Copyright Ownership Discussion

[Justo Miranda]

In my opinion, the harder lawyers try to protect something, the more interested thieves will be in obtaining that product. If it were possible to obtain graphic material legally at a reasonable price, many authors would use this system to illustrate their books, but the greed of publishers prevents any productive exchange. I was never able to publish my book on the Tintin rocket because of the irrational rejection of the Moulinsart publishing house, and my book contained only drawings made by me and not a single illustration by Hergé!!!

The problem has already been discussed here by authors who complained about the high price of the photographs with which they tried to illustrate their books. Books are copied less because there are fewer and fewer people who read only texts because they prefer books with illustrations, a vicious circle.

 

[edwest4]

In my opinion, the harder lawyers try to protect something, the more interested thieves will be in obtaining that product. If it were possible to obtain graphic material legally at a reasonable price, many authors would use this system to illustrate their books, but the greed of publishers prevents any productive exchange. I was never able to publish my book on the Tintin rocket because of the irrational rejection of the Moulinsart publishing house, and my book contained only drawings made by me and not a single illustration by Hergé!!!

The problem has already been discussed here by authors who complained about the high price of the photographs with which they tried to illustrate their books. Books are copied less because there are fewer and fewer people who read only texts because they prefer books with illustrations, a vicious circle.

I don't follow. If something is junk it remains junk, regardless of medium - print or digital. The "greed of publishers" somehow still allows for the publication of books that only go up in value once the initial press run is sold. A recent example is a book I missed that was going for $100 plus, and I was lucky to get a copy at about $95.

Publishers remain in business due to their rationality. My employer has been publishing for over 40 years. He is also an artist and writer. I am also an assistant art director. The "greed" of freelance artists means my company got a phone call from a competitor telling us we were paying 'too much' for art. That those same freelancers were demanding the same prices we were paying from them.

As far as certain subjects, it is a case of some information versus no information.

 

[Yellow Palace]

So far as making money goes, the relevant parties are:

• The original creator, and their agents, who would like to retain intellectual property rights for as long as possible in order to profit from the work, and
• Creators of derivative works, who would like to gain access to the intellectual property rights as soon as possible in order to profit from the work.

These are of course mutually incompatible. There's clearly some reasonable point at which works pass into the public domain, otherwise we'd be paying royalties to the heirs of Homer for the Iliad. At the same time, whilst some creators might create things without any certainty of receiving income, no sensible publisher house is going to print something that'll be copied hither and yon with no hope of recourse.

From a policymaker's perspective, the relevant question is - at what point does the social value from permitting the creation of derivative works exceed the social value from incentivising the creation of novel works? And how do you perceive 'social value' anyway? One way - probably not good, but at least measurable - would be tax income. Another would be the net rate of creation of works. There are probably others, and I doubt even most policymakers are really thinking in those terms.

From my perspective, as a mere consumer (though with aspirations!), I don't believe that corporate authors holding indefinite copyright is desirable. But it probably is reasonable for authors to expect to benefit from their work, if not for their entire lifetime, then for a substantial portion thereof. That leads me to the conclusion that copyright ought to be valid for a reasonably long period after creation or publication, in the vein of current US copyright law. Precise durations are, of course, wholly arguable.

 

[Hobbes]

Sorry for the diversion, but how long do you think copyright should extend? Serious question.

The life of the artist plus 70 years. And speaking to no one in particular, I am tired of hearing about people who want something for nothing. Public Domain, they say. Create something yourself I say. Find out how hard it is.

Copyright law in its current form is out of control, and regularly used to stifle innovation and creativity.

1. the copyright term is far too long. Extending copyright beyond the life of the author is absurd. It does not benefit society to lock up works under the control of a single entity for that long. The result is that many works become unavailable when the distribution cost exceeds the profit the owner thinks he can make. This impoverishes our culture.

2. the scope of copyright is too extensive. As an example: when sampling became possible, artists abused the copyright of their songs to extract money from people for reusing a single note from that song as a sample. Copyright currently makes derivative works prohibitively expensive.

 

[edwest4]

So far as making money goes, the relevant parties are:

• The original creator, and their agents, who would like to retain intellectual property rights for as long as possible in order to profit from the work, and
• Creators of derivative works, who would like to gain access to the intellectual property rights as soon as possible in order to profit from the work.

