Open discussion, reasoned analysis and commentary, and the fundamental right to agree or disagree.

So, when I ordered the RIAA video to show to my campus film club, my intent was not to vandalize, disparage, or condemn it. We are scholars, humanists, and critics; we will discuss, analyze, and ultimately, agree or disagree to whatever extents we so choose.

All over a bag or two of lite popcorn.

Given that most of us regularly download commercially unavailable films (”abandonfilms”?) to share with the club, and will likely continue to do so, I’m sure the discussion will be… lively.

The lite popcorn may go airborne, after all!

(Why do we download? The not-so-rolling date of public domain advancement is parked at 01/01/1923, and will remain parked there until 01/01/2019. To put these dates into showbiz perspective, The_Jazz_Singer, the first feature film to have embedded sound– a “talkie”– was released in 1927. In 2019, jazz singer Tony Bennett will turn 93 years old– and we hope he’s still working. Way to promote learning, culture, and the arts, WIPO, RIAA, MPAA, et al.)

I took Intro to Internet Law last fall; my professor’s offices are near my home, so maybe I’ll drop off a copy of the video and its share-friendly license and ask her to give some legal perspective for the club.

But wouldn’t the RIAA etc say as a counter arguement that the entire point of the letter is to make the reader aware the owner of the copyright gives them permission to copy/distribute it? (Like it says on everything, dont copy without permission..)

Thanks