Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control? - Page 8 - 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, 07:16 PM   #106
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Who's downloading music, changing it then selling it?
Downloading is unlicensed material is also a copyright violation.

Lies made the statement that both forms of copyright violation were wrong.

Not only do we not criticize one of the illegal activites, most here engage in or benefit by the illegal activity.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:19 PM   #107
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:55 AM
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.
As a bundled product? One for the kids and one for the parents?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:23 PM   #108
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Muggsy


who said I was talking about money?...
the word "expense" is usually associated with money.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:26 PM   #109
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: 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


the word "expense" is usually associated with money.
because they are taking benefits from their Talent and their work... I don't know if this is a language problem ( I don't speak english and certainly i've noticed you edited your post) but when I say "expenses" I didnt mean money (like I said before, profit is one of the consequences of that company's abuse), so If you didn't understand I apologize.

Honestly... I'm getting tired of this because you are refusing to understand what I'm trying to say .
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:31 PM   #110
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Downloading is unlicensed material is also a copyright violation.

Lies made the statement that both forms of copyright violation were wrong.

Not only do we not criticize one of the illegal activites, most here engage in or benefit by the illegal activity.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

It is difficult and perhaps bad business to pursue every individual who violates copyright. That may be why media companies have generally stuck to corporate copyright violators like the owners of file sharing networks, rather than going after individual downloaders. Copyright law states that it is up to the copyright holder to enforce their copyright, and, as such, it is within their legal right to pick and choose who they want to sue for violating their copyright.

I want to now reemphasize the notion of "corporate copyright violators." "Clean Films" is making a business out of copyright violation. They are a sitting duck for a lawsuit, and that's exactly what happened. They are no more immune than Kazaa or the original iteration of Napster.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:32 PM   #111
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Downloading is unlicensed material is also a copyright violation.

Lies made the statement that both forms of copyright violation were wrong.

Not only do we not criticize one of the illegal activites, most here engage in or benefit by the illegal activity.
I don't download copyrighted material, and criticize those actions as well.

But I will be a little more outspoken about someone making a profit off that copyrighted material.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:36 PM   #112
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 10:55 AM
You don't download from itunes??
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:36 PM   #113
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

It is difficult and perhaps bad business to pursue every individual who violates copyright. That may be why media companies have generally stuck to corporate copyright violators like the owners of file sharing networks, rather than going after individual downloaders. Copyright law states that it is up to the copyright holder to enforce their copyright, and, as such, it is within their legal right to pick and choose who they want to sue for violating their copyright.

I want to now reemphasize the notion of "corporate copyright violators." "Clean Films" is making a business out of copyright violation. They are a sitting duck for a lawsuit, and that's exactly what happened. They are no more immune than Kazaa or the original iteration of Napster.

Melon
Yes, Clean Films is the easier target for enforcement.

I guess I was thinking of the doctrine of unclean hands. The standing to cry ILLEGAL behavior is diminished if one is engaged in similar behavior. A glass house situation.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:39 PM   #114
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
You don't download from itunes??
You pay for iTunes. We are talking about material that is not paid for or not licensed from the owner.

That includes bootlegs too.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:46 PM   #115
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I guess I was thinking of the doctrine of unclean hands. The standing to cry ILLEGAL behavior is diminished if one is engaged in similar behavior. A glass house situation.
Well, I'm not interested in passing judgment here. I'm merely stating what the laws are and how they have been consistently interpreted by the courts.

And you're right. Bootlegs do fall under copyright, and people who have tried to sell them on eBay have generally found a rude awakening. However, since most people do not buy bootlegs and most sites don't charge for them, media companies may be contented to let it happen. But lyrics archives also fall under copyright and have been enforced, which is why the one here no longer exists.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:50 PM   #116
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:55 PM
I've been reading the legal documents and it's not just Clean Films and other video-editing companies that are being targeted. The studios also named in the suit a company that doesn't edit videos - they make dvd players that are programmed to skip over objectionable content - without editing or harming the DVD at all.

Surely you will all agree that is neither illegal or unethical to control what parts of the movie you yourself watch on your own TV, especially if no edits are made to the DVD? What the studios are doing here is a perfect example of what I said previously - reaching for an unprecedented level of control.

I think that in all of this, the studios are the unethical party. They want you to have as little control as you can over how you watch their movies. It is their overflowing sense of self-importance and their egotism that drives this.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:55 PM   #117
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

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

I'm sorry.
I certainly don't, if I bought it legally and don't display it publicly, give it away or sell it. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would find it unethical.

But you don't have to be sorry for me, so feel free to save your condescending remarks for someone else.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:58 PM   #118
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
I've been reading the legal documents and it's not just Clean Films and other video-editing companies that are being targeted. The studios also named in the suit a company that doesn't edit videos - they make dvd players that are programmed to skip over objectionable content - without editing or harming the DVD at all.

Surely you will all agree that is neither illegal or unethical to control what parts of the movie you yourself watch on your own TV, especially if no edits are made to the DVD? What the studios are doing here is a perfect example of what I said previously - reaching for an unprecedented level of control.

I think that in all of this, the studios are the unethical party. They want you to have as little control as you can over how you watch their movies. It is their overflowing sense of self-importance and their egotism that drives this.
Question: What is driving the Studios, what is driving Clean Films and are they the same thing?
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:58 PM   #119
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: 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I certainly don't
wow this really hits me because I wouldnt like to see my own art abused in that way... I can't help to take this a little bit personal because my way of life depends on those rights, and seeing that someone doesn't respect them because of their conveniences doesnt feel very comfortable.
__________________
Muggsy is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 08:03 PM   #120
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:55 AM
What's illegal is illegal. But with money, you can buy a certain amount of 'liscence'.

What is prosecuted is different, because there has to be an element of common sense about prosecuting copyright issues, you cannot absolutely control your own copyrights once they hit the market place, therefore, you go after those who look to capitalize on your materials.

Does anyone think this business isn't making money off doing this?

It would be different if they paid wholesale $10.00 for a DVD, then resold it at $10.00, there would be no inclination to prosectute them. It would still be illegal, but there is a certain amount of liscence given to copyright infringement simply because you cannot control all the aspects of it.

It's like an artist covering a band's song on a disc w/o permission, usually there is an exhange of legalities and royalties after the fact. Why? Because both sides make money.

Technically if you do so, w/o permission before the fact, it is in fact illegal. So, there has to be a common sense about it.
The issue here is that the movie studios are losing profits, they can claim artistic reasons because they own those rights, they could claim ANYTHING, it's their legal property. The reason they want to shut it down is because they don't want others to profit where they can do just the same. That is, they want to sell their own edited versions. They have the legal right to do so.
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan 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 12:55 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