Save Star Wars! (1 Viewer)

[Douglas Monce]

Of course they're separate. Spielberg has the same "rights" regarding CE3K, yet he chose a different course of action. You seem to think behavior tells us nothing about what an individual will do. I think Lucas' behavior tells us quite a bit. Nowhere have I stated that I want the government to "confiscate" anything. Instead, I simply favor the ending of the monopoly privilege that it has bestowed upon Lucas and many others. No "confiscation" involved.

Actually Spielberg doesn't own the rights to CE3K, Columbia/Sony does, and they frequently release bare bones versions Spielberg doesn't approve of. Spielberg participates with Sony's releases (at least the deluxe versions) to make sure they do them right, but he has no actual legal control over the films. I'm not sure how you hope to achieve "ending the monopoly" other than to end the copyright laws and make all works of art public domain. Of course if you did that, most movies would never be made, because there would be no potential profit. Doug

 

[RobertR]

I'm not sure how you hope to achieve "ending the monopoly" other than to end the copyright laws and make all works of art public domain. Of course if you did that, most movies would never be made, because there would be no potential profit.

I didn't say kill the concept of copyright entirely. But the current concept of "I have absolute control over all property having to do with my idea forever, even the tangible property of others", yes, I would change that, and such changes would not prohibit making a profit.

 

[Worth]

All our DVDs say they are not to be shown public for profit without the express written consent of the rights holders. I'd presume privately owned prints carry the same terms, otherwise Lucas couldn't block them.

There is no such thing as a privately owned 35mm print. All prints are technically the property of the studio/distributor. The market for prints has always been so small, though, that no one much cared about enforcing the rules.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I didn't say kill the concept of copyright entirely. But the current concept of "I have absolute control over all property having to do with my idea forever, even the tangible property of others", yes, I would change that, and such changes would not prohibit making a profit.

But its not the "tangible property of others". In the case of Star Wars its not even the property of stock holders. Its owned by its creator and that is as it should be. Even the DVD that you "own" isn't yours. You have extremely limited rights. You can't, for instance, exhibit it in public, even for free with out permission of the copyright holder. And the copyright doesn't last forever. Even under the extended copyright that was enacted under the digital millennium copyright act, the work in question eventually becomes public domain. If the copyright laws were weakened as you suggest, you would find very few new movies being made. Movies are a business, and if you can't control your product, you can't make money with it. Doug

 

[RobertR]

But its not the "tangible property of others". In the case of Star Wars its not even the property of stock holders. Its owned by its creator and that is as it should be. Even the DVD that you "own" isn't yours. You have extremely limited rights. You can't, for instance, exhibit it in public, even for free with out permission of the copyright holder. And the copyright doesn't last forever. Even under the extended copyright that was enacted under the digital millennium copyright act, the work in question eventually becomes public domain. If the copyright laws were weakened as you suggest, you would find very few new movies being made. Movies are a business, and if you can't control your product, you can't make money with it. Doug

But it IS the tangible property of others. Your very example of a DVD is an example. The disc is a tangible good, and the copyright owner controls what others do with what is in their hands, according to current law. And I disagree that "very few movies would be made". Companies would adapt to a new business model not predicated on the current "we control everything that anyone does with this for many decades" model.

 

[Ethan Riley]

That's utterly ludicrous. People are supposed to "have faith" in George Lucas until "the last day on earth"?? And until that "last day", they have NO "right" to be upset? I've seen examples of Lucas-worship, but this is perhaps the silliest. Not only is it nonsensical to wait until the "last day" (we'd all be dead by then, and whoever's left would have no time left to watch the damn things, assuming people wanted to spend their last hours watching movies), George Lucas wouldn't be around on the "last day" to change his mind about ANYTHING, unless you "have faith" that he's somehow going to divinely resurrect himself. It's obvious to everyone that Lucas has a loathing, a contempt for the original films that goes FAR beyond the usual reasons (money, lack of a good source, rights issues, perceived lack of interest) why a studio hasn't released a given item. That makes your "faith" utterly irrational.

Um, yeah, it's ludicrous. Because I intended it as an absurdist scenario. I'm sure everyone else on the forum viewed it as such. And the only thing that's "irrational" is that you took me literally, to the point of wasting two paragraphs analyzing those statements. Lucas has conveyed neither "loathing" nor "contempt" for the original versions. Please post a link to an interview with Lucas in which he said something to the effect of "I loathe the original versions of my films and I show contempt towards them." The quote must contain those two words, otherwise we conclude that Lucas never made such a statement, and we must believe he does not feel that level of negativity towards the films. To put words into his mouth is unfair. If he used other negative terms towards the films, that doesn't count. Even if he implied that he "loathes" those films, it still doesn't count unless he used the actual words you ascribed to him. Lucas has altered the films and moved on. How does that indicate "contempt," except in your viewpoint? Again, to ascribe feelings and words to a man you don't even know is unfair. Oh wait--you unfairly ascribed them to Lucas in order to inflame fandom against him, until he does what you want. Oh, okay, I get it. That's why you used those two words.

 

[Ethan Riley]

But it IS the tangible property of others. Your very example of a DVD is an example. The disc is a tangible good, and the copyright owner controls what others do with what is in their hands, according to current law. And I disagree that "very few movies would be made". Companies would adapt to a new business model not predicated on the current "we control everything that anyone does with this for many decades" model.

Why should anyone in a creative field not control--and profit from--their creations? Why should their creations not be protected from theft? Why do you apparently feel so much scorn for copyright law? Are you just jealous of persons who have made a lot of money and control their creations? Is there anything reasonable that you want to see happen, or is it all just boiling down to some contempt (oops! that word!) you feel for Lucas and that you're secretly jealous of him and his power and want to find a legal way to steal something from him? Be honest.

 

[RobertR]

Please post a link to an interview with Lucas in which he said something to the effect of "I loathe the original versions of my films and I show contempt towards them."

You seem to think something isn't true unless Lucas says so, but he has said the original versions don't exist. That's clearly a contemptuous, loathing attitude. Of course, a person's attitude is also judged by his behavior, and Lucas' behavior towards the originals makes it quite clear that he has contempt for them.

Why should anyone in a creative field not control--and profit from--their creations?

Lucas HAS profited from the original films--enormously. How does anyone profit from films that are never allowed to be shown or distributed? He can't lose money from others distributing them, since it's obvious he has no intention of doing so himself, so where exactly is the "loss"?

 

[GVF25]

Here's a repost of a posting I just made in the huge STAR WARS thread. I'm reproducing it in this thread because it's relevant to the topic and might be easily missed in that monstrosity of a discussion.

Okay, folks, here's the poop directly from my friend at the Library of Congress Motion Picture Conservation Center: When STAR WARS was inducted into the National Film Registry, Lucasfilm would only donate the 1997 version. HOWEVER, the LoC has two prints of the original version in safekeeping. They just aren't allowed to screen them. They wanted to schedule a screening of the original version for next month and were forbidden by Lucasfilm. Rather than show the 1997 version, the LoC canceled the screening entirely. So, in short, original prints are safe and well-taken-care-of and the folks at the LoC continue to be some of the coolest film fans on the planet. (I told my friend that I wouldn't mention his name in order to prevent any potential kerfluffle. I know that some folks still won't believe the info. Sadly, there's not much I can do about that. He's my friend and I want him to remain happy in his job.)

I am pretty sure that The Astor in Melbourne used to have the OOT but have now been banned from showing them, I think they were even ordered to return the prints they had. I could be making this up, but I am pretty sure that is what I heard. It is a damn shame Lucas shows little respect for the fans who made these movies a success in the first place. It wouldn't hurt a bit to have both versions out there. I have never known a film maker to go so far to bury his/her original work. It seems a little over the top crazy to me, like a plastic surgery addict who just can't leave their face alone until they become so unrecognizable and disfigured that those around them can barely stand to look at them anymore. I am not a huge Star Wars fan or a U.S citizen so I can't do much and I don't know if I would go this far, but I wish all well.

 

[Worth]

Lucas has altered the films and moved on.

 

[RobertR]

It seems a little over the top crazy to me, like a plastic surgery addict who just can't leave their face alone until they become so unrecognizable and disfigured that those around them can barely stand to look at them anymore.

Yes, the similarity of George Lucas to Michael Jackson's been noted.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by RobertR
Lucas HAS profited from the original films--enormously. How does anyone profit from films that are never allowed to be shown or distributed? He can't lose money from others distributing them, since it's obvious he has no intention of doing so himself, so where exactly is the "loss"?

Actually he can lose future profits immensely. By stripping him of the copyrights for the versions he owns but does not wish to release... and let's call this for what it is folks: Legalizing piracy and bootlegging, you completely cheapen the brand. Part of what makes Star Wars special and helped sold it on the business end is the availability. Lucas is protecting his brand. He obviously prefers the updated versions, and that's his concentrated push right now. To allow others to release the original version at this time takes focus off of that, and would weaken his brand, and cut into future profits he can make with a future release. Lucas has, and obviously continues to be tight and controlling with the Star Wars films. He owns these films, he is allowed to artistically and legally do so, and THAT SHOULD NEVER CHANGE AS LONG AS HE OWNS THEM. It creates demand, and yes, irate, pissed off fans who think they are entitled to everything at any moment just because they spent $5 in a theater one day. But that's why you have the CHOICE to purchase or not. Some people are pretty clever with the "Force" puns, but if anyone feels forced to buy any product then frankly this hobby has turned into something it shouldn't and you probably should step away from it for a bit.


There's a fantasy in this thread that if Lucas was stripped of the copyrights that all of a sudden we would have Criterion quality editions of these films. Has anyone actually looked at the public domain titles on Amazon? Flooded with shit quality releases by bum companies, to the point where the studios see no value in putting out proper releases since the market is flooded and there has been cases where quality transfers by reputable companies have been ripped off by the others for a cash grab. (Criterions "Carnival Of Souls" was an example I recall this happening too.) Does anyone think that when such a bill passes that these knock off companies aren't going to rip of the LD transfer and run wild? Is screwing Lucas out of his rights really worth owning the original trilogy in a "50 Sci Fi Film Pack"? Are any of you actually naive enough to not think this would happen wholesale?


But hey, fuck 'em! We want the original trilogy and big bad Lucas wont let us have it! He doesn't need the money anyways right? the dick! He just came up with them in the first place, so screw him and his wanting money for it, we should be able to buy it from someone who has nothing to do with the films, and if Lucas doesn't like it, he can release his own editions. Maybe we'll buy 'em, maybe we wont! In your face George Lucas!


I can't believe this argument is on a forum like this...

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by RobertR

Originally Posted by Ethan Riley

Please post a link to an interview with Lucas in which he said something to the effect of "I loathe the original versions of my films and I show contempt towards them."

You seem to think something isn't true unless Lucas says so, but he has said the original versions don't exist. That's clearly a contemptuous, loathing attitude. Of course, a person's attitude is also judged by his behavior, and Lucas' behavior towards the originals makes it quite clear that he has contempt for them.

The first time I saw footage of Lucas saying the original films no longer existed was on a TV special hosted by Samuel Jackson pushing the Special Editions prior to the theatrical release. In it, they show what's supposed to be the original negative and it's in terrible shape. They had glued additional negatives to it for the special effects, and the glue went weird and one layer shrunk, it was a real mess. They show this negative being taken a part, then each frame of each piece scanned and then put back together in a computer. Then they added a bunch more CGI stuff to make fandom poo their dainty pants. Anyways I'm pretty sure this is what Lucas is talking about when he says they no longer exist, because whatever that negative was, if it was real a not faked for TV, it really literally doesn't exist as it once did. Fandom seems to think that this statement is a theological one (lucas hates his monster creation), and not a literal one.


Sure, there are safety negative and inter-positives or whatever that I'm sure can be used to make nice transfers of the original versions. Time well tell since not a single person here can say for sure that Lucas wont put them out at a future date. It was thought we'd never see the theatrical version of Blade Runner since one guy was being a dick about it. Ends up it got worked out.

 

[RobertR]

 

Does anyone think that when such a bill passes that these knock off companies aren't going to rip of the LD transfer and run wild?

Does anyone think that there wouldn't also be a demand for very high quality versions as well, and that there would be PLENTY of people falling all over themselves to provide them, including maybe Lucas himself (since he would prefer to be the one profiting from them)? It's interesting that it seems to be ok for Lucas to "cheapen the brand" by providing only the LD transfers.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by RobertR

Originally Posted by Russell G [url=/t/315174/save-star-wars/120#post_3858148]


Does anyone think that when such a bill passes that these knock off companies aren't going to rip of the LD transfer and run wild?

Does anyone think that there wouldn't also be a demand for very high quality versions as well, and that there would be PLENTY of people falling all over themselves to provide them, including maybe Lucas himself (since he would prefer to be the one profiting from them)?

And these people would be willing to invest in these versions fully knowing that their work will be used and abused by others for profit? Of do they get protection that the creator doesn't?

 

[RobertR]

 

And these people would be willing to invest in these versions

Ever hear of the Harmy versions? The answer is a deafening YES. I see everyone benefiting. People get great quality versions, Lucas can still put out whatever he wants.... win win!

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by RobertR

Originally Posted by Russell G [url=/t/315174/save-star-wars/120#post_3858170]


And these people would be willing to invest in these versions

Ever hear of the Harmy versions? The answer is a deafening YES. I see everyone benefiting. People get great quality versions, Lucas can still put out whatever he wants.... win win!

Win lose. Wins for the people who are currently not able to release Star Wars can now profit off it. Lose for Lucas since he wont be able to profit as much off of something he legally owns and created and it will cheapen the brand he worked so long and hard to create and effect other Star Wars business as well.


No matter how positive you try to paint this, at it's core, you are asking to legalize piracy and strip a person of their creative rights and ownership.since that is what this amounts to. And the result of this is 2 hours of nostalgia watching a film that may potentially look better then the version you most likely already own.


It's so gross and disgusting to me that people will strip some one of their rights for such a stupid reason, and with such potential far reaching negative effect for the industry for so little, I'm at a loss for words. I have a hard time believing that if you were a creator you would be ok with this scenario. Because if you think you would be, you're bullshitting yourselves.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by RobertR

Ever hear of the Harmy versions? The answer is a deafening YES. I see everyone benefiting. People get great quality versions, Lucas can still put out whatever he wants.... win win!

Excuse me but are we now advocating bootleg copies of the films and directing people to where to get them? I think that is against the rules of the forum and illegal.

 

[Ricardo C]

Win lose. Wins for the people who are currently not able to release Star Wars can now profit off it. Lose for Lucas since he wont be able to profit as much off of something he legally owns and created and it will cheapen the brand he worked so long and hard to create and effect other Star Wars business as well.

Fan editors/restorers don't charge for their work. Harmy even refuses to accept donations for buying new hardware, last I heard. Would other studios try to profit by making their own releases? Probably. And the Lucas could stomp them into the ground by putting out the only release actually supervised by the creator, sourced from an 8k scan of the original elements, looking and sounding better than anything else possibly could. What's that? That he has no interest in releasing them? Then surely he couldn't begrudge others their own efforts.

No matter how positive you try to paint this, at it's core, you are asking to legalize piracy and strip a person of their creative rights and ownership.since that is what this amounts to. And the result of this is 2 hours of nostalgia watching a film that may potentially look better then the version you most likely already own.

 

It's so gross and disgusting to me that people will strip some one of their rights for such a stupid reason, and with such potential far reaching negative effect for the industry for so little, I'm at a loss for words. I have a hard time believing that if you were a creator you would be ok with this scenario. Because if you think you would be, you're bullshitting yourselves.

 

 

I don't think you're following the same discussion we are. No one has said that Lucas should be stripped of his property of rights. What we ARE proposing is a reform to an overreaching copyright system that's strayed far from what it originally was meant to accomplish: To encourage the progress of the arts and sciences by letting creators and scientists profit from their creation for a limited amount of time, in exchange for then surrendering their works to the public domain. Copyright was meant to further culture, not to give any one individual exclusive control over it. He can do whatever he wants with his films, except withdraw them. It's such a simple concept, I can only conclude you're being deliberately antagonistic. PS-- I'm not an artist, but I am a software engineer who routinely shares his code with others. If I had an application I no longer had any use for, I would certainly release it under the GPL or BSD licenses, for anyone else to use and improve.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

There is a tendency among the general population to oversimplify copyright into one bundle of rights, whn there are actually two. There are legal rights and moral rights. Moral rights don't get discussed very often in North America, because the focus is primarily on legal rights. However, moral rights are equally important, and are accorded such reverence in Europe. The interesting thing about moral rights is that they cannot be sold; they can only be waived by the rights holder, who is the creator of the copyrighted work. Much has been said about Columbia/Sony's respect for Spielberg and specifically his participation in certain releases. This is what's encompassed by moral rights. Universal will seek and obtain similar participation from Spielberg on Jurassic Park and future Spielberg releases as an acknowledgement of his moral rights with respect to the works. This respect is given because of Spielberg's clout in the industry; if Sony or any other studio were to release one of Spielberg's films without at least consulting him on it, he has the wherewithal to tell the world "don't buy/see this because I haven't approved it." A first-time director has the same moral rights, but because he lacks the clout, no one will listen. The same is true of anyone other than George Lucas who has worked on the Star Wars films, with the possible exception of Harrison Ford, who will not run the risk of alienating GL because of how it may affect any future Indiana Jones projects.


The other "enemy" here is the DMCA and its attendant extension of copyright terms (again, legal, not moral rights). Copyright was always meant to be limited in order to encourage creativity; that's why the Fair Use Doctrine exists. It is trite for me to say that no original ideas exist in the world anymore, but it is true; all the films/books/media we consume today are variations on existing themes. The test is whether such media are indistinguishable from the original product if we're looking at copyright infringement. The problem with the DMCA is simple: copyright on things such as films can be vested in a corporation, since film is a collaborative medium where copyright does not vest in one sole person, and with the DMCA, the term of copyright has been extended to a ridiculous length. If you want to blame anyone for that, blame Disney. Here's where it gets fun: Lucasfilm Ltd bought the copyright to Star Wars back from 20th Century Fox (again, legal) and already owned the copyright to the sequels and prequels and ancillary properties (which is one reason why The Clone Wars was issued through Warner Bros. and not Fox). LFL is a privately held corporation that holds the rights to the Star Wars films for all intents and purposes in perpetuity. The DMCA allows copyright to be renewed to the point where we could potentially all be dead before the original versions of the first three films see the light of day again. I don't think that will be the case, but if returns begin to diminish substantially on the Star Wars franchise (and they very well may with the 3D rereleases), you can bet that LFL will reissue the original films to recoup any perceived losses.


As for me, I'm burnt out on Star Wars, which is why I will not be buying the BDs unless my kids want them.