The Sensitivity in Us

i dont like eggplant. eggplant just taste horrible to me. i dont like the way it looks on a plate nor do i like the way it seems to look wilted and slimy. it smells weird too.
from what they tell me eggplant is good for you and it could even possibly help to fight diabetes. and even thought i dont eat it i am sure it helps someone.
when we live our life and grow from experiences, we tend to have a list of other things we dont like. we may not like someone with sagging paints or blue hair. even though sagging pants is in style and blue hair works great for entertainers.
i say all of this to remind you that sensitivity is completely depending on lifestyle and the rules we are raised on. so while one persons sensitivity is tuned to what some one says the other person maybe sensitive based on a smell or a color.
it is nearly im possible to live life tiptoeing around sensitivities cause to some people, tip toeing makes them sensitive.





















""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

I'm not sure I follow you here Jeff. What are you trying to say? If this is about using copyrighted material, then these examples do not prove your point.

Do you know that now that Google has bought You Tube, they are facing tens of millions of dollars worth of copyright law suits? Enjoy what you see right now beucase soon these videos will be pulled.

Michael Horton
-------------------

Mike is right about YouTube. YouTube's example is almost identical to Napster's -- people think that intellectual property just flies through the air and they have the right to do whatever they want with it. And the company and possibly its users will be exposed to lawsuits. I am on the side of Roger McGuinn, Metallica and Aimee Mann in the lawsuit against Napster. Aimee Mann was trying to sell her own music online independently, but people felt like to post her music up for free for millions to download, thus robbing Aimee Mann of potentially thousands of copies in album sales. Exactly how is that a gesture to fight against record companies? By hurting an indie artist who is trying to make her career work outside of the big companies?

I bought thousands of dollars in music instruments, recording equipment and other gear to record my music. What makes people think my music should be free? Then why shouldn't plumbers work for free? Or police? Or painters and landscapers -- they make pretty pictures and everybody should be entitled to them without compensation in return? If some people find your wife attractive, does it entitle them to act on their desires?

Why do people get so wrongheaded when it comes to intellectual property? Somebody created it, spent effort on it, spent money on it, honed his/her skills to make something that people consider worthy. Somebody should be paid. And this whole "musicians love having their materials heard" thinking is bollocks. If every musician's work were available for free -- can't charge for shows, can't sell CDs, can't sell merchandise -- then no musician will be able to live off it. Music will no longer be a viable career.

Just because people find it fun to use a certain copyrighted song in their home video doesn't mean the law should condone it. We'd all love to be able to eat for free in any restaurant we want, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't get arrested if you try that. The law has to protect the entire society, often against the baser pleasures of many in the populace. How would you feel, Jeff, if somebody took a film you shot and put it into a porn film? Or sold it to a major without ever mentioning your name? And then told you, "I can't be tiptoeing around your sensitivities"?

It's not a matter of taste. It's not a matter of "liking" and "not liking". It's a matter of morality, and protecting people's investments and property.

And I always come back to my bottom line: You don't need to use copyright materials illegally to make something great. Just look at that YouTube video somebody posted yesterday with the guy playing drums and piano. Wonderful work. And it's his own music. Or that Asian guitar player who became one of the Top Ten YouTube videos by playing a classical piece. He didn't need to use an Yngwie Malmsteen track illegally to do that.


www.derekmok.com

this post wasn't about copywrite law it was more about perspectives and though the copywrite issue made me think of it i was more into the realm of, how we look at things differently and sometimes never give creed to the other side. sorta like the reason we have such a hard time in iraq is because we dont understand the culture but we are expecting them to abandon 1000s of years of a way of thinking.

and since you guys seem to be the ghost of postmas past i will use it as an example.

i have my point of view which does not take into account other peoples point of view. however, by trying to say to myself that i am absolutely wrong, i have the ability to see the other side and how it will effect me in the long run. though i may or may not agree doing this at least lets me better consider you argument at its merit. even if this changes nothing it equips me with a wider base to see other points on other topics.

sensitivity is why we agree or disagree.

in the coming christmas season let us all reflect on our sensitivity as we sip on eggnog nestled by an open fireplace. to many times do we for get the sensitivity is not how you interrupt the person but how the person is interrupting you. and yada yada yada plus some other sensitive crap on the end or sumthin'.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

I thought "Show and Tell" was a forum for craftspeople to share what they created, not a water cooler area to talk about what they have seen on You Tube or My Space.

Cameron Young

Well, its supposed to be that and hopefully one day it will evolve into only that, but for now we see where it takes us.

Michael Horton
-------------------

how did copyright infringement become the focus of this thread?

From a previous thread in the Cafe

Michael Horton
-------------------

> I thought "Show and Tell" was a forum for craftspeople to share what they created, not a
> water cooler area to talk about what they have seen on You Tube or My Space.

And I think there is a water-cooler "discuss-something-else-you've-seen" element to the forum. Several people have posted links to interesting works not by themselves, and they've received a good amount of fanfare and led to technical questions, creative discussions etc. I don't think it's necessary to add that limitation. What's your take, Mike?


www.derekmok.com

I have no problem with how this forum is evolving. Nice to discuss others works as well as our own. It's fun and we generally learn something. I'm not inclined to add any limitation to this forum. Lets just see how it plays out.

Michael Horton
-------------------

hey mike is there a way of aliasing the link such as have the text say one thing like " the speech " but have it link to www.blah.com

i have some vids to post but i dont like giving my url in a forum.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

At the top of the reply box there are a bunch of little icons - near the one you use to choose colour for your fonts. Find the one that looks like a tlittle world with a chain on it. This will let you insert the URL, then another box will come up and ask you for a name for the link. Like this Click here for the Apple Home Page.

