[Noisebridge-discuss] dreamworks reply

[Andrew Byrne]

*cleans brains up off floor*

So this is more of an artistic statement meant to challenge the culture of
copyright. In that case, never mind about what I said wrt the law; when
tilting against windmills, you need a good head of steam.

-dru


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:

> It's been read by so many people already that it crashed the Noisebridge
> server.
>
> I can engineer it so that more people at DreamWorks read it too, but I'm
> not sure that's the point. In fact if they actually went and used the logo
> anyway (which I doubt but it happens), that might actually put the nice
> clearance people in more trouble, which I personally would like to avoid.
> On Jan 31, 2013 10:18 AM, "Jeffrey Carl Faden" <jeffreyatw at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In other words, this whole reply is going to be read by no one.
>>
>> Jeffrey
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2013, at 7:22 PM, Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Danny O'Brien writes:
>> >
>> >> as per last week's consensus, is here:
>> >>
>> >> this week's meeting should agree on whether we should send it or not
>> >>
>> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/DreamworksReply
>> >
>> > I like this letter, but I'm not sure about the target audience.
>> > I see that the letter is addressed to a clearance agency, not to the
>> > producer or director, nor even to the studio.  Making these kinds of
>> > requests (and maybe others that could be more strongly supported by
>> > copyright law) is the clearance agency's entire livelihood; they have
>> > credits for doing it for dozens of feature films.
>> >
>> > Although telling the clearance agency how we disapprove of the
>> > permission culture makes sense, and it might be interesting to know
>> > whether they have concerns about the legal and cultural aspects of
>> > their clearance work, I have a sense that they're not exactly the right
>> > audience.  They're not the ones who will be disappointed if they "can't"
>> > use the Noisebridge logo in the film.  In fact, they have no creative
>> > role in the film at all!  Couldn't it make more sense to send the letter
>> > to someone with a clearer creative role, who might have stronger
>> opinions
>> > about the film's content?  For example, someone who might actually want
>> > to have a conversation with the studio about whether they can use the
>> > logo despite its being "uncleared" from the industry's perspective?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>      |  No haiku patents
>> >     http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/        |  means I've no incentive
>> to
>> >  FD9A6AA28193A9F03D4BF4ADC11B36DC9C7DD150  |        -- Don Marti
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>


-- 
-- --
-- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- --
@AndruByrne
CEO, Pachakutech
www.pachakutech.com/intro.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130201/16c907ee/attachment-0003.html>