Should Intellectual Property exist?

[Valka D'Ur]

also if there's no intellectual property how will we know which star wars is canon and which isn't?

Han shot first.

As for canon... there's canon, head canon, and fanon. They are not usually the same and can make for some truly mind-crogglingly weird arguments.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Oh come on. Are you seriously going to argue that every good Soviet film director “doesn’t count” because of whatever historical straws you can grasp? Please tell me that is not what you are arguing.

That would be as an intellectually dishonest argument as if I pretended that A Streetcar Named Desire “doesn’t count” as good American cinema because they had to alter the script because of the Hay’s Code.

Not at all. You provided with a good example of well recognized Russian cinema and I accepted it as so. What I have been arguing is that I think that the "arts" as manifested in Russia, China and NK over the socialism years or so have been sub par. Not that there aren't exceptions, but overall, the repressive governments have made it very difficult for the arts to thrive and grow like they have in less repressive places.

 

[sophie]

Sounds like the Czechoslovaks didn’t want it.

lmfao c’mon dude. that’s some pretty lazy reasoning there.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Not at all. You provided with a good example of well recognized Russian cinema and I accepted it as so. What I have been arguing is that I think that the "arts" as manifested in Russia, China and NK over the socialism years or so have been sub par. Not that there aren't exceptions, but overall, the repressive governments have made it very difficult for the arts to thrive and grow like they have in less repressive places.

Again - this simply contradicts reality. Ask any academic studying cinema and they will tell you that you are wrong! That the Soviet Union consistently produced extremely high quality films!

 

[amadeus]

lmfao c’mon dude. that’s some pretty lazy reasoning there.

If not that, then what happened? The subsidy stopped for a reason, and I suspect there was not sufficient popular demand to keep it around.

Again - this simply contradicts reality. Ask any academic studying cinema and they will tell you that you are wrong! That the Soviet Union consistently produced extremely high quality films!

I thought this was supposed to be about the workers, not the academics.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Again - this simply contradicts reality. Ask any academic studying cinema and they will tell you that you are wrong! That the Soviet Union consistently produced extremely high quality films!

That's fine with me. I have no problem being ignorant of the fine points of soviet cinema. There are lots of things I do not know. Since this conversation started I have done some exploring and learned a bit. But, having a more robust Soviet film industry does not change my thinking on the arts in repressive cultures.

Cherry picking from a wiki site on Soviet Cinema, this bit was more interesting than the rest.

Trophy films[edit]​

Movie theaters in the postwar period faced the problem of satisfying the growing appetites of Soviet audiences for films while dealing with the shortage of newly produced works from studios. In response, cinemas played the same films for months at a time, many of them the works of the late 1930s. Anything new drew millions of people to the box office, and many theaters screened foreign films to attract larger audiences. Most of these foreign films were "trophy films", two thousand films brought into the country by the Red Army after the occupation of Germany and Eastern Europe in World War II.[10] In the top secret minutes for the CPSU Committee Meeting on August 31, 1948, the committee permitted the Minister of the Film Industry to release fifty of these films in the Soviet Union. Of these fifty, Bolshakov was only allowed to release twenty-four for screening to the general public, mainly films made in Germany, Austria, Italy, and France. The other twenty-six films, consisting almost entirely of American films, were only allowed to be shown in private screenings. The minutes also include a separate list of permitted German musical films, which were mainly German and Italian film adaptations of famous operas.[11] Most of the trophy films were released in 1948–49, but somewhat strangely, compiled lists of the released films include ones not previously mentioned in the official minutes of the Central Committee.[12]

