Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control? - Page 11 - 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 07-28-2006, 01:36 PM   #151
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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.
Clean Films is doing it with much success, and have been since 2002. So, it's obvious there is a market. These entire 4 years, has Universal even attempted to seize the maket by distributing their own "family-friendly" versions? No. That should tell you that they're not interested in the market which clearly exists.

I'll stay away from the insults and condescending remarks; one of us has to.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 01:44 PM   #152
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
These entire 4 years, has Universal even attempted to seize the maket by distributing their own "family-friendly" versions? No. That should tell you that they're not interested in the market which clearly exists.
So?

Why do they have to be interested in this market?

I'm asking it as a serious question. If I made a movie and somebody didn't want to buy it because there was swearing or sex, too bad. Don't buy it.

If Universal is losing money, that's their prerogative. If Universal doesn't think editing out the Lord's name is necessary or important, that's their prerogative. If Universal doesn't care that they'll lose $20 because you won't buy a movie, that's their prerogative.

What's the problem here?
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 01:55 PM   #153
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 09:23 AM
IT IS ILLEGAL

they are messing with someone else's (copy)RIGHTS






since when has it become legal to mess with someone else's rights just because there's a market for it?
__________________
Salome is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 01:59 PM   #154
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


So?

Why do they have to be interested in this market?

I'm asking it as a serious question. If I made a movie and somebody didn't want to buy it because there was swearing or sex, too bad. Don't buy it.

If Universal is losing money, that's their prerogative. If Universal doesn't think editing out the Lord's name is necessary or important, that's their prerogative. If Universal doesn't care that they'll lose $20 because you won't buy a movie, that's their prerogative.

What's the problem here?
Someone said that the studios would find the market and do it themselves. I simply pointed out that there was already a market but they didn't do anything about it, which shows they aren't interested in the market.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 02:01 PM   #155
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
IT IS ILLEGAL

they are messing with someone else's (copy)RIGHTS

since when has it become legal to mess with someone else's rights just because there's a market for it?
Look, the judge may have decided that Clean Films actions didn't fall within Fair Use, but there were previous Fair Use cases that could be seen as supporting Clean Films, so it's not as cut and dried as you think.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 02:03 PM   #156
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
since when has it become legal to mess with someone else's rights just because there's a market for it?
You might drop that question in the Music on the Internet forum
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 02:06 PM   #157
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 09:23 AM
I don't think anyone really reckons that downloading music and selling it is legal
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 02:10 PM   #158
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:23 AM
The point we already covered here is that the studio is getting paid their full asking price for the movie. It is not a matter of "stealing".
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 02:16 PM   #159
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 09:23 AM
you asked me about music on the internet though


and it might not be stealing but it is tempering with someone elses rights
and whether it's cut and dried or not, it makes sense for a judge to protect someone elses rights
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 02:17 PM   #160
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Someone said that the studios would find the market and do it themselves. I simply pointed out that there was already a market but they didn't do anything about it, which shows they aren't interested in the market.


the studios are ignoring this market because they are atheists who hate christians.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 02:22 PM   #161
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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.
I raised a question once earlier which maycocksean addressed a couple of pages ago.

As for this, there seems to be a couple of issues jumping around.

1. Legal issue of copyright violation. A narrow, technical issue that Clean Films does not have the right to alter the movie, even though they aleady purchased the movie. I question the standing to make that a primary issue considering the amount of copyright violation that occurs and is accepted by the members of this forum.

2. Ethical issue regarding an artists' work. 80's has addressed this in great detail in discussion with other members. Again, I bet we frequently alter to art of others to fit our own personal preferences.

3. Other objections to Clean Films? On what other basis do people object to the editing of films to meet a viewer's preference?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 02:23 PM   #162
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 09:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




the studios are ignoring this market because they are atheists who hate christians.
hmm, I don't know

when I showed them my homo-erotic edit of The Passion of the Christ (with more passion and less christ) they didn't seem to impressed either
__________________
Salome is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 02:25 PM   #163
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
the studios are ignoring this market because they are atheists who hate christians.
What issue are you teasing out here?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 02:27 PM   #164
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


What issue are you teasing out here?


i'm teasing out the expectation of FYM-subtext in any discussions that stray anywhere near issues of "morality."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 02:32 PM   #165
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 09:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
1. Legal issue of copyright violation. A narrow, technical issue that Clean Films does not have the right to alter the movie, even though they aleady purchased the movie. I question the standing to make that a primary issue considering the amount of copyright violation that occurs and is accepted by the members of this forum.
if members of this forum think that copyright violation is acceptable and they get arrested because of copyright violation they will get prosecuted and fined and/or jailed
because it is illegal
illegal?
yes illegal

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
2. Ethical issue regarding an artists' work. 80's has addressed this in great detail in discussion with other members. Again, I bet we frequently alter to art of others to fit our own personal preferences.
if this art is protected by copyrights and the artist finds out we altered it and decided to sue the one who altered it will be prosecuted and fined and/or jailed
because it is illegal
illegal?
yes illegal

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
3. Other objections to Clean Films? On what other basis do people object to the editing of films to meet a viewer's preference?
no objections at all as long as it is in agreement with however owns the copyrights
because otherwise it is illegal
illegal?
yes illegal
__________________

__________________
Salome is offline  
 

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 03:23 AM.


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