 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
"The people blaming Hollywood for the corruption of the youth of America are in denial, pure and simple. Stop and look at who is SAYING all this stuff about the connection between Hollywood and youth violence, and who is eating it all up with a spoon. The Boomers. Middle class suburban Baby Boomer soccer-moms (and dads). Many of the same people who, in their children's formative years, either had the laissez-faire attitude of former hippies, or were in the Crass Materialism Mode of the eighties. At the time they either believed that the best way to raise your children is to just let them "do their thing", or give them all the economic advantages but be so busy working that there wasn't enough time to really sit down and interact with the kids. And now that the kids aren't turning out the way they'd like, they are too afraid to look to themselves as the possible cause. They are desperately looking everywhere for someone to blame, so they can feel good about themselves and their parenting skills. So, they look to the television programs and the films that "raised" their children, pointing the blame at their makers -- when in reality it is not the fact that the children watched too much television in and of itself, it is because their parents did not spend enough time with them, teaching them what's right, what's wrong, and other important life lessons. Hell, I probably watched MORE television than most kids during my formative years [with only three networks and PBS, mind you, no cable]... but my parents were always there, and they instilled strong values in me that I cherish and live by to this day. When I hear Washington or some whiney civilian watchdog group bitching about Hollywood, I just want somebody in the business to have the balls to step up and say, "the fault lies not in our stars (or writers, directors, etc.) but in yourselves." To paraphrase Bill Clinton's campaign catchphrase... it's the parents, stupid." - ET
Civilian Voices also got a bit of a debate started over copyright versus fair use. Over the weekend, many of you had something to say to Hot Button reader Jeff aka JP. His views on the issue were posted as part of a Hot Button ROTD. Most of you disagreed with him, so to keep things fair, I thought I'd let JP clarify and defend his position. Feel free to respond.
"The Congress shall have power... to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." -- U.S. Constitution (September 17, 1787)
In this country, the primary purpose of copyrights -- regardless of what the MPAA might have us all believe -- is not to make artists (and corporations) eternally rich. Copyrights are intended to benefit the cultural development of society as a whole. Maybe that sounds hokey, but you can look it up. Copyrights are rewards of finite duration, meant to result in the creation of art for use by all people. What a difference a couple hundred years make.
In 1790, the maximum copyright term was initially set at a robust 28 years. Naturally, copyright owners complained three decades wasn't near long enough to fully milk an idea. Accordingly, terms were increased to 42 years, 56 years, and then 75 years. But thanks to heavy lobbying by the MPAA (and especially Disney), copyright terms now last the entire life-span of an artist, plus an additional 70 years after death. Of course, commercial films are 'works for hire,' and the copyrights owned not by individual artists, but by Hollywood studios such as Disney. Due in part to the tireless efforts of the MPAA, 'works for hire' currently have a copyright duration of 95 years. In comparison, U.S. patents expire after a mere twenty years. Now, when you consider not a single copyright will expire for the next twenty years, you kinda sorta gotta wonder if 'life plus 70 years' is what the Founding Fathers meant by 'limited times.' Essentially, if somebody copyrights a work today, you would do well to count your blessings if your children's children's children ever see that work enter the public domain.
Apparently not familiar with the concept of 'squeezing blood from a golden calf,' beginning way back in 1976, Universal sued Sony for creating the Betamax VCR. At the time, MPAA President Jack Valenti touched his toes and exhaled, 'The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone.' This sinister hyperbole is remarkably similar to all the huffing and puffing now being leveled upon Napster (file-swapping utility) and DeCSS (file-transfer utility). The MPAA has long considered any new technology capable of copyright abuse -- regardless of any legitimate uses -- worthy of immediate and total decimation. But low and behold, in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled VCRs quite legal. Although taping open-air-television (cable hadn't hit it big in 1976) signals was determined clearly lawful; the MPAA even now desperately argues to anyone who will listen that this determination of 'Fair Use' does not actually apply to cable TV or anything else for that matter.
After the Betamax loss, having thoroughly embarrassed most of the country and the very nature of capitalism itself, the MPAA went about seeking ways to prove they had not yet learned a bloody thing. In late 1998, the MPAA lobbied Congress into passing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Simply put, the DMCA prohibits the creation of any device (i.e. DeCSS) that can circumvent copyright protections, and even goes so far as to make the very act of circumvention (i.e. learning) a crime. I'm not really giving the MPAA enough credit to suggest they learned nothing from their Betamax loss: Afterwards, they definitely got a lot more tricky. Although 'Fair Use' covers time-shifting (recording a TV program and watching it later) and media-shifting (recording your CDs onto tape), the MPAA has found a way to make both previously legitimate recording methods technically illegal.
See, while it should be 'Fair Use' to make copies of your DVDs onto VHS tape, you can't, because DVD content is copy-protected by Macrovision. And thanks to the DMCA, if you bypass Macrovision, or even try, you are breaking the law...Even if all you want to do is make a 'Fair Use' backup of a movie you already legally bought...Even if you simply wish to sample a movie sound-effect to play when you boot-up your home computer...Even if you only want to make a single screen-capture to tinker with in a paint program... The MPAA labels you a common criminal (and due to the DMCA, they are technically correct). Since consumers of DVD movies are restricted from circumventing copy-protection in order to make 'Fair Use' of the movie, 'Fair Use' itself ceases to exist. You're allowed to go swimming, but you're forbidden to get wet. Now, that is tricky!
Ever upping the ante, the MPAA last month successfully convinced the FCC to mandate copy-protection into all digital TVs and VCRs. So in the future, Fox's digital broadcast of 'The Simpsons' could very well be delivered 'copy-proof' or with commercials illegal to fast-forward through. Thanks to the MPAA and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 'Fair Use' (of VHS tapes, DVDs and now even broadcast television signals) is well on its way to extinction. You may have also heard recently of the MPAA's legal battle against DeCSS. Well, all the original DeCSS program actually does is copy a movie from a DVD onto a single user's hard-drive. It's simple media-shifting. The trouble is that in order to media-shift, copyright protection must be circumvented. Two years ago, such a program would have been completely legal under the 'Fair Use' doctrine. But since the MPAA has made certain the DMCA nullifies 'Fair Use,' such a program now technically violates the letter of the (DMCA) law.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not advocating the abolition of artist rights. I am not saying, 'Whatever you get your hands on, belongs to you.' I do not condone the utilization of DeCSS to make copies of DVDs for distribution. I do not doubt most Napster users are abusing the most basic tenants of copyright law (although many users are not). Despite what the MPAA would dismiss me as, I am not a pirate or a thief or an 'internet marauder' (although that might make for a cool business card). I'm an American citizen who pays taxes and chews with his mouth closed. I think copyrights are an aberration of what they were originally intended to be -- they have been made a mockery of by the MPAA. Copyright terms now last longer than were ever intended. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which will celebrate its two-year birthday at the end of this month, should be repealed because it effectively destroys 'Fair Use' for all consumers. Somewhere down the line, we forgot that promoting the progress of useful arts is copyrights' primarily goal.
'You can't apply [the Betamax case] to cable, or to satellite, or to the Internet.' -Jack Valenti (August 1, 2000)"
--JP/aka Jeff
Now that is what I call an informed argument. But do you agree with it? ?If you'd like to respond to Jeff, let me know. I'll keep this debate going as long as you keep sending me your e-mails. What better place to discuss the impact of the Digial Millenium Copyright Act than on the Internet? For those of you who've got something else on your mind -- Oscar® buzz or the lack thereof, the comedic rebirth of Robert DeNiro, the threat of SAG and WGA strikes that has Hollywood running scared -- or any other topic that's got you smiling, fuming or just contemplating, I'm ready to hear from you.
Meghan McCarthy
Editor, Civilian Voices
Send your submissions to civilianvoices@roughcut.comNo purchase necessary. Void where prohibited. Must be age 16 or older to submit a story. Stories will be edited for length and content by representatives of Roughcut. Not all stories will appear online. By submitting this story you agree that Roughcut has the perpetual right to use the submitted story, in any and all media, without limitation, as Roughcut may determine in its sole discretion. You also acknowledge that you will not receive any monetary compensation for the use, if any, of your story.
Privacy Notice about this site.
©2000 Turner Network Television. A Time Warner Company.
All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use.
