CleanFlicks and Copyright

| | Comments (1)

I've given the matter yet more thought and have concluded that part of the anger at the result of the CleanFlicks lawsuit stems from the fact that film is presently under a perpetual copyright. Supposedly the copyright last the life of the author plus 90 years, but I don't know the rules when the copyrighted work is owned by a "legal" person such as a corporation.

If things progressed as the Founding Fathers originally saw fit, films would enter the public domain at a steady pace. But the reality is no film is likely ever to enter the public domain (there are a few silent films, but that's it). So, there is never the opportunity to "edit for suitability" because copyright is eternal. And it is here that I balk at the judgment against CleanFlicks. The Courts have given both monopolistic and eternal rights to the companies that produce a work. It would seem to me that if they are forever, they should not be all-inclusive. A previous commenter pointed out that copyright was a trade-off allowing the owner a short period of exclusive use in exchange for the work entering the public forum.

I'm thinking that the only way this will cease is by concerted civil disobedience--but I can't think what form that might take. Anyway, the anger seems justified because many are left powerless in the face of this all devouring perpetual seizure of intellectual property.

Bookmark and Share


"Civil disobedience" is already underway with fan fiction, bittorrent, YouTube, mash-ups, AMVs, etc. Before long, it isn't going to matter what the courts say. No matter how you try to police the internet, hackers are always going to be two steps ahead of the Mouse.



About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Steven Riddle published on July 27, 2006 8:06 PM.

The Eye was the previous entry in this blog.

Art as Children is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

My Blogroll