logo Sign In

Class Action lawsuit?!?

Author
Time
In a recent interview posted at CNN.com, George Lucas is quoted as saying: "It's like this is the movie (the Special Edition) I wanted it to be, and I'm sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it."

Setting aside the outright arrogance inherent in that statement... I don't recall the original trilogy EVER being marketed as an unfinished work... not when they were first released, not when they were released on VHS, not even when they were re-released the THX-certified home videos. Lucas has made BILLIONS off a product he now claims he never felt was finished, in his eyes. Nice of him to tell us AFTER we shelled out our money for it.

What's the statue of limitations on false advertising? Any lawyers out there willing to open up a class action lawsuit? I know where you can find a list of clients. ;-)
Author
Time
Lemme see what I can do. I'm a 3rd year law student.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: liondagger
In a recent interview posted at CNN.com, George Lucas is quoted as saying: "It's like this is the movie (the Special Edition) I wanted it to be, and I'm sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it."

Setting aside the outright arrogance inherent in that statement... I don't recall the original trilogy EVER being marketed as an unfinished work... not when they were first released, not when they were released on VHS, not even when they were re-released the THX-certified home videos. Lucas has made BILLIONS off a product he now claims he never felt was finished, in his eyes. Nice of him to tell us AFTER we shelled out our money for it.

What's the statue of limitations on false advertising? Any lawyers out there willing to open up a class action lawsuit? I know where you can find a list of clients. ;-)


That is SO insane that it might actually work...
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Sadly it could. You got my signature already.

Gundark, let us know. I was just trying to perform a google search for it and wasn't able to find anything conclusive.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Well, I was able to find this:

False Advertising

15 USC 1125(a)


(a) Civil action (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which- (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.


Does that help?
But what are we going to get out of Lucas if we all sue him? I mean, if we take money from him, he'll just get really pissed and probably won't release the originals, and I don't think it's legal to do something like MAKE him release the originals...
Author
Time
Well, the definition is one thing. What we really need, though, is the statute of limitations on cases based on false advertising. Effectively, we need to know if a class action lawsuit could be filed on false advertising that happened in the late 70s/early 80s. But there might be a loophole that could be exploited by saying that we were not given information that this advertising was truly "false" until just this past year in which case we wouldn't need to worry about statute of limitation. If it was false advertising back in 77/80/83, we would have had no way of knowing because Lucas never said it or gave any indication of it until just this past year.
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Jaster Mareel
Well, I was able to find this:

False Advertising

15 USC 1125(a)


(a) Civil action (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which- (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.


Does that help?
But what are we going to get out of Lucas if we all sue him? I mean, if we take money from him, he'll just get really pissed and probably won't release the originals, and I don't think it's legal to do something like MAKE him release the originals...


He never will release the originals so why would that matter! I've given up hope on ever owning an official version of those on dvd. The only thing we can do now is be a thorn in lucy's hide!
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: SpecialEditionSaboteur

The only thing we can do now is be a thorn in lucy's hide!


Kind of like the Holiday Special, huh? I wonder how long it will be before Lucas states that he wishes that he could smash every VHS and LD of the original versions?

Keeping The Star Wars Hoiliday Special alive. Once person at a time. Stir, stir, whip, whip, stir, beat, beat.
Author
Time
As fans of the original trilogy, the best we can be is extremely disappointed that Lucas won't release the original trilogy on DVD. Like it or not, he owns the property and can do what he wants with it.

But as CONSUMERS of a product that Lucas marketed, apparently knowing that it was an unfinished work, we should all be OUTRAGED. That is information he withheld from us when selling the films to us in the first place. According to his current interviews... he knowingly sold us faulty merchandise.

The fact that we were satisfied with the merchandise is irrelevant. Someone else may come up with a better analogy, but say I bought a car that was advertised as having a particular engine. Now, I don't know anything about engines, so I trust that the engine in my car is what I was told it was. And I am quite happy with the car. Then years later I discover that the car didn't have the advertised engine at all... shouldn't I be upset, and wouldn't I have grounds to demand recompense?

Aside from the statute of limitations on false advertising claims, I am curious if there's legal precedent or grounds for some kind of action on works of art like motion pictures.
Author
Time
A settlement doesnt neccesarily have to be monetary,

The judge can rule that he MUST release the original trilogyon DVD.

///
Fine, mister Lucas, while you're at it why dont you replace Lando with will smith?
Author
Time
This is mighty interesting!!