These are of course mutually incompatible. There's clearly some reasonable point at which works pass into the public domain, otherwise we'd be paying royalties to the heirs of Homer for the Iliad. At the same time, whilst some creators might create things without any certainty of receiving income, no sensible publisher house is going to print something that'll be copied hither and yon with no hope of recourse.

From a policymaker's perspective, the relevant question is - at what point does the social value from permitting the creation of derivative works exceed the social value from incentivising the creation of novel works? And how do you perceive 'social value' anyway? One way - probably not good, but at least measurable - would be tax income. Another would be the net rate of creation of works. There are probably others, and I doubt even most policymakers are really thinking in those terms.

From my perspective, as a mere consumer (though with aspirations!), I don't believe that corporate authors holding indefinite copyright is desirable. But it probably is reasonable for authors to expect to benefit from their work, if not for their entire lifetime, then for a substantial portion thereof. That leads me to the conclusion that copyright ought to be valid for a reasonably long period after creation or publication, in the vein of current US copyright law. Precise durations are, of course, wholly arguable.

Yes, making money. What I do is my primary source of income.

It's obvious that some view "as long as possible" as being too long. That a work should enter the Public Domain immediately upon the death of the creator so they can make money off it. The problem is perceived value. That means a work that is well known versus one that is less well known. Of course, given a choice, people will grab the most well known over the lesser. The formula is simple: the fastest money in the shortest amount of time. That is the policy.

By the way, "derivative works" never occurs in conversation. Never.

 

[edwest4]

Sorry for the diversion, but how long do you think copyright should extend? Serious question.

The life of the artist plus 70 years. And speaking to no one in particular, I am tired of hearing about people who want something for nothing. Public Domain, they say. Create something yourself I say. Find out how hard it is.

Copyright law in its current form is out of control, and regularly used to stifle innovation and creativity.

1. the copyright term is far too long. Extending copyright beyond the life of the author is absurd. It does not benefit society to lock up works under the control of a single entity for that long. The result is that many works become unavailable when the distribution cost exceeds the profit the owner thinks he can make. This impoverishes our culture.

2. the scope of copyright is too extensive. As an example: when sampling became possible, artists abused the copyright of their songs to extract money from people for reusing a single note from that song as a sample. Copyright currently makes derivative works prohibitively expensive.

Stifle what? You can publish a book right now, or a drawing. Just be prepared to have it copied illegally if it's any good.

The only "benefit" society cares about is money. Only people with no money are impoverished. If they can't buy bread, they likely can't buy a book either.

There's that term again. "Derivative works" means nothing to most people. It's gibberish. My company obtained the rights to publish derivative works. It's no big deal. However, for most people, the entire process appears to be magic. How is it done? How much does it cost? How profitable is it?

 

[Justo Miranda]

Copyright is an indispensable tool in the artistic world, but it is also susceptible to abuse and in extreme cases a parasite factory. When the number of parasites exceeds the donor's capacity to regenerate, the donor dies and soon after the parasites do too.

 

[edwest4]

Copyright is an indispensable tool in the artistic world, but it is also susceptible to abuse and in extreme cases a parasite factory. When the number of parasites exceeds the donor's capacity to regenerate, the donor dies and soon after the parasites do too.

What does that mean? In the book publishing world, meaning military history, this is what happens. A book is released about the Me 262. It sells out. Those who work in the so-called "secondary market" immediately increase the price. It can go very high very quickly or not so high. If the higher price maintains then it may go higher. If sales are low, the price may go down. For example, I bought a book at $30. It went to $300, and stayed there. Then it gradually floated back to about $30 after a while.

"parasite factory" did not describe anything.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Anyone care to explain why copyright can last far in excess of a century, while patents are for 17 years? Explain why art is more important to "protect" than science.

 

[edwest4]

Anyone care to explain why copyright can last far in excess of a century, while patents are for 17 years? Explain why art is more important to "protect" than science.

Not a good comparison. And art means different things. Throw some paint against a canvas or Mickey Mouse. And why the big to do about how long copyright lasts? Seems to me it boils down to: "I want to get my grubby mitts on that money-making whatever it is so I can make money off it." ... without doing any, or little, work myself.

 

[BAROBA]

...and for corporations, which can be effectively immortal?

