Would Thomas Jefferson Steal a DVD? Part 2

Copyright is a relatively modern concept. It is part of a broader category of law known as intellectual property, which is defined as property rights over creations of the mind, including copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Some legal experts take issue with the term intellectual property because it lumps three different areas of law together, even though they were developed with separate legal principles. Richard Stallman, President of the Free Software Foundation and found of the GNU Project, distinguishes them as such: “Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of  price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.  Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying. Legislators under the influence of 'intellectual property', however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising.”[1]


Although the concept of owning creative or industrial material has been discussed since at least the 18^th century, the term “intellectual property” was not widely circulated until 1967 with the formation of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and subsequently gained further familiarity through 1980’s Bayh-Dole Act. WIPO’s purpose is to “rewar[d] creativity, stimulat[e] innovation and contribut[e] to economic development while safeguarding the public interest.”[2] Its international presence has rendered it an organization of increasing importance, as internet technologies have made a global economy shrink in size and grow in ease of accessing material from across the world. The Bayh-Dole Act, also known as the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act, allowed universities, small businesses, or non-profit institutions to receive preferred consideration for ownership of inventions over the U.S. government. This opened the door to commercial use of intellectual property rights. Prior evidence does exist of thought surrounding the concept of intellectual property, particularly in Europe where it was intended to be utilized “as an instrument of government censorship.”[3] A 1791 French law stated: “All new discoveries are the property of the author; to assure the inventor the property and temporary enjoyment of his discovery, there shall be delivered to him a patent for five, ten or fifteen years.”[4] Yet, many were hesitant of this law. In 1818, a French liberal theorist by the name of Benjamin Constant distrusted the notion, arguing that “property which is called intellectual is only a matter of opinion.”[5] Several decades later, the first legal use of intellectual property in American law emerged in Davoll et al. v. Brown (1845). Justice Charles L. Woodbury summarized such property as “the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears.”[6] Although Woodbury’s description is rather poetic, it is more sentimental than substantial.

The origin of copyright law lies in economic theory as much as it does in legal postulations. In economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek’s well-cited case against socialism, he warns, “our civilization depends, not only for its origin but also for its preservation, on what can precisely be described only as the extended order of human cooperation, an order more commonly, if somewhat misleadingly, known as capitalism.”[7] Although copyright may appear to be a pure capitalistic venture, Hayek argues for the decentralization of knowledge and power. Modern copyright laws perform the opposite; they centralize ideas through economic power. Basic tenants of capitalism involve the ownership of private property, but intellectual property is a later development that many early economists were puzzled by. Hayek doubts “whether there exists a single great work of literature which we would not possess had the author been unable to obtain an exclusive copyright for it.”[8] Even Karl Marx, advocate of socialism, may have been weary of intellectual property. Marx’s fundamental problem with capitalism was that human beings became commodities through labor; monetary value was placed on actions, skills, and abilities rather than physical items. This danger is exacerbated by the concept of intellectual property, which renders the ideas and talents of the creator the same as commodities. Marx’s vision of a communist society, where cooperation and shared property were the law of the land, certainly would not include theories of intellectual ownership. His world would be one where all is in the public domain so to speak. If basic theories of capitalism and socialism do not support intellectual property, then where does this place our modern copyright laws in a philosophical context?

---

[1] (Stallman 2006)

[2] (What is WIPO? 2008)

[3] ^{(Boldrin and Levine 2004, 33)}

[4] (A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States 2003)

[5] (Constant 1988, 220)

[6] (Davoll et al. v. Brown 1845)

[7] (Hayek 1989, 6)

[8] (Ibid, 36)

Ms. Horror Blogosphere is Coming and I'm a Contestant

B-Sol from The Vault of Horror recently asked me to participate in a friendly competition among the female horror bloggers entitled "Ms. Horror Blogosphere." It's a marvelous opportunity for shameless self-exposure (for me) and a great way to learn about some cool blogs that are out there (for you). Over the next few weeks, various blogs will be spotlighted on the site. I'll be sure to let you know when mine is up, but please check in from time to time to see the other ladies' blogs because I'm sure they are all awesome. Eventually, there is going to be some form of a vote to crown Ms. Horror Blogosphere. Regardless of the competitive aspect of this, it's an awfully nice gesture to be invited and so I'd like to thank B-Sol for putting this on.  

