#21 Posted on 13.7.06 0637.37 Reposted on: 13.7.13 0639.39
Originally posted by StaggerLeeWhen they showed it on network TV, and it was edited, I am quite sure James Cameron still cashed the check the network sent him. Not sure how that is different, if he is still getting PAID, and its reaching a broader audience, isnt it beneficial to him?
Again, the point is that when it's aired on television, they asked for, and recieved, the consent of Cameron and the studio. These guys in Utah weren't asking anyone's permission, and I don't believe they were making it totally clear that these were edited versions of the films. What this comes down to is that people were making changes to another person's property without consent. Cameron and the studio own Titanic the same way you own your car. Maybe you wouldn't mind if someone came to your house and changed your car around. Hell, you might even prefer the changes they made. That's your right. But if someone did it to my car, I might not be as thrilled, and it would be against the law for someone to make that change without asking me for my permission.
Since: 3.5.03 From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey
Since last post: 7 days Last activity: 1 hour
#24 Posted on 16.7.06 1013.46 Reposted on: 16.7.13 1014.05
Originally posted by Tenken347Ah. I thought they were just billing their entire store as "family friendly" and weren't making it obvious that any cuts to the films were done on their end.
Okay, so they may not be explicitly passing off their own work as the work of others. However, they're still making money by making unauthorized changes to someone else's work and then selling/renting it.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE