Economically, it does not make sense to me for Disney to assemble a $500 an hour lawyer team to go after a site that probably makes $200,000 a year (and I think that the number is very optimistic). And it is not like Disney is going to start selling alternate covers on their own soon. I think it is more of a matter of principle. Money could be a substantial reason in part of that principle. I could see that there might be unjust enrichment concerns here (these people are making SOME money from my property). But, it would be more of an irritation/annoyance to Disney than a purely economic reasoning.

P.S., I know that I am not really refuting your points but I have typed quite a few sentences and don't feel like deleting them and rewrite.

Exactly how are they in the forefront of websites? Last time I logged on to the Internet and checked out sites like yahoo.com and MSN.com and other popular sites, I don't exactly see dvdcoverart.com advertising their services. If you find it, it's more than likely because you are interested in custom covers, you spent some time researching it online, and you found it by digging. I call that underground.

I do think they should be a donation site, however. Would that have avoided the problem? I doubt it, since I have heard of Disney attacking people who use their logos and characters for no monetary gain whatsoever.

But those 300 people did nothing for me either unless you count criticism, good or bad.

I'm not arguing that they are wrong. They have every right to do whatever they want. I'm just miffed as you put it. It'll blow over.

Quite frankly, I think Fox got it right. Ban the scan and let people have fun making customs.

If we had just stopped taking scans a long time ago when we had that closed door discussion (and it was a close vote - the parameters we wound up requiring for them is what let them stay), this probably might never have happened - then again .... we are talking about the mouse

Did they reverse their stance?

The site is down again right now (probably removing some other studio), but I downloaded a few Fox covers last week, including the insert for "From Hell". Prior to this Disney fiasco, the site's FAQ only referenced the exclusion of Lucasfilm and ADV.

Well, I am glad that I replaced all of my snappers with nice covers.

I can understand Disney's position, but do not think that it makes huge difference in regards to bootlegs. It isn't like they are trading actual dvd content. It may only help someone who wants covers for their bootlegs. But, couldn't they just copy it from a friend or somewhere else off the net?

It is BS. I hope dvdCA comes back, but if not, I would like a refund for the credits that I had just purchased.

I second that. I had just bought 100 credits to use in d/l'ing a bunch of 007 covers and such.

anyone know why it is down again?

Well shit, I was wondering what was up with DVDCA. I still have about 50 credits left too.

I didn't know about a ban on Lucasfilm. No wonder there wasn't any custom Star Wars covers.

To quote and chance a quote from Drop Dead Gorgeous:

I hate Eisner for:

A) Running Roy Disney OUT of the business his family created.
B) Causing delay for my damn Pinhead figures.
C) Existing.

Heil Mickey Mouse! Heil Mickey Mouse!

Disney, as an institution, can be more long-lived, whereas Lucas is only one person and will ultimately be prevented by nature from inflicting his ham-handed revisionism on his work.

Definitely due to legal action. Their link now redirects you to their forums (which are still open) with the following explanation:

SITE STATUS here - plus: forum reopened, for now
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
official party line: the site is currently closed while we deal with any pending legal issues. We cannot say anything else, other than we hope to have the, resolved soon and the site back online ASAP.


We'd like to leave the forum open even while the site is closed, but if people do not behave we'll have no choice but to close it again.

Thanks for your patience and cooperation

Anyone got any of these to share? I'd love to see what they looked like. BT?

An interesting update.

So it turns out that the person who ratted the site out to Disney was a user calling himself "Cool Rider", who had a history of demanding that other site users create custom cover art for the movies in his collection. When they didn't have the ability or interest to meet his needs in what he perceived as a timely fashion (i.e. the next day), he started arguments on the site's forums until he was asked to stop by the forum moderators. That's when he threw a fit and started sending emails to the home video departments of all the major studios.

Here's the fun part. "Cool Rider" is none other than "Danol" (aka "Hob", aka "Bionic Manaus"). I think some people here might remember him.

^^ Actually I think it was decided it wasn't him. There is another user that has a target on their back, no one is saying who it is though. CR/danol was too easy of a target. Oh he has been banned from dvdtalk once, and dvdcoverart twice. You would think one would learn to follow some rules.

which ones? The matching disney set?

I just read that and was about to come back and edit my post. Still interesting that Danol continues to make a nuisance of himself somewhere.

He's also been banned from AVSForum twice under different user names. Anyone here read the Home Theater Forum and can comment about whether he's been there as well?

Wait... people are now spelling "Disney" with a $ sign? When did that start?

Even if it is true, so what? What DVDCoverArt does appears to impose on the rights of copyright holders. If this is true, then it is an illegal activity and needed to cease.

I think it's been spelled Di$ney since shortly after Michael Ei$ner became CEO. Don't forget that Di$ney was the principal lobbyist for the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended all copyrights by 20 years so that Di$ney could keep the copyright on Mickey Mouse for another 20 years (at which point, presumably Di$ney will lobby for another copyright extension).

So then, this so-called "Di$ney" (as you call it) must be the only entertainment conglomerate interested in making money?




Those bastards!

Nope. $ony as well!

What about Twentieth $entury Fock$? Dreamwork$? Jame$ Cameron? Yoram Globu$?

Don't forget $pielberg.

Oh, shut up. It's people like you who are destroying a consumer's right to Fair Use.

So by pointing out that DVDCA violates copyright law, sracer is somehow "destroying" Fair Use "rights"? Huh? Do you even understand what you're saying, or are you just throwing out legalistic catchphrases?

There is no Fair Use "right" for the unauthorized use of copyrighted images to make custom covers and distribute those images on a fee-based network. No one, not even sracer, is destroying such a right, as it doesn't exist in the first place.

If someone needs to shut up, it's probably not the person correctly stating and promoting the actual law (as opposed to personally attacking other members based on fantasy misconceptions)...

DJ