Re:has the targeted demographic really changed?
on
Attack of the Clones
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I very much enjoyed the original three films when I was a young girl. I can't be the only one who did.
Here here! I also loved the original films as a young girl-- and I still like them. On the other hand, part of the reason that I liked the "Battlestar Galactica" television show was the extreme cuteness (to a girl my age at the time) of Starbuck and Apollo. For that matter, by the time "Empire" came out, I was more than aware of the physical attractiveness of Han Solo. My point is, it's quite possible to make a movie that has certain attractions to young girls without compromising things like plot and characterization. ("Battlestar's" problems were unrelated to the choice of actors.)
I keep thinking of how the Star Wars prequels would have come out if Lucas had hired someone interesting to write them, like Harlan Ellison or even C.S. Friedman.
Those transmitters in NYC may be back sooner than you think. Whether or not the September 11th attack is covered depends on how "act of war" is defined in the policy: usually as some kind of direct action by a sovereign government, rather than as terrorist activity.
Also, on September 17, Congress sent a letter to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners basically stating that any attempt to invoke "act of war" exclusions would be "unsupportable and unpatriotic" and would "tear at the faith of the American people in the insurance industry." (The American people have faith in the insurance industry??!)
See,
http://www.insure.com/business/warexclusion901.h tm l
http://www.naiop.org/membercenter/government/ins ur ance.shtml
There is a very important reason why it is different. Good ol' fair use that we hear so much about on Slashdot. Copying a short section of a book and using it for teaching purposes is fair use because of the way it is being used. Copying a piece of software and using it in class every day is not. The relevant law is found at 17 USC section 107 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html), which sets out the factors to be weighed: (1) purpose and character of the use, (2) nature of work used, (3) amount used compared to the rest of the work, (4) effect on the market for the copied work.
If you copy a word processing program and install it on a school computer, it isn't fair use because you are using it in exactly the way it was intended, and the only teaching you are doing is "how to use it"-- if any! You might just be using it as a tool for typing papers. This is even clearer if you imagine that same software installed on the school secretary's computer.
On the other hand, if you copy a program in order to demonstrate something about it where you are actually teaching about the program itself, it is closer to being "okay." For example, perhaps you install copies of different word processors on the computers for a few days so the kids can try the different ones, or so you can test them to decide which to buy . . . Or maybe you made copies becaus your word processor is on backorder and school starts tomorrow-- but you are expecting to have enough legal copies in a few weeks.
If you are curious about what teachers look at in order to decide what they can copy, you might want to look at the "fair use guidelines" which are found in comments of the West Publishing version of Copyright Act itself. Basically, they provide a kind of safe harbor in terms of copying for educational purposes. These guidelines are really called the "Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copying in Not-for-Profit Educational Institutions" (http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org/Copyright/guideb ks.htm)
These guidelines take the guesswork out of figuring out what kinds of copying are "fair use" and what aren't. As long as a teacher stays within them, he or she knows its okay. But it is possible to copy more, legally, in some situations.
It is true that the U.S. copyright law is statutory rather than based on common law. However, Congress' power to enact copyright and other intellecutal property laws comes from the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
>To promote the Progress of Science and the
>useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to
>Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
>their respective Writings and Discoveries;
I understand that the basis of the challenge to the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act was that it has the unconstitutional effect of securing copyrights for an unlimited time. Didn't work . . .
The argument in favor of extending the copyright period was that it would allow authors to leave something to their heirs, especially in our modern era where people live longer. The problem with this argument is that the extension of the period is *retroactive* which means that the Sony Bono Act is of no benefit to the heirs of people who sold all the rights to their work to some publishing company back in 1950, when the copyright period was shorter-- presumably, they were paid less than if the copyright period had been longer at that time. And, obviously, changing the duration of copyright protection retroactively does nothing to inspire someone to create something, because it has already been created. How can this possibly "promote the Progress of Science"? (In 18th cent. language science=authorship.)
