Daytona Beach Charity Movie Night Put On Hold Due To Copyright
from the can't-do-something-good-unless-you-pay-up dept
Michael Scott points us to the news that a planned community “movie night” in Daytona Beach, Florida has been put on hold due to copyright concerns, basically because the city hadn’t realized it needed to secure a license to show a movie. The community movie night was an idea to bring the community closer together and also to raise money to fund the city’s annual Independence Day celebration.
Now, those who follow the copyright world may immediately scoff and say: “What were they thinking? Of course they need a license to hold a movie night!” But, it shows how most non-copyright-infatuated folks think: what’s wrong with bringing together a local community, and showing them a legally purchased or rented movie to help build community spirit or raise money for an event or charity? That seems like a perfectly reasonable (and kind-hearted) thing to do. But, now, the city may have to lose money on the event if it goes forward. It will have to pay at least a $500 license, and won’t be allowed to solicit donations. Puts a bit of a damper on the whole thing. Perhaps an up-and-coming movie producer might want to donate their movie to the event to help the city get around having to pay such a fee.
Filed Under: copyright, daytona beach, movie night
Comments on “Daytona Beach Charity Movie Night Put On Hold Due To Copyright”
This is horrible!
No more movie night?
Do you know what this will do to the popcorn industry?
Families across the nation morn the loss of a tradition, no longer can they gather around the tv and watch a movie.
What they should do is just download the Wolverine work print that’s going around and show that. Then the MPAA can count the heads, and bitch and moan about how much MORE money they’re losing, because certainly not one of those people will ever shell out the bucks to see the finished product.
Daytona Film Festival
Call it a film fest and they’ll *send* you films to show.
What's the problem?
I worked at a regional movie theater chain that offered movies under a similar license. We gave the tickets away for free and made all of our money off of snacks. The shows “kept the kids off the streets,” the theater made money, and the MPAA was happy. Everyone wins. Same could happen here. Sell baked goods for a donation, give the tickets away for free and the license requirements should be met.
Re: What's the problem?
Do you really think that jumping through a lot of pointless, contrived, and arbitrary hoops is a good solution to the problem? The problem is our country’s draconian copyright laws, not the lack of a plan to avoid the laws.
Willed a law into existence
Unless I’m completely misremembering, the big warning at the beginning says that you can’t display this for /commercial/ purposes. I think a charity is, by definition, not a commercial purpose.
It sounds to me like they’re just saying it’s true, like the Monday Night Football recording warning.
Federal vs. City
I love when government bangs into itself.
what’s wrong with bringing together a local community, and showing them a legally purchased or rented movie to help build community spirit or raise money for an event or charity?
Quite simply, if 10% of the people in town show up and see the movie at that event, then that is 10% fewer people who are likely to buy or rent their own copies (with of course a few exceptions of people who love it so much they will buy it or rent it again).
Mike, I know you are going for the “outrage” factor, but this is another case where you are seriously reaching.
Re: Re:
Why is this likely?
Re: Re:
Ah yes, whenever I see a good movie, I say, “Great! Now that I’ve seen it, I never have to see it again!”
And I only buy DVD’s of movies that I haven’t seen. Otherwise, I’d have to buy coasters!
That is incredibly stupid, even for you. 24 people gathering for movie night for charity is hardly 10% of the people in the city of Datona. Oh, you didn’t read (again) before you popped off?
I really don’t know why you even bother.
Re: Re:
All I have to say is your an idiot, and you make my stomach ache
Re: WH
You are still an idiot and have no idea how people work.
Please crawl back into your hole.
Re: Re:
On one hand, fewer people will likely buy or rent. On the other hand, more people will likely buy or rent.
Who is seriously reaching?
Re: Re: Re:
Y’know, there’s something wrong when more people are responding to this idiot’s prattling than to the original post. I know, I know, it’s compelling to try and set him straight, but it just doesn’t work. Please don’t feed the trolls, and maybe they’ll go away.
Re: Re:
Weird Harold, that may well be true and all (personally, I think it’s completely Bull-shit, but that’s irrelevant); however, I don’t care if a million people see the movie and decide never to go buy it again. The same thing would happen if ANY product was passed around and given to friends to try out…my friend coming over to sit in my chair, me lending my vehicle to a buddy, my buddy letting me check out his xbox…who knows what, who cares. EVERY OTHER industry has to deal with such things. The entertainment industry enjoys a government PROTECTED and ENFORCED privilege of denying people their ability to share. The entertainment industry gets to dictate how I use my LEGALLY purchased goods AFTER I OWN them.
That’s bull-shit. That’s a violation of my rights as a US citizen. Businesses do not have rights. Rights belong to the people. We choose to give them any rights that they have through our representation in the government. When the government violates our trust in them, we have the obligation and right to take that trust back. That’s what this argument is about. I don’t care whether it’s legal or not. This is about changing legality because it does not represent the will of the people.
That’s why we have a problem with their DRACONIAN or ONEROUS (I’m not so sure that ‘onerous’ is the best choice of words, but whatever…) policies and laws…because they ARE draconian and onerous and just plain antiquated (that might be a better term also).
The government was never intended to interfere in our lives. It was intended to keep order. The government has become a tool for those with money. And, we, as a people have allowed it to happen for our own comfort.
…as Ben Franklin says…the man that gives up freedom for security deserves neither…
I am as big an advocate for copyright reform as anyone, but even I can’t muster feigned outrage at this story. I think that it’s totally appropriate to require people publicly performing/displaying a film, especially when they are doing so for a commercial purpose, to pay for a license.
Re: Re:
A donation drive is a commercial purpose?
I guess PBS, NPR and other *non-commercial* radio/tv stations should rethink their donation drives then.
Also, trying to create a community is a commercial purpose?
Public Domain
There are lots of good movies in the public domain which they could show (provided that they can find a print.) You really don’t have to use a recent film. It’s fer charity, fer Cliff’s sake!
Re: Public Domain
You have to pay this fee, even if you want to show Walt Disney’s Bambi. Not really a recent film, is it?
Re: Re: Public Domain
They just need to go old enough. I think a bunch of silent shorts would work if they are good enough. Just call it nostalgia but I like Chaplin and Keaton.
“Ah yes, whenever I see a good movie, I say, “Great! Now that I’ve seen it, I never have to see it again!”
And I only buy DVD’s of movies that I haven’t seen.”
Me too. The problem is if I then watch a DVD I’ve bought, then I’ve seen it, and don’t need to buy the DVD. But I’ve already bought the DVD… because I haven’t seen it. Oh god, it’s so confusing, it’s a nightmare!!! I never actually watch any of my DVD’s. I don’t know what the solution might be or if there even is one!!!! Has anyone figured a way around this mighty conundrum that plagues us???
Wow WH, you’re the one who is reaching here.
Why no donations?
If they pay the license fee, then that should be the end of it. How can the studio dictate that they can’t solicit donations? Would they tell a movie theater that they can’t sell profitable concessions alongside a movie? Only in this screwed up system does the content owner get to tell you what you can do with a product, even AFTER you pay the proper licensing.
Licensing = legalized Theft by the industry (they stole your rights)
The ‘cheap’ license only covers a public showing and probably specifically excludes the licensee from making anything off of that showing (thus no donations). If they wanted to be allowed to collect donations or charge for showing the movie, I’m sure there is a more expensive license that would allow them to do that (with the product they have already purchased), but with the attendance and motive (build community), they probably wouldn’t even be able to cover the cost of that license.
And before anyone chimes in on the ‘Theft’ part (it was used for effect), considering licensing to be Theft is about the same as calling copyright infringement Theft (which some people… WH… continue to do).
Licence not required
Surprise, Surprise… If its a civic association and falls under not for profit no license is required, per the states attorney general.
Just spoke with them this week… Seriously. Its a Florida thing. Be careful who you solicit for information outside the state of FL or you may be wasting your money.