Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Plagarism and Film

rated by 0 users
This post has 13 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 814
Points 14,875
Moderator
Physiocrat Posted: Thu, Jul 21 2011 4:44 AM

This is an interesting video blog by respected UK film critic Mark Kermode about the extent to which film's copy and plagarise each other. I didn't realise such flagrant lifts took place.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2011/07/recycling_or_transforming.html

He doesn't address IP but viewed from that lens it  unintentional undermines it in an artistic field.

The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 283
Points 5,580
Lewis S. replied on Thu, Jul 21 2011 5:24 AM

I dunno, lifting sound effects or 1-2 second shots doesn't add up to an infraction worth worrying about. The Wilhelm scream is considered public domain by everyone in Hollywood.

Movies are stories with characters, settings, ambience, and plot. If we see these lifted wholesale and put into a movie, then the discussion begins.

My friends and I used to joke aout the movie "Top Gun II," otherwise known as "Days of Thunder." You could argue the entire storyline was lifted from Top Gun and placed in a NASCAR setting. To me, that's more blatent than a sound effect. LOL

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

This guy doesn't get into the IP issue either but he does a great job setting the path...

EverythingIsaRemix.info

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

My friends and I used to joke aout the movie "Top Gun II," otherwise known as "Days of Thunder."

Pocahontas II, by far the biggest money maker ever, a.k.a. Avatar.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, Jul 21 2011 6:50 PM

Anyone who's studied elementary music theory understands that there is a tiny number of chord progressions that are responsible for the vast majority of musical structure. The more you deviate from these basic chord progressions, the more likely you're creating a unique chord progression but it's also less likely that your chord progression will catch the attention of the public. This is almost definitional... if it's catchy, it gets copied... if it didn't get copied, that probably means it wasn't catchy enough. This is why every single song on the Top 40 chart sounds exactly the same. They're picked by the record execs precisely because they have chord progressions which the public is guaranteed to like.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, Jul 21 2011 7:16 PM

LOL

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 814
Points 14,875
Moderator

Clayton, that vid is epic.

The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 424
Points 5,980

That vid was awesome Clayton.

 

 

Watch this.  They try not to just take standard chords...

 

Or this

 

 

Eating Propaganda

What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Fri, Jul 22 2011 3:50 AM

Well, here's a testament to just how powerful those "standard" chord progressions are:

If your hair doesn't stand on end before the end, check your pulse.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

If we're doing music, I'm surprised this hasn't been put up yet...

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 508
Points 8,570

If you listen to American folk songs from before around the 1940's, you'll see lots of "plagerism", and nobody cared about it.  Artists often mixed and matched songs, lyrics, chords etc.  It was only after recorded music came around and brought copyright into the picture that you started to get people thinking of songs and films as "thiers".

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Nielsio replied on Fri, Jul 22 2011 8:44 AM

FYI, it's spelled 'plagiarism'.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Fri, Jul 22 2011 12:36 PM

Note: Copying is not theft, though it might be bad form, especially if you don't cite the original author.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

"Hits" are chosen by publishing execs, not the public.  Let's be frank: "hit" consumers are ignorant of music history and imperceptive.  Coldplay won song of the year for wording the melody in Joe Satriani's "If I Could Fly" because tunes without words don't get promotion, few people know about them.  "Record companies" don't record anything.  They're just marketing loan sharks.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (14 items) | RSS