#101
Posted: 12/28/08 at 5:54pm
This director needs to be stopped. I can't believe that is how he directs "his" productions.
Amateur production of CABARET (Is this allowed?) — Page 5
#102
Posted: 12/28/08 at 6:12pm
qolbinau,
When you don't pay royalties for a production, you ARE stealing/taking money out of the pockets of the writers.
Marc Shaiman posts on this board. He was one of the writers of Hairspray. If your local group decided to mount their own production of it without getting the rights, you are taking money out of his pocket.
"Would the amateur group have paid for appropriate use or approval of their production if they couldn't do it illegally? Well I would think if they were going to, they would have."
What kind of sense does that make? If they COULD have paid for the rights in the first place, they should have gone through the proper channels to get the rights, and not purposely steal other people’s hard work.
Every production that is done without permission is STEALING from the writers.
If you wanted to do free shows, stick to Shakespeare or Gilbert and Sullivan or any one of a hundred other scripts that are in the public domain.
The ignorance here is almost blinding.
When you don't pay royalties for a production, you ARE stealing/taking money out of the pockets of the writers.
Marc Shaiman posts on this board. He was one of the writers of Hairspray. If your local group decided to mount their own production of it without getting the rights, you are taking money out of his pocket.
"Would the amateur group have paid for appropriate use or approval of their production if they couldn't do it illegally? Well I would think if they were going to, they would have."
What kind of sense does that make? If they COULD have paid for the rights in the first place, they should have gone through the proper channels to get the rights, and not purposely steal other people’s hard work.
Every production that is done without permission is STEALING from the writers.
If you wanted to do free shows, stick to Shakespeare or Gilbert and Sullivan or any one of a hundred other scripts that are in the public domain.
The ignorance here is almost blinding.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#103
Posted: 12/28/08 at 6:26pm
This discussion is interesting.
As someone said upthread, I believe, the Cabaret that is licensed isn't actually the 1998 revival, as it doesn't have "Maybe This Time" inserted from the film into it. I learned this when a friend of a friend did a production of the show at my college. They inserted "Maybe This Time" knowing full very they didn't have the rights to it. They were lucky no one seemed to care.
I think the beauty of theater is re-imagining staging. I saw the North Shore Music Theatre in MA do the Producers this past season. Since they do works in the round, the staging/set was different. However, the costumes and choreography were identical (with permission, of course - I think it may be licensed that way, but not sure). I enjoying seeing a different set and a different space.
Copying *everything* just seems a little lazy to me (and wrong, of course). Each space and cast is different. Play the show to your strengths and creativity.
As someone said upthread, I believe, the Cabaret that is licensed isn't actually the 1998 revival, as it doesn't have "Maybe This Time" inserted from the film into it. I learned this when a friend of a friend did a production of the show at my college. They inserted "Maybe This Time" knowing full very they didn't have the rights to it. They were lucky no one seemed to care.
I think the beauty of theater is re-imagining staging. I saw the North Shore Music Theatre in MA do the Producers this past season. Since they do works in the round, the staging/set was different. However, the costumes and choreography were identical (with permission, of course - I think it may be licensed that way, but not sure). I enjoying seeing a different set and a different space.
Copying *everything* just seems a little lazy to me (and wrong, of course). Each space and cast is different. Play the show to your strengths and creativity.
#104
Posted: 12/28/08 at 7:15pm
"The ignorance here is almost blinding."
Well I feel this but at the opposite view point, put simply one illegal production does NOT NECESSARILY mean revenue was lost because if they were unable to perform it illegally by some kind of enforcement, it is possible it would *not* be performed at all due to other (e.g affordability) reasons. In both situations, the writers gain or lose *NO money.*
In cases of copyright infringement, you can't just attribute each case to a loss by default, IMO, because it depends on the circumstances.
I'm not justifying it at all, my main point here is that:
* The infringement of Copyright is not stealing; it is Copyright infringement. It doesn't necessarily mean lost revenue; It depends on the circumstances.
What is the end result of this? Well, hopefully the people who are thinking "they are stealing money from the pockets of the writers" recognise this may not always be the case, and that the producers of the amateur production are not hitler reincarnate .
I think people just need to acknowledge that photocopying a page from a book and physically removing that page from a book in a book store are not the same thing.
Well I feel this but at the opposite view point, put simply one illegal production does NOT NECESSARILY mean revenue was lost because if they were unable to perform it illegally by some kind of enforcement, it is possible it would *not* be performed at all due to other (e.g affordability) reasons. In both situations, the writers gain or lose *NO money.*
In cases of copyright infringement, you can't just attribute each case to a loss by default, IMO, because it depends on the circumstances.
I'm not justifying it at all, my main point here is that:
* The infringement of Copyright is not stealing; it is Copyright infringement. It doesn't necessarily mean lost revenue; It depends on the circumstances.
What is the end result of this? Well, hopefully the people who are thinking "they are stealing money from the pockets of the writers" recognise this may not always be the case, and that the producers of the amateur production are not hitler reincarnate .
I think people just need to acknowledge that photocopying a page from a book and physically removing that page from a book in a book store are not the same thing.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
#105
Posted: 12/28/08 at 8:26pm
I'd rather see someone copy the revival than to rewrite the whole show to suit their needs. A local "professional" Non-Equity dinner theatre owner cast himself as Herr Schultz, and the play became all about him. He was the one at the end being killed in a gas chamber and I understand he even took one of the Sally Bowles numbers and Herr Schultz sang it! It was surprising that Herr Schultz didn't sing Cabaret!
Updated On: 12/28/08 at 08:26 PM
#106
Posted: 12/28/08 at 8:40pm
"In cases of copyright infringement, you can't just attribute each case to a loss by default, IMO, because it depends on the circumstances."
Please explain what you mean. Under what circumstances is it okay to do a show without getting the rights first?
Please explain what you mean. Under what circumstances is it okay to do a show without getting the rights first?
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#107
Posted: 12/28/08 at 8:47pm
Putting on a show without permission is stealing. Done. No buts. Most companies will work with you if you need help with the money but if you choose to just skip that step you are stealing. It is not about stealing the money (though that is important) it is about stealing a group of people's intellectual property.
David walked into the valley
With a stone clutched in his hand
He was only a boy
But he knew someone must take a stand
There will always be a valley
Always mountains one must scale
There will always be perilous waters
Which someone must sail
-Into the Fire
Scarlet Pimpernel
#108
Posted: 12/28/08 at 8:57pm
I'd rather see someone copy the revival than to rewrite the whole show to suit their needs. A local "professional" Non-Equity dinner theatre owner cast himself as Herr Schultz, and the play became all about him. He was the one at the end being killed in a gas chamber and I understand he even took one of the Sally Bowles numbers and Herr Schultz sang it! It was surprising that Herr Schultz didn't sing Cabaret!
Wow, seriously? I wonder which one of Sally's songs he sang...I hope it wasn't "Don't Tell Mama!"
I agree, changing the material is pretty bad! It's one thing if parts are split to expand a cast (i.e. Songs for A New World can be a larger cast than 4 people), but rewriting the story completely? That's definitely a no-no, I'm sure with the license purchase :).
Wow, seriously? I wonder which one of Sally's songs he sang...I hope it wasn't "Don't Tell Mama!"
I agree, changing the material is pretty bad! It's one thing if parts are split to expand a cast (i.e. Songs for A New World can be a larger cast than 4 people), but rewriting the story completely? That's definitely a no-no, I'm sure with the license purchase :).
#109
Posted: 12/29/08 at 1:53am
"Please explain what you mean. Under what circumstances is it okay to do a show without getting the rights first?"
What? I wasn't talking about this.
In reference to "stealing money out of the pocket" of authors, or people losing anything etc.
I even explicitly said I was not justifying it.
I just can't explain without re-writing what I wrote.
What? I wasn't talking about this.
In reference to "stealing money out of the pocket" of authors, or people losing anything etc.
I even explicitly said I was not justifying it.
I just can't explain without re-writing what I wrote.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
#110
Posted: 12/29/08 at 10:53am
I will agree about it being a "grey area".
My thing is, what if a company wants to put on Chicago? If they put their band on stage, and use minimal set/props, with all black costumes, is that "ripping off" the current revival?
My thing is, what if a company wants to put on Chicago? If they put their band on stage, and use minimal set/props, with all black costumes, is that "ripping off" the current revival?
#111
Posted: 12/29/08 at 11:33am
"Thanks for the Judi Dench video, Smaxie!"
And thanks jv92 for putting it up!
And thanks jv92 for putting it up!