That's right. Legally, they can renew a copyright indefinitely.

I did read somewhere that companies are bound to the same laws, and copyright will expire, even for them.
Unless Disney finds another way to get an extension..

Why patents are shorter protected then art?
Good question, Scott
I think it has to do with the fact that a patent protect an idea that is ready to go to market.
Art-copyright is essentially free, if you create a artwork and register that event (Putting it on Twitter or some fancy lawyer, doesn't matter, if you can prove you are first, you are the copyrightholder (Speaking of Europe.)( But if you want to do it professionally: You should send a copy of your work to your local copyright agency and the date that they receive it is the official registrationdate).
But for a patent you have to pay some serious money, not only in the country you want to register it in ( Can be different then the country it was developed in) but also for worldwide protection. Because otherwise a competitor just moves the stolen idea to a factory in another country. Worldwide protection is ofcourse even more expensive. So it would be logically to assume that a company would be ready to start selling the product or license the idea onto the market. Long gone are the days that people would patent toiletpaper or another idea for a plane with 8 wings. The little guys can't afford it anymore. Inventors work for companies or universities that can brag about how many patents they have, and are happy to license out their creative-intellectual work.
I have done some research in the past for an employer who's idea was stolen by a competitor ( After he stole his business idea from another competitor...Karma? )

 

[Orionblamblam]

Anyone care to explain why copyright can last far in excess of a century, while patents are for 17 years? Explain why art is more important to "protect" than science.

Not a good comparison.

Indeed, patents for useful inventions are more important than copyright protection for art. So, once again, why should copyright last longer? Why do you want to get your grubby, greedy mitts on some life-saving drug that a company spent a billion dollars developing, testing and getting through approvals? Why do you want the $10 generic rather than the $400 original? Shouldn't the patents for the meds you and your loved ones might currently be on *still* be under patent control for life of the inventor plus 70 years?

If not, why not.

 

[edwest4]

...and for corporations, which can be effectively immortal?

That's right. Legally, they can renew a copyright indefinitely.

I did read somewhere that companies are bound to the same laws, and copyright will expire, even for them.
Unless Disney finds another way to get an extension..

Why patents are shorter protected then art?
Good question, Scott
I think it has to do with the fact that a patent protect an idea that is ready to go to market.
Art-copyright is essentially free, if you create a artwork and register that event (Putting it on Twitter or some fancy lawyer, doesn't matter, if you can prove you are first, you are the copyrightholder (Speaking of Europe.)( But if you want to do it professionally: You should send a copy of your work to your local copyright agency and the date that they receive it is the official registrationdate).
But for a patent you have to pay some serious money, not only in the country you want to register it in ( Can be different then the country it was developed in) but also for worldwide protection. Because otherwise a competitor just moves the stolen idea to a factory in another country. Worldwide protection is ofcourse even more expensive. So it would be logically to assume that a company would be ready to start selling the product or license the idea onto the market. Long gone are the days that people would patent toiletpaper or another idea for a plane with 8 wings. The little guys can't afford it anymore. Inventors work for companies or universities that can brag about how many patents they have, and are happy to license out their creative-intellectual work.
I have done some research in the past for an employer who's idea was stolen by a competitor ( After he stole his business idea from another competitor...Karma? )

Copyright can last for 100 or 110 years currently.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Copyright can last for 100 or 110 years currently.

Much longer than that. If it's simply "life of the author plus 70," and the creator is 20, and they live to be 95, then copyright is 70+75 years... 145 years. That means that something created today could enter the public domain in 2168.

Give me a good reason why patent protection should be any less.

 

[Apophenia]

Anyone care to explain why copyright can last far in excess of a century, while patents are for 17 years? Explain why art is more important to "protect" than science.

My sense is that it has to do with the relative value that the original lawmakers - as consumers themselves - placed on those activities. Patents are for 17 years for the same reason that authors were originally protected for 14 years. Both gave creators time to profit from their mental labours before their creations passed into the public domain.

After that protection lapsed, it was in the interest of lawmakers and their nations to ensure that those ideas remained available - patented concepts could still be mass-produced and formerly-copyrighted books could still be printed. The latter was built into the Statute of Anne. For those lawmakers, it was more important that those book titles should continue to be available. This has led to what is known as the "cheap literature hypothesis".

