I'm sticking with this discussion because I'm hoping you'll eventually understand where I'm really coming from.
If his friends in the media were invited as friends one would think they'd respect that friendship - but, as you say these folks were "loosely associated" which kinda contradicts your first paragraph all by itself (are they friends or loose associates?).
Read it again.
I said "
if they were loose associates." It was stated as an example where "substantial number" might be applicable. I'm sorry you didn't get that.
I believe that was not shown to be the case. We are led to believe they were close associates.
These folks were encouraged to write about it (and were perhaps invited only to write about it - as they were "associates" with these sorts of credits), you can say what you'd like regardless of press releases - in today's day and age a blog is a news source (and this kinda story isn't going to make a newspaper, that doesn't make it less newsworthy in some circles.... like the RPF).
It's relevant because a "news story" is one that's held to a certain policy and standard whereas "editorials" or "blogs" are relatively unregulated. That doesn't make it right but I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone trying to define exactly where legal impropriety would have occurred. I'm sorry if you didn't get that.
Whether or not viewers regard blogs as news sources has nothing to do with the legal obligations to which they are held.
Maybe your mistake is believing that I'm trying to support this edit. I truly don't care one whit about the project and I don't think it's even much of an achievement. I do think it's gotten more attention than it deserves. (I comment more about this at the end.) But I'm not certain there's a clearly actionable offense given what I know. If there's something important I don't know please enlighten me.
Read the links - substantial number isn't up to me to decide.
B...but you are the one who asserts that the standard was met. All I did was offer my interpretation and you're free to enlighten me as to why I might be wrong.
I didn't create that number and I'm not going to try to justify it...
I didn't ask you to justify it. I just asked how you came to the conclusion that the standard was met. If it's based on your subjective belief there's nothing wrong with that. Just say so.
I don't see why you feel I'm attacking you. Maybe others are but I'm not. Please read my posts again.
Everything I've read suggested that standard was met... seeing that a trailer was released online, I'm pretty secure in that rational.
Nothing wrong with that. That's all you had to say. (BTW the word you're looking for is "rationale.")
Yes, Disney is so serious about copyright infringement that there's a whole slew of cosplayers wearing "bootleg" costumes dressing up as Stormtroopers, Vaders and the rest that they're actively hunting down and jailing... or using them to promote their product. :lol
Your sarcasm is misguided here. Talk to me. I'm not on the attack.
So you believe that Disney isn't serious about copyright infringement? Is that the point of this statement? Is that really what you believe?
I do not own Disney. I do not work for them. I am not a lawyer. I am merely stating my own personal wishes that they do this...
I never had a problem with you stating your wishes at all. But when you use terms like "copyright infringement" and "fair use" you ought to expect that folks will, at least, want to analyze the plausibility of that position.
I seriously don't understand why there's this want or need to attack/debate a personal view on this.
How did I attack you? I'm seriously inviting a logical discussion on the subject and my questions are in the spirit of academic analysis of the facts.
So yes... I still hope they sue the guy - I think there's been more than enough criteria met to warrant them doing this. ...I don't think it's going to happen, but I wish it would and I still haven't heard anything close to a compelling argument to make me feel anything otherwise.
I can't speak for anybody else but I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. I'm just trying to understand the logic of your position by asking if you could define your terms. It's obviously something you're passionate about but I'm trying to understand the logical portion of your discussion.
If everything you've stated is entirely based on personal sentiment then there's no point to my inquiry. Have at it. But so far I'm not certain that's been made clear.
Kind of a shame that a dislike for the prequel trilogy has blinded some from right/wrong.
I don't dislike the prequels. I think your regard for my input is clouded by your preconceived notions about my objectives. I'm not trying to shoot you down. I'm not even defending the edit which, I sincerely think is overhyped. It's no big trick to edit down a film or film series to its basic plot at a fraction of the length ... it really doesn't take much editing skill at all.
Take Jackson's Lord of the Rings films - there's so much extraneous material I can probably edit all three films down to a lean 44 minute treatment.
) regardless of his celebrity status (or lack there of) I see this the same as the Adywan edits or the "de-specialized" OT. Anyway you slice it I don't see GL or Disney giving a crap about it, the world is too litigious already.
