Copyright Piracy Value v. Prescription Drug Spending

Here's a comparison that is really interesting.

The US Ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, says that CDN IP piracy may be costing the Canadian economy up to $30 Billion a year. (Let's modestly assume that's CDN dollars). On March 1, 2007, he told the Empire Club:

And we are working with the Canadian government now on that issue. We have met with Ministers Bernier and Oda and members of the Prime Minister's staff and we are requesting a stronger copyright bill be introduced and be passed. We are joined by the U.S. and Canadian motion picture and sound recording and computer software industries. Right now the copyright laws or the intellectual property right protection in Canada is considered the weakest of the G-7 countries. So we are asking that be strengthened. And it really does cost the Canadian economy a huge amount every year. It is estimated to be from some $10 to $30 billion per year.

Yesterday, the CBC reported that Canadians spend about $21 billion a year on prescription drugs. This is the third highest per capita spending in the world, trailing only the USA and France. The CBC's figures come from the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the OECD.

So - either Canadians engage in IP piracy that could be worth almost 50% more than their prescription drug expenditures - or the Ambassador's numbers are way off. Perhaps by several degrees of magnitude?


HK

The Latest Poop on Protest

Here's a protest from something called Art Threat that seems to focus on corporate privatization of just about anything one can imagine.

Some may find this to be clever. Others will find it to be in poor taste. Be forewarned.

In any event, here’s what it’s about, in Art Threat's own words:

Art Threat has launched the PACT campaign: Pooptagging Against Cultural Theft. The concept is simple. Corporations naturally try to privatize everything in their path, so we'll give them a hand. Whenever you see an abandoned pile of doggie doo, stick a copyright flag in it and lay your claim. One by one, we'll show the corporate world what we think of their claim to ownership of our culture.

Here’s the “how to” guide at the Art Threat web site. The video at Art Threat’s site doesn’t work too well, so here’s another link to their video.

Now you have the latest poop - or is it scoop?

HK

Letter to Warner Bros.

With the Warner studio so much in the news lately for its efforts to teach some respect to the Canadian government concerning camcording, I'm reminded of a former crusade by Warner Bros. against the most disrespectful Marx Bros.

For those who don't know history and need to reinvent it, or for those who just like to LOL once again, see this gem - stolen from the wonderful Chilling Effects website - or available at countless others.

It seems that Warner Bros. has always been on the cutting edge of demanding respect for its intellectual property......

Letter to Warner Brothers: A Night in Casablanca

Groucho Marx

Abstract: While preparing to film a movie entitled A Night in Casablanca, the Marx brothers received a letter from Warner Bros. threatening legal action if they did not change the film’s title. Warner Bros. deemed the film’s title too similar to their own Casablanca, released almost five years earlier in 1942, with Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman. In response Groucho Marx dispatched the following letter to the studio’s legal department:

---

Dear Warner Brothers,

Apparently there is more than one way of conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that we contemplated making this picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers. However, it was only a few days after our announcement appeared that we received your long, ominous legal document warning us not to use the name Casablanca.

It seems that in 1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, your great-great-grandfather, while looking for a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and, raising his alpenstock (which he later turned in for a hundred shares of common), named it Casablanca.

I just don’t understand your attitude. Even if you plan on releasing your picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.

You claim that you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without permission. What about “Warner Brothers”? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. We were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers when Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s eye, and even before there had been other brothers—the Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brothers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?” (This was originally “Brothers, Can You Spare a Dime?” but this was spreading a dime pretty thin, so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other one, and whittled it down to “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”)

Now Jack, how about you? Do you maintain that yours is an original name? Well it’s not. It was used long before you were born. Offhand, I can think of two Jacks—Jack of “Jack and the Beanstalk,” and Jack the Ripper, who cut quite a figure in his day.

As for you, Harry, you probably sign your checks sure in the belief that you are the first Harry of all time and that all other Harrys are impostors. I can think of two Harrys that preceded you. There was Lighthouse Harry of Revolutionary fame and a Harry Appelbaum who lived on the corner of 93rd Street and Lexington Avenue. Unfortunately, Appelbaum wasn’t too well-known. The last I heard of him, he was selling neckties at Weber and Heilbroner.

Now about the Burbank studio. I believe this is what you brothers call your place. Old man Burbank is gone. Perhaps you remember him. He was a great man in a garden. His wife often said Luther had ten green thumbs. What a witty woman she must have been! Burbank was the wizard who crossed all those fruits and vegetables until he had the poor plants in such confused and jittery condition that they could never decide whether to enter the dining room on the meat platter or the dessert dish.

This is pure conjecture, of course, but who knows—perhaps Burbank’s survivors aren’t too happy with the fact that a plant that grinds out pictures on a quota settled in their town, appropriated Burbank’s name and uses it as a front for their films. It is even possible that the Burbank family is prouder of the potato produced by the old man than they are of the fact that your studio emerged “Casablanca” or even “Gold Diggers of 1931.”

This all seems to add up to a pretty bitter tirade, but I assure you it’s not meant to. I love Warners. Some of my best friends are Warner Brothers. It is even possible that I am doing you an injustice and that you, yourselves, know nothing about this dog-in-the-Wanger attitude. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to discover that the heads of your legal department are unaware of this absurd dispute, for I am acquainted with many of them and they are fine fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits and a love of their fellow man that out-Saroyans Saroyan.

I have a hunch that his attempt to prevent us from using the title is the brainchild of some ferret-faced shyster, serving a brief apprenticeship in your legal department. I know the type well—hot out of law school, hungry for success, and too ambitious to follow the natural laws of promotion. This bar sinister probably needled your attorneys, most of whom are fine fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits, etc., into attempting to enjoin us. Well, he won’t get away with it! We’ll fight him to the highest court! No pasty-faced legal adventurer is going to cause bad blood between the Warners and the Marxes. We are all brothers under the skin, and we’ll remain friends till the last reel of “A Night in Casablanca” goes tumbling over the spool.

Sincerely,

Groucho Marx

Unamused, Warner Bros. requested that the Marx Brothers at least outline the premise of their film. Groucho responded with an utterly ridiculous storyline, and, sure enough, received another stern letter requesting clarification. He obliged and went on to describe a plot even more preposterous than the first, claiming that he, Groucho, would be playing “Bordello, the sweetheart of Humphrey Bogart.” No doubt exasperated, Warner Bros. did not respond. A Night in Casablanca was released in 1946.

Bad news and good news from Warner

The big copyright news today in Canada is that:

Warner Bros will halt all "promotional and word-of-mouth screenings" of new releases, says the Hollywood Reporter.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that:

Warner Bros will halt all "promotional and word-of-mouth screenings" of new releases, says the Hollywood Reporter.

A bit more space for independent Canadian and "foreign" films would be a great thing for people who really care about great films. More bad news like this could be quite good for Canadian heritage.

HK

Don't Die in New York State - you may have problems

The IP Quote of the day goes to Mark Roesler, the owner of Indianapolis-based CMG Worldwide, which manages the Monroe publicity rights:

“This sends a message to famous people in New York that if you die in New York you may have problems.”

This, after a potentially very significant set back for post mortem right of publicity claims in New York State.

Personally, I can't quite see how dying in New York State is much more problematic than dying anywhere else, at least for the deceased.

HK