Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films

AP ^ | Saturday July 8, 9:52 pm

[killjoy]

If I altered their logo, or they altered mine that's not legal. They own that logo, and I own mine.

Sure but that is not what we are talking about. That would be fraud if you modified it and tried to pass off the original item as something other than what it is. Nobody is alleging fraud in this discussion. Everyone is admitting what the end product is.

That's why, when you look in my parents car, the car radio has a BOSE logo on it, becaus BOSE made that radio and sold it to Cadillac to install in their cars.

The reason it has a BOSE logo is because they can charge a premium price over a radio that has a Cadillac logo or a MingLee Fujian Industries logo... even if all three are exactly the same and made by the same OEM.

[durasell]

This isn't about property rights, this is about shoving their values down our throats.



The television networks pay the movie companies. So does the airline company that edits the film. These jokers were not paying the movie company.

[killjoy]

But if you sell or distribute the movie without those scenes, if you sell your version of the book with page 212 ripped out, you are selling something that does not belong to you. You are stealing the fruits of someone else's labor and twisting someone else's efforts to your ends.

If it is clearly labelled as "this book does not include page 212 because I think the book flows better without it", how is that stealing? I don't agree with it, or editing movies because something is 'objectionable', but I don't see how it is breaking any laws. Moronic, yes, illegal, no.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Everyone is admitting what the end product is.

Right, you're missing the point. There is a copyright on their logo. My product might work perfectly fine, but with a Harley-Davidson logo tacked onto it, it's deceptive advertising. Because everyone will think it's a HD addon, and if one suddenly quits working or someone gets hurt, HD will be the first ones the victims sue.

[WLR]

I guess one way to buttress your nonsensical point is to ignore my thread and analogy.


W

[stands2reason]

It's their choice. They don't have to be "fair", they can choose to market their movie on their own terms.

[ReignOfError]

I guess one way to buttress your nonsensical point is to ignore my thread and analogy.

I have no idea what the hell thread and analogy you're talking about. I skimmed your posting history, and didn't see any replies to me. If it makes you feel better to believe that you've beaten me because I didn't respond to something you said to someone else somewhere I didn't notice, knock yourself out. Congratulations. You won ... whatever it is you won.

If you have a point, make it. If you just want to pound your chest, try to keep the noise down while the grownups are talking.

[stands2reason]

Maybe they don't want other groups unfairly profiting off of their product.

Just like I can't buy Nike shoes, paint a nice design on them and sell them at a markup unless I have Nike's permission.

[killjoy]

Right, you're missing the point. There is a copyright on their logo. My product might work perfectly fine, but with a Harley-Davidson logo tacked onto it, it's deceptive advertising. Because everyone will think it's a HD addon, and if one suddenly quits working or someone gets hurt, HD will be the first ones the victims sue.

Sure. You are talking about fraud. In the case of the edited movies, there is no fraud involved. AFAIK, they are clearly labeled as being edited version. Nobody is trying to defraud anyone into thinking it is the original cut.

[ReignOfError]

If it is clearly labelled as "this book does not include page 212 because I think the book flows better without it", how is that stealing?

You are selling something you do not own.

Am I missing something? I don't see how that's complicated.

[BigSkyFreeper]

You are talking about fraud. In the case of the edited movies, there is no fraud involved. AFAIK, they are clearly labeled as being edited version. Nobody is trying to defraud anyone into thinking it is the original cut.

That's assuming the studio's themselves did the editing. You and others like you are clearly looking for ways to edit an unedited movie, knowing it's filled with "dreck", "souping it up" to your standard, without the studio or the director's knowledge or blessing.

[killjoy]

You are selling something you do not own.

I the previous example, I do own it. I bought the original and then ripped out the page. I then decided to resell it.

Am I missing something?

Yes.

[ReignOfError]

You own that copy. If you find someone dim enough to buy a defective book, no one cares. If you build a company around ripping out page 212, that's a whole 'nother matter.

[killjoy]

You and others like you are clearly looking for ways to edit an unedited movie, knowing it's filled with "dreck", "souping it up" to your standard, without the studio or the director's knowledge or blessing.

On the contrary. I think they should be edited to include more "dreck". I think every movie should be modified to open with a hi-definition THX version of the Fast Times at Ridgemont High scene of Phoebe Cates leaving the swimming pool. That is just for starters....

[stands2reason]

There is a legal difference between selling something and owning it. Here's an example:

If you suffer from aichmophobia (a nifty word meaning fear of knives and other sharp pointy things), you may, after you purchase a Leatherman multi-tool, remove the blade.

But if your super money-making idea is to buy Leathermans, remove the blades and sell them at a profit in Britain, the Leatherman Co. will for sure have something to say about it.

[stands2reason]

You can edit all the movies you wish. Just don't expect to be able to market them without permission.

[GregB]

Looks like this will go up the line.....

[WLR]

Forgive me, I thought you were reading the thread as it progressed.

Perhaps you answered and I missed it. I will try again.

In Brief


A custom car maker buys a stock auto from the manufacturer

He fixes it up the way his customers would like it. Replaces everything but the shape.

He sells the modified car to a customer


How is a customized movie any different?


It is not.

The Original Manufacturer get his money.

The Customer get the product as he wants it.

The Value added reseller makes his profit.

It happens all the time with Guns, Cars. Software, Computers, Homes and so forth. Following the logic applied in the case as I see it would prevent you from restuccoing you house a different color, adding a bathroom or new tile in the kitchen because that was not how the original designer "conceived" his work.


No insult meant.

I stand ready to be enlightened and to consider the flaws pointed out in my analogy.

W


Why should Hollyweird have special dispensation? Their product is just that, a product.

What is so different about it being customized from any other product?

Artistic integrity? Laughable.

W

[killjoy]

But if your super money-making idea is to buy Leathermans, remove the blades and sell them at a profit in Britain, the Leatherman Co. will for sure have something to say about it.

If Leatherman is smart, they would do the same thing cheaper and just use the market to put you out of business. No lawyers needed.

[stands2reason]

They do not have a license to resell the items.

And they can't go by the "single movie" excuse when that is their whole business plan.