The public release of these trophy films seems contradictory in the context of the 1940s Soviet Union. The Soviet government allowed the exhibition of foreign films which contained far more subversive ideas than any a Soviet director would have ever attempted putting in a film at a time when Soviet artists found themselves unemployed because of censorship laws. Historians hypothesize many possible reasons why the Soviet government showed such seemingly inexplicable leniency toward the foreign films. The government may have granted cinemas the right to show the films so they could stay in business after the domestic film industry had declined. A second hypothesis speculates that the government saw the films as an easy source of money to help rebuild the nation after the war.[13] The minutes of the CPSU Central Committee meeting seem to support the latter idea with instructions that the films are to bring in a net income of at least 750 million roubles to the State coffers over the course of a year from public and private screenings, and 250 million roubles of this were supposed to come from rentals to the trade union camera network.[14]

In addition to releasing the films, the committee also charged Bolshakov and the Agitation and Propaganda Department of the CPSU Central Committee "with making the necessary editorial corrections to the films and with providing an introductory text and carefully edited subtitles for each film."[15] In general, the captured Nazi films were considered apolitical enough to be shown to the general populace. Still the Propaganda and Agitation Section of the Central Committee ran into trouble with the censoring of two films slated for release. The censors found it impossible to remove the "Zionist" ideas from Jud Suss, an anti-Semitic, Nazi propaganda film. The censors also had trouble with a film adaptation of Of Mice and Men because of the representation of the poor as a detriment to society.

There is very little direct evidence of how Soviet audiences received the trophy films. Soviet magazines or newspapers never reviewed the films, there were no audience surveys, and no records exist of how many people viewed the films. To judge the reception and popularity of these foreign films, historians have mainly relied on anecdotal evidence. The German musical comedy The Woman of My Dreams received mixed reviews according to this evidence. Kultura i zhizn published a supposed survey compiled of readers' letters to the editor in March 1947 which criticize the film for being idealess, low brow, and even harmful. Bulat Okudzhava wrote a contradicting viewpoint in Druzhba Narodov [ru] in 1986, saying that everyone in the city of Tbilisi was crazy about the film. According to him, everywhere he went people were talking about the film and whistling the songs. Of the two accounts, film historians generally consider Okudzhava's more reliable than the one presented by Kultura i zhizn. Films such as His Butler's Sister, The Thief of Bagdad, Waterloo Bridge and Sun Valley Serenade, although not technically trophies as they had been purchased legally during the wartime alliance with America, were highly popular with Soviet audiences. In Vechernyaya Moskva (October 4, 1946), M. Chistiakov reprimanded theaters and the Soviet film industry for the fact that over a six-month timespan, sixty of the films shown had been tasteless Western films rather than Soviet ones. Even in criticism of the films and the crusading efforts of the anti-cosmopolitan campaign against the trophy films, it is clear to see they had quite an impact on Soviet society.[16]

 

[sophie]

If not that, then what happened? The subsidy stopped for a reason, and I suspect there was not sufficient popular demand to keep it around.

The subsidy stopped because the film industry got privatized. Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s necessarily commercially viable. C’mon dude this is like fudging middle school reasoning. Like I don’t mind a bit of trolling, but do try harder.

 

[GenMarshall]

I'm still struggling to understand why photocopying a book = stealing from a bank account.

Let’s say that I wrote a novel or a technical book and I had it published and I have arrangements made to revive a cut from the sales for each book sold. When you photocopy a book and have intentions to sell it in bulk, you’re essentially cutting into my profits by selling counterfeit and bootleg copies of my work.

If you’re saying “but I’m just using for my own use”. That’s fine as I have no issue when you make one copies for your own use. The issue is when you make unauthorized reproductions of my book with the intent to resell. It’s why most people have an issue with counterfeiters and bootleggers.

This is incredibly chauvinistic. What else about foreign cultures do you look down upon? Maybe the lesser amounts of money they have? What peasants! Oooohohohohoho!

Bird is referring to major nations that have or had a communist regime with extensive censorship apparatuses that shield them from criticisms of communism and the communist regime. He’s specifically naming the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, and The Soviet Union. It’s nether chauvinistic nor “looking down at foreign cultures”.

There are many Soviet films, films that were approved by the State Committee for Cinematography mind you, that are widely considered some of the best cinema ever produced in the world.

