Re: [Videolib] More on Chan Films

Jessica Rosner (jrosner@kino.com)
Mon, 04 Aug 2003 15:36:07 -0400

Jed:
I will respond to this argument only once or it would get tedious.
Fox CAN do what it likes and it DOES own them. I don't get to take away
their copyright anymore than I would want someone duping things that belong
to Kino or John Updike. Copyright protection of a work of art is an
essential part of making them viable to publish and in the case of films
restore. Remember FOX SPEND A LOT OF MONEY RESTORING THESE FILMS before
the fiasco, had they NOT owned them , they would NOT have done this
and I assure you no OTHER group or organization could have afforded to do
so.
Fox ARE idiots for caving in on this but I blame NAATA as well, because as a
media organization dedicated to the studio & presentation of Asian Americans
images they SHOULD be supporting ACCESS to material not encouraging
censorship. Both of them have a "right" to do what they did and I have right
to criticize them for doing it. I am rather unlikely to have much sway with
Fox but as librarians and like minded people ARE integral to NAATA
I think it VERY important for us to express our view to them
-- 
Jessica Rosner
Kino International
333 W 39th St. 503
NY NY 10018
jrosner@kino.com


> From: "Jed Horovitz" <JedH@videopipeline.com>
> Reply-To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
> Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:33:47 -0400
> To: <videolib@library.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: RE: [Videolib] More on Chan Films
> 
> Jessica, you write that 'either you believe in free speech or you don't' (I
> do).  Equating free speech with free listening and thus free viewing (so do
> I), you then state 'no one should be able to stop me from watching Chan
> films' (again we agree), but you go on to exempt 'Fox because they own them'
> (we part company).  It is not NAATA's responsibility.  They have every right
> to lobby for the 'burning' of the movies.  We have every right to lobby for
> their preservation and showing.     What is wrong is that this public
> cultural/political censorship decision is being made by an amoral
> corporation.  The Charlie Chan films do not belong to Fox. Only the
> copyright does. The films belong to our culture.
> 
> If Rupert was forced to 'publish or have his copyright perish' (as the
> original law intended though I know not in those exact words or terms so
> please don't jump on this) we would not have this problem of pc control of
> culture but a free marketplace of ideas.  With the public domain continually
> receding so that the bulk of recorded media stays under wraps and with the
> idea expression dichotomy rendered meaningless in our post Marshall Macluen
> world we need to work for an aggressive first sale doctrine that allows us
> to share and fair use that allows us to sample.
> 
> I don't see how you can take the position you have here on Chan at the same
> time oppose my push back on copyright.  In short, either you believe in
> First Sale and Fair Use or you don't believe in Free Speech.
> 
> Jed
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Videolib mailing list
> Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
> http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib


_______________________________________________
Videolib mailing list
Videolib@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib