nwjedidave
Sr Member
regardless of our point of views I still WANT TO SEE THIS !!!
Topher Grace Edits Star Wars Prequels
- Thread starter nwjedidave
- Start date
It's not only the weakest but the worst. I have a more comprehensive rant about this but I don't have the time to get into it right now. The film was such a deviation from the story arcs, character arcs and characters themselves it essentially trashed everything that came before it. It's probably more apparent to folks who, for many years, knew only SW and ESB as canon. I'll leave it at that. We should agree to disagree.
Brent M
Sr Member
I'll gladly agree to disagree, but I also won't sit there and let you act like you know more about Star Wars canon than I do....I've been there from the very beginning in '77. The bottom line is that regardless of what you might think of ROTJ it's still a better film than TPM or AOTC whether you think so or not. We'll leave it there.
Lol.
Gosh, if you were there with me in '77 then good for you. Of course I don't claim to represent the consensus of opinion even from folks in our generation. (BTW: I used to watch "At the Movies" regularly and I typically agreed with Roger Ebert - I was completely baffled when he loved ROTJ. So I clearly don't speak for everybody.)
Was I challenging you about canon knowledge? Perhaps "canon" isn't an appropriate term. I was mainly referring to gross thematic and character divergence. But I've discovered, over the years, that people perceive and appreciate different things out of SW.
If you felt that I insulted you by implying you were younger then I apologize.
I see nothing good in ROTJ. IMO it's not a flawed movie, but a film that's hopelessly and thoroughly corrupted to the core - from the clichéd plot devices, to the embarrassment of merchandising, to the emasculation of every single testosterone-bearing character, to logical issues (like a spirit who can sit on a corporal log and carry long conversations or a droid who wasn't "very good at telling stories" doing story-time for a race of teddy bears or stormtroopers that yell, "freeze" as if they were NYPD ...), to the lousy fight choreography, to the editing style that's completely devoid of nuance or subtext as if it were done by your average high school student and made me lol at dramatic climaxes (the shot where Vader turns his head from left to right denoting his dilemma as Luke is getting zapped by his boss comes to mind)...
... and I haven't even started on thematic arcs and story structure.
I will respect your opinion, but we should agree to disagree.
FWIW it shouldn't surprise you that my personal canon really ended in 1980.
May the Force be with you.
Last edited:
Laspector
Master Member
ROTJ is certainly the weakest of the OT but I don't know if I would say it is worse than the prequels. However I did catch ROTJ on Spike the other week ( I hadn't seen it in a few years) and I will have to say that other than the eye candy it is pretty bad. I literally only watch it now for the VFX. Almost every bit of dialogue in it is cringe worthy.
Setting aside "Fair Use" for just a moment...
Copyrighted material is just that. It is Copy Righted.
If someone owns 1,000 legally purchased VHS copies/DVDs/ Blu rays of the original trilogy, and then decides to rip one to their personal computer hard drive, then he/ she has technically broken Copyright Law.
UNLESS that individual has the express permission from the Copy Right owner to do so, or the Copy Right has expired and the material is now in the public domain, the law was broken.
Is it enforceable? Hardly, at least not on a small scale.
Does it seem "right" or "wrong"? Many here would say that there is nothing ethically WRONG about ripping a DVD or Blu-ray, ESPECIALLY if $$$ has been spent on multiple legal copies.
We may not like it.
We may not agree with it.
We may feel that we have done nothing ethically or morally wrong by ripping a DVD for our own personal use.
At the worst, we may see this as a pecadillo.
But that's just it... we don't own the media, only the medium on which it is distributed.
The media (i.e. picture/ image/ movie/ audio) was never "ours" to begin with.
Now, this gets really wonky when you consider the amount of legally downloaded Copy Righted digital media... technically, you own your storage device, and the RIGHT to view/ listen to that media, but not the media itself.
The Apple iTunes and App stores give you 5 licenses, I believe, for apps, audio, and video purchased through their site. In other words, you can legally install the media onto 5 Apple devices, which makes things easier.... but you still do not OWN the Copy Right to that media.
OK, so what about VCRs/ DVD recordes/ TIVO boxes, etc? Are not these all for the purpose of ALLOWING own to duplicate/ record material, that in most cases is Copy Righted? (<- is this even a term?)
Hello, Fair Use. Studios and corporations make exceptions for the duplication and distribution of their material. It has definitely become an "intent" type question.
For example: If Spike TV shows ROTJ, and I "Tivo" it, I haven't done anything legally wrong yet, correct?
Now what if I have my buddy come over and watch my "Tivo" copy. Anything wrong yet?
And what if I have 2, or 3, or 10, or 100 people come over to watch my recorded ROTJ, free of charge? At what point would would Disney/ 20th Century Fox be upset?