Granted, this approach was somewhat self-serving - the lawmakers all came from a social class well able to afford to buy books (as a result, secular books tended to be printed either for the rich or for library services). It was of little concern to those lawmakers in 1710 that average people could neither afford books nor the latest machinery (or other products of patents).

The effect of restricting the term of copyright, however, led to an on-going reduction in the cost of books, a dramatic increase in presses (the number of printers in London increased by 66%), printing technology (eg: 1725 invention of stereotypography), a burst of creativity in typography (eg William Caslon), etc.

Doubtless some could also argue the social and economic benefits of restricting a century's worth of royalties and artistic control to the inheritors of a long-dead author. I can't think of any myself, but I'm betting that others can ...

 

[Justo Miranda]

Actually, the whole copyright thing depends on one factor nobody has mentioned here: the volume of sales. The copyright of Mickey Mouse, Cruella de Ville or Indiana Jones that we have been talking about cannot be compared to the aviation books that some of us publish (or try to publish). I do not believe that claiming compensation for the copy of an aviation book that has been self-published in small quantities may be profitable; I am not saying that it is not possible, but it surely is not so profitable as to be worth to initiate a very expensive judicial process from which only lawyers can derive some benefit. A publisher of a certain size could afford to have its own legal department but might not be interested in marketing a book about unknown prototypes. That means that an important part of aviation history will never be published. The system favors the rich and the thieves and is against the small, as always has been.

 

[edwest4]

Actually, the whole copyright thing depends on one factor nobody has mentioned here: the volume of sales. The copyright of Mickey Mouse, Cruella de Ville or Indiana Jones that we have been talking about cannot be compared to the aviation books that some of us publish (or try to publish). I do not believe that claiming compensation for the copy of an aviation book that has been self-published in small quantities may be profitable; I am not saying that it is not possible, but it surely is not so profitable as to be worth to initiate a very expensive judicial process from which only lawyers can derive some benefit. A publisher of a certain size could afford to have its own legal department but might not be interested in marketing a book about unknown prototypes. That means that an important part of aviation history will never be published. The system favors the rich and the thieves and is against the small, as always has been.

A bit one-sided, I think. The start of Mickey Mouse was a few simple drawings. The start of my company was the loan of a few thousand dollars. Mr. Disney did not start with millions of dollars and an army of lawyers. He had an idea and a plan. He had the talent and skill to carry it out. Like any small businessman, he did what it took to attract investors. Before the release of Snow White (1937), his financial people warned that his movie had gone over budget. If it was not successful, it could sink the company. Disney assured them that his plan was sound. And Snow White was a hit. He would open Disneyland in 1955, a time when the Baby Boom was in full swing. He would produce a TV show that was released that same year, The Mickey Mouse Club.

So what about aviation books? A number of publishers, large and small, exist. JaPo in the Czech Republic, Schiffer in the United States. And others. It would be nice to be attached to a large, well-funded publisher that is relatively well known. Calum Douglas, who posts here, took the time and put in the money to create a book that advanced aviation history. A new book about aviation history is published weekly on average. Some by authors who spent 10, 20 or more years collecting information. Some are self-published, others are released by publishers like Helion.

I understand the frustration but not entirely. Here we are on the internet where so much information is available for free. Where contacts can be made. The "judicial process" is not free. Those lawyers are paid a great deal of money. My company has access to such lawyers and trust me, they are never consulted unless absolutely necessary. We don't want to give them any money without good reason. The benefit to any company is to protect their copyrights. When the first recent Batman movie was released, bootleg merchandise appeared. The same is true of sports apparel. Licensing an IP can be more profitable than a movie. In 1996, Pepsi paid Lucasfilm $2 billion for the right to put Star Wars images on soda pop cans,

 

[1635yankee]

Who is ripping off who anyway?

Image libraries like alamy and shutterstock hoovering up any public domain image they want to and slapping their own copyright on it in a blatant attempt to commoditise imagery in their own stock image cartels. Along comes the AI providers and hoover these images up to hone their AI library. Along comes the DA AI artist who then tries to entice other DA AI artists to subscribe to their feed of churned out AI art which they have "produced" on the AI programme that's "stolen" copy-written material from an image library that "stole" the public domain images in the first place.

For textual sources things seem a little more straightforward, books tend to be protected better than images it seems.

