strictx (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} strictx) wrote,@ 2004-05-05 08:20:00 |
|
Star Wars
My ClearPlay rant was cut short. (Just as well.)
Today, The Digital Bits has this lovable little tidbit:
This is great news!
You see, for judges to decide that an activity is a Fair Use, they often weigh most heavily the fourth of the statute's suggested factors: "the effect of the use on the market for the work." With statements like these, Lucasfilm seems to discount all intention of ever participating in the marketplace for the original film & audio portions of the 1977-1983 Star Wars trilogy. I guess we're free to distribute them on P2P networks, right...?
Just a thought.
Update:
Just found Jack Balkin's most recent post, on a NY Times article I saw earlier on Disney & Michael Moore. (Balkin is among the embarassingly large crowd of folks who make me feel really, really dumb in comparison.) He makes a cool point:
Sounds reasonable. Makes me wonder why anyone would link a parent-company name to a distinctive brand (like "The Walt Disney Company," or "Time Warner"): when somebody finds one of your subsidiary's products offensive, he easily associates his distaste with your high-profile parent name. This kind of offense-bleed probably doesn't happen as much with a company named like News Corporation or Viacom.
Say what you will about Fox News; most people wouldn't express their discontent with that network by boycotting TV Guide or the Knicks -- because most people aren't even aware that those high-profile products are News Corp. properties. But it just seems more reasonable to lash out at ABC by "boycotting Disney." After all, the name "Disney" has a very prominent marketplace identification, so it's trivial to identify those products you wish not to buy.
I wonder if in 20 years, this kind of parent-name branding will subside?
My ClearPlay rant was cut short. (Just as well.)
Today, The Digital Bits has this lovable little tidbit:
When asked if the forthcoming DVDs would feature the original theatrical release versions of the trilogy or the Special Editions, Sansweet answered that the films contained on the discs would be the incarnations of the films "as George Lucas sees them today." He reminded people of the 1995 video release of the trilogy that hailed itself as the last time the original theatrical cuts would ever be available. "They weren't kidding," Sansweet noted. |
This is great news!
You see, for judges to decide that an activity is a Fair Use, they often weigh most heavily the fourth of the statute's suggested factors: "the effect of the use on the market for the work." With statements like these, Lucasfilm seems to discount all intention of ever participating in the marketplace for the original film & audio portions of the 1977-1983 Star Wars trilogy. I guess we're free to distribute them on P2P networks, right...?
Just a thought.
Update:
Just found Jack Balkin's most recent post, on a NY Times article I saw earlier on Disney & Michael Moore. (Balkin is among the embarassingly large crowd of folks who make me feel really, really dumb in comparison.) He makes a cool point:
[A]s media become vertically and horizontally integrated, they may become held responsible by politicians and advertisers for *everything* that they do. |
Sounds reasonable. Makes me wonder why anyone would link a parent-company name to a distinctive brand (like "The Walt Disney Company," or "Time Warner"): when somebody finds one of your subsidiary's products offensive, he easily associates his distaste with your high-profile parent name. This kind of offense-bleed probably doesn't happen as much with a company named like News Corporation or Viacom.
Say what you will about Fox News; most people wouldn't express their discontent with that network by boycotting TV Guide or the Knicks -- because most people aren't even aware that those high-profile products are News Corp. properties. But it just seems more reasonable to lash out at ABC by "boycotting Disney." After all, the name "Disney" has a very prominent marketplace identification, so it's trivial to identify those products you wish not to buy.
I wonder if in 20 years, this kind of parent-name branding will subside?