What if I "burn" a copy of my Tivo ROTJ (tricky to do, but just go with me here), and give it to my buddy to take home so he can watch it at his leisure... has Copy Right been broken at this point, EVEN if I don't charge him anything?
=============
My brother went to Full Sail University.
As party of their audio and video editing classes, they were frequently given assignments to add dialgue/ effects/ audio tracks, etc. to popular film and TV shows. The school had to have express consent from each studio to use the Copy Righted material in this way.
Unless Topher had the permission from Disney/ 20th Centrury Fox to do so, he technically broke Copy Right when he ripped the source material, and again when he edited/ spliced the digital media together into a modified work.
Could the argument for Fair Use be made, if he only did this for himself, without the intention to show this to anyone else? Perhaps. But the minute he invited others to view his work, he probably crossed the legal line.
Copyrighted material is just that. It is Copy Righted.
If someone owns 1,000 legally purchased VHS copies/DVDs/ Blu rays of the original trilogy, and then decides to rip one to their personal computer hard drive, then he/ she has technically broken Copyright Law.
UNLESS that individual has the express permission from the Copy Right owner to do so, or the Copy Right has expired and the material is now in the public domain, the law was broken.
Is it enforceable? Hardly, at least not on a small scale.
Does it seem "right" or "wrong"? Many here would say that there is nothing ethically WRONG about ripping a DVD or Blu-ray, ESPECIALLY if $$$ has been spent on multiple legal copies.
We may not like it.
We may not agree with it.
We may feel that we have done nothing ethically or morally wrong by ripping a DVD for our own personal use.
At the worst, we may see this as a pecadillo.
But that's just it... we don't own the media, only the medium on which it is distributed.
The media (i.e. picture/ image/ movie/ audio) was never "ours" to begin with.
Now, this gets really wonky when you consider the amount of legally downloaded Copy Righted digital media... technically, you own your storage device, and the RIGHT to view/ listen to that media, but not the media itself.
The Apple iTunes and App stores give you 5 licenses, I believe, for apps, audio, and video purchased through their site. In other words, you can legally install the media onto 5 Apple devices, which makes things easier.... but you still do not OWN the Copy Right to that media.
OK, so what about VCRs/ DVD recordes/ TIVO boxes, etc? Are not these all for the purpose of ALLOWING own to duplicate/ record material, that in most cases is Copy Righted? (<- is this even a term?)
Hello, Fair Use. Studios and corporations make exceptions for the duplication and distribution of their material. It has definitely become an "intent" type question.
For example: If Spike TV shows ROTJ, and I "Tivo" it, I haven't done anything legally wrong yet, correct?
Now what if I have my buddy come over and watch my "Tivo" copy. Anything wrong yet?
And what if I have 2, or 3, or 10, or 100 people come over to watch my recorded ROTJ, free of charge? At what point would would Disney/ 20th Century Fox be upset?
What if I "burn" a copy of my Tivo ROTJ (tricky to do, but just go with me here), and give it to my buddy to take home so he can watch it at his leisure... has Copy Right been broken at this point, EVEN if I don't charge him anything?
=============
My brother went to Full Sail University.
As party of their audio and video editing classes, they were frequently given assignments to add dialgue/ effects/ audio tracks, etc. to popular film and TV shows. The school had to have express consent from each studio to use the Copy Righted material in this way.
Unless Topher had the permission from Disney/ 20th Centrury Fox to do so, he technically broke Copy Right when he ripped the source material, and again when he edited/ spliced the digital media together into a modified work.
Could the argument for Fair Use be made, if he only did this for himself, without the intention to show this to anyone else? Perhaps. But the minute he invited others to view his work, he probably crossed the legal line.
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
Not sure what you're getting at here aside from highlighting that "fair use" is basically an affirmative defense (which it is), that admits to infringement but claims protection under a statutory exception. So, yes, in a sense, if one claims "fair use," one is admitting to have otherwise infringed the exclusive rights granted to the rights-holder under the Copyright Act...but one is also claiming that the fact that it was "fair use" operates to get one out of trouble.
Fair use, as a legal defense to a claim of infringement, is about a lot more than "intent." The statute itself includes a 4-prong test that requires the analysis of all four prongs, among which only ONE is whether there was any attempt to commercialize the property (bear in mind that the question isn't just "were you trying to make money," but also whether you were actively competing with the rights holder to prevent them from getting money, as in the case of file distribution).
Nope. Time-delaying is legit. That has been decided under caselaw.
Just your buddy? No, probably not. It gets trickier the more people you invite, but as a practical matter, having a "viewing party" is probably fine. It's no different from inviting people over to watch your VHS copy or whatever.
Practically speaking? Probably not until you get to around 50+, but even then, they'd have to be aware of it. Once it happened, they probably wouldn't care because it'll cost them more to pay their attorney to sign a pre-written C&D than it will to ignore you and figure this is a one-time thing. If you start doing free showings for the public at a movie theater you own, it's a different story.