A true story: a few years ago, somebody copy-and-pasted a large chunk of the code for, iirc, handling windows in the X-window system. The code was covered by something like copyleft (google it), but the thief then filed for rights on the software and got them, proceeding to sue the creator.

 

[Orionblamblam]

A true story: a few years ago, somebody copy-and-pasted a large chunk of the code for, iirc, handling windows in the X-window system. The code was covered by something like copyleft (google it), but the thief then filed for rights on the software and got them, proceeding to sue the creator.

Douglas Adams already covered this concept...

 

[1635yankee]

Let face it, this AI tech is a double-edged sword,
you can use for good of mankind or worst of Mankind.

We live in interesting Times, like the Chinese curse say.
A time of transition, were old social system is replace by a New System.
like transition of Gothic to Renaissance/Reformation with all conflicts and Wars.
Here is it Cold War Era that replace by something new...

AI Tech will play important role in this transition during 21 century,
Allot Job normal during colt War will become obsolete with AI Tech.
Like assistants in Administration, Law firm and others will be replace by AI Tech.
Something similar will happen with Artist, illustrators and writers.
Imagine the next strike of Writers Guild of America and Hollywood switch to AI script...
although Ai Tech will bring improvement in Technology, like Aerospace or constructions.

But you could use this Technology for malicious means...
Perfect face recognition on Security Camera, precise profile of wanted persons.
Deep Fake of Person to black mail them or falsification of history for those who want total control !


But this not AI fault but fault the people using this technology for good or malicious means,
I think that was Frank Herbert warn us in DUNE about this AI Tech misuse, not about thinking machines...

Frank Herbert was a bitter guy who was only able to see the bad side of life, but... What about the bright side? I could rewatch CSI: Vegas without Jorja Fox, The Hunt for Red October with Alec Baldwin replaced by Harrison Ford and Deep Impact without Morgan Freeman. With the help of AI you could make the movie Red Storm Rising, a decent version of Them! 1954 or an understandable end of 2001.

The outcry from the original directors, or their heirs, would be enormous. 'You CAN'T change my work.'

Correction: You can't market my work, but you can make versions for non-profit friends.

I have a friend who alters short sequences of unforgettable movies as a hobby, whenever I go to his house for dinner he has something really cool to show me. The latest was an altered version of the Millennium Falcon's combat in the asteroid field:

- Are you going into an asteroid field?

- "They'll be crazy if they follow us.

In this particular version of only three minutes Carrie Fisher has been replaced by Greta Garbo with material extracted from Ninotchka and in my qopinion the improvement is great.

Correction to your correction: no, you can't. You may not be caught, but it's still a violation. I'm an educator; many publishers argue that the exemption for fair use doesn't exist, which means that, for example, an English teacher (I teach physics; nobody's tried to copyright Maxwell's equations or the laws of thermodynamics. Yet) couldn't use passages from recent works in class.

 

[1635yankee]

A true story: a few years ago, somebody copy-and-pasted a large chunk of the code for, iirc, handling windows in the X-window system. The code was covered by something like copyleft (google it), but the thief then filed for rights on the software and got them, proceeding to sue the creator.

Douglas Adams already covered this concept...

Maybe he read the article. It happened during, iirc, G W Bush's administration

 

[Justo Miranda]

Let face it, this AI tech is a double-edged sword,
you can use for good of mankind or worst of Mankind.

We live in interesting Times, like the Chinese curse say.
A time of transition, were old social system is replace by a New System.
like transition of Gothic to Renaissance/Reformation with all conflicts and Wars.
Here is it Cold War Era that replace by something new...

AI Tech will play important role in this transition during 21 century,
Allot Job normal during colt War will become obsolete with AI Tech.
Like assistants in Administration, Law firm and others will be replace by AI Tech.
Something similar will happen with Artist, illustrators and writers.
Imagine the next strike of Writers Guild of America and Hollywood switch to AI script...
although Ai Tech will bring improvement in Technology, like Aerospace or constructions.

But you could use this Technology for malicious means...
Perfect face recognition on Security Camera, precise profile of wanted persons.
Deep Fake of Person to black mail them or falsification of history for those who want total control !


But this not AI fault but fault the people using this technology for good or malicious means,
I think that was Frank Herbert warn us in DUNE about this AI Tech misuse, not about thinking machines...

Frank Herbert was a bitter guy who was only able to see the bad side of life, but... What about the bright side? I could rewatch CSI: Vegas without Jorja Fox, The Hunt for Red October with Alec Baldwin replaced by Harrison Ford and Deep Impact without Morgan Freeman. With the help of AI you could make the movie Red Storm Rising, a decent version of Them! 1954 or an understandable end of 2001.

The outcry from the original directors, or their heirs, would be enormous. 'You CAN'T change my work.'

Correction: You can't market my work, but you can make versions for non-profit friends.

I have a friend who alters short sequences of unforgettable movies as a hobby, whenever I go to his house for dinner he has something really cool to show me. The latest was an altered version of the Millennium Falcon's combat in the asteroid field:

- Are you going into an asteroid field?

- "They'll be crazy if they follow us.

In this particular version of only three minutes Carrie Fisher has been replaced by Greta Garbo with material extracted from Ninotchka and in my qopinion the improvement is great.

Correction to your correction: no, you can't. You may not be caught, but it's still a violation. I'm an educator; many publishers argue that the exemption for fair use doesn't exist, which means that, for example, an English teacher (I teach physics; nobody's tried to copyright Maxwell's equations or the laws of thermodynamics. Yet) couldn't use passages from recent works in class.

There was a time when eating certain foods, not kneeling at the passage of a king or claiming that the earth orbited around the sun or that blood circulated through the arteries instead of the air could be punished with a horrible death, there was a time when drinking alcohol in New York was a crime but not in Paris and that people were imprisoned for stealing a piece of bread. There was a time when homosexuality and adultery were punishable by lapidation. But over time all those stupid laws disappeared. The same will happen with much of the current legislation and may be the same with Maxwell's laws in the future. Everything changes over time... except the avant-garde theater.

 

[1635yankee]

Maxwell's equations and the laws of thermodynamics seem to be built into the structure of the Universe, so they're quite a bit less changeable than things like copyright laws

 

[Orionblamblam]

A true story: a few years ago, somebody copy-and-pasted a large chunk of the code for, iirc, handling windows in the X-window system. The code was covered by something like copyleft (google it), but the thief then filed for rights on the software and got them, proceeding to sue the creator.

Douglas Adams already covered this concept...

Maybe he read the article. It happened during, iirc, G W Bush's administration

Naah. HGTTG was written in the late 70's.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Maxwell's equations and the laws of thermodynamics seem to be built into the structure of the Universe, so they're quite a bit less changeable than things like copyright laws

On the third of March, during my friend Michelle's birthday party, a dozen people who had drunk a lot sang the 1965 song without suspecting that we were committing an illegal act. I hope Lennon's ectoplasm forgives our ignorance.

The sun and the four planets revolve around the world. (Roman school text)

 

[Justo Miranda]

TWO STEPS FROM FUTURE

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6EceDF5ltc

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZB3Wd65FK8

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grZh61KgZiw

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krv1xLwV5LU

 

[1635yankee]

So the criminal was inspired by Douglas Adams.

A true story: a few years ago, somebody copy-and-pasted a large chunk of the code for, iirc, handling windows in the X-window system. The code was covered by something like copyleft (google it), but the thief then filed for rights on the software and got them, proceeding to sue the creator.

Douglas Adams already covered this concept...

Maybe he read the article. It happened during, iirc, G W Bush's administration

Naah. HGTTG was written in the late 70's.

So, the criminal was inspired by DA or, equally likely, I got the year wrong. It happened when the US Patent Office was regularly issuing patents for prior art, sort of like the idea of Disney getting the copyright for characters from the Hundred Acre Wood or Apple suing everyone selling a WIMP interface, which wasn't conceived by Apple.

 

[Orionblamblam]

 

[edwest4]

The following did NOT appear on the BBC News.

"Good evening. This is Colin Thurgood with news about Steamboat Willie."

"This early version of Mickey Mouse has gone into the Public Domain. We were recently contacted by one Bob Anarchist who has plans for this particular iteration of the beloved character. However, after editorial review, we have decided not to air his lengthy, rather rambling comments. The gist of it is 'We're gonna use and abuse him.'

"Frightening.

"This is Colin Thurgood reporting for BBC News."