Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear Spike Lee

juanluisgarcia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 165 posts

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#71

Post by bigiain »

gkoberger wrote: post #11
donretag wrote: post #2

So basically Spike Lee doesn't do the right thing?

Like him or not, seems he had absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

Yes and no.

As the open letter makes very clear - it was bad behaviour on the part of the agency, and Spike most likely didn't know it was going on (and the letter even suggests the agency was actively lying to him about it).

But - Spike is ultimately the one in control of the money-tap the agency is drinking from. While he had "absolutely nothing to do with this", it was no doubt done on his behalf, and he absolutely has the power to fix it. If he says "No, that's not how we do things", then it'll get fixed. (Arguably there are many other people below Spike who could also make that call, but I have some sympathy for the original poster - it would be a great deal of work if it's possible at all, to find out who in the middle management chain of command has sufficient authority to solve this problem and how to contact them directly.)

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#72

Post by res0nat0r »

icebraining wrote: post #70
majormajor wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You agreed to it when you paid in order to watch it. So yes, you didn't. But if you don't agree, you shouldn't watch it. It's a simple deal, regardless of whether or not technology means you could . Otherwise you can turn it around and ask "when did the artist agree to you watching it without paying" which is pretty similar to the case described here, just replace watching with using.

But if you don't agree, you shouldn't watch it. Why? when did the artist agree to you watching it without paying If I own a car made by Toyota, should I need their agreement to offer rides to people?

> Why?

It's against the law.

> If I own a car made by Toyota, should I need their agreement to offer rides to people?

This argument makes no sense. You can play the music you bought for other people for free, just like giving a free car ride. You did in fact pay for the Toyota, just like you would to purchase an album.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#73

Post by kbenson »

herge wrote: post #3

This is why you should always have your contracts reviewed by a lawyer. See Mike Monteiro's Fuck You, Pay Me: http://vimeo.com/22053820

That's one of my favorites, and immediately what came to mind when I started reading this story.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#74

Post by hkmurakami »

gkoberger wrote: post #13

Seems weird he mentioned Spike Lee (who did nothing wrong, as far as I can tell) so many times, but didn't name the agency. Seems to hurt the wrong party's reputation. Additionally, he has no apparent way to contact him. EDIT: I really don't want to point fingers with 0 proof, but Spike Lee happens to be CEO of an ad agency named Spike DDB. https://twitter.com/SpikeDDB

Take it as an engineer with a psycho manager reaching out to the manager's manager in an effort to right wrongs.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#75

Post by majormajor »

icebraining wrote: post #70
majormajor wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You agreed to it when you paid in order to watch it. So yes, you didn't. But if you don't agree, you shouldn't watch it. It's a simple deal, regardless of whether or not technology means you could . Otherwise you can turn it around and ask "when did the artist agree to you watching it without paying" which is pretty similar to the case described here, just replace watching with using.

But if you don't agree, you shouldn't watch it. Why? when did the artist agree to you watching it without paying If I own a car made by Toyota, should I need their agreement to offer rides to people?

I have a hard time seeing the argument that it should be unilateral. An agreement should be between multiple parties, so if you don't agree to what they're offering, you shouldn't take it. Otherwise it devolves into "I will take it because I can." Why does that make any more sense for instantly-reproducible, yet still not instantly-creatable, goods than for physical ones? If you want to take it, you probably see some value in its creation.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#76

Post by subsystem »

tptacek wrote: post #64
drcube wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if they believe that, it doesn't make plagiarism and breech of contract okay.

Sophomoric semantic rationalization. Two different settings for copyright violation, but sure, just use synonyms and related concepts to make one seem bad and the other OK; gullible message board nerds ravenous for validation for pirating movies, music, and software will lap it up.

There's more than a semantic difference between moral and material interests. In fact most "internet hippies" I know wants strong moral protection for authors [0][1]. It's a fairly central concept in the copyright debate, not least since it's part of the universal declaration of human rights.

[0] http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/the-pirate-party-on-c... [1] http://the1709blog.blogspot.se/2012/05/pirate-party-plans-fo... [2] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/400/60/PDF/G0...

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#77

Post by snowwrestler »

nawitus wrote: post #34
bananacurve wrote: post #17

Where are the internet hippies saying everything should be free?

Believing that copyright shouldn't exist or should be limited from it's current status but contracts should be enforced is a completely valid position.

You can't enforce a contract related to creative works without the concept of copyright. Otherwise there is nothing of value upon which to base the contract. That is where copyright came from in the first place.

Re: Dear Spike Lee

#78

Post by icebraining »

kazagistar wrote: post #66
icebraining wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did I agree to that?

To be fair, all property law is just as fictional. I didn't agree to not trespass or use items that other people claim belong to them. I didn't agree to the papers they hold saying that I cannot go for a joyride in my neighbors' car. The law defines property. Just because IP has different traits then physical property does not make it more real; they are both useful fictions that form the foundation of a functional s…

Scarcity is what sustains private property, as a way to control conflicts when multiple people want to access rivalrous goods. Intellectual property is a collection of disparate concepts, but if we take copyright, there's no similar justification for it.

See Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella: http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Post reply on HN