Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Film idea - that dvd copyright message is a lie.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Film idea - that dvd copyright message is a lie.

    Copyright - a meduasas hat of lies and confusion....

    This is an example of a pretty std ' warning ' ...

    " Warning: The copyright proprietor has licensed the programme (including, without limitation, its soundtrack) contained in this video cassette or Digital Versatile Disc for private home use only. Unless otherwise expressly licensed by the copyright proprietor, all other rights are reserved. Use in other locations such as airlines, clubs, coaches, hospitals, hotels, oil rigs, prisons, schools and ships is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the copyright proprietor. Any unauthorized copying, editing, exhibition, renting, hiring, exchanging, lending, public performances, diffusion and/or broadcast, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Any such action establishes liability for a civil action and may give rise to criminal prosecution."

    Anyone who watches many films will no doubt know this all too well - it's like we are all being brainwashed by being forced to watch this misleading pack of scary corperate bullshit.

    A film recently... first that above, couldnt skip; then that jazzy one about not killing children with the hatefull music, cant skip; then one about ;if you rented this from a scally call 999, cant skip... I mean, HELLO, didnt I just pay for this - oh yes I did - so why all the audiocisual punishment ?

    Well, after a small bit research ( well I read one page of wikipediia ) it appears that things are more vexing still.

    That copyright message is based on what the rights ownwers ' wish' for not what is lawfull - they are lieing - misleading - and aruably intimidating thier customers - and they sure are pissing one off - me.

    Wikipedia has a correct version that is a true reflection of reality and EU law....

    " If you have bought this DVD retail, then you have the right to sell or exchange it as you wish. You may not rent it for direct or indirect commercial advantage, nor lend it through an establishment accessible to the public. You may watch it in any location such as in aircraft, clubs, coaches, hospitals, hotels, oil rigs, prisons, schools and ships. But you may not copy, edit, exhibit, publicly perform, diffuse or broadcast its entire contents without the copyright holder's permission, and you may do so in part only if you benefit from other protections afforded by law, such as fair use or free speech. "

    Lols and I feel a film coming on - again...

    A bit of jazzy editing and me on the phone to rights owners, and hopefully some hilarious exchanges. Might work.

    DVD Consumer Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Warsop, Nottinghamshire.
    Posts
    4,465
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    This may well be more accurate than Wikipedia.

    http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/ukcs/docs/edupack.pdf

    I think what the second statement says is actually quite close to the first one. Of course you can watch it on an oil rig etc. But you still can't show it publicy. Your first 'standard' example misses out the bit where it normally says 'public exhibition in...' oil rigs blah blah blah.

    You're getting vexed over not very much again.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The hell I am - the first is misleading and a pack of lies.

    It was the admonisment on ' lending ' that got me going - cos we all do that.

    If any product carries a warning that threatens criminal action and that advice is wromg it needs to be lampooned, mocked and exposed as the guff it is.

    I dont apprecite the patronising ' again' - what are you referring to ?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Warsop, Nottinghamshire.
    Posts
    4,465
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    The inclusion of lending, I'll grant you IS wrong. but really - examine the rest of it closely. Is there really all that much difference between the two statements?

    I think you're in danger of shooting yourself in the foot by slamming the standard warning so vociferously. If 90% of it is accurate, (and it is) by all means have a go at the part that isn't, but having a go at the whole message as 'corporate bullshit' in a way that's as innaccurate as what you're trying to protest about is just wrong. I'd like you to be right - but I honestly think you're wrong this time.

    I also think it's easy for someone to rail against the corporate machine when their not a part of it. Were you in a different position (lets assume you're head of Warner Studios for a moment) think about what you would say then.

    I honestly can see both sides, but I think the corporate one has more merit than yours. This time.

    Also, I didn't mean to patronise, but you are like a dog with a bone sometimes!

    I've made my point, you've made yours, lets see what others think eh?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,854
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Lockwood View Post
    I've made my point, you've made yours, lets see what others think eh?
    Oh...if you insist.....

    Examining the specific in more detail, the warning states:

    "Any unauthorized ... lending .... in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited."

    It doesn't state how that authorisation is granted. It state written authorisation is required or to whom. The "corporate baddies" might well state that they have authorised it - maybe in some meeting behind closed doors.

    Only if they came to challenge you would you be burdened with the proof might be with you. At which point you would have the law on your side.

    At worst this is only slightly misleading.

