CaptainHowdy.com The #1 Exorcist Fansite Since 1999
- This topic has 11 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
kokomu, there are so many lawsuits associated with The Exorcist that Warner Brothers has a team of lawyers to this day for this film.
On a personal note, I can even relate by the letter I received from WB. They watch everything … carefully.
Yeah ever since the Digital Millennium Content Act, days have become dark for anyone who dares argue “fair use” or even just plain ignorance when it comes to posting shit. I hope they aren’t asking for money Fada.
Tell me more Witch, like what kind of “shit?” Let me know your thoughts on the DMCA and copyright legislation in general. I always find it fascinating to discuss.
Well what I find draconian about the law is that it requires hosting services to disable an account because of a copyright complaint against a website and the hosting service cannot re-enable it until the alleged content is removed without any possibility of appeal. I don’t know what would happen if someone filed a false complaint against a major website like General Motors or something, but I’m sure they host their website outside of the United States. In fact the law hands a definite competitive advantage to foreign hosting services if you ask me. I don’t know what you are being sued for Fada, but I can guarantee that the DMCA made it easier to track you down and force you to remove web content if this is about a website hosted in the USA!
Witch:
My initial response to kokumo in terms of the “personal note” above has confused you and led you to interpret something different.
The “personal note” does not have anything to do with the DMCA in direct relation to me and Warner Brothers. In fact, WB contacted for me other reasons that I cannot divulge. It has nothing to do with the DMCA at all. The word “letter” above is the real paper thing, meaning “certified letter.”
To go a smidgen further about my “personal note” above, I did not imply anything about being “sued” for anything by anyone. I simply stated: “On a personal note, I can even relate by the letter I received from WB. They watch everything … carefully.”
As far as my thoughts about DMCA, it appears that YouTube.com would be the first under direct attack from Draco’s Laws (small offenses/large punishments theorem). I don’t know the rationale of how YouTube.com is so dissimilar to, let’s say, Napster, but apparently they have something else going on to protect them. If DMCA/Draconian Laws are implored, then certainly it would seem YouTube.com would quickly tumble off the face of the internet because that corporation is actually located in the U.S. in San Bruno, California.
All in all, thanks for your thoughts and comments … I do appreciate them. Also, I do notice that you ask others quite often about copyright, permissions, rights, etc. I believe you said you were a software developer and I was wondering why this intrigues you so much. Just curious. 🙂
FB
FB Thanks. I went on a bit of a rant there. I can see that I may had misinterpreted your letter as meaning that you are being “sued”. I have “sued” on the brain these days. The reason is that I am being sued currently for putting a standard psychological test on my personal website for no business use or personal gain. I simply did it as a public service since the test is used to diagnose clinical depression from which I suffer. Who knew it was copyrighted. Suffice it to say the DMCA helped as it was used to block my website until I removed the offending content. It seems that it isn’t enough for this damned company that I removed the test either. They want restitution! Under the circumstances I think I have a right to go on a rant and why or why father do you always write everything in a cryptic way that invites misinterpretation and then get mad when people misinterpret you?!
Witch,
Let me try to break down your reply for my reply:
“Under the circumstances I think I have a right to go on a rant … “
I did not interpret your comment as a “rant.” Whatever your legal and personal situation, you can not make an assumption that we are in the same turbulent boat in reference to my “personal note” above. We are not. Therefore, I would never know the rough seas upon which you are traveling and vice versa.
” … and why or why father do you always write everything in a cryptic way that invites misinterpretation and then get mad when people misinterpret you?!”
On this note, please go back throughout this website since you joined and read your many response postings to me and the many other members on this website. I, nor do I believe others on here, aspire to create “cryptic” posts intended for misinterpretation. Quite frankly, that last part of the sentence is very sophomoric and desperately yearns to grasp at a self-appointed fault of another individual. Am I “mad” because you misinterpreted me? Heavens no!
I guess I am to assume your interest in the copyright arena stems from your lack of following it yourself? I worked for many years in the field of psychological testing instruments. What was the name of the instrument? If it has any validity, I can only be positive that it must have had a copyright posted clearly on the instrument; i.e., MMPI is owned by the University of Minnesota. If you posted something on a website without permission for something like that, you have my deepest sympathies.
FB
Thanks for the input Bowdern. Can I ask why you have my deepest sympathies?
The test I posted was the Beck Depression Inventory.
Listening to the audio commentary tracks on “Beyond the Door” I heard a few different versions of what finally came of the lawsuit between Warner Brothers & the producers of this film. Everyone involved in the commentary tracks agreed a settlement was reached in 1979 as reported in Variety but the details are murky. The suit was filed at the time of the re-release of “The Exorcist” which co-incided with the international successful run of “Beyond the Door” and claimed the Italian film-makers stole elements of the Warner production including: demonic possession, levitation, vomit sprewing, head-spinning, etc. The Italians correctly argued that imagery ranging from a shaft of light spilling from a window is not subject to copyright so a shaft of light spilling out from beyond the door was a-ok. Even something as identifiable as the spinning head is hardly new & had been done on film for decades in everything fron cartoons to “Keystone Cops” comrdies. The lawsuit dragged on for years with Warner unable to secure a decisive victory as it had with the producers of “Abby” & other Italian imitations. The director of “Beyond the Door” claims the settlement in 1979 was not so much a monitary matter but a contractual agreement for him to produce 2 films with Warner Brothers & that no sequel to “Beyond the Door” could be made. Other distributers marketed Mario Bavas nifty “Shock” as “Beyond the Door II” and the tepid slasher “Amok Train” morphed into “Beyond the Door III” but they are completely unrelated to “Beyond the Door” & these companies weren’t bound by settlements to which they were not a party. What other films did Warner target besides “Beyond the Door” & “Abby”?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.