View this post on Hive: Pee-wee's Playhouse Ended Badly
I believe I saw Pee Wee run off into the sunset towards Hell on that bike lol. But then again, I might be conflating that with some of his movies where he is on a bike. So, come to think of it, I probably didn't see the last episode but did see a few episodes here and there. Big fan. Pee Wee was in the Gotham show. So, Mister @Holovision, are you not on Hive? Is there no official statements from the show concerning what may have happened after the last episode? No other movies after that? No comics? Pee Wee would show up playing himself on late night shows and I wonder if he ever addressed it.
I am on both chains currently. I am fully powering down my SP so in about 12 weeks I will be in full hive mode. By then steem-engine should have moved the tokens to hive.
It's not like I haven't tried to get banned by steemit. I posted "Justin Sun's Guide to Cryptocurrency" on April 1st. Other users have been banned for far less. I guess my best just wasn't good enough.
For official statements about the Pee-wee's Playhouse show there are news archive articles such as https://ew.com/article/1991/05/03/end-pee-wees-playhouse/ that state the show being canceled was mutually agreed upon. The plan was CBS would broadcast reruns until the end of summer 1991 but then Paul Reubens was arrested and the Pee-wee Herman character was retired during the rest of the 1990s. That's a whole other post there.
The character has been reprised a few times since then and there's been speculation about Johnny Depp playing Pee-wee Herman in a movie.
They generally try to ban the bigger people first. So, I guess you are still swimming under the radar of the big white sun. Not the big white Justin The Whale of a Tale.
So, the people that owned the rights to Pee Wee decided to forbid their intellectual property to be licensed out to shows, movies, etc, during the 1990's, or was it like ordered by a judge? I hate copyright and if I was older, growing up in the 1990's, I would have been tempted to be Weird Al or to make videos as Pee Wee. I would try to get banned in real life in contrast with getting banned by Justin Sun.
Why would they want to have Jack Sparrow play Pee Wee as opposed to Paul Reuben? Did Paul die or would Jack do a better job at it or what? I would love to see either one. That video above is kind of funny. I like that the globe said he could do two things at once. I use a laptop because I can multitask better than if I was using an iPad.
The Pee-wee Herman character was created by Paul Reubens and Reubens owned the Pee-wee Pictures production company. Pee-wee's Playhouse ended before the arrest so most likely any deals with other production companies would have concluded by the time of the arrest. Except maybe the most current deals at the time CBS was re-running episodes. I don't know if maybe somebody with something like merchandising rights had a morals clause in a contract that Reubens' arrest might have breached. As I stated before if I were ever to be a lawyer it would be patent law and not copyright or trademark. As far as I can tell Paul Reubens voluntarily retired the Pee-wee Herman character as a stop-gap measure to rehabilitate the character's image.
But since when does a person's private life relate to the public aspect, to the character itself within the aspect of whether or not something should be or is moral or not moral?
My argument would be where one might draw the line, either legally or morally, moral clause or not, I wonder who is perfect. In other words, I see it as hypocrisy for what they did to Charlie Sheen for example, kicking him off his own show.
If Paul Reuben broke a contract in a specific way as opposed to something perhaps too vague in the wording in the contract itself, if Paul knew about it before he broke the contract, then I would understand. If Paul did retire the character at that time, then I guess that was his decision that he was free to make. He did make a few cameos many years later like as we saw in that video you shared.
I would separate the character and the actor to say that one does not affect the other. From my perspective, if I like Michael Jackson music for example, then I don't care if Jacko the Wacko did have sex with children. Well, I assume and I want to believe MJ did not. But even if he did, I would still like his music. Same thing in regards Michael Jordan, Kobe, Tiger Woods, Charlie Sheen, the Trail Jail Blazers, etc. To me, a character is a character. In other words, a character is not the actor that plays the actor outside of the actual performance in the actual movie, show, etc.
But I know some people do conflate actors with the characters they play and off-screen matters do affect public perception of the characters. For some people, possibly most people, that is how things are, that is how people see things. Many people can in fact conflate things. But I am just saying the two should be separated and not combined. Is Paul Reuben a weirdo? Maybe. But if he wasn't, then would his Pee Wee Herman character really work? Maybe not. We as humans have weaknesses and addictions. So, we were able to his. But we all got secrets. But celebrities live in the limelight and people she the skeletons in their closets. Of course, its bad to be bad. But people are bad. We are all bad. So, yeah, there are consequences for action. If you do bad, you should be appropriately punished, disciplined. I believe in justice.
