Michael Moore takes on copyright

I wonder….
I wonder what the people who fronted the cash for the thing feel about that since they would most probably be the copyright holders. Lions Gate Films I think. I looked at the poster on his website but since I haven’t seen the film I don’t really know who holds the copyright. It is not in the LOC catalog.

Odd too is the © Michael Moore on the bottom of every page of his webiste that I visited. For someone who does not agree with the copyright laws he sure seems to invoke them frequently.

Re:I wonder….
Thank you for your condescending impertinent reply. Indeed I can read what Moore said, or to be more correct what was reported in the Sunday Herald as I doubt Moore spells labour with the letter U.

It is unfortunate that you were unable to comprehend what I wrote. My comment about the movie relates not to Moore, but to those who provided the funding for the film and would hold the copyright since it was a commissioned work. I wonder how Lions Gate Films feels about the downloading and sharing of the film – even if it was done without recompense. I would assume those who paid for the film would have a different opinion of the sharing of the film through non-traditional channels.

Your comment about my cartoon view of things, another fantastically mean spirited (to coin a Alexandra Kerry phrase) comment, seems quite misguided. I am quite confident that Michael Moore wouldn’t allow any use of his material “As long as they’re not trying to make a profit off my labour.” I can’t fathom that Moore would allow the Bush camp to use his material, even though they are not a profit making organization. I also assume that he would not encourage the use of his Internet ramblings by the National Republican Committee, any conservative organization, or anyone who does not share his views.

But thanks so much for your uninformed comments, they certainly reinforce my opinion that there are but a few people who can engage in reasoned discussion.

I always read the article
It would not be proper to comment on an article one has not read. I always read the articles.

Lions Gate may have no plans to oppose the practice; they have not answered the email I sent them earlier in the day asking if it was OK with them if I downloaded their film.

It is also important to consider others involved with the motion picture who would be damaged by this illegal downloading and sharing of the work.
You may know that actors, and others subject to collective bargaining agreements receive residual payments based on the income of the film. I thought Michael Moore what the champion of the common man, not the enemy of the union member.

Just as actors get paid when a movie goes to DVD, cable, or broadcast television, or when contracts give a prenegotiated percentage of the revenues the studio receives to the actors, the others who make the motion pictures receive remuneration. The camera operators, the sound recordists, the grips, the electricians and carpenters are all compensated when a motion picture is redistributed or reformatted. In agreeing to allow uncompensated distribution of the film Moore is cheating the union members whose contracts allow them a share in the profits. The DMCA (§406) protects not only Moore but all the others whose labo(u)r produced the film.

If that is not hypocritical than I don’t know what is.

You further state that Moore is not hypocritical in his use of copyright notices on his web pages when he eschews current copyright laws. Please note that I said there were copyright notices on every page of the Moore website that I visited I note this because you felt it necessary to quote me out of context. Fairness requires that you quote me in context. There were copyright notices on “every page that I visited� at the Moore site. I have neither the time nor the inclination to visit every page on that site.

Given that there are many ways of granting permission to copy one’s work including explicit license and creative commons licenses readily available for online works [see http://oneil.cx/MT3/blog/ , creative commons license], Moore is indeed hypocritical when he says one thing and does another. I can’t find any better definition of the term.

Perhaps I have made it too difficult by addressing two issues in the same post. I will attempt to clarify.

1) Moore cannot legally nor morally allow others to download and share the motion picture without paying for it.
It violates the contractual obligations that require payment to those employed in the making of the motion picture under collective bargaining agreements.
It violates the moral right to be paid for one’s work. The technicians and staff who worked on the film deserve to be compensated for Moore’s film just as they are compensated for their work on any other film. They are entitled to compensation based on revenues from the work and Moore’s encouragement of illegal file sharing simply takes money out of the pockets of the working class in the motion picture industry.

2) Moore’s public disagreement with copyright and his pronouncement that he feels that the use of his works without explicit permission in cases where no profit is made are quite clearly in contrast to the copyright notices on pages of his Web site. Certain other widely available methods for protection of online content while permitting limited use in non-profit arenas would be more in keeping with Moore’s public comments.

Again, thank you for your comments, although I find them a bit uninformed. Your failure to consider the effect on others, and the illegality of file sharing without explicit license does little to bolster your argument, but I do appreciate you taking the time to make reasoned argument in support of your position.

I reconsidered, and I kept my original stance
Your arguments are pitted against themselves.

You note that Moore is being graceful and elegant about illegal file sharing, file sharing which takes money from the pockets of the rich movie moguls as well as the work-a-day camera operators and electricians.

Then you say he has an obligation to his business partners to copyright his own work. Either he has the obligation to protect the work or he does not. He (and the rest of us) can’t have it both ways.

I am not a fan of the current copyright laws either, I especially think the Bono legislation was nonsense. But that is not the issue, the issue is that Moore can’t encourage others to illegally take things that he and others have produced. If he made it himself- sure give it away, but if yoou saw the film, I’m sure there were credits and those people are entitled to a piece of the pie too, a pie Moore cannot give away. Moore can’t encourage people to download and share his movie. It is simply wrong. If it weren’t for copyright how many of those same sound recordists and camera operators would be able to support their families if everyone could simply download films without paying for them. It is about fairness to all the workers on the film, not about Moore’s dislike of copyright.

If anyone can tell me how its fair not to compensate the others involved in the film for their work I’ll support Moore’s encouragement of illegal file sharing, but until such time I will continue to insist that he is hurting the very people who helped make his film. The very people who worked for him. Michael Moore is big business and an example of how some big businesses don’t consider the rank and file when they make decisions that materially affect them.

Re:I always read the article
I have to disagree with your statement that this is a documentary. Even here at LISNews people are discussing fictional portions of this film that involve faked newspaper headlines.

Please provide any authoratative documentation you have that shows that all of the technical staff is not entitled to compensation based on a motion picture’s performance.

In fact Moore and Lions Gate Films do not have the right to free pirates from criminal sanction. They may decline to prosecute the file sharing civilly, but it is still a crime. Moore would not be the only victim, the theater owner who loses ticket sales, the video store who loses a sale or rental, and as I have said before those who would be compensated by contractual agreement.

I don’t suggest that Moore hunt down file swappers, but I would hope that he would not encourage people to take money out of these people’s pockets. Is the theater owner or video store owner not as entitled to make a living as the rest of us?

If it were not Michael Moore, but George Lucas encouraging the pirating of Star Wars it would be just as wrong…would it not?