It is currently Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:37 pm



Reply to topic  [ 19313 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385 ... 387  Next
 The Television Thread 
Author Message
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
LOL, doubling-down. OK.

I am doubling down that unreasonable people cannot be reasoned with, yes. I wish they could!

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Enjoy your future of trying skim pennies out of streaming services.

If only you had as much of a hostile attitude over the entitled profits of corporations as you have for the compensation for individual creators. Clearly a lack of imagination. I still see no reason why the better question of eliminating the bloated self-imposed middle man is off the table. Because?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Seeing as you don't have a jet, I guess you don't have it either? Shall we mention the role that luck plays in all this?

Luck and greed play a big role in things like international celebrity, which is a very different proposal than an artist being able to make a living off of their work. That's why invoking Bono is so foolish. He represents, what?, .0004% of working musicians? Your scale here is terribly skewered, but that's the handy strawman. Most working creative people are not aiming to be rock stars.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
But when the assertion of an absolute right to property predicated on outmoded metaphysical claims of originality, genius, and creation results in the monetization of singing Happy Birthday in public for most of my life, that is not working out for the greatest good.

I will agree that your point is untainted with originality or genius, so I'll suffice to point out that the writer of "Happy Birthday" is long dead, and therefore inapplicable to anything I've actually said. Maybe it's good for everybody to incentivize artists to make great work? Like every other industry does?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And this isn't about me.

You are the one presuming to make value judgments over an entire class of labor. Notice how I have never proposed paying professors, or teachers, less money because their work happens to be wholly dependent on teaching the work of others? That would be pretty stupid of me, wouldn't it?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
We should balance ends with means, but when I look to means I see no special right to own ideas which animate the whole human race.

I look forward to free medicine and health care too.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The Pentatonic scale and Kino-Eye, however, belong to everyone along with archetypical tunes and stories.

When exactly do you think a tune or story becomes "archetypical"? Usually after it's, um, been around a bit, right?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Only if it can't be copied.

Everything can be copied. But in the execution of a work - whether a book, song, film, photograph - it's those signature things which reflect a personal voice that becomes inimitable. This is what's lost on the "nothing new under the sun" folks. You can copy Nabokov, Kubrick, and Dylan (and many have), but you can't make a work of theirs.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sure, how about a 10-20 year right to monetize your relatively/contextually "original" re-arrangement of the furniture?

I get that you don't respect creative work as anything other than shuffling fodder. I'm more sympathetic to copyright protections that last either 50 years or the lifetime of the artist. I think that this is a fair approach, but we can agree that there's an awful lot of middle ground between maintaining perpetual corporate copyrights and exploiting the free labor of talented creative skills.


Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:24 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
I am doubling down that unreasonable people cannot be reasoned with, yes. I wish they could!


https://youtu.be/iYbvLuyARDk?t=65

Jinnistan wrote:
You are the one presuming to make value judgments over an entire class of labor. Notice how I have never proposed paying professors, or teachers, less money because their work happens to be wholly dependent on teaching the work of others? That would be pretty stupid of me, wouldn't it?


Genetic fallacy much? Your claims are as good as your reasons and evidence.

Jinnistan wrote:
Everything can be copied. But in the execution of a work - whether a book, song, film, photograph - it's those signature things which reflect a personal voice that becomes inimitable. This is what's lost on the "nothing new under the sun" folks. You can copy Nabokov, Kubrick, and Dylan (and many have), but you can't make a work of theirs.


Has the character of Sherlock been successfully portrayed by more than one actor? Has the character been successfully written by more than one author? Because the work is in the public domain we can answer both questions affirmatively. There is not authorial ectoplasm or signature performance that makes Holmes impossible to repeat or imitate.

Who could possibly make a Stradivarius today? Who could capture the inimitable voice of that instrument? Apparently, a lot of people.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/201 ... -italians/

And what matters is not that anyone could or should capture any of your heroes with perfect detail (any given shuffle of a deck of cards can produce a quite rare microstate), but that we may share their work freely and remix it, copy it, reposition it, reframe it--not to freeze it as an icon. Demand an arbitrary degree of precision and everyone's voice is inimitable. With an arbitrary degree of flexibility, on the other hand, everything is imitable.

Jinnistan wrote:
I get that you don't respect creative work as anything other than shuffling fodder. I'm more sympathetic to copyright protections that last either 50 years or the lifetime of the artist. I think that this is a fair approach, but we can agree that there's an awful lot of middle ground between maintaining perpetual corporate copyrights and exploiting the free labor of talented creative skills.


How about 25?


Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:42 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
https://youtu.be/iYbvLuyARDk?t=65

Do you think that "hate" is the root motive behind not wanting the Ten Commandments displayed in US courtrooms?

Jinnistan wrote:
Your claims are as good as your reasons and evidence.

You made the claim, I made a comparison. Your reasons and evidence to deny creator compensation (ie, the "outmoded metaphysical claims of originality, genius, and creation") just happens to be horseshit.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Has the character of Sherlock been successfully portrayed by more than one actor? Has the character been successfully written by more than one author? Because the work is in the public domain we can answer both questions affirmatively. There is not authorial ectoplasm or signature performance that makes Holmes impossible to repeat or imitate.

Because of your aggressive compulsion to ignore what I've already written, I can only reiterate for about the third time that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is a poor example for the kind of copyright law that I'm advocating being he's a dead man for nearly 90 years now. While he was alive, he maintained full copyright control of the character and his stories, and for the next 70 years after his death his estate maintained that copyright control. We can argue over whether such posthumous copyrights should be valid, and, of course, I've already made a clear point on the matter. Doyle, and later his estate, enjoyed the profits from the character throughout his incarnations for the rest of the century.

The entire point of the copyright is to provide a creator with exclusive publishing rights for this reason: compensation. It doesn't matter whether there were other writers who happened to be better than Doyle who could successfully use his character, the point is that he was compensated for his work.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Who could possibly make a Stradivarius today? Who could capture the inimitable voice of that instrument? Apparently, a lot of people.

The Stradivarius is an instrument. The "voice" is produced by the player. As good as a Stradivarius is, it will not make a virtuoso out of a monkey.

You seem to confuse objects with people. We're talking about "copying" a work of art. This example is akin to someone counterfeiting copies of, say, Lolita, 2001 and Blood on the Tracks. Are these copies not great masterpieces still? Except that their authors will not receive this revenue, and they are not original creative works, the synthesis of experience and inspiration. A new Stradivarius is a copy of a fantastic instrument, perhaps identical to the original. But it's worthless without someone who can play it, infuse it with subjective human expression. I think you take the latter for granted. Stradivarius, incidentally, is also a dead man and therefore not exactly applicable to what I've said about copyrights either.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Demand an arbitrary degree of precision and everyone's voice is inimitable. With an arbitrary degree of flexibility, on the other hand, everything is imitable.

"Not the Beatles, but an incredible simulation!" - Ray Kurweil

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
How about 25?

Warmer.


Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:54 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The older you get, the more you realize that there is nothing new under the Sun and that ideas thrive when they're allowed to roam free--but as you know, I am a bit of a heretic in this department.