For one how can something titled "The Definitive Edition" (as the Laserdisc release was called) be anything else but the full and completed vision/work of the one who releases it to the consumer market. The word "definitive" says it all folks! We could sue his ass off for false advertising. Come on now Lucas, bring us the OT - or we´ll sue your ass to kingdom come!

peace,

Rebelscum
peace,

Rebelscum
Author
Time
I'm sorry but this is a pretty idiotic idea.

No films have ever been marketed with a promise to make them immutable. If they actually advertised the movie as an uneditable inmutable work of art that they promise never to alter, you *might* have an argument, but that's not the case.

The case is that the artist in this case owns his work, and he can do as he pleases. There is no law that in our current system that forces him to release his material in a version to your or my liking. In our capitalist system, this is driven by market forces, and it just so happens that most people don't really mind the changes and are going to buy whatever version is available.

I don't mind people wanting the original versions, I can respect that. But to actually entertain the idea of suing the creator and owner of the work with a class action lawsuit is the height of arrogance and stupidity. If you are really thinking about this as a serious idea, you need to take a little break and really analyse what the heck is going on wrong in your life that would have made you entertain this as a realistic course of action.
Author
Time
Hallelujah! While I"m sure your post will get blasted by the fan boy nation, I stand up and applaud you for saying it. It amuses me to no end to come here and read these border line psychotic/pathetic rants. If any of you had the money required to hire a and maintain a lawyer to start what any judge in the country would consider to be a frivolous lawsuit, perhaps you should find some other way to use it. My advice would be getting out of the basement, and joining the real world with the rest of us.

Brias
www.suicidalwombat.com
Author
Time
First of all, I never suggested, much less stated, that Lucas can be forced to release the original trilogy. In fact, I state in quite plain English that that he "can do what he wants with it," which isn't all that different from your statement that "he can do as he pleases."

Second, from a purely technical standpoint, the original Star Wars has never been released on home video, as the earliest home video versions are from the re-release (with Episode IV in the title)... to say nothing about the alterations made to the sound to adapt to technical advances in home theater systems for the later releases.

Finally, I guess I keep forgetting that not everyone is familiar with the basic rules of netiquette (or perhaps they don't read things in their entirety... too many words, perhaps...? Talk about "arrogance and stupidity"! Anyway, I've digressed...) But while I am certainly curious about the legal ground from a hypothetical standpoint, the "winky" at the end of my post was meant to suggest that my tongue was quite firmly in my cheek.
Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: liondagger

Finally, I guess I keep forgetting that not everyone is familiar with the basic rules of netiquette (or perhaps they don't read things in their entirety... too many words, perhaps...? Talk about "arrogance and stupidity"! Anyway, I've digressed...) But while I am certainly curious about the legal ground from a hypothetical standpoint, the "winky" at the end of my post was meant to suggest that my tongue was quite firmly in my cheek.


I guess your "winky" didn't get the job done, because several people took you seriously in their replies and even agreed with your absurd premise. In addition, you admit you are curious about the legal ground for this, it's very simple and I'll save you time ... THERE's NO BASIS FOR IT.

The fact that you were taken seriously and had people praising the idea is indeed a sad commentary on our society.

Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: ElCapitanAmerica
The case is that the artist in this case owns his work, and he can do as he pleases.

No, he doesn't. The entity known as Lucasfilm in fact owns this work, and were he to step away from the company (which isn't bloody likely, but work with me here), he would have no control over the work, due to the nearly nonexistent moral rights available to artists under the current Copyright Act regime. This is why Hollywood directors are currently fighting the ClearPlay case; once a film is surrendered to its producer, the other artists involved in its creation are pretty much @ the mercy of that entity. Lucas can only change his films because he OWNS THE COMPANY.
Quote

There is no law that in our current system that forces him to release his material in a version to your or my liking. In our capitalist system, this is driven by market forces, and it just so happens that most people don't really mind the changes and are going to buy whatever version is available.

While your first point is valid, your second is wildly presumptive. We'll see in week or so how much people don't really mind the changes. Given that we haven't seen any news announcements about the SW Trilogy DVDs having broken any sales records (a la The Passion), your argument simply doesn't hold water.

Quote

I don't mind people wanting the original versions, I can respect that. But to actually entertain the idea of suing the creator and owner of the work with a class action lawsuit is the height of arrogance and stupidity. If you are really thinking about this as a serious idea, you need to take a little break and really analyse what the heck is going on wrong in your life that would have made you entertain this as a realistic course of action.