So, if you have to punish Paul Reuben, then don't also punish Pee Wee Herman as a character, is my argument. In other words, don't conflate and combine and correlate and connect and condemn both as the two should be independent of each other. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Pee Wee is that baby.
So, I would let people use that Pee Wee character. Well, I mean, specifically, that I would not try to stop people because of Fair Use. So, I would go to court and argue for Fair Use. Weird Al would call up the artists to ask for permission to make parodies of their songs. But even Weird Al has said that he didn't have to ask for permission. He could have just done it but did it anyway.
I believe in private property rights. So, if you steal and use my car, I want to call that theft. A car or a house is physical, tangible, in real life. However, things on the Internet, and especially intellectual property, patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc, are not physical. They do not exist outside of your brain. It is an idea. But it is neither here nor there. Copyrighting an idea is in fact a slippery slope towards copyrighting our own thoughts via brain phones. Copyright has been abused and is extremely up to interpretation. For example, Walt Disney stole cartoon characters from his partner and went on to copyright it. So, it becomes dangerous as rich people can try to copyright everything. For example, there was a rumor that the YouTube channel called REACT were trying to copyright or somehow forbid other people from putting the word "REACT" in video titles. I can talk all day about this. Copyright is hypothetically cool but practically dangerous.
I'm sorry my upvotes aren't worth at least $1. You clearly put work into writing this reply and since it's not a post it probably won't get the upvotes it deserves.
The one thing I would disagree with about your views on intellectual property is that they're not "things". They are in fact tangible and that's why it's artificial scarcity. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not solely the idea. A patent protects how an idea is embodied. A trademark protects how an idea is displayed.
The problem is that Pee-wee Herman is a live action character so it's more closely linked to the actor in the mind than a radio or cartoon character. That's basic gestalt psychology. I didn't invent the human mind. I just state what is.
If I were a business owner I'd probably have a morals clause in my contracts because it's practical. If I pay a celebrity to be a spokesperson I am paying a premium for the status of the spokesperson and I am relying on that status to be maintained while that person represents the company's image.
Let's say I own a tech business (far more likely than me becoming a lawyer). You're my employee. I hire you because you have a technical skill that most people don't have and you're an expert at the skill. Many other businesses would love to have you work for them but you work for my business because I offered the most benefits and salary.
Because you are an expert and so highly skilled it would be hard for me to replace you. Because of this I would get a COLI policy in case you die in the middle of an important project. I want to make sure my hypothetical tech business would be covered in case you had to be replaced while relying on your work to continue.
If you got arrested for a DWI while not at work I believe I would have every right to fire you under a morals clause. A DWI means you willfully put yourself at risk unnecessarily and as an employer relying on your work your actions have a direct affect on my ability to recoup what it would cost to replace you as an employee. Dying as a drunk driver means I probably wouldn't be able to collect on the COLI policy and a DWI charge demonstrates too high of a risk that would happen at a future point in time while you were living your private life off the clock.
I do copy and paste my comments into my daily blog. Expression of an idea can sometimes be too similar, accidentally or purposely, to that of others. I could write something that is in a book. And I could do so accidentally. And I could be tried in a court of law and get sentenced or maybe even imprisoned or who knows what. If people can somehow convince judges and jurors to step over the invisible line, they can get me convicted and that may happen someday.
Because the line is invisible. The line between what might be ok and not ok is subjective to an extent. It is dangerous. It is potential threat down the road. It is fine to the extent you have wise judges and jurors. But it is vague. If I accidentally write an entire book that is the same as another person's book, I could get in trouble.
Generally, if it is the same, then the second guy probably stole it from the first guy who wrote it. That may be true 99% of the time. But I am here to say it may not always be the case. And even if a book is not identical with another book, like 100% copied, what if it is 97%? What if it is 80%? Oh, what about 40%? This is the invisible line I am talking about. Where is the exact line? Is it 51%?
There is rumor concerning how they had to or chose to make the Star Wars and Star Trek movies different than older versions in order to avoid paying royalties.
I agree with what you said concerning psychology and I do not doubt that. I am telling you how things SHOULD be. You are telling me how things ACTUALLY are. And I agree with you that is how things are. I just don't like it.
