I suppose that it's a copyright violation in that their using someone else's title for a similar, yet different work. It would be like starting your own newspaper and calling it the New York Times. You're deceiving people who purchase your paper thinking that it's really the
NY Times. This would harm the NY Times' copyright. In the same way, they are harming Mel Gibson's property by producing not just a similar product, but one that purports to be the same as what he offers.
And, of course, what they're doing in terms of artistic works is an obscenity.
posted on 11/19/2005 9:54:04 AM PST
(We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
There is a point here that everyone seems to be missing. Companies that edit films are not editing them and then trying to fool people into buying those instead of the real version. In fact the truth behind the edit is to provide a service so that people who have the original can watch it in their home the way they feel comfortable watching it. It's really kind of funny because people come away from watching the movie saying "Wow that was an awsome movie,Mel Gibson (or who-ever produced it) did a great job." I've never heard anyone say Oh way to go editors or anything like that.
It's simply a way to allow people to enjoy the genius of Hollywood without the "Oh it was a great movie BUT ..."
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson