Glibertarians.com 2018 Archive

Author: Waterfall Insurance

  • Disney and Marvel king and queen pimp of copyright kingdom.

    This article is inspired by the many mentions on this site of Star Wars, Marvel, Disney and how their SJW leanings  may be hurting their business. I have a theory that centers on trademark and copyright law about how in the cases of Marvel many of these crazy SJW stunts are actually evidence of Disney playing the long game and in the case of other properties such as Star Wars and The Muppets show that the company is largely being propelled by a few divisions while the rest coasts or bumbles around aimlessly.

    I will start with a basic and not at all legally sound explanation of trademarks and copyrights. Trademarks are basically legal claims towards branding, brand names and mascots can be trademarked in perpetuity as long as they remain active. This can be confusing because characters can have works that exist in the public domain such as certain books or films but still be trademarked characters. This is possible because the copyright of the work which features that character can expire without the characters trademark expiring allowing that particular book or film to be reproduced for free while other uses of that character would still be protected by trademark or copyright.

    Copyright is the other half of the equation and the concept is pretty clear from the term, it is the right to copy something. Copyright protects specific works rather than brands the way  trademarks do. The original post colonial copyright in the United States was 14 years with the option to renew for another 14 years; by the early 20th century this had expanded to 28 years with an option for a renewal of another 28 years. In 1976, this was expanded to 75 years for corporate owned works or the life of the author plus 50 years, and in 1998–with a major push from Disney–it was expanded to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication for corporate works or the life of the author plus 70 years.

    The impact copyright can have on media franchises can get very complicated. A great example of this is the Wizard of Oz franchise. Wizard of Oz started out as a media franchise in the early 20th century with books, plays and silent films but it is the 1939 film that has become the definitive version in the minds of the general public. The original wave of books, plays and silent films are all in the public domain which means free of copyright but the 1939 film is still under copyright.

    There are distinct elements to the 1939 film such as songs, plot points and design elements such as the ruby slippers that are not public domain. The shoes were originally silver but were changed to red to showcase the then still novel format of technicolor film. The books status as public domain allows anyone to create a sequel or new interpretation of Wizard of Oz but the copyright protecting the distinctive elements of the definitive version along with the lack of a young Judy Garlands has prevented any of these from becoming seen as legitimate entries of the franchise, including two attempts by Disney. The extension of copyrights benefits almost every media company but  I would argue that this is a major element of Disney’s business strategy and is used to add value to their merchandising and theme park divisions. The affect of this is most notable in the Disney Princess franchise which earns Disney millions from trademarked versions of public domain characters. It is also used recently in their live action film division through the remakes of their animated films.

    The deeper use of the ins and outs of copyright laws hasn’t really expanded to companies they have purchased, such as Pixar and Lucasfilms which is responsible for Star Wars and allegedly more Indiana Jones. The exception to that I would say is Marvel. I think the difference is because of the age of Marvel places much more of the companies value closer to entering public domain. Marvel started in the late ’30s with characters such as Captain America, Sub-Mariner and other members of The All Winners Squad with the majority of Marvels most famous characters from the ’60s or ’70s. Marvel began their version of using the ruby slipper like leverage before they were bought by Disney and it has accelerated since then. I think that a major reason Marvel even still publishes comics is to strengthen their copyrights covering more and more situations making it harder and harder to write a story using their characters without infringing on a copyright. Evidence of this is how their publishing strategy changed after the success of the X-men and Spider-man films.

    Marvel’s top property for decades was X-men to the point where often any book with an X on it would sell better than most of The Avengers solo books. Marvel began to shift the focus of their comics away from the X-men with events such as House of M removing power from many mutants and towards the Avengers adding Spider-man and Wolverine to the line up. This was done without any certainty that the sales of the comics would be maintained. Before this the Avengers were a team of former A-listers who had been surpassed in popularity by Spiderman and the X-men who previously were too valuable to be in The Avengers. This shift took place because the film rights to many of their characters were no longer owned by Marvel, because they were sold off during a bankruptcy. The Avengers film rights were the ones that didn’t sell and adding their star characters to the franchise helped move the focus to the avengers.

