
Point Break – not coming to a cinema near you - DanBC
http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/comment/point-break-not-coming-cinema-near-you
======
headcanon
I honestly had a hard time following this - who is this person and why are
they "screening" Point Break? Is this for a paid cinema and they need to
secure these rights, or is it a private thing and the person is being anal
retentive about the legalities? Perhaps theres some context I'm missing here?

~~~
smacktoward
There's some background on where the piece came from here:
[http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-
magazine/comm...](http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-
magazine/comment/female-film-reporter-competition-results)

But the specifics of the author's case don't really matter all that much.
"Screening" means she wants to show it to the public, and since _Point Break_
is a copyrighted work, that's not something you can do without the permission
of the copyright holder (see
[http://www.prattlibrary.org/locations/sightsandsounds/?id=11...](http://www.prattlibrary.org/locations/sightsandsounds/?id=11096)).

The point of the article is that in many cases, finding someone who can
actually give you that permission is insanely difficult or even impossible, as
the rights for a property pass from company to company over years of deals and
mergers and bankruptcies. It can get so complicated that eventually _nobody_
knows who actually owns the rights anymore, turning the property into an
"orphan work"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works)).
This results in a Catch-22: you can't exhibit the work without the permission
of the rightsholder, but since nobody knows anymore who the rightsholder is,
there's no practical way for you to get that permission. So the work floats in
limbo, inaccessible to the public unless you're willing to break the law.

~~~
jakeva
Is it breaking the law though if nobody comes forward to claim a violation?

~~~
pasbesoin
A related question: What happens when IP maximalists succeed in changing this
from civil law to criminal law?

Someone might be willing to risk damages -- all the more so if they were
actually limited to direct demonstrable loss rather than absurd... "presumed /
possible / theoretical knock-on" loss amounts. But criminal prosecution?

Along with IP rights should come responsibilities, especially with items that
have become part of common culture and dialog. If you don't fairly represent
those rights to the culture/society, you should lose them.

In the patent world, IIRC, you can't simply use a patent to take a technology
"off the market" / out of use altogether. (I'm no lawyer, and maybe I'm wrong,
but isn't there language in the legislation mandating licensure under various
scenarios?)

Neither should that apply to published works.

~~~
DanBC
> What happens when IP maximalists succeed in changing this from civil law to
> criminal law?

It already is criminal law, and has been for ages.

Copyright as way of trade - selling burnt DVDs, charging access to a torrent
site, showing films without the correct permissions, etc - would all fit under
the criminal bits of UK law. I'd be surprised if the US was any different.

------
vitd
I have to wonder if this is just hype for the upcoming remake:

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2058673/?ref_=nv_sr_1](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2058673/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

~~~
rurban
Certainly not. Anybody who wants to show Point Break, the original, on the big
screen for a small event will not like even the idea of a remake without
Kathryn Bigelow involved. Watch the real thing.