How does compensating the artist prevent ideas from "roaming free"? De Palma didn't have to compensate Hitchcock when he made Sisters. Tom Petty didn't have to compensate Roger McGuinn every time he played a 12-string. The ideas are sufficiently free, as far as I'm concerned.

And the tunes aren't "bottled". Journey doesn't collect royalties from Karaoke Nights.

(I already regret getting involved in this conversation.)

_________________
Captain's Log


Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:54 pm
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Captain Terror wrote:
How does compensating the artist prevent ideas from "roaming free"?


It happens when Radiohead sues Lana Del Ray over alleged infringement of "Creep" and the lawyers demand 100% compensation over some chord progression bullshit, even though the Hollies used the same progression in 1972. It doesn't have to go to trial to have a chilling effect on production. If you cannot afford a high-powered legal team, you are priced out of the game. And so we have endless lawsuits where one side claims that the other robbed them and they demand compensation. Making claims on simple melodies, sound samples, complex chord progressions or even fucking "sound alikes" (e.g., Blurred Lines https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... right.html) creates a mine field of IP. No one really cares until someone succeeds with a song and then the mine goes off.

It happens when a filmmaker wants to use a song in a film forty years after it was on the charts? Fuck you, someone else owns that, beg permission or pay--and thus other modes of art are constricted from circulating culture.

When we have battalions or lawyers hawking over cheap tunes like patent trolls thumping their chests over vague filings covering "A process providing event photographs of a sporting event for inspection, selection and distribution via a computer network" we're in an ecosystem that is hurting society at large. Things are so bad that software companies pay each other protection money over patents that are vague and which aren't even held by the party demanding compensation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... US_Patents

Captain Terror wrote:
And the tunes aren't "bottled". Journey doesn't collect royalties from Karaoke Nights.


https://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/mus ... publisher/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-e ... ony-283540

https://torrentfreak.com/bar-hit-with-4 ... gs-130716/

https://www.gofundme.com/kevinkaraoke

Whether or not you get in trouble on Karaoke night has everything to do with whether someone wants to protect their IP. It's great that Happy Birthday is FINALLY in the public domain, but let's not forget that until that happened it wasn't just the case that you could not use it in your TV show or film, you could be sued for any public performance of the song. That hasn't changed.


Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:45 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
Do you think that "hate" is the root motive behind not wanting the Ten Commandments displayed in US courtrooms?


It motivates the mode of expressing that sentiment.

Jinnistan wrote:
You made the claim, I made a comparison. Your reasons and evidence to deny creator compensation (ie, the "outmoded metaphysical claims of originality, genius, and creation") just happens to be horseshit.


No, you fell back on jibberjab about how anyone who isn't in your shoes just can't understand. "What have you wrought, professor!" And that really is horseshit.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Because of your aggressive compulsion to ignore what I've already written, I can only reiterate for about the third time that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is a poor example for the kind of copyright law that I'm advocating being he's a dead man for nearly 90 years now.


That wasn't the focus of the example, speaking of aggressively ignoring what's been written (i.e., Sherlock has been successfully written and portrayed variously).

Janson wrote:
The entire point of the copyright is to provide a creator with exclusive publishing rights for this reason: compensation.


I get the sense that you've been thirsting after compensation in your field and haven't quite found satisfaction.

Janson wrote:
It doesn't matter whether there were other writers who happened to be better than Doyle who could successfully use his character, the point is that he was compensated for his work.


Your point was that authors deserve compensation because of their singularity (no one else could do it!). When I point out to you that in this example others have "done it," you contend that that's not the point! The point is that makers deserve compensation--but you've just surrendered the warrant for that claim. So artists deserve compensation... ...because?

Janson wrote:
You seem to confuse objects with people. We're talking about "copying" a work of art. This example is akin to someone counterfeiting copies of, say, Lolita, 2001 and Blood on the Tracks. Are these copies not great masterpieces still? Except that their authors will not receive this revenue, and they are not original creative works, the synthesis of experience and inspiration.


We're talking about copying tokens, yes. To be a token means that you are ripe for copying. We're also talking about types, the abstract concepts behind the token. Most artworks have a token-type relationship. That is, we could lose the original manuscript for a book, but still possess the artwork (the type is conserved). You have been running a gambit to conflate the two by arguing that the performance of an artwork (a token) is sometimes the thing itself (the type). But you've got your terms backwards. If someone performed "My Way" in a fantastically new and different way (think of Johnny Cash's cover of "Hurt"), we might say that that token has exceeded the type. In such case, however, we would have simply inaugurated a new type (e.g., "No, let's do Johnny Cash's version.") which itself can be sought after in new token. You're arguing it the other way around. You're arguing that sometimes the singularity of the original expression is so great that it is inimitable, not in the sense that we cannot produce tokens (the mere things!), but in the mode production ("There will never be another Nabikov!").

Is Shakespeare a true singularity? No. He borrowed and adapted and operated in a style that was of his time. He did it well, but he is not unconnected from history. Will we ever have another Joyce. Well, that depends. How much arbitrary precision are we demanding? If we produce something just like "Lolita," then we only have a copy. If we vary from the original, however, you can protest that "It's not the same!". So your challenge is to produce something which is Nabikov, but not Nabikov. Something that is as good as Nabikov without being Nabikov is pretty easy. There are many writers in the pantheon who are "as good as." Thus, your challenge must be more specific. That is, to be as good as Nabikov, but not be exactly like Nabikov (a mere copy), but to "feel" like Nabikov--to create something we believe could have been written by Nabikov. And here you're in for a profound disappointment. For decades we've had machines that can compose in the style of great composers and fool experts as to who wrote the piece. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/11/scie ... te-it.html
And consider that we can't even satisfy ourselves that Shakespeare was as good as Shakespeare, that he was who we think he was, that he wrote everything he is alleged to have written.

But let's simplify this. That successful forgeries "in the style of" exist is all the proof we need. If it takes a detailed forensic analysis to debunk a forgery, that is not a failure of the forgery because the forgery is by necessity contingently severed from the author being copied (for she did not, by definition, produce it)! So long as it can be placed in front of a discriminating audience who agrees that it is in the style and quality of a particular maker, that is all we need. And how many audiences fail tests as simple as the Pepsi challenge?



I will grant, however, that this does (at least in principle) offer us a conceptual mechanism for limited compensation of makers. The harder it is to produce a work in the quality and style of X, the more the maker of X deserves compensation for having produced it. That is, the test is not "originality" or "singularity" or "inimitability" or any other Romantic asymptote, but rather the relative rarity of it in terms of the ability of others to produce similar things. For this reason, I would not strongly protect that IP of most pop songs (which are bubblegum bullshit with the complexity of "Hot Cross Buns"), but I would be inclined to respected something as sophisticated as the work of a great author.


Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:34 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
It happens when Radiohead sues Lana Del Ray over alleged infringement of "Creep" and the lawyers demand 100% compensation over some chord progression bullshit, even though the Hollies used the same progression in 1972. It doesn't have to go to trial to have a chilling effect on production. If you cannot afford a high-powered legal team, you are priced out of the game. And so we have endless lawsuits where one side claims that the other robbed them and they demand compensation. Making claims on simple melodies, sound samples, complex chord progressions or even fucking "sound alikes" (e.g., Blurred Lines https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... right.html) creates a mine field of IP. No one really cares until someone succeeds with a song and then the mine goes off.

It happens when a filmmaker wants to use a song in a film forty years after it was on the charts? Fuck you, someone else owns that, beg permission or pay--and thus other modes of art are constricted from circulating culture.

When we have battalions or lawyers hawking over cheap tunes like patent trolls thumping their chests over vague filings covering "A process providing event photographs of a sporting event for inspection, selection and distribution via a computer network" we're in an ecosystem that is hurting society at large. Things are so bad that software companies pay each other protection money over patents that are vague and which aren't even held by the party demanding compensation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... US_Patents



https://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/mus ... publisher/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-e ... ony-283540

https://torrentfreak.com/bar-hit-with-4 ... gs-130716/

https://www.gofundme.com/kevinkaraoke

Whether or not you get in trouble on Karaoke night has everything to do with whether someone wants to protect their IP. It's great that Happy Birthday is FINALLY in the public domain, but let's not forget that until that happened it wasn't just the case that you could not use it in your TV show or film, you could be sued for any public performance of the song. That hasn't changed.

Why couldn't you have made this the basis of your IP complaint above? I already asked you why the focus shouldn't be on the bloated self-appointed middle men, aka the very same lawyers you're discussing here? All of the IP abuse that you lay out above has very little to do with the artists themselves. That last point about forcing cover bands to pay royalties? That was the publishing corporations that came up with that. Actual songwriters still get screwed on their publishing rights.

There's a long history of shady IP, if that was the avenue you wanted to make. Morris Levy, a lawyer who could not play music, attempted to trademark "rock and roll" in 1952, and although he failed at that, he did amass a large catalogue of other people's songs, usually under very legally shakey grounds. Levy owned the Chuck Berry catalogue and sued The Beatles because "Come Together" used a quarter of the same verse as "You Can't Catch Me". Berry did not authorize this action and did not profit from it. When someone is forced to pay millions of dollars to use "Satisfaction", that money does not go to the Stones but to Allen Klein's company because he stole their publishing rights by setting up a fraudulent shell company. Why were so many blues musicians plundered to the teeth? Because they didn't have the lawyers. Instead of rectifying this economic injustice, you're proposing to reciprocally deny these songwriters from finally earning their rightful share today.

What surprises me then is why you chose to frame these IP excesses in terms of what the artist deserves while allowing these corporate vultures to slide like some kind of inevitable force of nature? When you choose to skip over this expansive history of artist exploitation in order to throw epithets about greedy creeds, Bono-fetishists and derogating the creative process to the kinds of simple permutations of the "nothing new under the sun" that a machine can replicate, you betray your own resentment towards the artists as opposed to their corporate exploiters. But that's not the first time you've done so, and you seemed determined to drive the tangient in that direction.


Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:31 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Whether or not you get in trouble on Karaoke night has everything to do with whether someone wants to protect their IP.

My secret is out- I know nothing about Karaoke protocol. Still, this is an issue between publishers and bars. My point was that the "artist", ie your Aunt Betty, is free to sing the song if she pleases. Or to get away from the ridiculous karaoke example- my friend's band ended every show with "Panama" as an encore and I can say with 100% certainty that he never got permission from anyone in the Van Halen organization to do so.

Regardless, I don't see why I have to allow people to sell T-Shirts with one of my paintings on them just because Ratt's publishing guy is an a-hole.

_________________
Captain's Log


Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:36 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
Why couldn't you have made this the basis of your IP complaint above? I already asked you why the focus shouldn't be on the bloated self-appointed middle men, aka the very same lawyers you're discussing here? All of the IP abuse that you lay out above has very little to do with the artists themselves. That last point about forcing cover bands to pay royalties? That was the publishing corporations that came up with that. Actual songwriters still get screwed on their publishing rights.

There's a long history of shady IP, if that was the avenue you wanted to make. Morris Levy, a lawyer who could not play music, attempted to trademark "rock and roll" in 1952, and although he failed at that, he did amass a large catalogue of other people's songs, usually under very legally shakey grounds. Levy owned the Chuck Berry catalogue and sued The Beatles because "Come Together" used a quarter of the same verse as "You Can't Catch Me". Berry did not authorize this action and did not profit from it. When someone is forced to pay millions of dollars to use "Satisfaction", that money does not go to the Stones but to Allen Klein's company because he stole their publishing rights by setting up a fraudulent shell company. Why were so many blues musicians plundered to the teeth? Because they didn't have the lawyers. Instead of rectifying this economic injustice, you're proposing to reciprocally deny these songwriters from finally earning their rightful share today.

What surprises me then is why you chose to frame these IP excesses in terms of what the artist deserves while allowing these corporate vultures to slide like some kind of inevitable force of nature? When you choose to skip over this expansive history of artist exploitation in order to throw epithets about greedy creeds, Bono-fetishists and derogating the creative process to the kinds of simple permutations of the "nothing new under the sun" that a machine can replicate, you betray your own resentment towards the artists as opposed to their corporate exploiters. But that's not the first time you've done so, and you seemed determined to drive the tangient in that direction.


I'm not sure how the argument continues after this, but I'm sure we'll find out.


Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:21 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Captain Terror wrote:
My secret is out- I know nothing about Karaoke protocol. Still, this is an issue between publishers and bars. My point was that the "artist", ie your Aunt Betty, is free to sing the song if she pleases.


Unless her public performance falls under the eye of Sauron and some publishing company decides to punish her. That this does not typically happen does not mean that this is not how the letter of the works (and how it has been applied). Here is a nice line from a NYT article from 1996 which details a lawsuit that ASCAP pulled out of under public pressure:

Quote:
Meanwhile, Girl Scout leaders in San Francisco, where the troubles are centered, are still afraid to sing ''Puff the Magic Dragon'' and ''Over the Rainbow,'' even though Mary Rose Main, the Girl Scouts' national executive director, says all is settled.


https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyre ... ts-it.html

Sure, you can get away with public performances, just so long as you don't clubbed over the head by the IP trolls. At the point that you're having too much fun or getting too much coin, the law is on their side.

This is why I am leaning for less rather than more IP protection. Who are we protecting, really? And who is really benefiting?


Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:22 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
It motivates the mode of expressing that sentiment.

The sentiment of church/state separation is hateful?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
"What have you wrought, professor!" And that really is horseshit.

Yeah, I just said it was horseshit: "that would be pretty stupid of me". The horseshit is deeming yourself capable of sweepingly judging the value of a creator's labor based on what you consider the outdated metaphysical claims of creation. I made the comparison to a professor to show how ridiculous such a sweeping valuation is, and I'm happy that you recognized that.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
That wasn't the focus of the example, speaking of aggressively ignoring what's been written (i.e., Sherlock has been successfully written and portrayed variously).