    Another example is the comics recent focus on The Inhumans. Marvel intended to replace the mutants with the inhumans because of their loss of the film rights. They did things like making some of the recently depowered mutants inhumans, retconning characters who were assumed-but-not-certain-mutants as mutants, and even in a few cases retconning characters who had previously been retconned to be mutants to cash in on the xmen’s popularity. The Inhumans before this were supporting characters in Fantastic Four who had never sustained an ongoing series more than a couple years. They also had major event series around this time which connected them with all the other ongoing comics. Marvel’s emphasis was no longer on selling comics but using the comics to lay down more copyright, and retrain and test what people think of the characters to prep for future movies and tv shows. They do something similar in the cartoons which feature upcoming characters such as Nova and Amadeus Cho.

    I also believe that much of their SJW recasting of their characters is Marvel woke-proofing their franchises. Peter Parker’s adventures will eventually become public domain even if eventually is a long time from now (especially if it counts as 70 years after Stan Lee’s death) but Marvel can keep the trademark of Spider-Man in perpetuity and they just have to change who the public thinks of as Spider-man. They have tried this with several characters but the only major character they have made significant progress with is Spider-man and the upcoming animated film starring Miles Morales (a half black half Hispanic alternate universe character) Into the Spiderverse will reinforce this.

     

  • Death of Stalin Review

    I once again entered the local hipsterplex to watch The Death of Stalin. The trailers before the film established once again that as a glib I was a stranger in a strange land. There was a trailer for a sad looking rodeo movie and a documentary about Ruth Bader Ginsberg which received audible applause from the audience. After the applause I couldn’t help but wonder what the rest of the audience thought of the film and of Stalin. I assume they all disliked Stalin but likely had blinders on for certain aspects of why he was terrible which is a trait I believe the film mostly shared.

    The film is directed by the creator of the HBO show Veep. I haven’t seen any of that show so I can’t comment on the similarities. The film’s tone reminded me of a more cosmopolitan take on Monty Python, less loose, less cutting. The Python connection is reinforced by the presence of Michael Palin as one of the minor cabinet members Molotov. The film brought forth a couple chuckles but it didn’t really have any laugh out loud moments. The film mostly explores what totalitarian power does to people, the mind games, the unsure standing and most of all constant fear.

    The film begins with a concert performance where Stalin calls the control board and asks them to call back, they do so only to find out he wanted a recording of the performance; unfortunately it wasn’t recorded. The reaction of the control board to this simple misunderstanding is the first example of the constant fear, the crew close the doors and prevent the orchestra and most of the audience from leaving this goes on for a while and a great deal of drama happens for a recording Stalin is likely only to listen to once. Stalin falls ill maybe a quarter way through the film and immediately the now open struggle for power begins before he is dead. In the film there are three main people in the straggle for power and they are arguably the three main characters of the film. They are Simon Beal as Beria, the director of security forces, Steve Buscemi as Khrushchev, head of the party and Jeffery Tambor as Malenkov.

    Steve Buscemi’s Khrushchev is pretty much Steve Buscemi, a bit neurotic but not to Larry David levels. Khrushchev has the main character arc of the film. He starts out as one of many ministers and isn’t particularly powerful within the dynamic of the group, but he rises to the occasion and ends up leading the group against Beria. The film seems to present him as the good one, the smart one, the reasonable one, and the film is largely about how the totalitarian system of the Soviet Union under Stalin corrupts him through the horrible things he must do to survive.

    Beria is portrayed as the villain, the one who gets things moving and forces a power struggle. He plots, he schemes, and seems to have been preparing for this for years. He is shown as being the most linked with Stalin’s system of terror and violence, but the most willing to openly distance himself from Stalin and the past. Simon Beal’s performance as Beria is tonally inconsistent; at times he is just goofy and slapstick as the rest of the group, but there are other moments where he seems to come from a darker and much more serious movie.

    Tambor’s Malenkov is quiet, nervous and confused. He doesn’t seem very intelligent and reminded me of Lurch from the Addams Family, which made it funnier for me when Beria compared him to Boris Karloff. His character isn’t very active throughout the film and the performance doesn’t go very deep because of that. He inherits the position of leader once Stalin dies and it seems like he was put in that position by Stalin as a political pace car for the rest of the ministers.

    Strangely, but not super surprisingly, the film doesn’t really address communism, there are hints towards it but for the most part the focus is on the idea of Stalin as a dictator who rules by murder and fear. The film goes into the constant cautiousness and the double think it requires to survive in Soviet Russia, but it never really explores how or why this system came about. One instance where a better understanding of how the filmmakers feel about this would have improved the film, is when we are shown the shabby conditions that Khrushchev and the others live in. Is this to show how even the powerful are poor under communism? Or more likely is this shown as a contrast to the wealth Stalin lives in and how a dictatorship is the ultimate system of inequality?

    Ultimately, the film has left me inspired to show my appreciation for this platform to ramble about movies by starting a coup of my own and rise up against the Eternals in The Vortex and post the first and almost certainly last Waterfall Insurance links. I also thought I would try something else new and stay on topic.

    • First the real deal.
    • And the NY Times. They almost get it right but they throw in a couple lines brown-nosing Mao.
    • The NY Times again, so brace yourself against the paywall, this time about Khrushchev.
    • And I will end with a music link a childhood favorite. My mom hated this song, especially when my brother would play the video on the living room tv.

  • Film Review – Chappaquiddick

    I’m back again for my 2nd article. I have listened to the feed back on my Young Karl Marx review and have attempted to craft a better and more reviewish review. I will start by explaining what my level of familiarity is with Ted Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick incident. It is low–I’m 26 and didn’t pay attention to politics or the news in general until a couple years ago, and my early impressions of Ted are from pop culture. The impression I got was that he certainly wasn’t diet Kennedy, but he was Kennedy the lesser. Most noteworthy for his ability to live an average lifespan as a Kennedy. I learned a little more when he died: the Lion of the Senate nickname, his failed presidential run, brief mentions of the Chappaquiddick incident and his years of public service to both our country and the Soviet Union. Now to the film.

    I haven’t read any other reviews, so I don’t know how other places view this film, but an important distinction to make is this isn’t a film about the Chappaquiddick incident featuring Ted Kennedy. This is a film about Ted Kennedy set during the Chappaquiddick incident. What this means is that the film is focused on his struggles and is framed from his perspective and his desires. The film opens with a Kennedy family photograph and zooms in a young Ted. The film then cuts to an interview talking about living in JFK’s shadow, and that is the major theme and struggle of this film. Living in his brother’s shadow, his father’s and the public’s expectations. Answering the question, “Where does Ted fit within the Kennedy legacy?” Jason Clarke plays Ted Kennedy, and he mostly does a good job. There are a few moments where you can tell he is ACTING!! His Mayor Quimby accent comes and goes and, in a few instances, even veers toward Bing Crosby territory, but it isn’t too distracting. Kate Mara plays Mary Jo Kopechne, the former campaign staffer of Bobby and the girl who dies. She does an OK job of playing her, but there isn’t much of a character for her to play. Mary Jo’s story before she dies is that she must decide whether to join Ted’s future presidential campaign, and she is the only one of the “Boiler Room” girls who is reluctant both because of what happened to Bobby but also because of who Ted is. We learn hardly anything else about Mary Jo. We only see her in the film within the prism of what she can do for the Kennedy’s.

    In case you weren’t sure who Ed Helms is…

    The film also establishes early on the role of Joe Gargan in the Kennedy family as someone who is either a brother or a fixer, depending on what Ted needs at the moment. The film also gives him the role of a conscience; he’s the person who is trying to steer Ted not towards what is good for Ted or “The Kennedys” but towards what is right. He is belittled and ignored and almost none of his often-good advice is taken. Joe or Joey is played by Ed Helms, who–I don’t know why–has always kind of creeped me out. He did an OK job, but I felt he was kind of distracting in the role. I think he is the most famous person in the cast, and I couldn’t unsee Ed Helms. The other major family presence is his father, played by Bruce Dern who I assume is Laura Dern’s father. Joe Sr. is portrayed first as creepy and later as sad. He is first introduced as a voice over the phone and his health hadn’t been addressed at that point in the film. You hear heavy breathing; it sounds almost like someone masturbating and it reminded me of Frank Booth from Blue Velvet. He utters one word before the call ends and he almost chokes out the word alibi. The first time you see him, the film builds up tension in the manner of a horror film and the sounds of his approach are almost industrial. He is in a wheel chair, shrunken, twisted and largely silent, and he is given an aura of fear and reverence. The big scene with Joe Sr. comes when Ted finally decides to stand up to him and tells him that John and Robert were great men–not because they were made great men by their father but because they were. He tells him he, too, is a great man; he just has to find himself. His dad tells him that he will never be a great man. Ted hugs him and they both cry.