If you want to see the list of contestants, go here. For the initial announcement and more information, go here.

Would Thomas Jefferson Steal a DVD? Part I

Horror movies are not my only interest, as crazy as that may sound. I may have majored in Film Production, but I minored in Legal Studies, emphasizing in issues dealing with media and the law. Today, I'm going to talk about copyright. You might be thinking, "Eww, that's boring." However, it's something that should be paid attention to and easily impacts filmmakers/fans/bloggers/internet surfers because of its restrictions on First Amendment freedoms. My inspiration for sharing my copyright research with you guys came from an unfortunate incident that occurred with one of our fellow horror bloggers, J. Astro from The Cheap Bin. A post containing images found via Google search engine was disabled by Blogger, even though the pictures were (in some way) promoting a product. When I first heard about this story, I was intrigued and J. Astro was also concerned about the legal system in regards to intellectual property. Many people have questions about the origin of copyright/patent/trademark laws and how they can be justified in a political system that supposedly embraces Free Speech and in a technological world where information can be shared more quickly than ever.

Well, I conducted research for one of my classes on this subject matter and I take a rather unconventional approach, arguing that intellectual property must be dissolved. I recognize that it's an extreme position and hardly pragmatic, but it's worth a discussion. Since it is a very long paper, I will release it in sections over the next week or two. Here is Part I, introducing my thesis and explaining why copyright is more important to our freedoms than people think. Keep an eye out for Part II, which will explain the origin of intellectual property law.

Would Thomas Jefferson Steal a DVD?

The Rising Age of Technology and the Dissolving Philosophy of Copyright

"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." -Thomas Jefferson [1]

Most of us are familiar with the Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) public relations campaign against piracy that played before feature presentations on DVD’s, especially because no matter how many times the fast-forward button was pushed; the message could not be skipped over. In 2004, the MPAA released its advertisement, “You Wouldn’t Steal a Car.” The script for the ad reads: “You wouldn’t steal a car; You wouldn’t steal a handbag; You wouldn’t steal a television; You wouldn’t steal a DVD; Downloading pirated films is stealing; stealing is against the law.” The “pervasive rhetorical use of the language of ‘theft’ in intellectual property discourse” creates a false definition of legal terminology through popular conception “so that new social meanings become attached to acts such as the digital transfer of a musical file or a film.”[1] This tactic is questionable not only because it employs subversive jargon but because it propagates ideas of intellectual property that are not founded in traditional legal philosophy. So many misconceptions surround copyright, patent, and trademark law that improper meanings have become commonplace in American government. The intended purpose of granting these exclusive rights monopolies has been misconstrued as a proponent of capitalism, private property, and democracy. While the whole of intellectual property must be reexamined, the primary focus of this paper shall be copyright and its impact on the artist. Copyright, originally designed to protect artists and promote creative endeavors, has become so far removed from the artist that it no longer serves the same purposes. Modern copyright law has been orchestrated to encourage the monopolization of the entertainment industry and thereby, hinders the creative process rather than securing it. And this imparts unforeseen consequences for American government.


It may not seem that art, culture, and entertainment have a foundation or niche in political philosophy. Yet, “[m]odern mass media in the industrial nations have transformed social relations, politics, and economic and legal structures.”[2] In Jerry Mander’s Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, he focuses on the TV among an assortment of other technologies as a threat to the ideals of the American political system. Mander declares that the medium cannot be reformed and must be terminated. He writes, “technology can produce its own subordinated society, as though it were alive”[3] and that TV lacks “democratic control.”[4] Americans believe that they are deciding what to watch simply because there is access to hundreds of channels, but Mander points out that a small number of corporations actually decide what is broadcast and what is not. To further elucidate the feeling of democracy, $41.8 billion dollars were spent on advertising in 2001 so that Americans could choose between McDonald’s and Burger King, Sears and JC Penny, Republicans and Democrats.[5] “Scientists, technologists, psychologists, industrialists, economists and the media which translate and disseminate their findings and opinions became our source” of information and source of decision.[6] Yet, we forget that there are choices beyond what is presented. Two thirds of Americans receive most of their information about the world from the television.[7] Americans champion themselves as independent, free-thinkers; yet we all rely on the same source of information—how diverse and free can our ideas then be? The media generates a façade of democracy through the illusion of choice, but how do we know what choices we are never allowed to make? What is not seen, heard, or experienced?


