Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control? - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-27-2006, 10:52 PM   #136
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

If I walked up to Universal Studios and said "Hey, I bought your King Kong DVD, but I don't like the swearing, so will you edit it out for me", they'd laugh me out of the room.
And that's an argument that you and thousands of like-minded people need to have with Universal Studios, as they do that service already for airlines, and so surely would or should be open to it in other forms if the right motivation was there, ie money (the same motivation behind Clean Films).

In the meantime Clean Films are doing it without permission and without the consent of the products owners and creators.

Whether or not the Studios should give Clean Films permission to do it is one argument, whether or not the Studios have to let them do it anyway is another.

As it stands the Studios are saying 'no'. I believe a service like this, be it a third party or direct from a Studio, is probably very beneficial and a nice little money earner. I think if they were smart they'd persue it in some form. However, currently, Clean Films are persuing it outside the law.

I think most people would agree that if Clean Films went to Universal and asked permission to sell an edited version of King Kong, taking out only references to the Lords name, probably a total of one minutes footage at the most, and then presented Universal/Peter Jackson with an edited version for approval, that they are doing the right thing and Universal in rejecting it are probably making either a mistake or a very petty judgement, especially with a history of doing it for others. However, to then do it anyway plunges Clean Films into the wrong. It's not that hard to understand.
__________________

__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 11:55 PM   #137
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Earnie, you make some good points.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 12:01 AM   #138
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggsy

There are books that I like more than others, but I won't paint stuff over the images that I like less, because I respect other's work, and I don't have any authority to do that even if the only person who are going to see the books is me.
I disagree. You do have the authority to do with that book whatever you want to do with that book. You own that copy.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 12:07 AM   #139
Refugee
 
Muggsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: I live in colombia, with a box of watercolors and butterflies in my tummy
Posts: 2,033
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I disagree. You do have the authority to do with that book whatever you want to do with that book. You own that copy.
what I mean is: yeah, I have the right to do with my books whatever I want, I know I can smashed them with a hammer, tear them, write over them, use them as toilet paper.... but I don't corrupt them because I appreciate them in a way that doesn't let me do anything to them. I use my books not only for entertain myself, but to learn, to learn about life, about art, as an Illustrator I can see how unvaluable are the work of the people I admire, why I would draw over my books if my drawings aren't better than Maurice sendak's, Giger's... even if they aren't better than mine I can appreciate the hard work that made them appear. I even accept their flaws (they few of them) because I can learn from the flaws too. That's why I don't write or draw over my books. I'm talking about a different posture before art, maybe you see a book like an utilitary thing, a collection of papers with pretty drawings and an interesting story, but I see more than that and that's why I say what I say. whe just have different ways to see the art.
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 12:29 AM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggsy


what I mean is: yeah, I have the right to do with my books whatever I want, I know I can smashed them with a hammer, tear them, write over them, use them as toilet paper.... but I don't corrupt them because I appreciate them in a way that doesn't let me do anything to them. I use my books not only for entertain myself, but to learn, to learn about life, about art, as an Illustrator I can see how unvaluable are the work of the people I admire, why I would draw over my books if my drawings aren't better than Maurice sendak's, Giger's... even if they aren't better than mine I can appreciate the hard work that made them appear. I even accept their flaws (they few of them) because I can learn from the flaws too. That's why I don't write or draw over my books. I'm talking about a different posture before art, maybe you see a book like an utilitary thing, a collection of papers with pretty drawings and an interesting story, but I see more than that and that's why I say what I say. whe just have different ways to see the art.
I do understand why you wouldn't want to alter an artist's work, and I can appreciate your respect for their work. All I'm saying is that you are legally entitled to do so if for your own use.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 12:32 AM   #141
Refugee
 
Muggsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: I live in colombia, with a box of watercolors and butterflies in my tummy
Posts: 2,033
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I do understand why you wouldn't want to alter an artist's work, and I can appreciate your respect for their work. All I'm saying is that you are legally entitled to do so if for your own use.
yes... but I'm not entitled to sell my "alternate" copies without permision. I would never sell a copy of my "lord of the rings" or my "where the wild things are" even if I consider my version better than the original (which is impossible, I guess), not only because it is illegal, that's also unethical, because I'm not selling an original work, I'm just distorting it and selling it, without autorization of the real and original owner (who was the one with the talent and the hard work), because I found a market that needs it.