They are things like thoughts are things. But imagine getting a Bill Gates vaccines for COVID-19 and imagine that the nano bots going into your brain to scan and copyright your thoughts. Imagine Facebook reading private messages and sending it out to entities. Google the same thing. Amazon and Microsoft and others the same thing. The CIA, according to Edward Snowden, tries to spy on everything online. The 4th amendment, which deals with privacy, has been getting violated. So, intellectual property is counterproductive in light of having the 4th amendment violated. If we had more privacy, then intellectual property could be better protected. But people are abusing laws. Bad people are abusing intellectual property. They are taking advantage of copyright, etc.
One problem is that people gave Trump and Alex Jones and other people a bad name. They lie about them. People have lied about me and I can talk all day about it. There are lies about me that may be preventing me from being hired from The Salvation Army and other places right now it seems that goes back many years to possibly 2010 or longer. Many people know what this is like. So, your moral clause is limited to an extent. Public perception is limited to the extent they can be fooled by lies, by fake news, by rumors, by hearsay, by inaccurate, incomplete, out of context, accusations, allegations, assumptions, etc. We can talk about Roseanne how they fired her for example. They do this to people. Pee Wee was probably a bad man. That could be true. But some people not so much. Some people get tried in the court of public opinion. And other people rot in jail even as they were innocent. Employers are sometimes reacting on the public perception of things. And I guess if that is what they want to do, they can. But it is dangerous to do that.
If I got arrested. Then fire me. If government has red tape that is stopping you from firing me for any reason, then that is the fault of the regulations restricting the free market. Employers hire people to work. If I am in jail, then I am not working. Therefore, you would not pay a person money to not work. It is that simple. You should not be required by law to have to have a moral clause. it should be you are the boss clause. But that is why I hate government and many things. Yes, I know how things are. But I like supply and demand. If you are a bad boss and you are unfairly firing people, then we should expose you in the court of public opinion. It is that simple. But at the same, if you wanna fire me, because I am in jail, that should be no problem.
I believe in risk. Employers run into even more risks. I do not want to protect them. I hate government. I want freedom and not safety. I do not want security because that means slavery as they force people to stay at home, which is murdering millions of people in 2020.
Sorry for the delay. I've been working to set things up so my steem-engine token can be moved to hive.
I think that Star Wars/Star Trek thing you are thinking of might be the lawsuit between Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica which was settled out of court. Some on Battlestar Galactica's side point out Lucas borrowed ideas from other sources which is also what Battlestar Galactica apparently did mostly from Mormonism.
As I've mentioned before if I were going to be a lawyer I'd be doing patent law. We can discuss copyright trolls, the innocent infringement defense and the role of risk in capitalism but that distracts from why society in some ways is stagnating. The U.S. government can delay or control technological progress using the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. The U.S. government can suppress alternative energy, get first dibs on artificial intelligence and decide literally what kinds of materials are available to you by shelving certain nanotechnologies. Probably a lot more examples of control but it's difficult to establish examples when most of the subject is classified.
If you ever witness an unidentifiable craft flying across the sky in a way contrary to how physics should act you can't assume correctly it's alien in origin. If technology is covered by a secrecy order then you don't know what's truly possible. You just know what you're allowed to know. Maybe the government tolerates and/or doesn't prosecute copyright trolls precisely because it distracts from other worse aspects of intellectual property law?
The Star Wars Thing thing is not concerning Battle Star. For more information, you can follow thousands of videos that talk about what I am talking about on YouTube going back to 2018 and in some cases longer by the Fandom Menace, Geeks + Gamers, Doom Cock, Nerdrotic, and others.
I hate patents, monopolies, centralizes, and like you said, government can shelf things.
Yes, I have seen unidentified objects, some which may have been military air crafts, planes, helicopters, etc. Do you trust the government so much in making decisions in regards to keeping humans safe? Do you want security or freedom? Government can try to order you to stay at home inside your own prison jail dungeon cell. The lockdown is murdering millions of people in 2020 as supply chains break, as people lose jobs, incomes, work, money, income, food, etc, and starve to death. Vaccines kill people. Some become zombies. Some kill themselves because of all of that. I want freedom for better or for worse. I want the freedom to be bad. That is life, to live, to make good and bad choices as opposed to being protected from making bad choices. And everything affects everything and everything is and is not essential. And intellectual property is a lie that you may believe in. You may have fallen for the religion of intellectual property which is dangerous. I have been telling you how our thoughts can be intellectual property. They shelf things like you said which is another problem concerning intellectual property. The list goes on and on and on. The centralization of the governance over what is and is not intellectual property of who and who not is what Steemit and Hive is against. Decentralization of blockchain is against those types of centralization and isn't that why you are on Steemit and Hive? Isn't that why we have Bitcoin, etc?