The free exchange of ideas is crucial to the government that Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and Framer of the United States Constitution, foresaw. That is exactly why copyright law is not and should not be the dry subject of textbooks. It is as essential to democracy that intellectual property be seriously reconsidered as it is important to address economic strife, failures in public education, and jumps in criminal activity. In a technological landscape where ideas and media are inseparable, copyright law ought to be paid attention to because it “imposes substantial risks of harm to democracy and individual autonomy.”[8]

---

[1] (Loughlan 2007, 1)

[2] (Bagdikian 2004, xiii)

[3] (Mander 1978, 97)

[4] (Ibid, 353)

[5] (50th Anniversary of 'Wonderful World of Color' TV" 2004)

[6] (Mander 1978, 69)

[7] (McKibben 1993, 18)

[8] (Benkler 2003, 175)

Tres Días/Before the Fall (2008): Surprisingly Great

Don’t you just love going into a movie blind, not having any preconceived notions, and then being pleasantly surprised?

After arriving early for The Fourth Kind screening at Screamfest, we decided to purchase tickets for Tres Días, which is also titled Before the Fall (I’m not lame and mistranslating the Spanish title). Having heard nothing about the film, we watched a trailer earlier that day. It looked like a visceral, end-of-the-world film that had something else going on, but you couldn’t quite tell from the trailer. All I knew is that a meteorite was colliding with earth in 72 hours. Was there something supernatural going on? Were aliens responsible for the meteor? Is there a conspiracy unfolding at the hands of the government? Or is it simply an apocalyptic movie?

We follow Alejandro (Ale), an everyday laborer with nothing much to live for, as he discovers that the world will be ending in three days. He encounters a variety of people with different reactions to the dooming news: suicide, panic, depression, shock, and denial.  Ale’s mother appears to act irrationally, ignoring the apocalyptic fate of the world and focusing on an escaped prisoner that might harm her grandchildren. Ale would rather spend his last days drinking beer, sleeping in, and listening to music than worry about the lives of children that will be dead in a couple days anyway.

At this point, you might be wondering: how is this a horror film? Tres Días is a unique film that is difficult to place in any singular genre, other than the end-of-the-world category. The first half of the film is primarily straight drama with a blend of science fiction, but by the end…it is understood why it is playing at Screamfest, as the horror elements slowly unfold. I’d hate to divulge too much about the plot of the film. It turns away from the global cataclysmic scale and focuses on intimate events occurring within the framework of humanity’s last days on earth. The film requires patience and openness, but it is a vastly rewarding experience.

I was most impressed by the heavy thematic elements of Tres Días. Through the character development of Ale, the primary message of the film emerges: Your actions always matter. The film takes the ends versus means argument to a new level, showing that the results may be uncontrollable but each decision must be made moment to moment. What is wonderful about this story is that the audience transforms along with Ale. At first, you agree with him. Why bother? The world is ending, so who cares what happens in the next 72 hours? Eventually, Ale realizes that the preciousness of life is still important and as a viewer, you find yourself rooting for Ale to save the lives of people that will die anyway.

Garnering the most awards at Screamfest, Tres Días is a very accomplished piece of filmmaking. Winning Best Cinematography, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Editing, the Spanish movie is a great example of cinematic skills used to further the story, characters, and themes. Shot in an over-exposed, gritty fashion, it is one of the best executions of this style I have seen a while. All of the filmmakers are working together to create a wonderful flow of emotions through visual design, blending handheld, stationary, and dolly shots with ease. It is a credit to the cinematographer, director, and editor that the seamless visuals work so well concurrently.  The performances are also incredible—subtle when they need to be and heart-wrenching when it counts. Víctor Clavijo, who plays the lead, carries the film well. He demonstrates great range, making us laugh in quiet moments and helping us through the shift in circumstances through a realistic portrayal of a changed man. I am excited to see more work from director F. Javier Gutíerrez, as he’s off to a great start.