#112
Posted: 12/29/08 at 12:39pm
Okay - as a lawyer, I am going to give this one more try. Copyright infringement is illegal. You cannot justify illegal acts by saying it didn't "hurt" anyone because that attitude leads (and this thread demonstrates it) to a general disregard for the legal rights of others. You may, for example, be annoyed when you get a speeding ticket for going 5 miles faster than the speed limit, but the speed limit is 55 mph, not "as fast as I can safely go without being caught." If there are fifty unlicensed amateur productions in the United States, no one of them may cause significant financial losses, but fifty of them do.
#113
Posted: 12/29/08 at 1:02pm
fashionguru - the script for Chicago SAYS the band is onstage. It was onstage in the original version.
The script also contains dialogue that was cut for the revival. If you cut that dialogue, it is copywright infringement. You contracted to do the full script, not a cut down version.
The script also contains dialogue that was cut for the revival. If you cut that dialogue, it is copywright infringement. You contracted to do the full script, not a cut down version.
#114
Posted: 12/29/08 at 1:32pm
Thank you, wonkit.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#115
Posted: 12/29/08 at 5:12pm
This is the third time I've posted this I think, I'm neither justifying the act nor saying it is not illegal. It's just an observation that in cases like these you can't black+white say "money" was "taken out of pockets".
The 'attribute-every-infringement-to-loss-of-revenue' mentality has been used extensively by the music/media industries to show the effects of piracy on their sales, but again, *although illegal*, you can't just say that if someone downloads a song they are 'hurting' anyone because it assumes that they would have bought it otherwise. {Apply this to performing illegal productions, kthx].
The 'attribute-every-infringement-to-loss-of-revenue' mentality has been used extensively by the music/media industries to show the effects of piracy on their sales, but again, *although illegal*, you can't just say that if someone downloads a song they are 'hurting' anyone because it assumes that they would have bought it otherwise. {Apply this to performing illegal productions, kthx].
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
#116
Posted: 12/29/08 at 6:28pm
Again, your ignorance is blinding.
You've posted that same remark three times and it still doesn't make it right.
"you can't just say that if someone downloads a song they are 'hurting' anyone because it assumes that they would have bought it otherwise."
It's stealing. PERIOD.
That's like saying if someone takes something from a store, it's not really stealing if they WEREN'T going to pay for it anyway?
Where DO you get your logic from?
You've posted that same remark three times and it still doesn't make it right.
"you can't just say that if someone downloads a song they are 'hurting' anyone because it assumes that they would have bought it otherwise."
It's stealing. PERIOD.
That's like saying if someone takes something from a store, it's not really stealing if they WEREN'T going to pay for it anyway?
Where DO you get your logic from?
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#117
Posted: 12/29/08 at 8:07pm
You're welcome, TheatreDiva. On this thread, I think I will just retire from the field of battle.
#118
Posted: 12/29/08 at 8:42pm
Oh my God.
The fact that you've used an analogy by comparing copyright infringement to physically stealing from a shop proves that this argument is futile.
lol, just, God. Speak for yourself RE: Ignorance. I regret wasting my time.
I think we have to go back to basics, see above image.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
Updated On: 12/29/08 at 08:42 PM
#119
Posted: 12/29/08 at 8:57pm
If the item they are copying is COPYRIGHTED, then it's stealing. A lawyer just told you that. That's why it's called a COPYRIGHT. YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO COPY IT!
Why are you insisting when you are so OBVIOUSLY WRONG?
Why are you insisting when you are so OBVIOUSLY WRONG?
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#120
Posted: 12/29/08 at 9:09pm
Now for the fourth time, I'm not disputing it is illegal or 'morally' wrong.
But I am 'insisting' because you guys seem to think that just because this company performed "Cabaret" without paying the rights, they have taken "money out of pockets" of the authors/owners etc.. when I am telling you that it is not necessarily the case. And in one circumstance (outlined ages ago, where they wouldn't have paid anyway), the authors are *NOT* hurt either way, in both situations they lose or gain *NO MONEY*. The reason why this can occur is because an infringement of copyright is *NOT* the same as stealing/taking something from a shop (where the displacement of the item straight away = loss). I just don't understand why you can't understand that copying the page of a book is not the same thing as ripping it out and taking it with you.