Yes, absolutely. One of the exclusive rights is the right to make copies. Another is the right to distribute copies. You've just violated both of those. Not to mention, your activity is decidedly commercial because your actions have denied Disney a sale they might've made otherwise. You're basically a small-time bootlegger.
Practically speaking, though, Disney is unlikely to try to go after you because it's not worth it, unless you start circulating copies all over to people.The only time that'd change is if they wanted to make an example of an individual, which has proven...somewhat counter productive for other aspects of the entertainment industry like RIAA. Although even in those cases, RIAA went after individuals who shared with large numbers of people, I think, rather than someone who said "Here. I made you a mix-tape," and gave it to their girlfriend.
Again, that gets into the fair use analysis, and likely deals more with the amount of the work that is being copied, rather than the purpose for which it was being copied (here, educational use, which tends to cut in favor of fair use). If you want to look at that differently, imagine if the school bought a single copy of a textbook, and then photocopied it and handed it out to 30 students. Fair use? Hell no, even though it's educational. Same deal with a film.
It's nowhere near that clear-cut. That's the thing about copyright law. So much of it is based on the court's analysis, and it's HIGHLY fact-specific. You often end up analogizing to other cases and decisions, and even then it's not always a slam-dunk.
In this case, I would argue that it is close enough to the "fair use" line that if I were Disney, I wouldn't bother with it.
1. The alleged infringement is so small-scale (from the sound of it) that it's probably going to cost you more to go after him than you could expect to claim in damages. That alone makes it not worthwhile unless you want to make a public example of him, which brings up the second issue.
2. Even if you can show he isn't entitled to a fair use defense, Disney also has to manage the publicity angle on this. They need to cultivate their fan base for these films, particularly when you consider that they'll be putting out a TON of new stuff over the next couple of years. The last thing they need is fans associating "Disney" and "Star Wars" with draconian copyright enforcement practices at a time when they're going to be asking fans for their money. I'm not saying they wouldn't legally -- or even morally -- be in the right, but practically speaking it's probably not the most sound business move. And at the end of the day, it's all about business.
Disney is likely better served -- from a purely practical perspective -- by engaging in benign neglect about things like this, even including widely distributed fan edits of the OT and PT, because they'll be more likely to harm their market by cracking down on the illegal copies than they will be ignoring them. Besides, this is Star Wars fans we're talking about. At least 9 out of 10 fans will buy the next home release of the films even though they've already bought them, like, 8 times already, as long as Disney includes some new features, or -- hope hope -- releases the archival non-SE versions of the OT.
Thanks for the extra info, Solo4114.
I've wondered how movie reviewers, undo the Fair Use guise, can show an hour of a film, commenting all the way, and not get busted by the Film studios. This is especially nasty on the internet (I'm looking at you, Red Letter Media!). And we haven't even jumped into the world of Fair Use as it applies to Parody...
I think of it this way. Imagine if legal counsel was right there with Topher, as he was assembling his cut of the PT. Every single step. At what point does the attorney call foul, and tell him to stop? I imagine it would be very early on, probably when he used a DVD or Blu-Ray ripping software (which has to decode/ "crack" the MPEG file, which in and of itself usually violate the terms of use of the disc).
From Derek Bambauer, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who focuses on internet law and intellectual property:
"The moment you crack DRM (Digital Rights Managemnt) to rip the DVD, you've violated Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. 1201 prohibits circumvention of DRM . . . Some courts have tried to leaven this rather harsh rule, but most have not. While it's typically hard to detect small-scale circumvention, the question is whether bypassing DRM is legal. The statute sets up some minor exceptions, but our ripper doesn't fall into any of them. So, the moment a studio protects the DVD with DRM, it gains both a technical and a legal advantage—ripping is almost certainly unlawful."
(Professor Bambauer is referring to a case in which an individual wants to rip his legally purchased DVDs and Blu-rays to his hard drive).
Can a law officer pull you over and issue a traffic citation for driving 4 to 5 miles over the speed limit? Yes. Were you breaking the law by speeding? Yes. Is he going to bother to enforce it? Probably not.
I've wondered how movie reviewers, undo the Fair Use guise, can show an hour of a film, commenting all the way, and not get busted by the Film studios. This is especially nasty on the internet (I'm looking at you, Red Letter Media!). And we haven't even jumped into the world of Fair Use as it applies to Parody...
I think of it this way. Imagine if legal counsel was right there with Topher, as he was assembling his cut of the PT. Every single step. At what point does the attorney call foul, and tell him to stop? I imagine it would be very early on, probably when he used a DVD or Blu-Ray ripping software (which has to decode/ "crack" the MPEG file, which in and of itself usually violate the terms of use of the disc).
From Derek Bambauer, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who focuses on internet law and intellectual property:
"The moment you crack DRM (Digital Rights Managemnt) to rip the DVD, you've violated Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. 1201 prohibits circumvention of DRM . . . Some courts have tried to leaven this rather harsh rule, but most have not. While it's typically hard to detect small-scale circumvention, the question is whether bypassing DRM is legal. The statute sets up some minor exceptions, but our ripper doesn't fall into any of them. So, the moment a studio protects the DVD with DRM, it gains both a technical and a legal advantage—ripping is almost certainly unlawful."
(Professor Bambauer is referring to a case in which an individual wants to rip his legally purchased DVDs and Blu-rays to his hard drive).
Can a law officer pull you over and issue a traffic citation for driving 4 to 5 miles over the speed limit? Yes. Were you breaking the law by speeding? Yes. Is he going to bother to enforce it? Probably not.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
What type pf permission does a TV Network have to get when a movie is edited for television? What if they aren't removing an entire scene, just bleeping out or editing over profanity? How about back when editing to fit an old 4:3 TV?
Maybe they could just crop jarjar out of the picture, or dub over his dialogue since I consider it worse than profanity.
Maybe they could just crop jarjar out of the picture, or dub over his dialogue since I consider it worse than profanity.
Last edited:
CB2001
Master Member
I know that micdavis is banned, but I don't know if I should find this statement as funny or insulting because of the fact he compares Citizen Kane, a perfect example of filmmaking and storytelling, with the Star Wars prequels, which even some SW fans have said to be worse than the Holiday Special.
Solo4114
Master Member
Red Letter media's use is probably closer to "transformative use" (which includes parody), and basically is abotu changing the "meaning" of the work. That one comes from Acuff Rose, which was where 2 Live Crew got sued for their song "Oh Ugly Woman" by the company that owned Roy Orbison's song "Oh Pretty Woman." 2 Live Crew won because they were engaged in transformative use. That'd be the kind of defense I'd raise for Red Letter Media, but it's anyone's guess whether it'd work.
The stuff re: the DMCA is...special. The DMCA was enacted in, I think, 2000, and it is EXTREMELY strongly worded to basically make it illegal to crack any encryption scheme. To be clear, though, the problem there isn't "making your own copy." It's with cracking the code to prevent the creation of copies. It's a fine hair to split, but the distinction matters under the law. Think of it this way: a court enforcing the language of the DMCA and ONLY the language of the DMCA is ONLY saying "It's illegal to crack the encryption." It is NOT saying "It's illegal to make your own personal copy." Rather, it hasn't addressed the second issue at all.
If memory serves, there's a provision in the Copyright Act which explicitly permits people to make "backup" recordings of audio works that they purchase. I don't recall if this also applies to software, audio-visual works, or literary works, or if any court has extended the doctrine to cover those other types of works, even if the statute itself doesn't do so explicitly.
True. Although, for the most part, enforcement of the Copyright Act is done civilly, rather than criminally, meaning that it's usually the rights-holders themselves, rather than the feds, who bring the case, and they want damages and injunctive relief rather than jail time.
TV networks likely sign license agreements which permit them to both broadcast the work, and to modify it to remove profanity, sex, and/or violence. They avoid this, therefore, by signing contracts with the rights-holders.
And that's the thing about copyright law -- it's a bundle of rights, which can be given away or licensed away. When an entertainment company sells you a DVD or blu-ray with a movie on it, they're giving you a license to view the work repeatedly, and to show it to at least a small-ish number of other people. There isn't (to my knowledge) an exact line past which the number ceases to be acceptable (e.g., 49 people = ok. 50 people = infringement.), though.
Much of copyright law and copyright enforcement is fact-specific, which means making hard-and-fast rules is very very difficult.
Underthecastle
Jr Member
Just put it up on the internet for free. People put "their edits" of copyrighted movies/tv shows up online all the time. For example just like when people do "Abridged/over over dubs/parodies" versions of shows like Dragon Ball Z, Yugioh, Pokemon. Those creators usually get their videos taken down from a hosting site, but none of them jail time. I'm not saying its right and you should support the original content, I'm just saying if you put that much work into it, and can't make money off of it: Throw it up online for us to enjoy!
No matter how good the movie is, I doubt Disney would pick it up for distribution, when they have to sell the original movies. Just let it be an awesome showcase of your editing skills. I don't think you can put it on your resume, but it may get word of mouth and you could get an awesome movie or TV deal out of it.
No matter how good the movie is, I doubt Disney would pick it up for distribution, when they have to sell the original movies. Just let it be an awesome showcase of your editing skills. I don't think you can put it on your resume, but it may get word of mouth and you could get an awesome movie or TV deal out of it.
Last edited:
seelsa73
Sr Member
That's probably exactly the reason. This is Topher Grace we're talking about; he probably thinks that if he's not getting money for it then there's no reason that he should.
Similar threads