The film has been released on DVD and is available through Netflix. I encourage you to check it out. Although it is slow and involved, it is well worth the attention. It may not be a straight horror film by conventional standards, but it is a unique viewing experience and incredibly well made.

Thanksgiving on Elm Street Part 1

Since I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing all of the Friday the 13^th films last month and you guys also seemed to enjoy reading the posts for Fridays in October, I thought it would be fun to continue this theme throughout the holiday season. What am I doing for November? You guessed it: The Nightmare on Elm Street films. Of the major horror franchises, I am actually the least familiar with Freddy Krueger movies. So I am really looking forward to this retrospective, hoping to straighten out the confusion in my memory, as I can never remember which kills happened in which film. Let’s begin with the classic…

Nightmare on Elm Street

Wes Craven’s original and frightening concept was too good not to become the most media exploited horror series throughout the 1980’s. A dream killer with a limitless imagination was a goldmine. Reality could be twisted in any direction the filmmakers wished. Additionally, Freddy Krueger himself provided a unique character to the cast of horror icons. Instantly recognizable and constantly spouting dark puns, Freddy was a welcome contrast to the silent, masked stalkers of the genre. Combine a killer with a sense of humor, a cool murder weapon, and a universe that has no bounds, and you get a franchise that has brought in over $300 million in box office revenue (if you include Freddy v. Jason, which I will not be reviewing for Thanksgiving on Elm Street).  It also launched the success of New Line Cinema, which has become a major studio in the American film industry and is now a subsidiary of Warner.

Who's that skinny hobo dressed up for Christmas?

What was it about the first film that made it so special? In all honesty, I believe that Freddy and his abilities are more conceptually scary than actually scary in any of the films. If he had any chance of actually being a horrifying figure, it would be in Craven’s original. While every Freddy movie is full of awesome sight gags, there is one standout scene for me. I believe it is one of the most terrifying scenes in film history and probably what made Nightmare on Elm Street pop out to filmgoers. The first of Freddy’s kills, Tina’s death is brutal and effective. Flying around the room, crawling up the wall, covered in blood, screaming the most awful screams, and dropping from the ceiling to the bed with a lifeless thump, all the while the perpetrator is invisible. I remember being shocked by the visceral scene on my first viewing and it still holds up. Unfortunately, I don’t think the rest of the movie or the series ever lived up to that moment. Don’t take this the wrong way. I love Freddy and the Nightmare movies. They are so much fun and full of great scenes, blending comedy and the macabre quite well. However, I’m just not inclined to take them all that seriously.

Brilliant.

The original Nightmare on Elm Street is a great film. It’s tightly paced, well-acted, exciting, and funny. Despite a low body count, there is plenty going on to keep you entertained. Unraveling the mystery behind Krueger and constantly battling sleep, the story moves along with ease. In some ways, it takes the simplicity of the other slasher icons and flips it on their heads. Nightmare on Elm Street removes some of the redundancy and rationalism from the horror genre, but still maintains the everyday-people-in-an-everyday-neighborhood mentality. Indeed, the title itself implies that the fantastical could occur along any one of America’s white-picket-fenced streets.

The average American girl...but with better hair.

Accompanying that attitude is a through line regarding the relationship of parents and their teenagers. There is much more interaction between the characters and their parents than in most horror films, where parents were often removed from the equation due to circumstance or location. Not here. Parents play an integral role in the story. Nancy’s mom hides the truth from her and doesn’t take her fear of sleeping seriously. Glen can’t be honest with his mother about sleeping at Tina’s house and she doesn’t approve of listening to music and watching TV at the same time. Nancy’s father is quick to blame teenage immorality on Tina’s death before listening to the plight of his own daughter. The parents of Elm Street are oblivious to the blatant threat that their children face. Even more consequential is that the parents are the source of this threat—the makers of their children’s demise. In an effort to protect their children, the parents created a monster that would later destroy them. The social commentary is clear: Parents obsesses over their children, while simultaneously not paying enough attention to them.

"Dear, I think we should wait till we get home to spank her."

As a conclusion, I thought it would be fun to share some trivia on the original film. I learned some new things while researching and I hope you do too. Keep in mind, I’m not crazy into the series like some, so exciting trivia for me may be old news to you.

-Elm Street is not mentioned in the film at all, except in the titles during the opening and closing of the film.

