Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control?

[80sU2isBest]

but done with the company's permission with the expressed agreement that the name of the product is to be mentioned several times over the course of the show, as well as other products with which the production company has a contract.

But that's the TV show. People alter their own cars all the time and then sell them.

 

[Irvine511]

But that's the TV show. People alter their own cars all the time and then sell them.

the difference between a car and a movie has already been explained earlier in the thread.

 

[verte76]

Why is a car any different? Didn't someone or a team of someone design that car? If you alter a mustang, is it no longer a Ford?

A car isn't art. It's not a product of the creative process. It's not an artform. You don't create a car the way you create a work of art.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well not quite as apt, if you purchase a piece of art and own it you can generally do with it as you please since it is your property. A DVD is a different type of product since you are not purchasing the right to replicate or tamper with the content and intellectual property laws get very specific about it, it is a step removed from art and the arguments of artistic intent being violated are a little disengenuous.

 

[BVS]

Wow, we're now comparing intellectual property to cars?

 

[verte76]

Wow, we're now comparing intellectual property to cars?

There's quite a difference.

 

[nbcrusader]

Wow, we're now comparing intellectual property to cars?

If you follow the discussion, you would realize that the discussion stemmed from broad-based statements about "changing things" from their original state as something wrong.

 

[BVS]

If you follow the discussion, you would realize that the discussion stemmed from broad-based statements about "changing things" from their original state as something wrong.

I did follow and it was a bad analogy from the get go. The very nature of cars from the beginning has been modification. They modify different models within the factory, they have modification kits being sold through dealerships, and they have third party modifications (some of which will make any warranty null and void).

Cars don't carry a message, polical point, or artisitic expression.

It's apples and oranges.

 

[verte76]

I did follow and it was a bad analogy from the get go. The very nature of cars from the beginning has been modification. They modify different models within the factory, they have modification kits being sold through dealerships, and they have third party modifications (some of which will make any warranty null and void).

Cars don't carry a message, polical point, or artisitic expression.

It's apples and oranges.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I did follow and it was a bad analogy from the get go. The very nature of cars from the beginning has been modification. They modify different models within the factory, they have modification kits being sold through dealerships, and they have third party modifications (some of which will make any warranty null and void).

Maybe you didn't actually follow, because what nbc was talking about was the idea that we shouldn't even have a right to edir/alter "art" for our own viewing. The discussion of cars was just one of many discussions branching from that subject.

 

[nbcrusader]

I did follow and it was a bad analogy from the get go. The very nature of cars from the beginning has been modification. They modify different models within the factory, they have modification kits being sold through dealerships, and they have third party modifications (some of which will make any warranty null and void).

Cars don't carry a message, polical point, or artisitic expression.

It's apples and oranges.

I guess you (and Verte) still don't understand where the comment came from. And I'm still not trying to draw a direct analogy between the two.

 

[verte76]

It's simple. A car isn't a work of art. It's a machine. Machines are made to be improved on, and thus to sell a refurbished car doesn't break any of the rules as far as I'm concerned. My argument was based on the integrity of my art and how I'm not willing to compromise on this. Taking a piece of art, changing it and then selling it as my work is immoral.

 

[nbcrusader]

I think we all understand that Verte. The comments and context giving rise to the alterations discussion are a separate issue. Going back and trying to reconcil the two is not possible.

And there are plenty of people who consider certain cars works of art.

 

[BVS]

Maybe you didn't actually follow, because what nbc was talking about was the idea that we shouldn't even have a right to edir/alter "art" for our own viewing. The discussion of cars was just one of many discussions branching from that subject.

I understand that, but the comparison still fails. If you want to do your own editing, be my guest, but once you sell it like Clean Films then you are in the wrong, whereas a car usually goes up in value.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I understand that, but the comparison still fails. If you want to do your own editing, be my guest, but once you sell it like Clean Films

From the beginning of this conversation, you've stated you think there's nothing wrong with someone editing DVDs for his/her own use. But some have said that even that is wrong.

 

[Salome]

it is wrong to change it (since you don't have the rights to do so)
but it is impossible to prevent this from happening since it can't be controlled unless you want to use tactics that we haven't seen in western society before

 

[Liesje]

From the beginning of this conversation, you've stated you think there's nothing wrong with someone editing DVDs for his/her own use.

It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong, it doesn't have any weight with this issue!

It's about one company profiting from the illegal alteration and resale of another company's "intellectual property" or whatever they call it.

 

[80sU2isBest]

It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong, it doesn't have any weight with this issue!

LivLuv, one of the branches that the original discussion took was whether or not it is right to edit something for your own viewing. There were several posts about this. As a valid side discussion, it does merit discussion.

 

[verte76]

I think we all understand that Verte. The comments and context giving rise to the alterations discussion are a separate issue. Going back and trying to reconcil the two is not possible.

And there are plenty of people who consider certain cars works of art.

Fair enough.

 

[Liesje]

LivLuv, one of the branches that the original discussion took was whether or not it is right to edit something for your own viewing. There were several posts about this. As a valid side discussion, it does merit discussion.

Yes, but everytime someone mentions the illegality of what this company is doing, you say that "well, don't people always do the same thing on their own?"

To me, they're quite different don't weigh in on each other. One is corporation v. corporation and the other is corporation v. individual.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Yes, but everytime someone mentions the illegality of what this company is doing, you say that "well, don't people always do the same thing on their own?"

Really? I said that? Where?