But your URL will show as normal when you actually go to your page, so you won't actually be hiding your URL. Not that it's not neater, and nicer.

yeah i just dont want my forum stuff to come up in google where customers can see what video problems i am having. but anyway the new post is up with something i personally done.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

actually Eggplant Parmigiana is really good, J. You ought to try it. LOL I don't like eggplant in salad for example. I almost throw up when I accidentally chew on a piece. But Eggplant Parmigiana -- you don't taste the eggplant ... well, it tastes different and better.

I didn''t quite understand how the eggplant was used about the sensitivity issue, but I also have an opinion on this whole discussion with trailers and video on the Internet.

I disagree with Derek on this issue in general. I agree on some details though: I don't like my work ripped off and I don't like to rip off other people's work. Like most academically schooled professionals, I abhor plagiarism.

But the Internet (especially the Youtube phenomenon) is changing the way we think regarding video and music. THERE IS SO MUCH OF IT on the Internet that what are people to do? We are bombarded to death with video and music. There is no way we can get proper credit for original ideas anymore. The @#$%& has hit the fan. LOL

I don't think there are many people who have been ripped off in the film business as much as I have been. I can actually post some of the sites that are selling my feature films under different titles and some under the original titles, citing me as director even, but with a different lead that I've never heard of ...

I mean you won't even believe me if I gave you the link. You'll think I'm either crazy for not suing or you might think I'm lying about something. But here's the point: I don't think it's cost effective or time-wise effective for me to sue or even to prove anything. The movies that are ripped off -- I don't like them anymore; I want to do something better now. And as for money, I can't recover it anyway. The only thing I could get is satisfaction, and this kind of satisfaction is not satisfaction as far as I'm concerned. What for the sake of principle? Forget it.

Regarding youtube and the thousands of trailers and video captured straight from television sets:

1. The studios that own these movies consider unauthorized display of their trailer as good publicity and they're not suing Youtube.
2. The overwhelming majority of videos posted on the Youtube nobody is making any money off of them. And if they're properly crediting the source at least it's a form of publicity. There are exceptions, of course, when the creator of the movie loses money and prestige when his or her video are shown without authorization.
3. Because of the Internet phenomenon, we have to rethink copyright laws and, yes, as J. indicated, change our sensitivity.

The times are achangin'.

I don't post other people's videos or sell other people's movies. I wish people would not do that to me, but they do, and there is nothing I can do. For me to continue working and living the filmmaker's life, I must change my perceptions of what is fair regarding intellectual property.

exactly my friend,

the laws as it stand are being redifined and i think we all know it, even the idealist see it comming. there plenty of samples used unlicensed to create other works. many of the artist today dont really mind so long as its used well.

when danger mouse ( a friend of mind ) took jay z's black album vocals and sample from the beatles white album and created The Grey album, they went up in arms over the samples used from the white album. beatles lawyers wanted it band but jay zee said," it a great piece of art and it shows how music can be used as a paint brush". he also endorsed it in the source but i dont remember his exact comments there.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Youtube is having it's ass sued off all over the place. The groups that aren't sueing are making licencing deals, just like they do with TV stations. It's not true that they think it's good publicity. They are in it for the money and they want every bt of it.

Here's an interesting one where a German soccer team is suing youtube for use of video of it's team shot by a spectator. So they didn't even geenrate the video in question.

[mashable.com]

And here's one from Time warner brokering a deal by way of threats to sue

[mashable.com]

Universal jumping on the wagon

[www.techdirt.com]

And here's youtube offering to share the joy for Xmas

[www.newmediamusings.com]

jude,
in those articals i see the majors are sueing youtube would i be correct?
if so, i seem to remeber that google and youtube both have something that i dont, MONEY.
i dont see anything in there where they are sueing the youtube user who incidentally have no money. youtube did not create those videos the users did. youtube only provided a place for those user made videos to be aired.
i am sure that they will go after some of the users that have gone on to make millions, but i dont see a million dollar company spending 250k to a lawyer to sue someone who i makes less than half of that per year. it wouldn't be cost effective.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

> i dont see anything in there where they are sueing the youtube user who incidentally have
> no money. youtube did not create those videos the users did. youtube only provided a place
> for those user made videos to be aired.

But YouTube provided distribution for the material. Just like Napster, that makes it liable. It is the responsibility of a distribution company to ensure that whoever sold/gave it the product to distribute has the chain of titles to prove ownership. Even when you submit a film to a festival, you have to provide chain of titles.

YouTube and its users are probably a little less blatant as violators of copyright law than Napster, because the quality of the video and the music tend to be bad, and it's more about exhibition than downloading. Napster, on the other hand, was pure and simple piracy, uploading and sharing music files of playback quality. There was no modification (the music wasn't being used in conjunction with original materials), no possible claim of artistic license -- it was a venue for making copies of protected materials, period. So I get a feeling YouTube will have it a little easier than Napster.

> It's not true that they think it's good publicity. They are in it for the money and they want
> every bit of it.

And that's not all. Law is all about precedents. If the majors allow any kind of flexibility in terms of their copyrighted materials, they set a precedent that makes it harder for them to enforce their future copyright holdings.

That's why even we "little people" have to be pretty strict about this stuff. Once you allow a place to use your creative work without your license, for example, you may be dooming your future works to become pirate food.


www.derekmok.com