Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control? - Page 6 - 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, 04:34 PM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
If there is truly a profitable reason, the studio will do so. There are edited versions on DVD, On Demand, and the examples listed before of many movies, done by the studio, or with permission of the studio.
I think that is part of the story we are missing or that is yet to come.

As with many things, objections soon disappear when a dollar figure is offered. Unlimited music downloads became acceptable when the proper rights were purchased.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 04:51 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggsy


ou are deffending that company's actions because they are doing things for your convenience, although they are doing something illegal and unethical. If that company where doing movies even more violent and profane, I think your opinion would be different
I do not consider it unethical at all.

Illegal? I don't know at this point. I'd need to read a whole lot more on the subject than what has been presented on this thread before I am convinced.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 04:52 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I think that is part of the story we are missing or that is yet to come.

As with many things, objections soon disappear when a dollar figure is offered. Unlimited music downloads became acceptable when the proper rights were purchased.
The main point people have been focusing on in this thread is the lack of rights to edit.
__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 04:53 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


As with many things, objections soon disappear when a dollar figure is offered. Unlimited music downloads became acceptable when the proper rights were purchased.
But to me, this situation is not about money. They only stand to lose money by shutting down Clean Films and the like.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 04:59 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


How do you add nudity if wasn't ever filmed in the first place?

It was done often in the early days of home video and before. Brand new footage of nudity or violence was shot and inserted into the film by the company then owning the rights to give it a more modern look or to appeal to a different audience. Jess Franco's 99 WOMEN being a good example. In addition, many movies made for drive-in double features often had additional footage (shot up to a year later) added to them solely to pad out their running time when sold to TV. Monte Hellman got his start doing this. All perfectly legal and all done without the permission of the original director.

Offered for those of you interested in putting this topic in historical perspective.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:04 PM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Who cares? Violating is violating, IMO. Personally, yes because they are selling the products, but technically, no it doesn't matter which one we think is "worse", they are both breaking the law.
Given the prevalence of downloading unlicensed material, why is this "breaking of the law" unacceptable while downloading does not meet the same scrutiny?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:08 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I think that is part of the story we are missing or that is yet to come.

As with many things, objections soon disappear when a dollar figure is offered. Unlimited music downloads became acceptable when the proper rights were purchased.
Exactly. Go back 25 years and read how home video was going to be the demise of Hollywood in their eyes. That is until they learned how to make money from it and now home video has, in many ways, been their salvation.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:23 PM   #83
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: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I do not consider it unethical at all.

Illegal? I don't know at this point. I'd need to read a whole lot more on the subject than what has been presented on this thread before I am convinced.
It is unethical because:

* they are selling ripped material. It is like selling an stolen car without a different painting to make the car look less ugly
* In some way the are taking benefits of the success of the (original) movies, selling altered versions of them. They aren't selling "family" original movies, they are selling blockbusters with a sugar cover on them. also, they found a market and they are exploiding it at expenses of the original film makers

I've been searching in that web page any kind of moral argument supporting their actions... I haven't found it yet. In my eyes they are just exploiding a market. If they were serious about this issue they would be for example, a non proffit organization looking for the studies to edit their own family versions.
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:26 PM   #84
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

It All perfectly legal and all done without the permission of the original director.


but the director doesn't matter; it's the studio's call because the studio financed the movie in the first place and they own distribution rights.

movies are also a vastly different business than they were 30 years ago. once movies started making hundreds of millions of dollars, thanks first to "Godfather" and followed by "Jaws" and "Star Wars," the lawyers got far more aggressive in protecting the product.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:28 PM   #85
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Just because something was done in the past doesn't make it ethical or legal today.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:32 PM   #86
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I think that is part of the story we are missing or that is yet to come.

As with many things, objections soon disappear when a dollar figure is offered. Unlimited music downloads became acceptable when the proper rights were purchased.
The dollar figure doesn't matter, IT'S ILLEGAL!

Why is this so hard for some to swallow?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:34 PM   #87
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I do not consider it unethical at all.

Illegal? I don't know at this point. I'd need to read a whole lot more on the subject than what has been presented on this thread before I am convinced.
It is unethical and illegal, hence the judge stopping the selling and renting.

Just because it suits your needs doesn't make it right.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:41 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggsy


It is unethical because:

* they are selling ripped material. It is like selling an stolen car without a different painting to make the car look less ugly
No it's not like that. Clean films bought 1 copy of the original for each edited copy that they sell. How is that like a stolen car? There is no theft involved whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally posted by Muggsy

* In some way the are taking benefits of the success of the (original) movies, selling altered versions of them. They aren't selling "family" original movies, they are selling blockbusters with a sugar cover on them. also, they found a market and they are exploiding it at expenses of the original film makers
What expense is it costing the original film makers? They aren't out any money at all. As I said above, Clean Films bought 1 copy of the original for each edited copy that they sell. In fact, the studio will lose some potential money by shutting down Clean Films. Many people who buy from Clean Films will not buy if it's not edited.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:46 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


It is unethical and illegal, hence the judge stopping the selling and renting.

Just because it suits your needs doesn't make it right.
You think it's unethical, but that doesn't necessarily make it unethical. I see nothing unethical about paying someone to edit out offensive material from a movie I legally bought the original unedited version of, as long as I don't show the movie in publicor give or sell it to someone else.

What I do consider unethical is sneaking irreverant use of the Lord's Name into movies like Batman Begins and King Kong, which will definitely attract large numbers of families.

Illegal, I'm not even sure about. I would need to read more about the law and what Clean Films is actually doing.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:48 PM   #90
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 08:26 PM
I tend not to like discussions too much that deal with "precedents being set"
but if the movie studios are going to allow people editting their movies without having any say in it
and then these movies get sold then copyrights just become worthless

completely worthless
__________________

__________________
“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  
 

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 02:26 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