what Clean is doing is illegal and unethical, because they are selling unauthorized copies of someones else's work. I read those PDFs they have in their website, and I didn't find a legal contract of edition of distribution, between clean and the studios. at the end of the day it doesn't matter if they are putting the secret of life in each movie, or putting porn scenes, altering and selling copies without permision is wrong.
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 01:33 AM   #142
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,661
Local Time: 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


That's not the reason they shut it down. They have no intention whatsoever of editing their DVDs for content.
If there was a market for edited movies from a studio's point of view then they would do so.

In fact they do for certain movies, maybe not to your satisfaction, but they do. There's a recent trend with certain movies On Demand that have up to three versions. Edited, Theater released, and Unrated...

But the question that has been raised, but not specifically asked is, what's keeping a third party from editing a movie to display a political, social, or any other view that was originally intended by the company that distributed? There isn't any.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-28-2006, 07:49 AM   #143
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Earnie, you make some good points.
he does
but no points that haven't been made before
__________________
Salome is online now  
Old 07-28-2006, 10:45 AM   #144
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Given the prevalence of downloading unlicensed material, why is this "breaking of the law" unacceptable while downloading does not meet the same scrutiny?
Uh, it does. I've been served by the RIAA for a single mp3 file made by recording a song off the radio.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 10:47 AM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


If there was a market for edited movies from a studio's point of view then they would do so.
They had a market and they shut it down. Clean Films was selling movies to people who otherwise wouldn't buy the films. And yet, they shut it down, costing themselves sales.


Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
In fact they do for certain movies, maybe not to your satisfaction, but they do. There's a recent trend with certain movies On Demand that have up to three versions. Edited, Theater released, and Unrated....
I don't know what On Demand is, but those movies aren't DVDs for sale, are they? I have never seen a studio release a DVD of a movie with the objectionable content taken out. Never. I have of course seen DVDs with more objectionable stuff thrown in, however.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
But the question that has been raised, but not specifically asked is, what's keeping a third party from editing a movie to display a political, social, or any other view that was originally intended by the company that distributed? There isn't any.
Clean Films would and did say that they fell within the confines of Fair Use. There are many arguments about what defines Fair Use, and those arguments have seen many precedents set in trial. Some have been settled in ways that seem to support the Studios side, and some have been settled in wyas that seem to support clean Films side. I believe that what you have described definitely isn't a gray area and wouldn't even be close to falling within Fair Use.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 12:04 PM   #146
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,661
Local Time: 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


They had a market and they shut it down. Clean Films was selling movies to people who otherwise wouldn't buy the films. And yet, they shut it down, costing themselves sales.
You're like trying to crack a walnut sometimes... You're just not getting the point. If the STUDIO found a market, not some outsider who wants to project their views illegally.



Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

I don't know what On Demand is, but those movies aren't DVDs for sale, are they? I have never seen a studio release a DVD of a movie with the objectionable content taken out. Never. I have of course seen DVDs with more objectionable stuff thrown in, however.
On Demand is part of your cable package where you can order movies...

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

Clean Films would and did say that they fell within the confines of Fair Use. There are many arguments about what defines Fair Use, and those arguments have seen many precedents set in trial. Some have been settled in ways that seem to support the Studios side, and some have been settled in wyas that seem to support clean Films side. I believe that what you have described definitely isn't a gray area and wouldn't even be close to falling within Fair Use.
Of course they say they that, but you know what, they are wrong.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-28-2006, 12:34 PM   #147
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
Uh, it does. I've been served by the RIAA for a single mp3 file made by recording a song off the radio.
Perhaps by the official organizations, but do both receive the same scrutiny here?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 12:51 PM   #148
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Perhaps by the official organizations, but do both receive the same scrutiny here?


no. because FYM hates Christians.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-28-2006, 12:53 PM   #149
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:31 PM
We were discussing copyright law.

Just venting?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 01:23 PM   #150
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
We were discussing copyright law.

Just venting?


you keep insisting that there's subtext, that people in here would object more to "Clean Films" than to the RIAA, so i thought i'd tease out the subtext you're looking for.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com