Your example stepped on its own foot because you must have been under the impression that Sherlock Holmes was in the public domain for longer than it actually was, but both points correspond. Doyle, as creator of the character, was allowed proprietary rights to profit off of his creation, and the fact that so many people chose to adapt his character, rather than create their own, is evidence of this property's value. These later Sherlock Holmes stories are not original creations in the way that, say, Batman would be (giving an obvious Sherlock Holmes derivation). And Batman remains a valuable property evidenced in the number of people who continue to adapt that character, although Bill Finger was thanklessly not compensated (and the comic book industry is filled with similar IP exploitation of artists, ala Jack Kirby, etc).

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
I get the sense that you've been thirsting after compensation in your field and haven't quite found satisfaction.

Because you're probably ignorant and unsympathetic to the easily accessible history of exploited creative people throughout history.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Your point was that authors deserve compensation because of their singularity (no one else could do it!). When I point out to you that in this example others have "done it," you contend that that's not the point! The point is that makers deserve compensation--but you've just surrendered the warrant for that claim. So artists deserve compensation... ...because?

My point stands on Doyle's example because Doyle made a character that no one else made. Maybe someone could have, but they didn't. Doyle did. And although you prefer to view this inspiration as something arbitrary, rather than creative skill, you have little appreciation that he deserved compensation for this creation. When other creators make characters as compelling as Sherlock Holmes, they also deserve compensation. Those who merely traffick in Sherlock products and IP deserve much less compensation than the original creator, and that's why, for decades, those adaptors of Doyle's character paid his fee.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
You have been running a gambit to conflate the two by arguing that the performance of an artwork (a token) is sometimes the thing itself (the type). But you've got your terms backwards.

I think you're the one who's got my argument backwards. In terms of literature, the "performance" is the writing. You can copy the writing but this would be plagiarism. You could argue that there's only so many words and no one owns words, but that would be to deliberately miss the point.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
(think of Johnny Cash's cover of "Hurt")

Why can't I just think of Sid Vicious? Then this would be, like Warhol's soup can, an innovation of contextualization. Warhol, too, has had an innumerable number of copycats and imitators, but very few who could match his conceptual breakthrough. And, anyway, Paul Anka bought "My Way" instead of actually composing it, so no harm no foul.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
You're arguing that sometimes the singularity of the original expression is so great that it is inimitable, not in the sense that we cannot produce tokens (the mere things!), but in the mode production ("There will never be another Nabikov!").

Neither "My Way" nor "Hurt" would qualify as inimitably great. Maybe something like "Day in the Life" (recording as performance), but there's still a number of innovative covers of that song. The original remains inimitable as a singular work.

Saying that there will never be another Nabokov doesn't mean that future writers will not be able to match his thematic and syntactical excellence. It simply means that Nabokov is a specific synthesis of influences and experiences that are unique to his life's circumstances. Most (honest) artists feel that they consistently fall short of their aspirational heroes, and also believe that "there will never be another *blank*". There will be other names.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Shakespeare

Yet another dead guy who's not quite relevant to contemporary copyright law. It's almost as if the ambiguity around the sources of his work could be precisely due to an absence of copyright protection. A funny fact is that a couple of his plays (Pericles most notoriously) have only been preserved from counterfeit "quartos" illicitly transcribed by audience members. Modern copyright should be devoted to avoiding such credential ambiguity.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
arbitrary precision

The worst oxymoron in the post.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Something that is as good as Nabikov without being Nabikov is pretty easy.

Says the anonymous published author with effortless spelling skills.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
There are many writers in the pantheon who are "as good as." Thus, your challenge must be more specific. That is, to be as good as Nabikov, but not be exactly like Nabikov (a mere copy), but to "feel" like Nabikov--to create something we believe could have been written by Nabikov.

The bar set for "as good as" has no such proximity to imitation. Those authors who are "as good as" Nabokov, or Joyce or Dostoyevsky, are not measured in their stylistic approximation to any other great writer, but rather in that very thing I referred to as a "singular voice", a writer who is signaturely identifiable, distinct and vibrant and qualitatively consistent. Same with Kubrick. His greatness doesn't depend on "feeling" like any other director but in his ability to convey his very distinctly personal feeling.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And here you're in for a profound disappointment. For decades we've had machines that can compose in the style of great composers and fool experts as to who wrote the piece. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/11/scie ... te-it.html

Yes, I'm very disappointed that "experts" turn out to frequently be fools. Doesn't make any of that music sound inspired. I wouldn't listen to it for pleasure. Does anybody? But, keeping with your resentments of all the Bonos in the world, I understand that you would prefer to have these "arbitrarily precise" creative processes outsourced to computers sooner than later. Ray Kurzweil will save you someday.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And how many audiences fail tests as simple as the Pepsi challenge?

Sure, let's compare a work of art to a diabetic corporate syrup. That probably makes sense to a utilitarian.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
That is, the test is not "originality" or "singularity" or "inimitability" or any other Romantic asymptote, but rather the relative rarity of it in terms of the ability of others to produce similar things.

The originality, singularity and inimitability comprise those rare qualities. Truly original works are rare because it is extremely difficult to produce one.


Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:48 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
The sentiment of church/state separation is hateful?


And round and round we go. It's not the point, but how the point is made.

Cue the next "rebuttal."

"Derr, but the point is right! Are you against the point?"

Let's get off this whirly-gig already.

Janson wrote:
Yeah, I just said it was horseshit: "that would be pretty stupid of me".


It was. You were asking irrelevant questions about who I am and what I've produced and so on.

Janson wrote:
The horseshit is deeming yourself capable of sweepingly judging the value of a creator's labor based on what you consider the outdated metaphysical claims of creation.


Bad criteria are bad criteria. You're a hopeless romantic, so you recur to these bad criteria that get us sucked into the event horizon of singular ownership.

Janson wrote:
I made the comparison to a professor to show how ridiculous such a sweeping valuation is, and I'm happy that you recognized that.


Nice try.

Janson wrote:
Your example stepped on its own foot because you must have been under the impression that Sherlock Holmes was in the public domain for longer than it actually was,


Even though the point I was making had everything to do with the writing and portrayal of Holmes? Give me a break.

Janson wrote:
Because you're probably ignorant and unsympathetic to the easily accessible history of exploited creative people throughout history.


What hath you wrought, professor?!?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
My point stands on Doyle's example because Doyle made a character that no one else made. Maybe someone could have, but they didn't. Doyle did. And although you prefer to view this inspiration as something arbitrary, rather than creative skill, you have little appreciation that he deserved compensation for this creation.


I allow for a limited period of time for makers to profit from their work and to control it. A couple of decades. I am not made of stone. I care. I do. I am just not building an altar to the poet.

Janson wrote:
I think you're the one who's got my argument backwards. In terms of literature, the "performance" is the writing.


No, that's how I understood you the first time. You're trying to compress token and type together via this notion of "performance." There is a "performance" (an act) which inaugurates the "type," but the type itself is fixed and may be performed at will-songs can be covered, the same play can be performed again and again, and book can be republished and reread. Some tokens are ephemeral (plays), some are more durable (as durable as the printing and binding of a book). I get that you want to "thingify" types so as to leverage claim ownership of it as one owns a frying pan, but a type is not the same sort of thing as a frying pan.

Janson wrote:
You can copy the writing but this would be plagiarism.


What if I put the name of the author on my copy?

What if I myself have no claim to authorial ownership? What if no one owned a literary object? What if you could copy my copy without punishment? What then would be my inducement to plagiarize?

Janson wrote:
Saying that there will never be another Nabokov dosn't mean that future writers will not be able to match his thematic and syntactical excellence. It simply means that Nabokov is a specific synthesis of influences and experiences that are unique to his life's circumstances.


I already covered this bit ("quality" and "style of") and both criteria can be met with arbitrary precision, although I allow that an increasing degree difficulty in doing so increasingly legitimates a temporary claim to control and monetize a type for a period of time.

Janson wrote:
Most (honest) artists feel that they consistently fall short of their aspirational heroes, and also believe that "there will never be another *blank*". There will be other names.


Sure. But that's just hero-worship.

Janson wrote:
The worst oxymoron in the post.


This ("arbitrary precision") is a commonly used philosophical expression.

Janson wrote:
Stop being stupid. The bar set for "as good as" has no such proximity to imitation. Those authors who are "as good as" Nabokov, or Joyce or Dostoyevsky, are not measured in their stylistic approxoimation to another great writer, but rather in that very thing I referd to as a "singular voice", a writer who is signaturely identifiable, distinct and vibrant and qualitatively consistent. Same with Kubrick. His greatness doesn't depend on "feeling" like any other director but in his ability to convey his distinctly personal feeling.


No, quality is in the mix too. One could use all the fingerprint techniques of Kubrick and make a shitty film. An imitation must be in the style of in terms of the quality of the artist as well.

Janson wrote:
Yes, I'm very disappointed that "experts" turn out to frequently be fools.


Especially when their failures critically undermine your side of the argument...

Janson wrote:
Ray Kurzweil will save you someday.


Machines will exceed us all.

Janson wrote:
The originality, singularity and inimitability comprise those rare qualities. Truly original works are rare because it is extremely difficult to produce one.


You're a sucker for bad criteria. Originality is only relative and not metaphysical. Singularity is a myth and only actual in the sense that a well-shuffled deck of cards is unique in terms of microstates. Inimitability is a myth.


Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:41 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Let's get off this whirly-gig already.

I just want to know if you actually think that it's hateful to say that defending the Ten Commandments in a US courtroom is an unreasonable position demonstrated by an inability to reason with the church/state mandate.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
You're a hopeless romantic, so you recur to these bad criteria that get us sucked into the event horizon of singular ownership.

I'm sorry that I don't share your aromantic aversion to private property.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
I am just not building an altar to the poet.

No one is forcing you to subsidize any artist. If you don't want to pay them, you don't have to consume their work. If you want to steal their work, then it must mean something of value to you.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
What if I put the name of the author on my copy?

That would be counterfeiting.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
What if no one owned a literary object?

Then I suppose that writers of objects (books) will be out of a job, unless you intend to accompany this literary liberation with a larger economic revolution that would allow people to live without currency. Good luck!

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sure. But that's just hero-worship.

You're too mature for that sort of thing, I imagine. It's actually more about the aspirational ideals. Like in any other pursuit, such aspirations are founded on precedent, and these precedents that are so influential in youth tend to become subjectively insurmountable. Listening to Orson Welles (an objectively original filmmaker) pine about never making a film that could satisfy him is a good example of this, and indeed it is what keeps our best artists thriving throughout their career, pushing further.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
This ("arbitrary precision") is a commonly used philosophical expression.

Do you want a dollar?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
No, quality is in the mix too.

No shit. The "distinctly personal feeling" is a qualitative achievement.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Especially when their failures critically undermine your side of the argument...

If you're going to rest your case on the vanities of experts, that failure is yours to share with them.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Machines will exceed us all.

Hm. Maybe I should have said L. Ron.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Singularity is a myth and only actual in the sense that a well-shuffled deck of cards is unique in terms of microstates. Inimitability is a myth.

Yet again, devolving creative synthesis down to a shuffled deck of cards. I bet you really excelled at Mad Libs.


Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:29 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
Why couldn't you have made this the basis of your IP complaint above?


Because of the nature of "ownership," even as it applies to makers. To own something means you can share it (or not share it). It means (in most cases) that you can destroy it. It means that you can transfer it. It means that you have a right of control. This is inherently erosive to the function of culture (which is to circulate ideas), so we have to, at best, balance the ownership of creators with function of artworks (and other IP) in culture.

Given this arbitrary right of ownership, the appearance of middlemen is inevitable


Consider the poor musician who dies just when his work finds success. What of the poor starving family? Don't they deserve to eat? Shouldn't we allow them to profit even after his death? Consider those artists who are not legal experts, but who wish to protect their IP. Shouldn't they have the right to hire middle men to protect their interests? And why shouldn't artist be able sell her rights to her work to ANY party that she wishes? Who are we to say that she cannot sell her work to Time Warner for a handsome price? And why should not consenting adults be allowed to enter into contracts to arrange their rights to property? And answering these reasonable questions in the affirmative is all we need for weeds to thrive.

Sure, it is unfortunate that labels find artists when they're weak and small and offer contracts that screw them. But when you're a small fish, it may still in your rational self-interest to sign. Sure, it's unfortunate that the terms of service of YouTube and Facebook involve media companies having broad rights to what the little people who use their platform for exposure produce for them as content creators. But you don't get exposure without a platform.

And if you live under a non-representative government dominated by corporate interests, the category of ownership is pitted against all the little people (producers and consumers). The house always win, so why play the game? In such an environment, I see widespread non-compliance as a way to secure a de facto right to circulate culture. The more people illegally perform tunes in public (you go Girl Scouts!), share mix-tapes (remember that the RIAA asserts that sharing a cassette tape is "steals just one copy"), throw up fan edits on YouTube, the more this sets a societal precedent for normality which is hard to discipline by the legal owners. If nothing else, this has forced legal owners to recalibrate pricing to be fair to consumers (and when prices are fair, consumers are willing to pay).


Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:47 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
I'm sorry that I don't share your aromantic aversion to private property.


Own all the tokens you want. The types, however, are gifts of the muse and they're meant for all of us. Sharing is caring.

Janson wrote:
No one is forcing you to subsidize any artist. If you don't want to pay them, you don't have to consume their work. If you want to steal their work, then it must mean something of value to you.


That's not what I mean. And again, I am open to paying artists for a shorter period of time. I mean building an altar in the sense of elevating them as absolute figures with unbridled rights of control in perpetuity.

Janson wrote:
That would be counterfeiting.


Attribution is in the right place, however. And so long as anyone may also print the work for sale (there is a lot of PD stuff for sale at bookstores) it's not taking money from anyone else. It's only a counterfeit if only one official party is allowed to distribute the work, but who should own Homer?

Janson wrote:
Do you want a dollar?


No, but I do hope that you recognize that this is not a mere oxymoron, but a term of art in philosophy. It's a way of saying "as precise as one demands" which allows us to bracket the question of a particular point as a stopping point.