    The film visually looks great. It is filmed the way many 60’s films are: lots of pastels and lots of Norman Rockwell influences in the framing and poses people take. The film occasionally strays from the cheery 60’s palette and gets dark and ominous. The camera, unlike Ted, keeps returning to the water and gets all it can out of it. There are horror movie touches scattered throughout the film: his dad, the bridge, the water. The first example is towards the start of the film, where the camera lingers on the Chappaquiddick sign in a way that it might as well say Camp Crystal Lake. The film deals with the fallout of the car accident for the bulk of the film, and it never properly conveys the tension of the situation. Despite a death, it feels less tense than even a film like The Post. The film seems more concerned with Ted’s inner struggle than the exterior struggle of the event. There are countless lawyers and advisers throughout the film who, just like Joey, are giving good advice and are ignored by Ted, who instead fucks things up. One of them was Clancy Brown playing Robert McNamara who, growing up watching Highlander as a child, I was excited to see.

    The film ends with most of Ted’s lies coming undone but with almost no legal repercussions. Ted has asked Joey to write a resignation speech to read at a press conference, but instead decides to give an adviser-written speech designed to illicit sympathy and save his career, with Joey reduced to holding his cue cards so he can go “off script”. The film at the end includes some real footage of people reacting to his speech. The opinions are mixed, but most are saying they would still vote for him. One that stood out to me was a woman who was asked if she thought he should run for president and she replied, “That kind of thing isn’t up to me.” I think that attitude sums up a lot about how we ended up where we are and the success of Dynasties like the Kennedys, Bushes and Clintons. The film tries to do the opposite of a “warts and all” approach, and looks at a tragedy through a “feels and all” approach and asks should he have been punished or should he have continued on and found a way to give to the world and make good instead. The film also gives Ted the benefit of the doubt in the most important moment of the film. We never see him drinking and it seems like maybe he might just be tired. The crash and Mary Jo’s death are never shown in a way that doesn’t obscure the clock and ambiguity is allowed to creep in.  I think this kind of corruption isn’t anything new, but the way it was brushed aside by corruption and pushed out of the limelight was a major public moment of the elites being above accountability that I’m not sure had even been so brazen. It reminds me of recent events in many, many ways, and the Ted Kennedy of this film is probably Jeb Bush’s spirit animal. I’m not sure I would recommend it. It has good elements but at least how I interpreted it gives a lot of support in the direction of the film for Ted even though it shows his many flaws. I don’t know enough to say if it is historically accurate, but I can say it makes me disgusted with the Lion of the Senate nickname.

  • Review – “The Young Karl Marx”

    I have long made grumblings of writing an article here, I just moved to a new house and started a new job so I decided to get to it while I still had some free time. The idea to do a review of this came when I was checking for nearby theaters on my movie pass app and the nearest theater happened to be an art house theater a couple of miles from my house. Living away from relatives we didn’t have any plans for Easter so my wife and I decided to check it out and leave our neighborhood of swap meets and men wearing bow ties selling bean pies in front of burger king to go see a movie in the local historic district where the locals continue the colonial tradition of brunch. The theater was a single screen theater with an old-style marquee with Karl Marx in big letters. The box office was staffed by a hipster male with a hairstyle typically reserved for male figure skaters and Final Fantasy characters. In order to buy popcorn and a soda I had to interrupt a conversation about Armie Hammer between a chubby woman wearing horn rimmed glasses and a skinny woman wearing horn rimmed glasses. The chubby woman took our order and despite appearing to work there I am still unsure what job the skinny woman could possibly have been doing. There were only about 6 other people at the movie mostly what appeared to be upper middle-class couples over 50.