-The red and green colors of Freddy’s sweater were chosen because they are the most difficult for the eye to process when put together. So Freddy is definitely not easy on the eyes.

-Jennifer Grey, Demi Moore, Courtney Cox, and Tracey Gold all auditioned for the role of Nancy. I wonder if their hair was better than Heather Langenkamp’s at the time.

-In a deleted scene, it is revealed that all of the plagued teenagers had a sibling that was killed by Freddy when he was alive.

-Both Tina and Glen’s death scenes were filmed in the same revolving, upside-down-room set.

-Heather Langenkamp spent 12 hours in the water for the bathtub scene.

-The original glove used in the film is apparently missing, having been last seen in Evil Dead II.

-A Canadian serial killer, Peter Woodcock, who was responsible for the deaths of three children, changed his name to David Michael Krueger in 1982. Craven says this is just a coincidence.

-Walt Disney Productions had originally expressed interest in the Nightmare on Elm Street script on the condition that Craven tone down the film…thankfully, he did not.

-500 gallons of blood were used for the production. I’m sure we all know which scene required 99% of that blood.

Belated Snippets from Screamfest

A little while ago I went to Screamfest for a single night and I watched two films: The Fourth Kind (click here for the review) and Tres Dias/Before the Fall. I will be reviewing the latter soon, I promise, and it's a very good film that we happened to catch almost by accident. Screamfest was held at the famous Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, which I had always wanted to see. Next up, I hope to visit the Egyptian, which is literally across the street. Much to my surprise, the actual Grauman's Chinese was not the venue in which the films were screened. I guess it's more of an historical landmark and you can pay for tours of it, which we did not do. Still, the Grauman's Chinese had a modern cineplex that looked similar to an AMC, only nicer.

Inside, Screamfest had a booth and press area set up. The volunteers were very nice, encouraging me to grab as many free posters as I could carry. I was so pleased that I snagged a full size House of the Devil poster. It made my night. Oh and so did this...

You've probably heard of the celebrity impersonators that walk the star-paved streets of Hollywood Blvd. This was my first time actually seeing them, since I have only been there on late weeknights when it's probably not profitable to be out. I was so happy to see a guy dressed as Jason, especially because I happened to be wearing my awesome Fright Rags shirt pictured above. The actor didn't say a word; he only grunted. I was impressed.

Overall, Nick and I had a good time, with only the minor stresses of finding parking at a reasonable rate and dealing with unexplained traffic after midnight. Then again, you expect these things when you are in the Los Angeles area. Attending the event did make me jealous of the people working for Fangoria, who attend these screenings, chat with directors, and then write about it. Awwww, why won't Fangoria respond to my e-mails?

What's wrong with you people?

By you people, I don't really mean YOU. I am referring to all the parents out there that are not taking their kids trick or treating. I thought it was just me, but it seems like a lot of us didn't get too many trick or treaters for Halloween. In fact, for the second year in a row, I didn't have a single child knock on my door begging for candy. What's going on? Do people not go trick or treating anymore? You can't blame the economy on this one, can you? 

Growing up in a rural area, I never had the pleasure of passing out candy on Halloween. I lived in the same house my entire life and we never had a single trick or treater. When I moved to California, I thought all of that would change. I was thrilled at the opportunity to scare children when I answered the door and to check out the creative costumes. Nope. Dreams shattered. I have lived here for four and a half years now and I can probably count the trick or treaters on one hand.

Is trick or treating destined to become a dying tradition? Will dressing up in skanky costumes and drinking as much beer as humanly possible become the sole activities of Halloween? I also don't see nearly as many jack-o-lanterns, haunted houses/corn mazes, and decorations as I used to. The tradition is slowly falling apart. I even attended a Halloween party on the 30th where the costumed guests were less than 1/5 of the attendants, where there were zero decorations, and where absolutely none of the activities had to do with Halloween. It wasn't a Halloween party; it was an excuse to get drunk. Although this accounts for the festivities of the 20 and 30 somethings, what about the children? They don't have parties and alcohol to distract them from the holiday, but the general attitude of apathy appears to be spreading to all ages. 

This was a just a random thought after reading some blog posts about the lack of trick or treaters out there. What do you guys think? How many trick or treaters did you get? Do you see the same changes I do?