That doesn’t help the fact that they’re heavy handed when it comes to censorship and the piece of media has to conform to a positive image of socialist realism and portraying socialism and the eastern bloc nations in a positive light.

The claim of “best cinema ever produced in the world” is subjective at best. I wouldn’t consider films produced by the USSR with an anti-Westernization and anti-capitalist bent and communist propaganda to be the pinical of “best cinema ever produced in the world”.

Battleship Potempkin

Bird has already pointed out that pointing out one film in the past 100 years doesn’t make it the next Citizen Kane. I can name a few such as The Law of Life and Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible Part II, and Margarita Barskaia. Her film Father and Son the trio were screwed over by censorship. The first ws pulled from cinemas because it depicted the a Komsomol leader as a hypocritical officer who abused his power. Stalin had a military tribunal that castigated Aleksandr, accusing him of inaccurate representations of Soviet reality and jettisoned from the communist party. Margarita’s film depicted a factory director who prioritizes his work over educating his son, Boris. Portraying Boris as an unhappy child and the father, a war hero, as a slothful parent was regarded as slanderous by a film reviewer and eventually pulled from theaters. Margarita was arrested and sent to the gulags where she died. Sergei’s film wasn’t released until five years after Stalin’s death.

I am happy to return to a broader conversation about capitalism and art but I just want it acknowledged that the Soviet Union did have a strong film culture and that both GenMarshall’s and BirdJaguar’s earlier statements were incorrect.

Yeah, no. I’ve taken a deep wikipedia dive on the censorship of the Soviet Union. It doesn’t matter if the USSR have a robust film industry when it’s closely tied up with the censorship apparatus of the state.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Bird has already pointed out that pointing out one film in the past 100 years doesn’t make it the next Citizen Kane.

Battleship Potempkin is considered by the British Film Institute to be the 54th best film in the world! Man With a Movie Camera, another Soviet film, is considered by them to be be 9th best.

The claim of “best cinema ever produced in the world” is subjective at best. I wouldn’t consider films produced by the USSR with an anti-Westernization and anti-capitalist bent and communist propaganda to be the pinical of “best cinema ever produced in the world”.

Sure, all art is ultimately subjective. But the opinions of academics, art critics, directors - film experts - ought to be given weight! And they all agree that Soviet films were good, even the many that were produced with the approval of the government!

Yeah, no. I’ve taken a deep wikipedia dive on the censorship of the Soviet Union. It doesn’t matter if the USSR have a robust film industry when it’s closely tied up with the censorship apparatus of the state

Does the puritanical censorship of the Hay’s Code invalidate the films produced by Hollywood during that period?

 

[amadeus]

The subsidy stopped because the film industry got privatized. Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s necessarily commercially viable. C’mon dude this is like fudging middle school reasoning. Like I don’t mind a bit of trolling, but do try harder.

How do you measure popularity?

And if I was going to troll, I would say it is strange to lament the collapse of a horrible totalitarian political system because they also made some avant garde art that I’m formally educated enough to enjoy. But that’s if!

 

[Akka]

However, here is the kicker: the copyright provides no value or protection to the artist at all once the Work is sold.

Instead, the copyright now provides protection to the new owner of it. The artist accepted whatever negotiated rate for the production of the art up-front, and in exchange the new rights owner has a monopoly over that art for all their own commercial purposes. This is potentially many-multiple-times more valuable than the cost of producing the art (the wage paid to the artist), and for decades hence is the sole province of the buyer.

=>

Just as an aside, I'd like to point that copyright and authorship laws you're all talking about are mainly the US ones, which 1) are pretty effed-up and 2) not universal.

Maybe get your blinders off.

 

[Crezth]

=>

Maybe get your blinders off.

Look, smartass, elaborate on some opposing contentions that are somehow relevant in this thread or shut the hell up.

 

[Crezth]

And if I was going to troll, I would say it is strange to lament the collapse of a horrible totalitarian political system because they also made some avant garde art that I’m formally educated enough to enjoy. But that’s if!