    The film started with a scene like the human hunting scene in Planet of the Apes. People dressed in rags and covered in mud search the ground for sticks and the they hear a noise; the French police arrive on horseback and begin rounding them up and beating them with sticks. The next scene is the introduction of Engels and his wife. His wife is leading an argument between the workers and her boss Engels father. She and her sister end up quitting and Engles then tracks them down looking for an interview with the proletariat of Manchester. He finds them in an Irish bar, he approaches them about getting an interview and he is punched. He takes one punch and he drops like a chloroformed child, when he wakes up he is being nursed by a beautiful red headed Irish woman who later becomes his wife. Marx introduction sets the pattern for much of his actions through out the film. He is at a meeting of a socialist organization where he sits around tables, eats, drinks, smokes, complains about not having money and insulting his allies berating them for not being radical enough. He is writing for a publication in Germany and they are all about to be arrested and they are having an argument of what to do next while the police are breaking down the doors, he ends up writing for a man named Arnold Ruge. The film then skips to Marx in his kitchen eating and talking with his wife about their future and her past. Marx’s wife is as ridiculously French as Engels wife is Irish and both are played by actresses’ way out of the actors league. His wife had given up a life of luxury as an heiress in order to be with Marx but she is in love and is a true believer. This scene also features the first of several mentions of Marx being one of (((them))). His wife is threatening to go back to visit her family and ask for money because they have a newborn daughter, she pressures him to instead hit up Ruge for money and to pressure Ruge to sell some of his railroad stock. The film then shows Marx and his wife attending a rally for a politician named Proudhon. Proudhon is giving a speech where he declares that property is theft. Marx decides to speak to him after this and in this meeting, he impresses Proudhon and begins his rivalry with several of Proudhon’s acolytes. The film also begins another reoccurring thing where legitimate criticisms of Marx and socialism/communism in general are brought up and breezed past never to be addressed again. Marx questions how if property is theft, how can there be theft without property, the film purposes that the flaw with Proudhon’s statement is it is all philosophical with no real world application and that there must be a way to implement this idea for it to be worth anything. The rest of the film is about Marx’s journey towards fulfilling that goal but in the moment they all just kind of laugh it off get complimented on their French and move on to the next scene.

    In this scene, Marx is now visiting Ruge asking for money and makes reference to his railroad stock but he is unsuccessful, the meeting however is still fruitful it is there that he meets Engels.

    The meeting with Engles starts of hostile, he claims not to know him but soon he begins to insult him for being rich and out of touch based on his writings and their previous meeting, things are not going well but then Ruge is called away and they are left alone in the room and the fellating of each other’s egos then begins. Moments after Ruge leaves the room right after Marx has given him a through dressing down Engles calls Marx a genius, Marx returns the compliment and says that his report on the workers of Manchester which he had just insulted was a colossal work addressing something no one else has touched. The film then cuts to them out side having left Ruge without a word. They are now smoking cigars, grinning ear to ear and walking with an extra spring in their step. The homo erotic tension is so palpable you could cut it with a hammer and sickle. They decide to author a book together but then their plans are interrupted by the French police asking people for their papers, which seem to have fallen out of Engles coat at some point. They make a run for it and the only chase scene of the film commences. There are several staples of the chase sequence, chickens, construction sites and people yelling at them as they walk through their homes. They escape and meet up at a bar where they drink and talk about the loves of their life Marx talks about how great his wife is and Engels who has yet to marry the Irish girl because he is still afraid of his father says, “it’s complicated”. He and Marx then make a toast and kiss. I swear I watched this movie, I’m not making this up. The next several scenes are about Engels meeting and befriending Marx’s wife, and the beginning of the writing collaboration between Marx and Engels. They start by writing a defense of Proudhon against a journal called the Critical Critique, their reply is initially called Critique of Critical Critique something the film things is so clever it is played for laughs several times. Not long after it’s publication the good times then come to an end and Marx and his wife are told they have 24 hours to leave France.