Janson wrote:
If you're going to rest your case on the vanities of experts, that failure is yours to share with them.


If it tastes like Pepsi, if it sounds like Bach, if it quacks like a duck...

Janson wrote:
Hm. Maybe I should have said L. Ron.


The real question going forward is who will own the new labor force (e.g., AI and robots).

Janson wrote:
Yet again, devolving creative synthesis down to a shuffled deck of cards. I bet you really excelled at Mad Libs.


In scientific terms, nothing magical is happening when someone writes a book or a song. It can be reduced to mechanical processes, in principle, an operation no more mysterious than the shuffling of the deck of cards. And I dare you to show me where the magical ectoplasm of creation comes into the picture, where the ontological "uniqueness" of any maker is anything more than a relative distinction.


Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:03 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
It means that you have a right of control. This is inherently erosive to the function of culture (which is to circulate ideas), so we have to, at best, balance the ownership of creators with function of artworks (and other IP) in culture.

Ah. Again, I think it's strange how only the labor of artists becomes existentially corrosive to our society when the workers are allowed to profit from their production. It seems like a convenient way to keep them in a poverty caste.

It also reminds me of the rationale behind Mao's decrying of privacy, being that the "right to control one's space and thoughts" is seen as an impediment to the function of the government, which in order to respond to and serve our intimate needs requires total access to our intimate lives. I don't find that a very compelling argument either.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Given this arbitrary right of ownership, the appearance of middlemen is inevitable

I disagree both that this right is "arbitrary" and that the parasites are inevitable.

Luckily, we don't live in a "non-representative government", and through the work of unions, guilds and advocacy groups, there is some progress being made on our current copyright protections, which give enhanced benefits to creators in line with technological accessibility. There's obviously a lot more work to do in this area. The abuses of past decades are well documented, people are getting wiser. But the direction we should be going is in reorienting creative control back to the artists, and, by eliminating copyright completely, you will do far greater damage to those creators than to these machines of mass advertising which give them a platform. Under your ultimatum, either the status quo exploitation continues (with the artists getting maximally squeezed from both sides) or no one can play at all. Again, musicians have to eat. They don't want it to be a hobby from their day job. Whether you realize it or not, you're asking for some very unequal expectations compared to other skilled professions. And, given your less than generous assessment of their efforts and motives, it seems to come from a place of derision for specifically creative professions.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The types, however, are gifts of the muse and they're meant for all of us.

No they're not, or else everyone would have equal access to these gifts. You've made it clear that you don't intend to financially support these artists, so I assume you think the muse will?

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
I mean building an altar in the sense of elevating them as absolute figures with unbridled rights of control in perpetuity.

Oh. Since I've already dismissed the notion of "unbridled rights of control in perpetuity" fairly explicitly, I wonder why you would say that then.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And so long as anyone may also print the work for sale (there is a lot of PD stuff for sale at bookstores) it's not taking money from anyone else.

"Anyone else" other than the author, you mean? Yes, I guess if everyone counterfeited everything....maybe writers could subsist on a diet of paper pulp. How about this: You didn't write the book, you don't get the money from the book.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Homer?

It's like you think that going back further in time will strengthen your point about how we should handle copyrights today.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
I do hope that you recognize that this is not a mere oxymoron

I assumed that it was purposefully paradoxical to account for the unknown variables evading precision. I have noticed that, in the age old tension between liberal arts folks and STEM folks that, among the latter, there's this kind of holy grail that someday they'll find the golden algorithm that will finally unlock this mystery of inspiration.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
If it tastes like Pepsi, if it sounds like Bach, if it quacks like a duck...

Very discerning tastes there.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The real question going forward is who will own the new labor force (e.g., AI and robots).

I hope whoever it turns out to be has registered your loyalty to them.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
In scientific terms, nothing magical is happening when someone writes a book or a song.

It's not magic, it's talent. And talent is neither magical or mechanical. Some people have it, some people are frustrated that they can't replicate it into a formula.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
It can be reduced to mechanical processes, in principle, an operation no more mysterious than the shuffling of the deck of cards.

I frankly don't believe you, so, as a demonstration to prove me wrong for good, why don't you deal yourself a brilliant song tonight and share it with us. Easy peasy. Just like Sudoku.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
And I dare you to show me where the magical ectoplasm of creation comes into the picture, where the ontological "uniqueness" of any maker is anything more than a relative distinction.

I don't believe that I ever claimed that the distinction was something other than subjective. I think that's why it frustrates the more clinically minded. You can't put it under glass.


Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:25 am
Profile
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Jinnistan wrote:
Ah. Again, I think it's strange how only the labor of artists becomes existentially corrosive to our society when the workers are allowed to profit from their production. It seems like a convenient way to keep them in a poverty caste.


Make a God of the artist and you make a God of her proxy.
But Disney really is all present, all powerful, and perpetual.

The world I imagine still has millionaire artists, but it also has their work falling into PD much sooner. Star Wars, for example, should be entirely in the public domain now.

Jinnistan wrote:
It also reminds me of the rationale behind Mao's decrying of privacy, being that the "right to control one's space and thoughts" is seen as an impediment to the function of the government, which in order to respond to and serve our intimate needs requires total access to our intimate lives. I don't find that a very compelling argument either.


I make no claim to your private thoughts. You have an absolute right to your private papers. They should not be disturbed or distributed against your will. If you want to burn your manucscript, go for it.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Luckily, we don't live in a "non-representative government",


https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/def ... cs.doc.pdf

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/01 ... ed-states/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zue ... 22788.html

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=144

Jinnistan wrote:
There's obviously a lot more work to do in this area.


Quite.

Jinnistan wrote:
The abuses of past decades are well documented, people are getting wiser. But the direction we should be going is in reorienting creative control back to the artists, and, by eliminating copyright completely,


That's not really my proposal. I just want to move it in the opposite direction.

Jinnistan wrote:
No they're not, or else everyone would have equal access to these gifts. You've made it clear that you don't intend to financially support these artists, so I assume you think the muse will?


People have more talents than you suspect. In the 19th century just about everyone could play an instrument. Art is culture. It belongs to everyone.

Jinnistan wrote:
Since I've already dismissed the notion of "unbridled rights of control in perpetuity" fairly explicitly, I wonder why you would say that then.


That's the direction you lean in. I lean in the direction of eliminating intellectual property rights, although I only propose restricting them.

Jinnistan wrote:
It's like you think that going back further in time will strengthen your point about how we should handle copyrights today.


The greater the work, the more it belongs to us all.

Jinnistan wrote:
I have noticed that, in the age old tension between liberal arts folks and STEM folks that, among the latter, there's this kind of holy grail that someday they'll find the golden algorithm that will finally unlock this mystery of inspiration.


Inspiration is irrelevant to the product. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. A masterpiece made by a genius, a monkey clanking on a typewriter, or an algorithm is still a masterpiece.

Jinnistan wrote:
It's not magic, it's talent. And talent is neither magical or mechanical. Some people have it, some people are frustrated that they can't replicate it into a formula.


