Skip to comments.
Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films
AP ^
| Saturday July 8, 9:52 pm
Posted on 07/08/2006 9:24:52 PM PDT by BenLurkin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 701-712 next last
To: Binghamton_native
I think the question you have to ask is why they would make an agreement with the airlines and not with these companies. I think the companies tried to reach an agreement. That being the case, do you think that the failure to reach an agreement was strictly over the issue of money? Money would be my guess, but it really doesn't matter. The point is that they didn't have an agreement, and that's pretty much that.
581
posted on
07/09/2006 7:18:34 PM PDT
by
Melas
(Offending stupid people since 1963)
To: LowOiL
582
posted on
07/09/2006 8:16:36 PM PDT
by
OKIEDOC
(Speak Softly and Carry A Big Stick)
To: BenLurkin
What's the difference betweeen "sanitizing" and "censoring"?
To: OmahaFields
renting is a different issue from selling.
However, if they actually buy and provide the end viewer with both copies (clean and original) even for rental then it should not have been an issue.
I don't see why the studios don't wake up and smell the coffee. Most of their movies get paired down for airplane and non-premium channel viewing ANYWAYS. This is a vast market they refuse to acknowledge.
584
posted on
07/09/2006 8:32:53 PM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: BigSkyFreeper
Now you're just being ridiculous. I figured when you first started posting to me, you were serious, now I'm not quite so sure. It is called humor.
585
posted on
07/09/2006 8:50:28 PM PDT
by
killjoy
(Dirka dirka mohammed jihad! Sherpa sherpa bakalah!)
To: longtermmemmory
However, if they actually buy and provide the end viewer with both copies (clean and original) even for rental then it should not have been an issue. No, its still breaking the copyright law. The still did the act of editing copyrighted material without permission. It matters not a whit if they bought 1000 legit copies, they broke the law.
To: FreedomCalls
You aren't nearly as clever as you apparently think you are. Why don't you just drop this and quit acting silly?
To: Central Scrutiniser
I think the distinction is the renting.
If it was JUST selling it would not be a violation. If I hire an editor to edit my personal copy for my personal viewing AND i am not renting it out, I don't see a legal impediment.
588
posted on
07/09/2006 9:29:00 PM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: longtermmemmory
No, the distinction is editing the content.
You can't do that.
To: rcocean
What are you talking about? This is based on a ruling by a "District" judge. It *will* be appealed to the 9th circuit and might go all the way to the SCOUTS. This case is in the Colorado U.S. District Court, which is in the 10th Circuit, not the 9th. There was a similar suit (the one by Mel Gibson re: Passion of Christ) in one of the U.S. district courts in California. That case might have ended up before the 9th Circuit COA, but it was settled a few days ago.
590
posted on
07/09/2006 9:36:57 PM PDT
by
Sandy
To: Central Scrutiniser
Well at least you can read.
591
posted on
07/09/2006 9:50:12 PM PDT
by
OKIEDOC
(Speak Softly and Carry A Big Stick)
To: durasell
If you replaced "Hollywood Elites" with "American CEOs" and Hollywood with New York and Hollywood Blvd with Park Avenue, then you would be a communist.
To: Prodn2000; durasell; Strategerist
He'd be a sarcastic communist.
I cannot believe that after 10 hours away, this thread has gone around in 4 more circles. Tag, Central Scrutinizer is it. He's got the night shift. Strategerist, you pick up at 6am. Durasell, you're the comic relief, you are on call.
593
posted on
07/09/2006 10:18:56 PM PDT
by
Defiant
(MSM are holding us hostage. Vote Dems into power, or they will let the terrorists win.)
To: Central Scrutiniser
OK, I have no idea where that came from. I believe you need to go through this thread and read what I have posted. I have taken attack after attack tonight claiming it is against the law no matter how you slice it.
I was merely stating in that particular pot that many on this site want to say it's wrong of Hollywood because they are liberals and therefore must be stopped, and it's not fair!
Please don't make baseless attacks against someone who shares the same beliefs on this subject that you do.
594
posted on
07/09/2006 10:32:53 PM PDT
by
albyjimc2
(If dying's asked of me, I'll bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don't come free...)
To: albyjimc2
You interjected the whole liberals vs conservatives into this.
Its not about that, never was. Its about copyright and ownership.
This has nothing to do with your beliefs, just your inability to think without emotion and focus on the fact that you don't break copyright law.
To: Defiant
I can't handle another shift. As I said on the other thread about this, the depths of ignorance are constantly being tested.
To: Defiant
597
posted on
07/09/2006 10:41:39 PM PDT
by
durasell
(!)
To: Prodn2000
Hollywood is more CEO than artist.
598
posted on
07/09/2006 10:43:33 PM PDT
by
durasell
(!)
To: durasell
Ye with little sin cast the first stone.
OK someone give me a rock, no a boulder.
Liberals seem to be having gastroesophageal reflux at, God forbid, a few hundred people not following copyright laws.
I wished they had this much anxiety about keeping and following immigration laws currently on the books.
Hey Hollywood, Jose, Ahab and 20 million illegal aliens do not give a flip about crossing the border illegally.
If the Federal government is not going to follow the law concerning our security then why do we have to follow the law on copyrights or for that matter any law.
So then wheres the beef if a few million concerned citizens do not want to hear a steady bombardment of smut coming from a bunch of depraved perverts in Hollywood.
Can someone with knowledge of law tell me if there is any way possible to sue these people for say polluting the airwaves with offending filth?
Aren't these some of the same muck diving NAMBLA and ACLU supporters and enablers in the community cesspool known as Hollywood who are trying to remove crosses from memorials because they offend say a very small minority of Godless citizens.
Then wouldn't this same sort of offending applied in the Cross Removal case also apply to millions of Americans who are like wise offended by lascivious language?
599
posted on
07/09/2006 10:47:04 PM PDT
by
OKIEDOC
(Speak Softly and Carry A Big Stick)
To: OKIEDOC
Hollywood -- and the entire entertainment industry -- will defend copyright laws. It helps if you think of a piece of copyrighted material as a piece of real estate. Few movies, no matter how bad, are incapable of making money far into the future. Right now Hudson Hawk is probably playing on some Late, Late Show in South America.
Copyrighted material is also a product. People are free to buy the product or not buy it. For reasons I don't quite understand, it's not enough for folks to simply not buy the product, they don't want the product to exist.
Lastly, America's entertainment industry is also one of America's few highly profitable exports. Keep this in mind. "Hollywood," such as it is, isn't a bunch of fat cats. It's mostly a bunch of middleclass folks, a lot of them blue collar, just trying to pay their bills.
600
posted on
07/09/2006 10:58:21 PM PDT
by
durasell
(!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580, 581-600, 601-620 ... 701-712 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson