logo Sign In

Original Trilogy.com in the Press — Page 2

Author
Time
I think a fighting fund isn't needed...yet.

I also think that if it did hit the fan, that funds could be rallied fairly quickly as it would get a lot of media coverage and would attract a lot more people if anything to the cause.
Author
Time
Well, legally, after the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (or whatever it's called) if there's any bit of an actual DVD rip in your edit at all, it's illegal. and even under the old rules, you can back up your OWN copy, but distributing that copy, even not-for-profit, is illegal. Even if you own the original, proving that you backed it up yourself would become a sticking point.

That pretty much covers most everything here. But like it's been said--Lucasfilm recognizes a)these aren't any financial threat, at least not here, where they're NOT being sold (hopefully that's still true, I heard word that people here via PM have been selling trilogy sets for 20 bucks, which I KNOW is more than the cost of 3 blank DVD's, some cases and covers) and they're not eating into profits, since Lucasfilm has ceased to sell the versions being captured from Laserdisc and b) it'd be silly to spend time and money going after people who will, if this becomes public, have a HUGE groundswell of support from most other onlookers. It's just not worth the effort.

But legally, there's not much ground to stand on, if they wanted to press the issue. Luckily, they don't.
The Best Show You've Never Heard
Author
Time
The Bizzle, the DMCA says it's illegal to break the copyright protection on a DVD, but it's also legal to make back up copies. How your able to accomplish this without breaking the first rule is something the law makers haven't figured out yet, and is one of the reasons why the DMCA is bad legislation. In the end though there is the 'Fair Use' clause which can make activities which reuse media legitimate. Prooving Fair Use is at the moment cost prohibitive for most folks which is why there is a Free Culture community who are tryint to figure out ways to change the system. It is ok to reuse DVD material, there just are very few cases at the moment. One group currently getting away with DVD modification is http://www.cleanfilms.com/, these folks buy a DVD then edit out the stuff they don't like then rent the modified DVD to their registered members. Artisticly there is more merit in what happens here then what these folks do. Unfortuantely more people want to watch a movie without the word shit then see a film thematically altered. go figure... So that's a positive. This registered renting method is something this community could move towards.

There is also a campaign to revise copyright laws in the area of Orphanded Works. (http://eldred.cc/) "Orphan works are — broadly speaking — any copyrighted works where the rights holder is hard to find." The Holiday Special and maybe the OT could fall in this category. LFL/FOX will not distribute them anymore, so maybe they could somehow be considered part of the public domain. -s-t-r-e-t-c-h-

Money causes conflict. There are groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/) who are combating these battles. If you want to support the evolution of laws in the digital age, these folks are someone to think about.
none

Author
Time
illegal to break the copyright protection on a DVD, but it's also legal to make back up copies.


I'm pretty sure it doesn't--because in order to make a back-up copy of your DVD, you have to break the copyright protection. I remember a couple years ago reading many a heated debate at the Home Theater Forum about how stupid it was that this government wouldnt' allow the consumers to protect their purchase by keeping a copy of their DVD for their OWN purpose. The only reason the cleanfilms people are getting around it is because it "protects the children" and that's about it. It's hypocritical politics exploiting a loophole. However, I doubt that line of reasoning would work when it comes to "I wanted original model and matte work in Star Wars." if push came to shove.

But yeah, it's not ever going to get that far, so you don't need a legal fund. And if it did get that far, the legal fund would be useless, because it's LUCASFILM.
The Best Show You've Never Heard
Author
Time
"I'm pretty sure it doesn't--because in order to make a back-up copy of your DVD, you have to break the copyright protection."

Actually, it does, in so many words - which is why the law causes so many problems. The DMCA says you cannot remove or circumvent copy protection.

By banning all acts of circumvention, and all technologies and tools that can be used for circumvention, section 1201 grants to copyright owners the power to unilaterally eliminate the public’s fair use rights. Already, the music industry has begun deploying "copy-protected CDs" that promise to curtail consumers’ ability to make legitimate, personal copies of music they have purchased.Section 1201 Jeopardizes Fair Use.


