves into making movies come directly from taxpayer money
I don't quite get your point either. Are you implying you would like ownership to be transfered from your tax money to whatever is created afterward with that money?
Would you feel entitled to ask for reports of how your neighbor spends his unemployment grant, because that's partly paid with your tax money?
> Are you implying you would like ownership to be transfered from your tax money to whatever is created afterward with that money?
I'd rather have no notion of private ownership of ideas, knowledge and cultural goods at all.
> Would you feel entitled to ask for reports of how your neighbor spends his unemployment grant, because that's partly paid with your tax money?
I don't think it's really meaningful to compare something that allows human beings to (barely) stay alive, to the benefit of for-profit corporations.
1 reply →
> there is nothing obvious in that deduction.
But it is: The concept of "private property" is pervasive and deeply ingrained in modern Western civilization. You should have very, very good ethical and practical reasons for why this should be changed.
Let me try a different angle: If you put a two-minute video of an albatross gliding through the air on Youtube, should viewers of your video also have the right to see the other five hours of your holiday footage?
You're conflating copyright and privacy. What's being discussed above is really more akin to you "If you post an albatross video on Youtube, should someone else be able to do a remix" or "should someone else be allowed to repost it in their peertube instance".
5 replies →
Addendum: In the analogy, the two-minute video of the albatross is cut and edited from the rest of the holiday footage, in the same way that a released movie is cut and edited from many hours of unreleased footage.
That is not a reason or an answer to that question.
No one denies that whoever creates something has the right to dispose of it however they wish.
Having the legal right to annoy your own customers is not a good reason to annoy your own customers.
The question was why couldn't the material be packaged up in any other ways? What's the "good reason" it can't be? Does it kill any babies?
> That is not a reason or an answer to that question. [...] The question was why couldn't the material be packaged up in any other ways?
Re-read the original question by jcerelier, who explicitly asked why consumers don't have the right to view all the uncut footage: "What are good reasons for not having this right by default ?" [1]
> No one denies that whoever creates something has the right to dispose of it however they wish.
That's not correct. From another comment: "I'd rather have no notion of private ownership of ideas, knowledge and cultural goods at all." [2]
> What's the "good reason" it can't be? Does it kill any babies?
That's a really stupid argument to make. What's the "good reason" you don't send me 100 Euros? Would it kill any babies?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25507455
Ever read "unseen before footage", "exclusive archive content", "behind the scenes"? These come from content they didn't use and stashed away. If they just package it all with the initial product, they more or less kill the potential of exploiting their own IP later down the line.
because if there weren't fairly strict limitations on what you can do with the material, someone could reproduce the work and you'd be deprived of your profits, leaving no incentive to make stuff, which costs money.
No one asks for it, and it would be a technical challenge to distribute that much footage. If data speeds and storage densities keep going up it wouldn't surprise me if it eventually happens.
For first release, sure. But forever? Why? If I want to remix Steamboat Willie in 2020 why should Disney still have an exclusive right to that today?