Comments on: Disney slams cease and decist on Galway students for Sister Act play

by: krynn

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:16:16 +0000

yes, chapter 383: ‘the face smashing incident’. its great. its about the stifling of creativity.

by: slutmonkey57b

Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:23:39 +0000

Eh. Right. So is this story about Disney smashing someone in the face with a brick in the book is it? Moron. Again, the issue is not about whether disney is a “nice” company or not, it is whether the LGBT soc in Galway has the right to rip off copyrighted works to line their own coffers.

I have “no logo” at home - it’s just as as flawed and logo-obsessed as the corporations it pillories.

by: krynn

Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:07:22 +0000

once upon a time an innocent, gifted girl was in a field painting her favourite tree in the style of disney. she was totally absorbed in the task, loving every moment of it, greatful and loving of her mentor who had provided such a genuine inspiration for her art. she could not be more thankful to his genius, and couldnt wait for him to see and share in the experience. one magical day, putting the finishing strokes to her masterpiece, disney came along, saw the painting, ripped it up and proceeded to smash her face in with a brick. ‘i have too much money, i’m jealous, and i hate people who smile’, said the wonderful, caring disney, who had provided ever so much entertainment to all the lovely children in the lovely world.

if you want to know the truth about disney, its in the book ‘no logo’ by Naomi Klein, which u can borrow from most libraries. there is an index at the back. check it out.

by: slutmonkey57b

Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:17:38 +0000

Whether you agree with the concept of copyright law as it applies to corporate behemoths, the truth is that copyright law was hard fought for on behalf of a lot of artists down through the years who struggle to make a living and rely on copyright, image rights, repeat fees and the like in order to put bread on the table. wil wheatons’ blog is a good source of first-hand debate on the subject if you’re curious.

A bit like NUIG’s GigSoc society and its need to fund transgendered propoganda - the only difference is that copyright law is there to protect people who have, at some point, created something unique, and GigSoc is looking for the right to rip off people who are creative because they’re too useless to draw a crowd on their own merits.

I’d object to the comments in the original article because the issue is not “is Sister Act a good film”, which is the bias spun on it, it is “does organisation A have the right to rip off organisation B to put money in their own pocket (”good” cause or no).”

As to the correlation between copyright infringement in a paid-entry staged performance and P2P issues, that’s beyond a stretch. P2P piracy exists because of a pretty unique coming together of circumstances, and a lot of the blame for P2P piracy can be put at the feet of the media conglomerates themselves due to decades of illegal price cartels, inflated prices, and artificial market constraints. It is not at all the same as saying “Hey, nice work. I’ll take it, charge these people to see it, and put all the money in my pocket without reimbursing you a dime.”

And finally, you can’t argue that the creator of a work should be prevented from having some control over its use - otherwise where would Sin City have come from? If Frank Miller hadn’t had copyright control over his works, then Sin City and 300 would have come off far the worse than they did.

by: Steven Dedalus

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:53:24 +0000

We should just ban everything to do with ‘Sister Act’, especially Whoopi Goldberg.

That way, no-one’s feelings will be hurt.

by: danger

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:08:09 +0000

See you’re making it personal. If we’re going to do that, I would like a law passed that whenever I do a shit, I get paid €10,000. Now that’s just silly, but somehow, somewhere along the way it’s come to be that it’s not silly that you can create one thing, and get paid and protect it for your entire lifetime, and then once your dead your children can keep it going too? So we have to do what’s good for society, not one individual. In terms of society rewarding and promoting creativity, my proposals above are a good way to do that, whereas current copyright is not.

Of course I would like to be paid for it. But looking at the problem objectively, you can’t argue honestly in favor of copyright as it stands; unless you have a vested interest, like Disney do.

by: Si

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:26:51 +0000

I see your point but what if you’re not very creative and just happen to write one song that happens to be very catchy, the typical one hit wonder song and no matter what else you write it’s all rubbish compared to that one song you’ve written. Would you not liked to be paid for it?