Miramax C&Ds Kung Fu Movie Reviewer 278
Mirkon writes "When a movie distributor attains rights to a film, it's rather predictable that they go after individuals offering the movie for sale or free. But Miramax took it a step further - as reported by Wired and on the site itself, Mark Pollard of Kung Fu Cinema received a Cease & Desist letter from Miramax concerning a link on Kung Fu Cinema to a movie purchasing site for the Jet Li movie Hero (set to be officially released in North America in April 2004). Fearing Miramax (and thus Disney) and their army of lawyers, Pollard deleted the link, as well as another for Shaolin Soccer, also unreleased in North America. Pollard criticized the studio for not permitting the original version of such films to hit the states, saying "If they own the rights to this film, then this film is not available to U.S. consumers -- period." The EFF also has some comments regarding the fact that Pollard has done nothing wrong in the first place."
I have mixed feelings... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not a fan, but if I was.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I recently bought both DVDs... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The movie realy is good. A simple story told from several view points using a diferrent color scheme for each one. If you can, watch the original and do not go to the US release.
This is why....PAL. (Score:1, Interesting)
Dont you need a PAL capable DVD player?
Re:This is why....PAL. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Failure of the Region System (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Exclusive rights to movies? (Score:4, Interesting)
Since always, actually. It's quite annoying.
Remember how anal-retentive the folks who make "Beanie Babies" were a few years back? They were exercising their import-control rights so strongly that people buying legal, licensed beanies from abroad were having them seized at customs.
Essentially, if someone owns the copyright for a product in this country, they can restrict the importation of any copies of that product from abroad, even if that product was purchased legally (and for which they already received payment).
So, technically, I shouldn't be allowed to buy a copy of West Wing in the UK, even though WB gets a cut of the sale from their UK arm. (of course, now that they finally released it in the US, it doesn't matter).
This has been the case for years, but it's rarely strongly enforced. Personally, I'd love to see something like this go before the courts -- I can see (but don't agree with) companies having an interest in (and rights to) regulate the wholesale importation of goods, but for individual purchases, they should go away.
As for this particular story (which I haven't read yet), if the movies in question were available for legal sale elsewhere, there shouldn't be anything wrong with having a link on the site, even on a US-hosted site for US-based audiences, just because the web's a global medium and they could argue the link was a service for overseas readers.
Re:Not wrong, maybe... (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, I saw a story about that somewhere and I didn't know if I should laugh or cry. They (the movie studios) were bitching that people shouldn't be allowed to have text messaging tools like cell-phones and whatnot in movie theaters because people were leaving the Hulk and similarly lame movies and TM'ing their friends not to see it. They would leave the studio and immediately let a dozen people know that the movie was a bonafide peice of Hulking (sorry) crap-a-roo.
The justification for this idiotic "thought" process? Yep, you guessed it! It's cutting into our profits when people TM other people not to go see a movie! Ohhh... boo-frickin-hoo. At what point does the fact that your product is total shit actually kick in around here anymore? I love how these big interests are so conveniently redefining the rules so that they have a right to steal people's money in the name of "profits".
By the way.. if you're wondering what a crap-a-roo is, it's like a kangaroo, only crappier.
Re:Uh... (Score:1, Interesting)
It's not "their" movie. It is a movie. One to which they happen to have the right of first sale. This means that if they sell a copy to a store in Japan or Hong Kong or wherever, that store has every right to resell that copy of the movie to whomever they want. Normally, in order to prevent this, movie production firms make stores agree to certain conditions, like not selling before a certain date or not shipping outside the country. But unless the store also screens its buyers against agreement to those same conditions, I don't see why Miramax or anyone else should be able to prevent resale of the movie to anyone, anywhere, at any price the buyer and seller can agree to.
It's hardly capitalist oppression that's being objected to here. In fact, copyright as a system has nothing to do with free markets (you'll notice that the Constitutional clause establishing copyright does not say "to promote free markets" but rather "to promote the useful arts and sciences")... And preventing people from buying or selling or even linking to legally produced materials is definitely interference with free markets. Thankfully, Miramax's legal claims here are of dubious value... and unfortunately the site did not feel it worthwhile to challenge them on it.