Who’s lamenting the collapse? You’re just making stuff up now. This is extremely careless posting. Nobody is lamenting the collapse of anything. They’re objecting to a bunch of chauvinistic pigs baying through a mouth full of Doritos that three countries they know nothing about (which not to mention were all horribly brutalized by war in the 20th century, but I guess nothing makes a proud hamburger like kicking someone when they’re down) produced no art because their political-economic system wouldn’t allow it. Or they make a caveat and say “no worthwhile art.”

Like it’s just so mindbogglingly out of touch with reality. You can do some actual research into how it worked and how people related to it. It has nothing to do with being a communist or lamenting the downfall of anything. It’s purely about being objective about sources and not writing things off as propaganda or taking the half baked correspondence of a narrow band of media interests as gospel. Christ.

 

[Moriarte]

Well, let's talk how gaming is affected by intellectual property shenanigans. I mean, sure, property rights protection, in a sense, enables creation & profitable functioning of gaming companies, but then at some point corporate greed gently takes over and puts the lid on the speed of progression, when said speed is at odds with profitability. The amazing thing about people, and the centrepiece of my argument, is the fact that they quickly get together, on their own volition, in their spare time and create gigantic value for a product or service, if they are simply allowed to do so. Most of the time we're not allowed to. Those who understand this, they open source a part of their technology to benefit from the energy of pure hearts. Those who don't understand this yet, protect themselves and every bit of their property with IP laws, losing out on potential creativity and profitability originating from free and enthusiastic labor.

 

[Gorbles]

Maybe get your blinders off.

But everybody whatabouting about Soviet Russia because Birdjaguar said "socialism doesn't work" like these are the same things is fine, right?

Good selective reasoning, there.

 

[Akka]

Look, smartass, elaborate on some opposing contentions that are somehow relevant in this thread or shut the hell up.

Are you too stupid to get that there are authorship and copyright laws that actually protect the author once his art is on the marketplace if you only get your head out of the specificities of the US, and this is relevant to the subject of if intellectual property should exist ?
Or is your ideological little crusade just unable to get off its rails ?

 

[amadeus]

Who’s lamenting the collapse?

No one, it was a hypothetical troll post in response to the allegation that I had trolled. Context is key!

They’re objecting to a bunch of chauvinistic pigs baying through a mouth full of Doritos that three countries they know nothing about

Now who is making stuff up? You.

(which not to mention were all horribly brutalized by war in the 20th century, but I guess nothing makes a proud hamburger like kicking someone when they’re down)

A lot of countries went to war in the 20th century.

produced no art because their political-economic system wouldn’t allow it. Or they make a caveat and say “no worthwhile art.”

I think you’re making stuff up again. The discussion centered around censorship, which was real.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I think you’re making stuff up again. The discussion centered around censorship, which was real.

There has been significant downplaying of the film achievements of the Soviet Union in this thread. Its undeniable.

 

[amadeus]

There has been significant downplaying of the film achievements of the Soviet Union in this thread. Its undeniable.

It kind of ties in to the thread from the aspect of how we value art vs. the methods to achieve it. In that sense, I would downplay it from the perspective of all of the suffering that Lenin-Stalin were responsible for in Russia.

As respectable art, it is said that all art is subjective. I find a lot of it boring, whether it came from Moscow or New York.

 

[NinjaCow64]

It kind of ties in to the thread from the aspect of how we value art vs. the methods to achieve it. In that sense, I would downplay it from the perspective of all of the suffering that Lenin-Stalin were responsible for in Russia.

Well by that logic, Citizen Kane is hot stinking doo doo because of segregation.

This is silly logic. I am not going to engage with it further.

As respectable art, it is said that all art is subjective. I find a lot of it boring, whether it came from Moscow or New York.

Again - the perspective of notable critics, academics and artists in the medium of film must be given weight if we are going to have a conversation more meaningful than expressing our personal opinions on various films.