Here's another good site.

The studios used this to go after DVDXCopy, which would remove the protection, make a copy, and then put the protection on the copy. Unfortunately, the fact that it broke the encryption in the first place was enough gave the studios enough legal standing to take the company down.

Obviously, this doesn't apply to laserdiscs, because they are incompatible with macrovision, but I was surprised to see Best Buy carry macrovision-breaker boxes, which would obviously be used to make VHS-to-VHS or DVD-to-VHS copies.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Best Buy carries them because there isn't a controversy about VHS to VHS or DVD to VHS conversions. With all the smoke blowing the studios do about piracy, their methods of combating it are woefully ass backwards. They understand that if they produce a title, some group in East Asia is going to counterfeit and sell copies of it. They also understand that if they do NOT produce a title, someone else will from whatever material is available (which is the case on this site). The DMCA does forbid circumventing copy protection algorithms but no one really cares except IP lawyers and their clients. The reason they are suing their customers and making such a hoopla about it is fear-they are afraid of a perceived threat to their outdated business models in which they control all aspects of distribution. The same basic problem happened when the VCR came about-the studios thought it would bankrupt them, and it did the opposite when they grasped the potential the new technology had to offer. It's really no different now except the end user has much more control, and that is what they don't want.
Anyway, for LFL to sue you, they would first have to know who you are, and where you live. Somehow, I seriously doubt anyone here would volunteer that info.
Author
Time
"Best Buy carries them because there isn't a controversy about VHS to VHS or DVD to VHS conversions."

But it's still illegal by the DMCA. That's the only point I was making. I don't see Best Buy trying to be a legal maverick.

"Anyway, for LFL to sue you, they would first have to know who you are, and where you live. Somehow, I seriously doubt anyone here would volunteer that info."

I'm not going to name names, but someone I know involved in one of these projects was just recently contacted by a news organization, and he has no idea how they got his information. You'd be surprised how much of your information can be had without you having to volunteer it.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
I wonder if macrovision ever has prevented one single act of piracy, IMO all it's done is to annoy legitimate users when it created interference in many video projectors and displays.

But would that make a MV-breaker box legal ?


Author
Time
I keep my personal info out of databases as much as possible (which is how they find you), so if they want to try and locate/ID me, good luck. If you can tell me my own real name and home address, I'll pay you $50. Some things to avoid:

Listed phone numbers
Change of address forms
Voter registration forms
Giving out your home address/social security number/home phone when not legally required
Public group registrations (NRA, political parties, etc)
Product "warranty" cards (one of the WORST scams perpetuated by corporations)
Dealing with companies who sell your info

This is just a starter list and is not exhaustive.


Author
Time
"But would that make a MV-breaker box legal ?"

Nope - especially under DMCA.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi "But would that make a MV-breaker box legal ?"

Nope - especially under DMCA.

But I think that MV-breaker boxes sometime are sold as 'video signal cleaners', and some dvd players are manufactured with the MV disabled or not even implemented.


Author
Time
I don't doubt that - but notice how the name is changed.

Besides, there's all sorts of ways to skirt laws and regulations, but just because you can buy it in a store doesn't prove it is legal. Hell, a person may unknowingly buy it because they think it is a "video signal cleaners", and never be aware that it removes the macrovision signal.

I remember when Radio Shack was being sued by some guy who was spied upon by someone who had bought or built some device with parts from Radio Shack (I don't recall details - it was a long time ago.) Radio Shack eventually won, showing that they legally sold many devices that could easily be used for illegal activities as well. This is the same reasoning that the peer networks have been using: They admit that there is illegal sharing of copyrighted material, but that is not the sole use of the peer networks, thus they should be allowed to exist. It's kinda like saying cars and guns should be illegal, because they are used in bank robberies. While this is true, these are not the intended or sole use or cars or guns, and getting rid of them would either be throwing the baby out with the bath water (cars), or really wouldn't diminish the number of bank robberies (most bank robberies are accomplished with notes and the threat of violence.)

Not to mention the fact that many foreign DVD players disable macrovision, or at least allow it to be done after-market, but I can assure you: when it was made know that the earlier, very expensive Sony players did this many moons ago, that was a BIG deal. It's just that, at this point, it's a little too widespread for the studios to effectively deal with. That's why they went so vigorously after the kid who broke the CSS protection code. He wanted to post it on the Internet as "free speech", but the studios said it went directly against the DCMA. In the end, it was already so widespread across the internet that the damage was done, and the courts decided to drop it.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi I don't doubt that - but notice how the name is changed.

Besides, there's all sorts of ways to skirt laws and regulations, but just because you can buy it in a store doesn't prove it is legal. Hell, a person may unknowingly buy it because they think it is a "video signal cleaners", and never be aware that it removes the macrovision signal.

All I want is to clean up my video signal so I can watch my legally bought movies with my legal dvd player on my legal video projector without any strange interference that I have no way of knowing where it is coming from.
Author
Time
What I presume was an earlier form of Macrovision used to drive me nuts with rental tapes. (This was back in the days of a simple RF connection to the tv.) Used to happen most often with CBS/Fox titles. I would return the tape to the rental store and complain it was impossible to watch the movie, and they would pop it into their machine and it played back fine! Either it was really incompatible with several makes of VHS machines, or the sneaky bastards had a video stabalizer in their store setup.
Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Within the DVD spec there appears to be three different forms of Macrovision ACP (Analogue Copy Protection) - Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3.

I'm not sure what the differences are between them or the relevance of this reply to SilverWook's post

Save London’s Curzon Soho Cinema

Author
Time
I do know that an early form of this protection maintained the same level throughout the film, which was easily thwarted by adjusting the brightness of your tv. As a result of this, it is now variable, which explains why the picture grows lighter and darker throughout the film. Whether or not this difference is one of the three forms, I could not say.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Whoever said "hit the fan" - LOL.

Anyway, I was wondering, in the history of this site, has there ever been a Lucasfilm spy on here? Imagine some dude asking for a copy of the O-OT, getting their address PM'ed to them, then blabbing to Lucasfilm about it...
MTFBWY. Always.

http://www.myspace.com/red_ajax
Author
Time
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if LFL employees hung out here. There have to be a few who are sympathetic to the cause. Pity they probably strip search anybody who works in the film vaults.
Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
I managed to snag my copy from the recycling bin in time (I just got back from vacation). Is anyone interested in seeing a scan of this article as it appeared in the Tribune? I actually couldn't scan the whole thing... This was a half-page article on the back page of the Movies section.
Author
Time
Yes, please Knolly.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Knolly
I managed to snag my copy from the recycling bin in time (I just got back from vacation). Is anyone interested in seeing a scan of this article as it appeared in the Tribune? I actually couldn't scan the whole thing... This was a half-page article on the back page of the Movies section.


That would be great!
Author
Time
ZOMG! If us Star Wars Geeks can debate this endlessly about copy-protection and the grey areas of the law, just IMAGINE how a case like one of ours would go down in court! Lollerstein.
sigs are for teh gheys
Author
Time
*bump*

Today's sunday newspaper editions, would be the most likely be the place for an article mentioning the OT.com, anyone see any?
none
Author
Time
Weird press skq3w:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/movies/bal-to.starwars05may05,0,6751722.story?coll=bal-artslife-movies

The move is a direct response to popular demand, according to Lucasfilm spokesman John Singh. "The biggest question we've ever gotten from Star Wars fans is, 'When are you going to release the originals?' A Web site called originaltrilogy.com, in the last year alone, gathered 72,000 signatures asking for their release. We love that passion."



Somethings odd with the wording/paraphrasing but if John Singh is saying incorrect things about OT.com, they're either using this as a marketing ploy (which they figure no one will check to see if the facts are correct), or they just don't care or they are watching and we'll have to wait to see how their lackies respond.
none