Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control? - Page 4 - 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, 02:06 PM   #46
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
For purposes of discussion, let's assume they do pay the studio for each copy. Remove the $$$ component.


they are still altering a product without the studio's permission. they could even do this at cost and it would still be copyright infringement.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:07 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggsy


I'm an artist too and I would be really upset if someone take one of my pieces and change it just because it doesn't fit their values .
Really? You write a song, then someone who legally buys the song edits out a bad word so that they can enjoy the song - you would be upset by that? Really? Why? Would you rather they not buy the song at all?
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:09 PM   #48
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 03:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


In their FAQs, they state that they buy one original copy for each edited movie they sale. They maintain at least a 1 to 1 ratio. In fact, they send you the unedited original copy along with the edited DVD; they disable the original so that you are not receiving 2 copies.
Good to know. But there's still the issue of rights.

The reason I don't agree with 3rd party editing is that there's no control.

What if someone edited the Passion of Christ to be anti-semetic and then distributed it?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:10 PM   #49
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: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

Really? You write a song, then someone who legally buys the song edits out a bad word so that they can enjoy the song - you would be upset by that? Really? Why? Would you rather they not buy the song at all?

they HAVE to get my written permission to do that. Besides we are not talking about an individual who made a personal copy, we are talking about a big company who not only edits the material but sells it, making $$$ with that

I'm not a singer... I am painter and an Illustrator, so the only one who can edit my images is ME, or the person who I gave that power in a legal contract, and that's one of my rights as an artist. When I work as an illustrator I have to keep the ideas of my client in mind, but I know that my client liked my portfolio over others because they recognized my particular style and way to see things, they can suggest me things and we discuss our ideas so we both will be happy with the results. When I work in a totally artistic, personal piece... I don't really care if someone comes and say "hey I don't like to see boobs", because I have the right to express myself and be authentic with my art.

If I ever walk on the street and see a poster with an altered Illustration of mine, I can sue the people who ripped my art and sold it without my autorization.
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:13 PM   #50
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
What if someone edited the Passion of Christ to be anti-semetic and then distributed it?


true. i found all that violence to be offensive. i would much rather have seen it without all the ultra-violent historical inaccuracies and Shylocks hissing in the background.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:19 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
they are still altering a product without the studio's permission. they could even do this at cost and it would still be copyright infringement.
I understand the technical violation - my original question focused on whether we get 49+ replies to the story solely because there is a technical violation of copyright law?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:29 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:44 AM
This is about money ($$$$) not artistic control. Only a handful of directors retain "final-cut." That's why you see a movie at the theatre and 6 months later when it is released on DVD you then often have the option of seeing an "un-rated", "extended" or "Director's Cut." WHAT!!!! Who's version did I see for 8 bucks a couple of months ago then?

From the 30's through the 70's it was common practice for movies to be trimmed of gore and sex by distributors or theatre operators to meet community standards. A film like LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) or I DRINK YOUR BLOOD (1971) would vary in running time depending on which part of the country you saw it in. The original FRANKENSTEIN (1931) and KING KONG (1931) had scenes removed after the initial release that were never seen again until restored for home-video in the 80's. Films were also cut for time so a drive-in could show more movies in a single night.

The original MPAA X rating also included movies such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY and CLOCKWORK ORANGE which had to be cut down to a R rating to play in many cities. Who did the cutting? The house projectionist using only his best judgement and a pair of scissors.

Isn't Clean-Films an improvement on that system since clearly there's always been a market for "sanitized" versions of current movies.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:34 PM   #53
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 03:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Isn't Clean-Films an improvement on that system since clearly there's always been a market for "sanitized" versions of current movies.
According to who's version of "clean"?

It isn't legal or right, period.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:36 PM   #54
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I understand the technical violation - my original question focused on whether we get 49+ replies to the story solely because there is a technical violation of copyright law?


perhaps the political biases and prejudgements of FYM have inflitrated this thread and it's become a discussion that's really another discussion, and the issue itself is actually devoid of politics.

the conservatives think the studios are preventing them from watching sanitized versions of their movies because the studios want to corrupt their holy minds, and the liberals think that the conservatives are employing fascist techniques through proxy-companies in order to destroy any non-Biblical thought.

is that the answer you were looking for?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:38 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
It isn't legal or right, period.
The legality appears to be a technical violation of copyright law. No theft is involved.

As for it not being "right" - please define the parameters of this principle. I like absolutes that are well defined
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:39 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
is that the answer you were looking for?
Probably something more reasonable - but that will do for now.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:40 PM   #57
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Probably something more reasonable - but that will do for now.


i'm sorry you think that.

i really didn't think this was a liberal/conservative issue at all.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:44 PM   #58
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 03:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


The legality appears to be a technical violation of copyright law. No theft is involved.
Technical violation?

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

As for it not being "right" - please define the parameters of this principle. I like absolutes that are well defined
I'm speaking purely from an artist's perspective. I understand not all artist have a final say, but they at least know who does, and they agree to that relationship. This just opens up the doors to anyone butchering any piece of art to their liking.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 02:45 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Sorry I think what?

It is clear that there are plenty of thoughts on a broad subject. The true matter at hand is a very narrow legal issue. From response #1 it went beyond that. It need not be a conservative/liberal issue, but plenty are drawn to FYM threads for such discussions.

Frankly, I was surprised by the level of objection to the organization.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 03:00 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

The legality appears to be a technical violation of copyright law.
A violation, whether technical or not, is still a violation.
__________________

__________________
indra 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 04:44 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