Wocka-Wocka... He's at it again!

[spcglider]

Actually, my intended purpose in continuing is to inform. I see a new person every month or so come in and have some warped idea about intellectual property rights... mostly driven by the kind of reasoning Telly lists above : If nobody is legally doing replicas of something I want, then it's okay to buy illegal replicas... because I want it."

Which is exactly what the intellectual property rights laws are meant to protect against.

We all love the Muppets. If we didn't, we wouldn't be here on his forum. But it is a very slippery slope in thinking that , simply because they are your favorite thing that you have some sort of entitlement to them.

But okay... obviously I have trouble holding my tongue. So...

Gordon out.

-G

 

[ravagefrackle]

gordon, keep it , up, this is one of the few topics i even read any more,lol

 

[Telly]

Don't get me wrong. I see where you're coming from. I'm just saying it's like burning a cd or DVD/VHS.
I actually have boughten two copies of Howard the Duck on VHS cuz my first copy was watched that many times. When I bought my DVD player, I kept my VCR. I went through and bought all of the DVDs that I had on VHS. There were (and still are) some that weren't on DVD so I kept the VHS. My VCR finally puked out and I don't think it's worth it to buy a new one for the few movies I still have on VHS. Some movies that I absolutely LOVE (like Howard the Duck) I watch multiple times and now I can't because I have no VCR? I bought a copy off of eBay. Sure it's not the real thing, but I don't think Lucas is ever going to put it out on DVD.
They're not losing money if they're not putting forth the product.
Personally, I don't think it's anymore wrong that people trading MP3s, movies or shows that they have on tape and converted to DVD, or selling burnt cds. The only thing I don't find right is that fact the replicas are so expensive.
If I was to get a knock-off replica, I know I personally wouldn't use it for commercial purposes or anything of the sort.

 

[spcglider]

gordon, keep it , up, this is one of the few topics i even read any more,lol

There's just no point. I'm obviously having zero effect.

We live in a world where selling something you don't own is evidently okay as long as you don't get caught.

I could type until my fingers fell off and there'd still be people coming here telling themselves it's okay that as long as nobody's making them, its alright to replicate the Muppet characters and sell them.

Lesson ends.

-G

 

[ravagefrackle]

well i dont have much luck trying to explain that ART costs MONEY!

regardless of how much i hate the ilegal replicas being sold on ebay , it boogles my mind even more when people are like , wow those are nice, but since it cost $700 dollars i wont by it, people seem to think that puppets are easy to build, cost no money to make, and that the time the artist invest in the creation is cheap.

The only thing I don't find right is that fact the replicas are so expensive.
If I was to get a knock-off replica, I know I personally wouldn't use it for commercial purposes or anything of the sort.

DUDE seriously , Puppet designers, especailly good ones, are artist whos work is serioully undervauled .we do work involving more that a few different disiplines, we work with sometimes harmful substances, marry differnt craft and sculpture forms together to create a living sculpture,

and you want to send what 100, 200 dollars,

i spend more on Gas and shipping just getting materials to my home.

puppet are expensive because the people who make them need to eat.
it takes at least 60 hours to make a puppet that will last , and perform .especially one for TV , or Film

 

[Mistersuperstar]

I kinda agree with Telly on this. If a company that owns something is not going to release it then the only way that fans will be able to get hold of it is by other means. Bootleg albums and CDs are so popular just because the music featured on them is unavailable from official sources. If a group such as The Beatles (for arguements sake) refuse to release a certain collection of demos officially, then someone getting a bootleg copy is not going to affect the sales of any official release because there isn't one. The only time I would be completely against it is when people make and sell copies of CDs or DVDs that are available at all entertainment retailers.
As far as these rip-off replicas go, if MR, Disney or whoever do not release a certain character, someone else will. MR or Disney will not lose money because they have no intention of releasing it officially. Selling an unofficial replica is not too far away from "trading" Muppet specials that you have on tape or selling a print of an autographed photo you own.

 

[KermieBaby47]

Actually, my intended purpose in continuing is to inform. I see a new person every month or so come in and have some warped idea about intellectual property rights... mostly driven by the kind of reasoning Telly lists above : If nobody is legally doing replicas of something I want, then it's okay to buy illegal replicas... because I want it."

Don't give up Gordon, for exactly the reason you stated above. Maybe you can curb the newbies' interest, maybe you can't, but at least they'll see our side of things; the proper viewpoint I mean to say.

This generation especially seems to think that they're entitled to anything and everything, that's just the crazy way it is for some reason. I wasn't raised like that, I would never raise my kids like that, but discipline and the "doing the right thing" principle have just flown out the window with the majority these days. Hopefully knowledge will prove to be power, and the warped minds of today will see the error of their ways, and get the future generation back on track.

We'll just have to wait and see, but until then, people like you are steering the way back towards the old concept of actually working for what you get and understanding.

Cheers to all!

Anthony

 

[Bear Man]

Please don't get me wrong - my grumble earlier was mainly because I kept seeing the same names saying the same thing over and over - it would seem to die for a while and then someone would resurrect it by basically posting exactly the same thing as someone else - I just wasn't seeing the point in everything being repeated.

As for the excuse that "someone hasn't released it, so we're not harming anyone by selling our bootlegs", this is a terrible argument. Say that 2 years ago when there were no authorised plans for Muppet replicas, someone decided to sell high-end replica Kermits for $200, and 2500 people bought one. None of that money would go to Disney, the lawful copyright holders. And it would preclude them from entering the market in a meaningful way like they did with MR. So unless you have a foolproof way of forecasting the future, Telly and Mistersuperstar's argument doesn't hold up.

Regardless of the economic considerations though, this is still intellectually copyrighted material. Even if a tablet was handed down from heaven saying "This product will never be commercially released", they are not yours to do with as you wish. If a company does not want to make something available to you, then that is their right. Just like it is your right to keep your personal photos, writing and thoughts private, so it is a company's right to not make their photos, writings and thoughts available.

Anthony is right when he speaks of people's sense of entitlement. The truth is, if an authorised version is not released, then you are not entitled to it, and it is not yours to just take. I actually have a big problem with the "trading" that goes on on this board. The mp3s and videos are of copyrighted material, and they are not yours to freely distribute.

 

[spcglider]

I kinda agree with Telly on this. If a company that owns something is not going to release it then the only way that fans will be able to get hold of it is by other means.[/QUOUTE]

And THAT is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that fans have some sort of idea that they are ENTITLED to have this stuff.

Is it that hard to understand that these characters, their likenesses, their physical forms and the very concept behind them is owned by someone else?
Just because you like something (or LOVE something) doesn't give you the right to posess it or have any say in it's production, creation, marketing or reproduction. That's just the way it is.

Bootleg albums and CDs are so popular just because the music featured on them is unavailable from official sources. If a group such as The Beatles (for arguements sake) refuse to release a certain collection of demos officially, then someone getting a bootleg copy is not going to affect the sales of any official release because there isn't one. The only time I would be completely against it is when people make and sell copies of CDs or DVDs that are available at all entertainment retailers.

So, what you're saying is that not only the art, but the artist belongs to YOU. EVERYTHING that they EVER produced belongs to YOU simply because it exists? What if the Beatles just simply did NOT want that music to be released to the public? You have NO respect for their wishes as an artist?
Wow...that's about as selfish and childish as I can think.

As far as these rip-off replicas go, if MR, Disney or whoever do not release a certain character, someone else will. MR or Disney will not lose money because they have no intention of releasing it officially. Selling an unofficial replica is not too far away from "trading" Muppet specials that you have on tape or selling a print of an autographed photo you own.

With that statement, you show an intricate grasp of the idea of intellectual property rights, but an absolutely complete dis-regard for them.

Lets look at it this way: Say you're a sculptor. You've just created a fabulous sculpture that people REALLY REALLY LIKE. You've received hundreds, maybe thousands of requests for copies of that sculpture. But for reasons of your own, perhaps you feel like it would cheapen the art or maybe you just don't fee like it, you decide to NOT make copies available for sale.
But then, someone decides to make a near perfect copy of your sculpture, cast up copies and sell them. You, as the creator of the piece, get nothing. They represent those copies by drawing comparisons to your original, even going so far as using the name of your original in their sales materials.

They are, in effect, stealing your design (your property) and making profit from it.

How do you feel?

-G

 

[spcglider]

I guess a bear just can't stay asleep when somebody sits there and pokes him with a stick.

-G