RE: [Videolib] More on Chan Films

Jed Horovitz (JedH@videopipeline.com)
Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:41:02 -0400

Yes FOX can do whatever they want. My point is, they should not be able to.
I agree that some limited copyright protection is needed but when it is
abused it should be forfeit.

-----Original Message-----
From: videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-bounces@library.berkeley.edu]On Behalf Of Jessica
Rosner
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 3:36 PM
To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] More on Chan Films

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

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