I would have been much more sympathetic to the extension if it had contained a provision which returned the copyrights to the creator's heirs for the extension period. It might also have been helpful to require some sort of registration of the rightsholders to facilitate the reprinting of this really old material, which would also demonstrate that the extension had some purpose other than to benefit Disney and certain other large publishing companies.
Oh well. Strom Thurmond obviously didn't read the letters that *I* sent at the time . . .
If you read the article carefully, you will learn that although there appear to be more cases of autistic children born to "techie" parents, autism is on the rise across the board-- including autistic children born to artists, social workers, ministers, etc.
My theory about this is that American mothers just aren't getting enough toxins in their diet during pregnancy.:-) After all, through most of recorded history the water was too dangerous to drink and people (including children) drank weak beer or wine with every meal. You can bet that George Washington's mother drank during pregnancy, as did Voltaire's mother, and just about everyone up into very recent history. Have you talked to a pregnant woman lately about the stuff they aren't supposed to have, which pregnant women have been consuming with moderation for thousands of years? Not so much as a single cup of tea! (Hum, what about all those people in Asia who turn out just fine?)
Perhaps there is a correspondence between these strict dietary guidelines and the uprise in autism. Maybe the real cause here is all those seriously caffeine-addicted techie moms suffering caffeine withdrawal in early pregnancy . . . .
Actually, the reason that Disney's use of "classic" folktales like Cinderella and Snow White is not "stealing" is because there is no one to steal the stories from. The stories themselves (though not necessarily a given version of them) are in the *public domain*-- not protected by anyone's copyright.
However, I do agree with your point that it is ironic that Disney does make heavy use of public domain materials and yet would like to prevent anyone else from using their materials as inspiration for new works.
This irony that you describe is not in Disney's stance against "unauthorized copying" but in its stance against the public domain. Back in 1998, concerned about the fact that the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons were about to fall into the public domain, Disney (and some other movie companies) lobbied like CRAZY to pass the "Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act" which retroactively extended the period of copyright protection for an extra 20 years.
Watch for more lobbying from Disney in about 2015.
Slashdot Mirror
I very much enjoyed the original three films when I was a young girl. I can't be the only one who did.
Here here! I also loved the original films as a young girl-- and I still like them. On the other hand, part of the reason that I liked the "Battlestar Galactica" television show was the extreme cuteness (to a girl my age at the time) of Starbuck and Apollo. For that matter, by the time "Empire" came out, I was more than aware of the physical attractiveness of Han Solo. My point is, it's quite possible to make a movie that has certain attractions to young girls without compromising things like plot and characterization. ("Battlestar's" problems were unrelated to the choice of actors.)
I keep thinking of how the Star Wars prequels would have come out if Lucas had hired someone interesting to write them, like Harlan Ellison or even C.S. Friedman.
Those transmitters in NYC may be back sooner than you think. Whether or not the September 11th attack is covered depends on how "act of war" is defined in the policy: usually as some kind of direct action by a sovereign government, rather than as terrorist activity.
h tm l
s ur ance.shtml
Also, on September 17, Congress sent a letter to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners basically stating that any attempt to invoke "act of war" exclusions would be "unsupportable and unpatriotic" and would "tear at the faith of the American people in the insurance industry." (The American people have faith in the insurance industry??!)
See,
http://www.insure.com/business/warexclusion901.
http://www.naiop.org/membercenter/government/in
There is a very important reason why it is different. Good ol' fair use that we hear so much about on Slashdot. Copying a short section of a book and using it for teaching purposes is fair use because of the way it is being used. Copying a piece of software and using it in class every day is not. The relevant law is found at 17 USC section 107 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html), which sets out the factors to be weighed: (1) purpose and character of the use, (2) nature of work used, (3) amount used compared to the rest of the work, (4) effect on the market for the copied work.
b ks.htm)
If you copy a word processing program and install it on a school computer, it isn't fair use because you are using it in exactly the way it was intended, and the only teaching you are doing is "how to use it"-- if any! You might just be using it as a tool for typing papers. This is even clearer if you imagine that same software installed on the school secretary's computer.
On the other hand, if you copy a program in order to demonstrate something about it where you are actually teaching about the program itself, it is closer to being "okay." For example, perhaps you install copies of different word processors on the computers for a few days so the kids can try the different ones, or so you can test them to decide which to buy . . . Or maybe you made copies becaus your word processor is on backorder and school starts tomorrow-- but you are expecting to have enough legal copies in a few weeks.
If you are curious about what teachers look at in order to decide what they can copy, you might want to look at the "fair use guidelines" which are found in comments of the West Publishing version of Copyright Act itself. Basically, they provide a kind of safe harbor in terms of copying for educational purposes. These guidelines are really called the "Agreement
on Guidelines for Classroom Copying in Not-for-Profit Educational Institutions" (http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org/Copyright/guide
These guidelines take the guesswork out of figuring out what kinds of copying are "fair use" and what aren't. As long as a teacher stays within them, he or she knows its okay. But it is possible to copy more, legally, in some situations.
It is true that the U.S. copyright law is statutory rather than based on common law. However, Congress' power to enact copyright and other intellecutal property laws comes from the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
>To promote the Progress of Science and the
>useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to
>Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
>their respective Writings and Discoveries;
I understand that the basis of the challenge to the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act was that it has the unconstitutional effect of securing copyrights for an unlimited time. Didn't work . . .
The argument in favor of extending the copyright period was that it would allow authors to leave something to their heirs, especially in our modern era where people live longer. The problem with this argument is that the extension of the period is *retroactive* which means that the Sony Bono Act is of no benefit to the heirs of people who sold all the rights to their work to some publishing company back in 1950, when the copyright period was shorter-- presumably, they were paid less than if the copyright period had been longer at that time. And, obviously, changing the duration of copyright protection retroactively does nothing to inspire someone to create something, because it has already been created. How can this possibly "promote the Progress of Science"? (In 18th cent. language science=authorship.)
I would have been much more sympathetic to the extension if it had contained a provision which returned the copyrights to the creator's heirs for the extension period. It might also have been helpful to require some sort of registration of the rightsholders to facilitate the reprinting of this really old material, which would also demonstrate that the extension had some purpose other than to benefit Disney and certain other large publishing companies.
Oh well. Strom Thurmond obviously didn't read the letters that *I* sent at the time . . .
If you read the article carefully, you will learn that although there appear to be more cases of autistic children born to "techie" parents, autism is on the rise across the board-- including autistic children born to artists, social workers, ministers, etc.
:-) After all, through most of recorded history the water was too dangerous to drink and people (including children) drank weak beer or wine with every meal. You can bet that George Washington's mother drank during pregnancy, as did Voltaire's mother, and just about everyone up into very recent history. Have you talked to a pregnant woman lately about the stuff they aren't supposed to have, which pregnant women have been consuming with moderation for thousands of years? Not so much as a single cup of tea! (Hum, what about all those people in Asia who turn out just fine?)
My theory about this is that American mothers just aren't getting enough toxins in their diet during pregnancy.
Perhaps there is a correspondence between these strict dietary guidelines and the uprise in autism. Maybe the real cause here is all those seriously caffeine-addicted techie moms suffering caffeine withdrawal in early pregnancy . . . .
--Katharine
Actually, the reason that Disney's use of "classic" folktales like Cinderella and Snow White is not "stealing" is because there is no one to steal the stories from. The stories themselves (though not necessarily a given version of them) are in the *public domain*-- not protected by anyone's copyright.
However, I do agree with your point that it is ironic that Disney does make heavy use of public domain materials and yet would like to prevent anyone else from using their materials as inspiration for new works.
This irony that you describe is not in Disney's stance against "unauthorized copying" but in its stance against the public domain. Back in 1998, concerned about the fact that the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons were about to fall into the public domain, Disney (and some other movie companies) lobbied like CRAZY to pass the "Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act" which retroactively extended the period of copyright protection for an extra 20 years.
Watch for more lobbying from Disney in about 2015.
--Katharine