dandoody
Name: Dan Doody
Bio: Hi, I'm from Seattle, where we hold nothing sacred except for the very sarcasm we use to mock the world. Welcome aboard, cheers.
Reviews
A few years ago, I attended a writer’s salon where two or three successful sitcom writers spent about 90 minutes…
Read full review and commentsAll reviews by dandoody
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Some rights reserved.
The studio/filmmakers would also need to clear the rights to using the Fu Manchu character, who also remains under copyright internationally. This is why Shang-Chi's father remained conspicuously unnamed in the first arc of Secret Avengers, and was referred to only as "the Doctor" or "the Devil Doctor"in LoEG. The rights issue and the cultural baggage surrounding the Fu Manchu character would be enough for any studio to steer clear of using him in a possible big screen adaptation.
The latter two, audio and video cassette, were able to store music/video programming, but not distribute it, and least not efficiently or effectively to the point were items "pirated" in this manner were more than a small economic blip.
Computers and the internet allow people to not only store programming but distribute it, if they like, simply and to a vast, anonymous audience.
If I'm an artist or musician who doesn't like this, I'm told, "Too bad, it's happening, you should just live with it." That's not cool. Copyright and intellectual property laws exist so that creators can choose how they want to manage/sell/distribute their work. If some like Horrocks want others to copy and distribute on a small scale, then fine he should be allowed to do so. If some, like Colleen Doran, want to have their work protected, that should be her choice as well.
I do indeed think Copyright and intellectual property laws need a massive overhaul for the Internet Age, but it needs to be one in which address the concerns of both Horrocks and Doran: set standards for private, noncommercial use, but also set the limits for where such uses becomes abusive and amount to piracy.
I think what's most frightening about this situation--and, indeed, the situation a year or so ago when Amazon ripped an Orwell novel off a high school student's Kindle--is the content provider's ability to infiltrate someone's personally owned hardware to lock or retrieve licensed content. A minor mistake was made, an e-issue was released a week early, just let it be. It happens. Copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows were accidentally sold early, but the publisher didn't seek to reclaim the books from the people who purchased them. Was it really necessary to lock up Ultmate Thor #2 for an additional week?
No, it wasn't. Instead, Marvel now looks bad: such an act generates bad PR, and could potentially drive consumers away from purchasing licensed, electronic content.