Talent is part of the manifold of the physical world. A wonderful as the operation of a human cell is, it is nothing more than a mechanical process. You are the product of evolutionary processes, a mechanical product of replication with variation. Talent comes from the mind, but the mind is a function of the brain, which is a physical organ, which is mechanical.

Jinnistan wrote:
I frankly don't believe you, so, as a demonstration to prove me wrong for good, why don't you deal yourself a brilliant song tonight and share it with us. Easy peasy. Just like Sudoku.


And I am sure that in the 19th century someone argued, "And if evolution is true, then evolve a new organ of perception tonight and show it to us!" This isn't about me. I know you want it to be, but it isn't.


Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:28 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Make a God of the artist and you make a God of her proxy.[/i] But Disney really is all present, all powerful, and perpetual.

You have this weird middle-ground myopia. Either artists give away their work for free, "for the good of the culture", or else we'd be making unto them as absolute Gods On Earth. And then you turn around and deify Disney instead as something above negotiation.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
I make no claim to your private thoughts. You have an absolute right to your private papers. They should not be disturbed or distributed against your will. If you want to burn your manucscript, go for it.

And so the only thing that I can't do with my manuscript is to exclusively sell it in order to make a living off of this particular work, because this particular work is somehow more culturally divine than any other service or good that's solicited in the marketplace. You've established an arbitrary exclusion for creative works from being marketable (you can only share them), and I would say that you're being naive about the negative economic impact of this except that you've already shown your disdain for the gall of working artists who do try to make a living out of it.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
*links*

And despite this, a citizen momentum can still provoke major legislative change that runs contrary to corporate wishes.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
People have more talents than you suspect. In the 19th century just about everyone could play an instrument. Art is culture. It belongs to everyone.

People have all kinds of different talents from individual to individual, is what you should say. But people do not have equal access to the same talent across the board. Anyone can learn to play an instrument, just as everyone can learn to write, sculpt, frame or criticize, but that doesn't mean that everyone is particularly good at that thing. Some people happen to be more talented in some areas than others, and very few people tend to have multiple talents. Most people would want to enjoy the most talented work that they are unlikely to be able to produce themselves. We pay athletes to perform physical feats that most people do not have the talent to achieve themselves. Exceptional talents do not belong to everyone, and saying it does is another way of devaluing their talent. You want to enjoy the fruits without having to seed the trees. The main point here is that a person should have the right to monetize their talent in a market economy, and you've failed to show why the arts should be uniquely exempt from prosperity.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
That's the direction you lean in.

More middle-ground myopia, being judged by an absolute extreme that I have not supported. "Well, you do support a Palestinian state, so terrorism is the direction you lean in."

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The greater the work, the more it belongs to us all.

So you can feel great about yourself without the validation of accomplishment? No, the greater the work the more valuable it is, and value is negotiated in the marketplace. But for this particular cultural product, you want to intervene and deny this marketable value? This is basically Steinbeck's Pearl writ large, except limited to one particular creative class.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Inspiration is irrelevant to the product.

No, inspiration is a quality of the product.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
A masterpiece made by a genius, a monkey clanking on a typewriter, or an algorithm is still a masterpiece.

And so it isn't surprising that you wish to reinforce a flattening of quality, homogeneously rendering the disparate and dynamic qualities of art to a simple, static metric so maybe even the monkeys can win their participation awards. We're all winners!

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Talent is part of the manifold of the physical world. A wonderful as the operation of a human cell is, it is nothing more than a mechanical process. You are the product of evolutionary processes, a mechanical product of replication with variation. Talent comes from the mind, but the mind is a function of the brain, which is a physical organ, which is mechanical.

I think that you should be able to sell a book of this bullshit. That's what I'm saying. Maybe it's deliberately void of cultural value so someone won't take that right away from you.

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
This isn't about me. I know you want it to be, but it isn't.

Great claims, great evidence. You make the claim that producing a work of art is as simple as shuffling a deck of cards, so you might as well be the one to demonstrate this simplicity (since it is so simple and irrelevent to inspiration). Or just keep shuffling, whatever.


Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:46 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Image


Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:56 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

now Mama's Family- that was a good show.

_________________
Captain's Log


Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:12 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Rumpled wrote:
Image
More like doppelgangers.


Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:36 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Hey Takoma, were you aware that one episode of Sabrina was directed by Viet "Crush the Skull" Nguyen?
Can't remember if you told us that already. (I haven't watched it yet so I don't know which episode)

_________________
Captain's Log


Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:30 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Captain Terror wrote:
Hey Takoma, were you aware that one episode of Sabrina was directed by Viet "Crush the Skull" Nguyen?
Can't remember if you told us that already. (I haven't watched it yet so I don't know which episode)


*GASP* No!

Good for him!!


Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:00 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Herzog?!


Thu Dec 13, 2018 10:50 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Damn, that sounds like a great cast.


Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:28 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Finally started Mindhunter last night, and boy, it sure started with a bang! (pun intended) Loved the first episode, although I'm not entirely sold on the performance of the lead guy. I mean, he's not bad, but his line delivery is, I don't know, awkward. Starting episode 2 right now.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:59 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Thief wrote:
Finally started Mindhunter last night, and boy, it sure started with a bang! (pun intended) Loved the first episode, although I'm not entirely sold on the performance of the lead guy. I mean, he's not bad, but his line delivery is, I don't know, awkward. Starting episode 2 right now.

That show is so good.


Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:45 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Thief wrote:
Finally started Mindhunter last night, and boy, it sure started with a bang! (pun intended) Loved the first episode, although I'm not entirely sold on the performance of the lead guy. I mean, he's not bad, but his line delivery is, I don't know, awkward. Starting episode 2 right now.
Oh yes, episode 2.
Cameron Britton is so frightening as Kemper. It's one of my favorite performances of the decade.

_________________
Last Great Movie Seen
The Spirit of the Beehive (Erice, 1973)


Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:54 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Torgo wrote:
Oh yes, episode 2.
Cameron Britton is so frightening as Kemper. It's one of my favorite performances of the decade.


Yep. Saw that episode last night and I have to agree. One of those meticulously creepy performances that gets under your skin. Kinda reminded me of John Caroll Lynch in Zodiac.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:10 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Thief wrote:
Finally started Mindhunter last night, and boy, it sure started with a bang! (pun intended) Loved the first episode, although I'm not entirely sold on the performance of the lead guy. I mean, he's not bad, but his line delivery is, I don't know, awkward. Starting episode 2 right now.

My favorite show from the latest years.


Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:11 am
Profile WWW
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

That initial awkwardness is sort of intentional, although Ford suffers as a character in the first few episodes by just doing everything his girlfriend tells him no questions asked. The series gets a much better handle on the character after that initial rough stretch.

_________________
"We're outgunned and undermanned. But you know somethin'? We're gonna win. You know why? Superior attitude. Superior state of mind." - Mason Storm
____
Blog!


Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:47 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Saw the third episode last night and I'm loving it. Even though this episode wasn't directed by Fincher, you could still feel a cohesive style in it. All through the show, there's this dry, morbid humor that is present in many of Fincher's films. And although I brought up Groff's performance on my previous post, it should be noted that I'm seriously loving the performance of Holt McCallany. Very natural and loose; and he has a good chemistry with Groff that feels, again, naturally grown and not instantaneous. This specific scene where they go back and forth at this Dwight guy that was beating/murdering old women? Ooof.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:35 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

What is the lowdown on Bryan Fuller? Is he kind of a dick? hard to work with? a control-freak? or just extremely selective of what he works with? I just found out that he exited the Vampire Chronicles TV project (which is still in very early development). But the thing is that it seems to be a repeated trend with him. In a pretty short period of time, he has entered/exited American Gods, Star Trek: Discovery, Amazing Stories, and the vampire project. What's up with him?

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:51 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Thief wrote:
What is the lowdown on Bryan Fuller? Is he kind of a dick? hard to work with? a control-freak? or just extremely selective of what he works with?


He strikes me as a very creative person with a strong vision about what he wants.

Consider the visual and narrative style of Hannibal. I imagine that if he can't execute a story the way that he wants, he seeks an exit. Could be a "my way or the highway" attitude, or it could be that he just finds it too frustrating to see his ideas only half-accomplished.

I'm not really up on industry gossip, though, so maybe there's something else going on.


Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:58 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Takoma1 wrote:

He strikes me as a very creative person with a strong vision about what he wants.

Consider the visual and narrative style of Hannibal. I imagine that if he can't execute a story the way that he wants, he seeks an exit. Could be a "my way or the highway" attitude, or it could be that he just finds it too frustrating to see his ideas only half-accomplished.

I'm not really up on industry gossip, though, so maybe there's something else going on.


That's more or less what I thought, but at some point, you gotta sit back and analyze how effective the approach is. At least if you wanna keep working. Anyway, just wanted to know if there had been any news or report that could shed some light.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:04 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Thief wrote:
but at some point, you gotta sit back and analyze how effective the approach is. At least if you wanna keep working.


I mean--Hannibal was SO artsy at times. I think that this is the constant struggle for people who really are artists. Survival in the commercial arena is always precarious if you don't like compromise.

Of course, maybe someone's going to come in here and post some juicy gossip about how he's a nightmare to work with.


Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:10 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

The A.V. Club’s 43 most anticipated TV shows of 2019

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:16 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Punisher season 2 trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsTkjyYoi_g

Looks ultraviolent :up: but then they only give Jigsaw a noticeable but still passable scar on the right side of his face. I guess they felt the Dominic West Jigsaw was a little too over the top.


Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:02 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Finished Mindhunter last night and, boy, that last scene between Ford and Kemper? Ooof.

Good show, very patient and methodical in its buildup. Look forward to a second season.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:24 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

How The Godfather Of TV Antiheroes, Tony Soprano, Changed Television Forever

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:51 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

That's a show I should watch some day.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:00 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

HBO just finished running the entire Sopranos series. One season a day. Last week they did Game of Thrones. I think they did Eastbound and Down last year sometime.


Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:49 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Mahershala Ali soars, but a third True Detective can’t escape the show’s past

_________________
Recently Reviewed


Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:51 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

From the writer and director of Nightcrawler and starring Jake Gyllenhaal. On Netflix.

Velvet Buzzsaw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdAR-lK43YU


Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:19 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

I know it blurs the line between film and TV, but the Spike Lee miniseries When the Levees Broke just got added to Amazon Prime. It is a frank and powerful exploration of the tragedy and I don't tend to make it much further than 10 minutes at a time without being overwhelmed with either anger or sadness. Lee is masterful in alternating between "zooming out" (discussions about infrastructure and engineering) and "zooming in" (a woman describes a neighbor keeping himself afloat in his yard for three straight days and her suffering at not being able to bring him any food).


Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:56 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Takoma1 wrote:
I know it blurs the line between film and TV, but the Spike Lee miniseries When the Levees Broke just got added to Amazon Prime. It is a frank and powerful exploration of the tragedy and I don't tend to make it much further than 10 minutes at a time without being overwhelmed with either anger or sadness. Lee is masterful in alternating between "zooming out" (discussions about infrastructure and engineering) and "zooming in" (a woman describes a neighbor keeping himself afloat in his yard for three straight days and her suffering at not being able to bring him any food).


I saw that shortly after it came out on DVD and I don't think I even finished it. Powerful stuff indeed.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:39 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Takoma1 wrote:
I know it blurs the line between film and TV, but the Spike Lee miniseries When the Levees Broke just got added to Amazon Prime. It is a frank and powerful exploration of the tragedy and I don't tend to make it much further than 10 minutes at a time without being overwhelmed with either anger or sadness. Lee is masterful in alternating between "zooming out" (discussions about infrastructure and engineering) and "zooming in" (a woman describes a neighbor keeping himself afloat in his yard for three straight days and her suffering at not being able to bring him any food).


I still need to watch this for my Louisiana thread.

_________________
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.


Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:33 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Macrology wrote:

I still need to watch this for my Louisiana thread.


It is intense.

There's one piece of footage where a group of rescuers are trying to convince a woman, trapped in a flooded home, to let go of her death grip on the ceiling. She doesn't say so, but you get the impression she maybe can't swim. The look of fear and desperation on her face is so much.

The details that come out are sometimes stranger than fiction. In one part, a man tells about a Canadian Mountie arriving to help and wondering how he got there before any of the other authorities.

I was just annoyed to discover that Amazon has the first and fourth episode free but you have to pay for the second and third episode.


Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:18 am
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Just finished the first season of Castlevania on Netflix. I don't know, I guess it was good, but at only 4 episodes/20+ minutes each, it felt more like a prologue than a full season. Moreover since every episode seems to focus on one character (Dracula, Trevor, Sypha, Alucard) as a setup for what's to come. Execution was a bit clunky, with some things taking forever to unfold, while others felt rushed as hell. Also, despite some edge to its dialogue/plot, it is full of typical gothic/vampire clichés. Animation was sharp and you can feel they are doing justice to the game aesthetics. I'll probably check out the second season, but not necessarily in a hurry.

_________________
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---


Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:19 pm
Profile
User avatar
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Television Thread

Thief wrote:
Just finished the first season of Castlevania on Netflix. I don't know, I guess it was good, but at only 4 episodes/20+ minutes each, it felt more like a prologue than a full season. Moreover since every episode seems to focus on one character (Dracula, Trevor, Sypha, Alucard) as a setup for what's to come. Execution was a bit clunky, with some things taking forever to unfold, while others felt rushed as hell. Also, despite some edge to its dialogue/plot, it is full of typical gothic/vampire clichés. Animation was sharp and you can feel they are doing justice to the game aesthetics. I'll probably check out the second season, but not necessarily in a hurry.

I loved the first season. It did a great job of making me empathize with each character, especially and surprisingly Dracula. I thought it was dripping with atmosphere and lore while staying true to the source material and rerferencing the games without being cheesy or winky. Season 2 starts off slow as it introduces some new characters and spends a lot of time developing them but the payoff was worth it for me.


Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:25 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 19313 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385 ... 387  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DJ Rkod, Ergill, Thief and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.