Hey, it's only an idea, and given that I'm the only person on this forum even remotely qualified to determine whether such a case would be feasible, you can take your ball and go home; we don't want to play with you or anyone like you.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
CaptainDumbass, I wasn't taking it seriously either. I entertained the notion knowing that it was a joke (the winky) and just wanted to find out what legal ground there was. Mostly from a curiosity standpoint since I'm taking a bizlaw class right now and wanted to find out what I could.

Gundark wasn't serious either. I've known the guy for over a year and a half and he just looks at questions like this as a chance to further research his future profession and grill professors.

Before you jump to conclusions, unearth the facts. Right now, you appear to be the biggest ass in this thread because you made an assumption about what was going on (and we all know what happens when you assume...).
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
That's right, Bossk; assume nothing. Just like I didn't assume that Lucas was kidding when he said that from his point of view, the original versions didn't exist anymore, or that he was finished tweaking in 1997, or... the list could go on forever.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: ElCapitanAmerica
Quote

Originally posted by: liondagger

In addition, you admit you are curious about the legal ground for this, it's very simple and I'll save you time ... THERE's NO BASIS FOR IT.




Jeez, dude... relax. I mean, why the vehemence?

And you'll forgive me if I choose to listen to more qualified experts on this matter.

But if this ever did wind up in a courtroom, I will be sure to not include your name in the class.



NOTE: That was a "smiley," indicating my last statement was delivered with humor.
Author
Time
Bossk, you made me laugh, thanks.

I love the "winky" defense, I can already see what a disastrous lawyer you're going to be. Please don't pull degrees in the discussion, because it's making you look even more ridiculous.

Thing is, I'm not saying you guys were willing to seriously file a lawsuit, but you were seriously thinking this was either a great or doable idea. What makes this even fantastic, is that some of you are supposed to be law students!!!

Look at your replies, please, I know you're going to say "just kidding", but everybody knows better.


Gundar's reply was more intelligent;

That my argument doesn't hold water, you can't say that either because as you point out, we don't know the sales numbers. But even then, we all know that more than likely these DVDs are going to be bought by huge numbers of people, and there's nothing that indicates that a significant number of these people won't buy them because they're not the original versions.

If you believe these modified versions are going to result in greatly reduced DVD sales, then it's up to you to prove your point. Nothing indicates the general public even knows there are great differences between the versions in the first place! Geez, we have people here complaining about the sound mix! That should tell you that these are the type of fans, that while dedicated and attentive to detail, are not representative of the general public.

But we'll see ...
Author
Time
Capitan,

There you go assuming again. I'm not going into law. I'm taking Bizlaw with the emphasis being on "Biz" or "business".

To emphasize, since you don't seem to get the point and think you know what I meant more than I do, I never wanted to start a class action lawsuit. I liked the idea so that I could research it and use it as a basis for asking my instructor a question or two about the legitimacy of such a thing (unfortunately, my instructor had a family emergency and wasn't in class to ask). He likes hypotheticals, as do I. How often do you have a chance to bring up a hypothetical like "can fans sue a director to make a copy of his movie available that has already been previously released and is part of the public consciousness?" How often does that chance come up?

Do you really think I would want to spend my money to file a class action lawsuit against a man who could have so many lawyers tackle it and quash it faster than Miyagi's grape?

So, unless you actually are me and I just don't know it thereby giving you some special insight into my thought process, I have three words for you... Get a clue.

"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
Author
Time
Amen, Bossk. CAN I GET AN AMEN?

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: ElCapitanAmerica
Bossk, you made me laugh, thanks.

I love the "winky" defense, I can already see what a disastrous lawyer you're going to be. Please don't pull degrees in the discussion, because it's making you look even more ridiculous.

Thing is, I'm not saying you guys were willing to seriously file a lawsuit, but you were seriously thinking this was either a great or doable idea. What makes this even fantastic, is that some of you are supposed to be law students!!!

Look at your replies, please, I know you're going to say "just kidding", but everybody knows better.


Gundar's reply was more intelligent;

That my argument doesn't hold water, you can't say that either because as you point out, we don't know the sales numbers. But even then, we all know that more than likely these DVDs are going to be bought by huge numbers of people, and there's nothing that indicates that a significant number of these people won't buy them because they're not the original versions.

If you believe these modified versions are going to result in greatly reduced DVD sales, then it's up to you to prove your point. Nothing indicates the general public even knows there are great differences between the versions in the first place! Geez, we have people here complaining about the sound mix! That should tell you that these are the type of fans, that while dedicated and attentive to detail, are not representative of the general public.

But we'll see ...