Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control? - Page 7 - 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, 05:48 PM   #91
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

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.
You're missing the point, this was all done with permission.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:49 PM   #92
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:17 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?
Who's downloading music, changing it then selling it?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:52 PM   #93
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


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.
You don't find changing someone's art without permission unethical?

I'm sorry.


Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

Illegal, I'm not even sure about. I would need to read more about the law and what Clean Films is actually doing.
THEY DON'T HAVE PERMISSION. If they did, no one would be going after them. It's illegal.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-27-2006, 05:55 PM   #94
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: 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


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.



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.
who said I was talking about money?... profits are the consequence of an unauthorized alteration of someone's work. I'm talking from a perspective of someone who valorates their own work and wouldn't like to see it altered by someone, "customized" and sold without any autorization.

Buying and original copy for each one they are editing is just a trick to avoid legal problems. The point that I'm trying to make is that is just wrong to take one's art and modify it (again, without authorization) just because someone said that it doesn't fit.
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 06:08 PM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

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.
So is this an issue of lawyers protecting proprietary rights or artists protecting intellectual property? Two separate issues.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 06:09 PM   #96
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


So is this an issue of lawyers protecting proprietary rights or artists protecting intellectual property? Two separate issues.


when speaking about the film itself, as product, then it is the former.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 06:13 PM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You're missing the point, this was all done with permission.
Legal permission or artistic permission? Again, two issues and I'm not sure which we are discussing. Are we talking as lawyers or movie fans because I'm only the latter.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 06:14 PM   #98
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
My question was "is this the deciding factor"? Many artists do not retain such a degree of control that they could object to the specific edits that occur for television or airlines. Yet, if you follow the contracts, technically "permission" has been granted. The artistic integrity is degraded as contracts begin to water down the bundle of rights originally held by the artist.
Right, but by the same token if I intercut hardcore pornography into a Disney video and then resell it with a copy of the original then it would be the same sort of violation.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 06:15 PM   #99
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: 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Right, but by the same token if I intercut hardcore pornography into a Disney video and then resell it with a copy of the original then it would be the same sort of violation.
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 06:21 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
if I intercut hardcore pornography into a Disney video and then resell it
Chitty Chitty Gang Bang. I think I saw that one.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 06:22 PM   #101
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:17 AM
Actually it would be worse because I would be stealing from the pornographers.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 06:23 PM   #102
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:17 PM
I'm honestly surprised how much of an angry thread this has become. I personally have no opinion over the product in question, but the laws regarding it are clear.

1) What "Clean Films" is doing is blatantly illegal. Copyright law is very explicit in that they need permission from the movie studios to do what they are doing. Copyright law also states that the copyright holder has every right, no matter how Draconian it may seem, to say "NO" for any reason. They don't have to explain their reasoning either.

2) "Fair use" is a concept derived for non-copy protected media. The 1998 DMCA overrides any "fair use" laws regarding digital media with copy protection. Since "Clean Films" is most certainly circumventing DVD copy protection to get their source materials to edit, they are, essentially, breaking two laws in their business. Even if you ignore the issue of copy protection and the DMCA, "fair use" *ONLY* covers non-profit personal use. "Clean Films," as a business that sells and distributes to individuals, would not be, under any interpretation, covered under "fair use."

That aside, I will agree that media companies have been abusing their power, and copy protection has, essentially, eroded "fair use" without having to actually repeal the law. In time, they will want you to buy a movie or album several times over: once on DVD, once again for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, once again for your iPod, again for your cell phone, and again for your PSP. You do have recourse, though, and that's refusing to buy it in the first place.

But, like I said, ending copy protection and repealing the DMCA will still not change the fact that what "Clean Films" is doing is blatantly illegal, even under the oldest and most liberal copyright laws. And with all of our lawmakers being technologically stupid, expect even more laws to erode your rights when media companies kick up paranoia.

(And, BTW, when TV networks have films that are "edited for time and content," they would have paid and received permission from the movie studios to do that.)

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 06:28 PM   #103
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: 01:17 PM
Quote:
Right, but by the same token if I intercut hardcore pornography into a Disney video and then resell it with a copy of the original then it would be the same sort of violation.
*an anecdote little bit out of topic*

When I was like 8 years old, my mom rented Disney's little mermaid from a cheap videostore. the movie was normal until the scene when the poor siren was coming out of the water... in that exciting point appeared an scene of "the exorcist" and I was like but It was so scary (and fascinating) that I didn't say nothing and keep watching ... when my mom came back she was like "whhhhaaattt!! "
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 06:29 PM   #104
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
My question was "is this the deciding factor"? Many artists do not retain such a degree of control that they could object to the specific edits that occur for television or airlines. Yet, if you follow the contracts, technically "permission" has been granted. The artistic integrity is degraded as contracts begin to water down the bundle of rights originally held by the artist.
The "artist" is, essentially, a marketing ploy. The "copyright holder" is all that matters legally. Even if U2 stated that they were okay with everyone downloading their albums for free, their opinion has no legal weight if their record label, Interscope, has the opposite opinion.

You're right, though. "Artistic integrity" is in pretty sorry shape, but corporations are not in the business of art or integrity.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 06:31 PM   #105
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Legal permission or artistic permission? Again, two issues and I'm not sure which we are discussing. Are we talking as lawyers or movie fans because I'm only the latter.
Legal, the issues of artistic fall within the legal umbrella, and that's up to the artist to determine how much the control or don't control.
__________________

__________________
BVS 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 01:17 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