    The film enters the low point of Marx’s life so far, he is in Brussels in exile from France where he was in exile from Germany. He has a second child on the way and he is now at the post office facing his dark night of the soul, his Jesus in the desert moment. He is at this post office in search of a job. He is quickly rejected from the position he applied for after promising to not engage in politics and providing an unsatisfactory handwriting sample. He then lowers himself even further and considers a non-white collar job offering to do anything. The film then cuts back to Marx’s house where his wife and her servant are being hassled by bill collectors only for Marx to walk in with a big grin on his face and an arm full of groceries and proceeds to pay the bill collectors from a full coin purse. He then tells him Engles had wired them some money and pulls out a lobster for dinner over which Marx, his wife and his servant discuss an offer that Engles has set up in England. Marx is hesitant to leave behind his currently unattended children but his true believer wife talks him into it and so he heads of alone to join the League of the Just.

    When he gets to England it turns out that their membership in the league of the just is not a done deal and Marx secures it by claiming that he was close personal friends with Proudhon and he can connect their organizations which is a large over statement. He is at best a friend but more accurately an acquaintance of his at this point. They then travel to meet with Proudhon who isn’t interested in being the contact, he tells them that he is far too busy and lazy to take on the additional work but is interested in working something out. Proudhon then gives them a copy of his new book The Philosophy of Poverty a training montage the commences where they are furiously reading his book, writing notes in the margins and writing a response. Their response The Poverty of Philosophy again follows Marx’s favorite themes of not radical enough and we need a game plan not more musings, again turning on a former ally. Shortly after this at a meeting with some members of the Justice League Marx does a through critique and take down of Kietling who at this point has only been nice to them and is a charismatic and outgoing, workhorse and useful idiot. They are later called to an official meeting with the league and considering everything they have done are expecting to be expelled but instead they are given carte blanche to plan the new direction of the organization. Marx has apparently nurtured Kietling who they mention several times throughout the rest of the film has given up. They finally go to a big meeting for the Justice League and they take it over. Engels forces a vote naming him as the speaking delegate and then proceeds to make a speech calling for violent overthrow of the current system, he then proceeds to rename the organization the communist party and replace its banner, a white banner with a shinning sun and shaking hands with the slogan “all men are brothers”, with a deep red banner with the slogan “workers of the world unite”. After this coup they must be tired because they are next seen at a trip to the beach where Marx is complaining about being tired of all the hard work and never getting to write what he wants to write so they argue and decide to write what he has always wanted to write a plan for a new system the Communist Manifesto. While Engels and Marx discuss this their wives have a weird conversation about families Marx had 2 kids and Engels’ wife refuses to have kids with him unless he gives up his money but is chill with her 16-year-old younger sister giving him some kids. They then proceed to write the manifesto in another writing montage and the film ends with the four of them putting the finishing touches on the first draft while Marx’s servant brings them drinks. And the credits play out to a Bob Dylan song. I think it was The Times are a Changin’.

    So far I haven’t talked much about Engels solo scenes. The reason is I can not place them on a timeline they are all the same. Engels has major daddy issues and his two central struggles in the film are seeking his factory owning papa’s approval while still hanging out with his cool commie friends. The other issue is he struggles with the fact that he is wealthy and a successful part of his father’s company. Engels in the film somehow makes an overweight man who between mouthfuls of food and drink, and puffs on a cigar talks about communism and complains about being unable to feed his family by not having a job the more likable character. Engels is also played by easily the worst actor of the film, for the most part the actors range between serviceable and good but Engels whenever tasks with anything in the nonverbal realm breaks out into faces that express a wide variety of ailments. The production value is surprisingly good, the film is well lit and the locations and costumes all are convincing. Where the film really falls apart in the editing and the script. The dialogue to their credit is cringe worthy not because it is unbelievable or unnatural but because it sounds like the things awful pretentious people would say. The overall structure and tone of the film is that of a Wikipedia article, its choppy and is the opposite of the old adage “show don’t tell”. My wife and I discussed politics afterwards and it didn’t go well, so unless you are politically aligned and looking for a hatewatch I would not recommend this for a date night.