Well, technically there are laws about false advertising, which it really was, but I guess it's not a big enough deal to get anyone in charge to do anything about it. The dvd of THX1138 is actually worse when it comes to misrepresenting what's in the package. "The movie has been restored!" Huh? Restored to what?

They never advertised it as anything but "The Star Wars Trilogy," IIRC, but they did acknowledge in interviews/press releases that it would be the Special Editions and not the originals.

HOWEVER, I don't think they ever said that additional changes were being made.  When the Hayden-in-ROTJ shot was leaked a few weeks early, most people thought it was a fake, and that Lucas would never do something like that.  Obviously, they were wrong.

And despite me being a purist, I hate the idea of bringing the "law" into it, especially as in your last paragraph which is just ridiculous.

I remember buying the '04 set because I saw the '97 SE in the theatres, owned them on VHS and while not ideal, I could live w/ those changes.  But I read some things on the internet a few days before I purchased the set that had unnerved me (Hayden?!?  Coloring and sound issues?!?) but I, like many others, thought that it was some sort of a cruel joke.  I picked up the set because they were selling fast in my area but left it unopened...a friend had bought the set and was going to keep them either way, so he watched the movies and confirmed my deepest, darkest fears LOL

I returned the set for a full refund and never looked back; I didn't even bother with the GOUT because I knew that would be crap too.  It's amazing how much SW sucks now and how little of a business sense Luca$ has.  I know people may argue that fact and say that he made millions off of the current business model, but I firmly believe that he could make even more if he did things right and offered the seemingly limitless choices that are available w/ the SW franchise...and satisfy what ALL of the fans across the spectrum want...

I guess all the pan/scan/editing disclaimers etc. is something the industry agreed to do as self-regulating, but Lucas is above that. A situation like this is just too retarded to get the law involved, you can't make it illegal to be douchey. (The press for the blu-ray box is just the latest example. "Hey, nerds! Pre-order this thing without even knowing what's on it!")

What about a film that underwent severe cuts due to censorship upon its initial release?  By your law, if the studio is able to restore the cuts and release the film uncensored, they would have to include the censored version too, since that's what appeared in theaters on its initial run.  That would just cause too many headaches.

What if you've already released the original theatrical cut, then you have a director's cut you want to release?  By your law, you'd have to include the theatrical cut with the director's cut, even if the theatrical cut had had a prior release.

The government doesn't need to be involved in everything.  A law such as that would cause a lot more headaches than you seem to anticipate.

And a law requiring them to utilize the full capacity of the disc?  That's stupid.  That limits a lot of what you can do with extra features, commentaries, picture-in-picture commentaries, lossless audio mixes, etc.  Plus, most films don't need the full capacity of the disc.  Requiring them to use it is wasteful.

Oh dear God, I wish that were the case.

That's another thing that's a big gray area when it comes to film, though - with so many people that work on it, who owns the copyright?  The director?  The screenwriter?  The producer?  The film studio?

But double-dipping is just economics.  It makes the studio more money, so why wouldn't they do that?  If consumers buy into it, that's their problem, but I see no reason why it should be illegal.

ChainsawAsh said:

Oh dear God, I wish that were the case.

That's another thing that's a big gray area when it comes to film, though - with so many people that work on it, who owns the copyright?  The director?  The screenwriter?  The producer?  The film studio?

 I believe that in most cases, the studio owns the copywrite to the film itself, and except in special cases, to the characters and situations as well.

I disagree with any law that tells someone what they must do with their intellectual property. As much as I enjoyed the 1985 pro wrestling comedy "Body Slam" I don't presume that the owners of that piece of entertainment are obligated to preserve it or present it to me in any high quality format, if at all.

However, I think a rule that packaging must honestly proclaim what is in it, both in food and DVDs is a fair rule, especially in the case of "Star Wars" where LFL has intentionally created so much public confusion.