In fact, because the stated goal of copyright law is to promote the arts and sciences, it is clearly counter-productive for a movie studio to be able to prevent people from having legal access to their products. How does it promote the art if no one is able to experience it? If the movie company is not willing to make their product available in certain places at any price, then most certainly they should not be able to prevent the importation of that product to that place... and some of us might even go a step further and say that they lose the right to exclude others from making copies in those places as well.
I got to see both of those movies a long time ago! (Score:5, Interesting)
Man, this is absolutely incredible. There was a theatrical release for both movies (which both TOTALLY ROCK!... I can only hope that Miramax & Co. don't butcher them!) here in my country a long time ago! Hero [jetli.com] was released here late last year, and Shaolin Soccer not long after if I recall correctly. Now, Shaolin Soccer, and maybe even Hero, have actually even been popping up on the Chinese cable channels (with English subtitles, thank goodness) occasionally. Does a whole lot of good for them to be closing the barn door after the horse has already run around more than half the world for about a year ongoing, don't ya think?
Re:I have mixed feelings... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not wrong, maybe... (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't been sued yet, so I don't know what all the damned expenses are. But I strongly suspect they're bullshit. I wish someone who has stood up to a bully, would post about what all the costs were. Then we can start attacking the parts of the system that are creating these costs.
For great justice...
Re:This is why.... (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as Hero is concerned, it's a fantastic movie, and definitely meant for the big screen, that's why I'm happy and grateful that it was released here (France) in its full version and glory. I saw it three times, the photography is purely brilliant, as is the storytelling, writing, fight choereography (it was refreshing to see someone else than the ubiquitous Yuen Wo-Ping).
Why is it that Miramax is often the last studio promoting good, independent American filmmakers, but butchering the good foreign filmmakers?
The True Case Against Copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a good example of the censorship that copyright produces. Copyright was created to increase the amount of information available to everyone. Instead, it is being used to keep people from accessing information that they would legitimately pay for.
The movies studios want to coerce fans into seeing the movie when and where the studios choose. Rather than allowing true fans to appreciate these movies when and where the fans, the customers, might want, they block their distribution. The movie studios do this whether or not the expect to release this movie in a given market. In the end, this leaves a minority of fans who have the interest and the financial means to see a movie locked out of it.
Whether or not the copyright holders of these movies believe they can make money in a given market, they will refuse to let people watch it. If they cannot make money, there is no incentive. If the information is not distributed, the incentive is not working for society and should not be granted to the rights holders. Either way, the movie studios are blatantly misusing their legal rights. Their legal rights exist to give enough incentive to get information to be disseminated, not to stand as a barrier to the dissemination of that information.
An individual should be able to purchase any movie from any market that person might desire to purchase from. Just because the majority of people in one area like some given thing does not mean everybody has to. Even if the movie is released in the US market, and most Asian movies are not, it still forces the US version on people, which in many cases has parts cut out of it and may be dubbed. An individual may want to watch the movie with subtitles or in its original language or in its original state.
The practice of restricting people by region is racist. Regionalizing is saying that because you live in such and such a country, you will pay such and such a price or watch movies in such and such a language. Because you live in such and such a country, you will know such information. What is the difference between this and bathrooms marked Colored and White? I guess Jack Valenti is more of a good-'ol-boy than we thought.
Re:Similar to Anime Fansubs (Score:3, Interesting)
The most important point here is that anime fansubs are technically illegal
(you're downloading something somebody worked hard for for free, some lawyer proved this is illegal, although I can see the point)
While if you buy a DVD from another region, you're actually spending money that goes to the producers.
In this case you have actually bought a product
Why should this be illegal just because you live somewhere else? It's ridiculous!
If you aren't satisfied with the products offered in your country/region you should be allowed to purchase it somewhere else.
Re:I have mixed feelings... (Score:1, Interesting)
Is this in regards to buying the product in the United States? Is it illegal to go to Hong Kong and buy the legal copies there and then bring them back? Is it illegal to order them from Hong Kong? Or is it only illegal to sell the Hong Kong copies in the United States?
Re:I have mixed feelings... (Score:1, Interesting)