But I am 'insisting' because you guys seem to think that just because this company performed "Cabaret" without paying the rights, they have taken "money out of pockets" of the authors/owners etc.. when I am telling you that it is not necessarily the case. And in one circumstance (outlined ages ago, where they wouldn't have paid anyway), the authors are *NOT* hurt either way, in both situations they lose or gain *NO MONEY*. The reason why this can occur is because an infringement of copyright is *NOT* the same as stealing/taking something from a shop (where the displacement of the item straight away = loss). I just don't understand why you can't understand that copying the page of a book is not the same thing as ripping it out and taking it with you.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
#121
Posted: 12/29/08 at 9:10pm
Here, let me put it to you this way...
This is a picture of the Mona Lisa
It's copyrighted.
If you COPY it and then sell the copies, it's ILLEGAL.
If you do a show WITHOUT GETTING THE RIGHTS, and then you charge people to see it, it's STEALING / COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
You are taking money out of the pockets of the people who took out the copyright.
You don’t have the RIGHT to COPY.
Get it?
This is a picture of the Mona Lisa
It's copyrighted.
If you COPY it and then sell the copies, it's ILLEGAL.
If you do a show WITHOUT GETTING THE RIGHTS, and then you charge people to see it, it's STEALING / COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
You are taking money out of the pockets of the people who took out the copyright.
You don’t have the RIGHT to COPY.
Get it?
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#122
Posted: 12/29/08 at 9:14pm
Now for the fifth time, I am aware that the infringement of copyright is illegal and morally wrong.
But this:
"You are taking money out of the pockets of the people who took out the copyright"
Is wrong. They aren't *losing anything*, and if the company were to not pay otherwise they would have not gained or lost money EITHER WAY....
Copy and past from above incase you missed:
But I am 'insisting' because you guys seem to think that just because this company performed "Cabaret" without paying the rights, they have taken "money out of pockets" of the authors/owners etc.. when I am telling you that it is not necessarily the case. And in one circumstance (outlined ages ago, where they wouldn't have paid anyway), the authors are *NOT* hurt either way, in both situations they lose or gain *NO MONEY*. The reason why this can occur is because an infringement of copyright is *NOT* the same as stealing/taking something from a shop (where the displacement of the item straight away = loss). I just don't understand why you can't understand that copying the page of a book is not the same thing as ripping it out and taking it with you.
There is a reason you are not charged with theft if you infringe copyright.
But this:
"You are taking money out of the pockets of the people who took out the copyright"
Is wrong. They aren't *losing anything*, and if the company were to not pay otherwise they would have not gained or lost money EITHER WAY....
Copy and past from above incase you missed:
But I am 'insisting' because you guys seem to think that just because this company performed "Cabaret" without paying the rights, they have taken "money out of pockets" of the authors/owners etc.. when I am telling you that it is not necessarily the case. And in one circumstance (outlined ages ago, where they wouldn't have paid anyway), the authors are *NOT* hurt either way, in both situations they lose or gain *NO MONEY*. The reason why this can occur is because an infringement of copyright is *NOT* the same as stealing/taking something from a shop (where the displacement of the item straight away = loss). I just don't understand why you can't understand that copying the page of a book is not the same thing as ripping it out and taking it with you.
There is a reason you are not charged with theft if you infringe copyright.
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
Updated On: 12/29/08 at 09:14 PM
#123
Posted: 12/29/08 at 9:16pm
I think it's a grey area. And I think the outrage in this thread is funny.
#124
Posted: 12/29/08 at 9:39pm
Did you miss this?
"Okay - as a lawyer, I am going to give this one more try. Copyright infringement is illegal."
Period.
People are sued for it all of the time. That's like being arrested for stealing...
I'm done with you, qolbinau, since you only want to "Copy and past" your own quotes and ignore people who know the facts.
Talking to you is like talking to:
I certianly hope you don't plan on having a career in Theatre. And if you do, stick to community theatre.
"Okay - as a lawyer, I am going to give this one more try. Copyright infringement is illegal."
Period.
People are sued for it all of the time. That's like being arrested for stealing...
I'm done with you, qolbinau, since you only want to "Copy and past" your own quotes and ignore people who know the facts.
Talking to you is like talking to:
I certianly hope you don't plan on having a career in Theatre. And if you do, stick to community theatre.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#125
Posted: 12/29/08 at 9:42pm
"They aren't *losing anything*, and if the company were to not pay otherwise they would have not gained or lost money EITHER WAY...."
Total B.S.
When they aren't being paid for their work, they are losing.
Total B.S.
When they aren't being paid for their work, they are losing.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95