    I have some sympathy for the companies. After all if you create and own the rights to something, shouldn't you be able to define the terms under which you sell certain rights?
    Tim

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Warsop, Nottinghamshire.
    Posts
    4,465
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Don't get me wrong - I have limited sympathy for Marks position. But - and this is the crux for me - whilst they (the film makers) without a doubt stretch the wording to its fullest extent, who can blame them? It costs fortunes to make a movie, for every one we see, ten fall in the ditch never to be seen again and it must be galling to see people ripping their work and doing what they like with it. Were I in their position, I'd stretch the wording too. And If I ever am, I will.

    My problem with Marks argument is that he implies that the rights holders dont have the right to control whats done with their material in any way. Yep, so he / we / us paid 9.99 for a DVD - but that doesn't give us carte blanche to do what we want with it.

    The copyright holder should and must be allowed to exercise some control, if only in order to finance ongoing productions. Of movies incidentally most of us watch at some point.

    It's a thorny bloody issue though, that's for sure.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Threatening people with criminal action on the basis of false information is coperate bullshit in my view.

    Some context for my apparent bone chewing It is a tactic is often used more far more malevonantly by corperations - they often distort and misuse the law to intimidate small businesses and very often get away woth it cos they can afford to litigae to bankrupcy.

    Case in point would be The Mclibel case - The McLibel Trial
    Unusally they ' won' and the case changed the law on legal aid.

    ANother recent one - BBC NEWS | England | North Yorkshire | Pub fights KFC for 'family feast'

    And very recent - BBC NEWS | England | London | Bank wants 40,000 from G20 girl

    There is a plague of this. it is an abuse of the legal process. I dont think it is irrational or eccentric to give a dam about this.

    If you are not a dog with a bone about things that erode our freedoms in it's broadest interpretaion one day you may be the bone in the corperate dog's mouth...

    I do make film about flowers and cats but those have little passion and passion is the essential ingredient for a film - clearly I have that here I am sure you will conceed that being a ' dog with a bone ' is then a good thing.

    In ' directing the documentary ' Micheal Rabiger devotes a whole chapter on discovering what makes you really passionate - even advocates keeping a dream diary - that book influenced me greatly and although I am yet to make much of great import or length that has challenged or created a debate beyond the BNP hit list I have set myself a goal of doing so this year.

    Dog with a bone = passioante about film, passionate about injustice and wanting to combine the two.

    Onwards !

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    " My problem with Marks argument is that he implies that the rights holders dont have the right to control whats done with their material in any way. Yep, so he / we / us paid 9.99 for a DVD - but that doesn't give us carte blanche to do what we want with it. "

    Andy - I dont say that. Quote me where I did. Have I ever said that? This week I spent 50 quid on DVDs, and will nest week, and so on.... I dont support piracy - I never have.

    It is not going to be possible to have this debate if you make up my postion to make your point.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,854
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark W View Post
    Andy - I dont say that. Quote me where I did. Have I ever said that?
    Andy didn't say that. Andy said you IMPLIED that.

    And that is exactly what the Warner's et al are doing when they imply lending a DVD is illegal.

    You used exactly the same trick to help Andy come to an incorrect assumption as the baddie corporates did to you.
    Tim

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Warsop, Nottinghamshire.
    Posts
    4,465
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark W View Post
    ..Dog with a bone = passionate about film, passionate about injustice and wanting to combine the two...
    You wouldn't be the Mark W we know and love if you weren't. Keep at it - I know you'll have support out there - somewhere....

    Quote Originally Posted by TimStannard View Post
    ..And that is exactly what the Warner's et al are doing when they imply lending a DVD is illegal.

    You used exactly the same trick to help Andy come to an incorrect assumption as the baddie corporates did to you.
    Correct. Except it wasn't an assumption I made - it was a demonstration. And that was my point...

    Two sides of a coin with essentially the same face. All I'm saying is, your argument needs to be more rational.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. OS Leopard on PC? good idea or bad idea?
    By poliz in forum The Perfect Video Editing PC
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-02-2008, 09:51 AM
  2. Copyright
    By sheltor in forum Sound Recording and Audio Editing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 11:37 AM
  3. Copyright law
    By FryMaster8 in forum Forum Announcements and News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-16-2007, 11:42 AM
  4. copyright..
    By innocent_bystander in forum Forum Announcements and News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-07-2006, 05:30 PM
  5. Copyright
    By sheltor in forum Forum Announcements and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-19-2004, 04:27 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •