...I haven't, Tony. No.

...But I would've liked to have been. That sounds totally remarkable. It sounds like a great story. I hope you might tell it to me, one day. It sounds great!

I agree there is no excuse, and I don't want my words to be taken as incitement to do so. However, some obscure work comes with obscure links in copyright, and in those instances and after "reasonable" efforts of trying, one can say enough-is-enough; the 'show must go on'.

Ha-ha!

I mean, Cheers;
Daniel M.

At the risk of starting something: that's just ludicrous. If the rights can not be obtained, and the legal owner found, then NO ONE should be putting the play on. No, the show does NOT go on.

It is remarkably unfair to everyone, including the many (many) thousands of Australian and international playwrights out there who are scratching out a living as a writer. For those people, royalties are the difference between being employed or not in their choice of work.

Furthermore, this attitude is EXTREMELY pervasive in all industries; especially the arts. Tell this to the visual artist, who in this country gets the profits from the sale of their art once (say, a couple of hundred dollars), even IF the painting ends up being worth and sold for millions of dollars later down the track. If their work is stolen or copied, like much of the 'carpet bag' area of Indigenous arts, it means a lot of their daily income taken.

Or perhaps the puppeteers who spend hundreds of hours developing brilliant designs only to see them ripped off: perfect example is one company in particular who was so brazen about selling fake replicas of Henson copyrighted works that they've been sued for repeatedly doing so.

Or perhaps those who think making and selling Star Wars props is ok, because let's face it, Lucas is now a millionaire and who cares if loses a few bucks.

Copyright is binary: you either have it or you don't. You either have permission or you don't. There's no in betweens and it sickens me to hear other artists say it's ok to steal what's not theirs. We're all in this together, and unless an artist is specifically happy for their work to be used, we're shooting ourselves in the foot by undercutting someone else's livelihood.

(Sadly, in an age of 'creative commons' so many people are confused about copyrights and their responsibilities)

It doesn't matter if you CAN get away with it: the fact is, it's still illegal. (I could I suppose, get away with murder. Doesn't mean I should do it)

Puppets and patterns at
Puppets in Melbourne

Na,

You are not starting anything. I am now familiar with your tactics and realize this is just you venting on a topic which you hold dear at this stage.

You've obviously forgotten that I'm a writer, and that as a writer I would agree with much of what you have stated.

...I found a parking meter which was 'out-of-order' once, and after various ways to rectify the matter failed, which is to say; ways of paying for the spot I wanted to park in failed, I was left with two options: To park illegally as I wouldn't have paid for the spot, or move my car at great inconvenience to someplace else.

What should I have done, Naomi? What would you have done?

Cheers,
Daniel M.

This isn't me venting. This is me pointing out to those of whom might be reading and be on the fence about copyrights. It's one of those issues that affects us all, and to present information which is incorrect (just do it anyway) is to offer bad information and those less informed could just walk away thinking it IS ok. Offering an alternative - and correct - set of information can influence people who don't know better to do the right thing.

The thing that causes people to say, "ah it'll be alright" is that they think no one cares or that it hurts no one. It does: it affects people who's livelihoods depend on the income source; it affects people's ability to sell their own work at fair prices (replicas can often be sold at cheaper prices); it affects the consumer because often they get ripped off (replicas can be shoddier qualities - see the Muppet replica scandals reported on Muppet Central.com for examples); it affects general trust within a certain industry by consumers; it encourages others to steal or misunderstand their responsibilites; it reduces the copyright owner's ability to have control over how their product is used; it often leads to missed income for artists (ie. if a stolen work is used online, and the web series becomes popular, the writer gets cut out of the income)... etc etc.
There's a reason why writers in Hollywood had a big strike, and it's because they were getting undercut.

I have no trouble recognising that various artists have various policies; but telling someone not to bother or to outright ignore copyrights is also to ignore those very choices and decisions an artist makes on how their work is used. You may appreciate it when someone takes all your effort and hard slog and uses it for their own without credit, without permission, and without payment. I personally, along with many of my colleagues and friends, do not want to see our hard work and income disappear because someone can't be assed being creative themselves or picking a different work for which they can find permission to use.

Your thing about the car is a bad example: there is a third option and that is to call the council/whoever runs the meters and explain that the machine is broken. If you receive a fine, you can protest the fine in a court and present the phone call as evidence that you reported a broken machine. (No guarantee you'd get off, but hey, that's one way you could have solved the issue) With the copyrights, there is also another two options, as mentioned above: create your own work, or pick another. Something the OP might want to consider if they can't find the relevant copyright owner.

Puppets and patterns at
Puppets in Melbourne

Na,

I totally agree with much of what you are saying, and applaud you for doing it, however; there was a simpler and more forthright way of you saying things - if your heart was truly in the place you are asserting it to be, and that would have been, the following:

To all you playwrights out there; make sure that all your work is properly marked with copyright so that producers are not inconvenienced in their attempts at paying you your due royalty.

Period. Problem solved.

Instead, you went down what I like to refer to as an 'agenda path', as you are in fact venting.

My car example is fantastic and good, and not at all as bad as you think it, because if you were less reactionary and more focused, you would have realised that council details are provided on all such machines and therefore you would have understood that one of the ways I tried to rectify the matter on the spot, was to call them with the problem and pre-empt any misunderstandings down the track. And in so doing only leaving myself two options.

...And a question you have neglected to answer.

Ha-ha!

Daniel Moszkowicz. (Troll-King of Chatsitea.)

I love how you agree with me and yet insist on being difficult and disagreeable - I agree with your now familiar signature, and enjoy stirring you just as much as you stir everyone else. A troll's troll I must be.

For those who give a shit: Um, that's irrelevant about putting little copyright symbols on everything. Copyright is automatically given to the writer; it is NOT necessary to put a copyright notice on it. It's common sense to do so only because people are ignorant either about copyrights in general or ignore them; and by adding one it clearly denotes what exactly the author/whoever is allowing the work to be used for (ie. creative commons attribution only, full copyright, etc). At any rate, such copyright markings are often ignored, cut away (in the case of digital images for example) or even copied themselves (many web designers don't even bother to change the copyright info in the code they've stolen).

Puppets and patterns at
Puppets in Melbourne

I love that you love me doing so, Naomi.

Had you NOT entered with your disagreeable and difficult tact in this instance, I dare say you would have found a different reflection.

...And I give a damn. I actually care about such things, Naomi. Copyright is as you imagine it to be.

I was merely offering a wild tangent and opportunity for Megz to consider. A tangent which you claimed as yours so earnestly, that I thought you would jump through the monitor to get at it.

Cheers,
Daniel M.

Good luck. Many of us hope you succeed. And let us know how you get on. I'm sure you will.

Cheers,
Daniel M.

Hi Daniel,

No doubt I proberly will find myself promoting the production here in the near future. and thanks for the support much appreciated. xox

Thanks for the heads up, but I plan to be covered in all avenues, the best way I possibly can, I dont want my first year of production to be disaster. Especially when I hope to be involved with such a young cast instead of the typically older casts.

So yer, the production will need to legal in all avenues as possible, the next 12 months I will be researching and planning to ensure everything is covered, thanks again, all advice and tips will be looked into.

Megz xox

Mr McCabe,

These 'war stories' you and Tony clearly hold - and apparantly many others have and hold too - inspire me to delve into this subject matter earnestly, one day.

Thanks for the inspiration, men. And don't get spooked if I send you a private message one day in my hope of learning more.

Thanks,
Daniel M.