How is this evil "illegal activity" that you two are complaining about harming Disney in any way? The site was not a profit-generating business. It was an exchange for fans to share custom projects with one another to enhance their appreciation and enjoyment of products they had already legally purchased.

Disney is, as they have a history of doing, abusing the law to crack down on their own consumers for "copyright violations" that are in no way harmful to Disney's interests.

If I legally purchase a product from Disney, I do indeed have the right to alter that product in any way I see fit. In Disney's eyes, if I bought one of their DVDs and wrote my name on the front cover in marker to identify it as belonging to me, that would be a violation of their sacred copyright and a litigious offense.

As you may recall, Disney was an early and enthusiastic supporter of Circuit City's DivX format over DVD. They don't even want you watching one of their damn movies without notifying them and obtaining permission in advance.

You can play devil's advocate all you want and cite the letter of the law, but the intent and purpose of the law are not being honored with these frivilous lawsuits and Cease & Desist orders. Nor is Disney acting in a manner likely to endear them to their own consumer base.

Companies need to agressively enforce their copyrights or they could lose them.

Danol's calling himself Cool Rider. That's hillarious!

Absolutely correct. If Disney allows any for-profit company to use their trademarked characters, it could weaken their case in the future if they are challenged. A doctor's office use of these characters may not sond like a big deal, but it could be held against them later since they are not a non-profit. And without doubt, DVDCA was for profit. It is unfortunate, but I think instead of blaming Disney, blame lawyers that twist and turn the laws of this country to pad their wallets.

^^ I don't think DVDCA was for profit at all. If it was, it was never meant to be from the get go. Read more in the 'Covers & Cases Forum.' Matt(webmaster of DVDCA) has explained much of it over there.

My childhood pediatrician used to talk like Donald Duck to the kids to get them to trust him. Disney should take him to court and sue him for everything he's got. Protect their characters and all.

to add to what Josh Z mentions, this doesn't hurt Disney in any way. It only helps them. What! Is he talking crazy? No. In creating my Disney set, I bought numerous books, memorabilia and what not for images and information. I bought about 5 oversized HC books, which aren't cheap, and some other little stuff totaling close to $100. They made money off of me, no doubt. But what about everyone else?

I went out and bought about 6 of the Disney movies on DVD that I had no intention of owning, just so I can have the whole matching collection on my shelf. I also plan on finishing buying the entire dvd catalog to do this as well. I have received numerous emails praising my work and from people that have done the SAME EXACT THING. I never thought I would buy, so & so film, but I just had to have it in my collection with your matching covers, so I went out and bought it today.

So in effect, I have in some small part generated sales for Disney on dvd. Do I get a thanks? Get real. So the way they are treating this is absurd. It is a hobby and I don't get paid for it. I do it for all the fellow Disney fans that drop a line and say they like my work.

Cmon now. Please don't be so naive. Were they registered as a non-profit organization? No. They chargeed for credits, they charged for a printing service, they charged for a lot of stuff.

If it wasn't a profit-generating business, there would be no charges for anything.

And please don't tell me that the money just went to pay for server space and the like. It really doesn't matter. Like I said on page 2, the moment you start charging for anything, you are going to get nailed eventually.

Michael- it may be a hobby for you and thats great. But for the folks at DVDCoverArt, it was more than a hobby the moment they started charging people for servcies.

From my understanding the printing service is a whole other business seperate from DVDCA. DVDCA doesn't see any of that money. That is all on dvd-depot.

The lawyers SHOULD be all over DVD-Depot, charging $4 per print. THAT is outrageous and I've always been against that from the get go. There was definitely profit being made there.

Michael- believe me I agree with you. I think that customizing covers is no big deal. I also think your covers are great, and I would like to grab a set for my collection. All I was saying is that Disney is protecting their copyrights, and since DVDCA was a pay-for-usage site, they were bound to get nailed. As I said, I don't really blame the company, I blame its lawyers that have advanced things in this country to such an asanine degree. SOmeone that is selling bootlegs should not be able to say "Hey this doctor in Peoria has MM on his walls and he gets paid!" It is an absurd bridge that the legal system has created, but unfortunately we need to live in it.

Also, I was not at all insinuating that you personally made any cake on your covers. They are clearly made out of love.

Sorry if I confused you.

That is your opinion. But the copyright owners disagree. And it is THEIR position that counts here. It is their property and they have the right to limit who can use their property.

(edited to add)
There seems to be this misconception that all non-Disney usage of Disney property has been eradicated from the 'net or that Disney has blanketed "cease and desist" orders to every fan site that dares mention anything Disney-related...

...the truth is that there are many Disney fan sites that use copyrighted material and likenesses and haven't been shut down by Disney. Rather than harrumph and complain that Disney is being unfair, I suggest those who would like to see DVDCA continue seek out those sites and find out how they were able to use Disney material. I think you'll find the reasons surprising.

I don't recall complaining about any illegal activity. Stating a legal opinion isn't a complaint. When I opine that DVDCA was operating an illegal enterprise, that's not a complaint, but an honest observation based upon an understanding of the legal framework involved. I did complain about something else, though: ignorant personal attacks based on a failure to understand the law.

Quote:

Disney is, as they have a history of doing, abusing the law to crack down on their own consumers for "copyright violations" that are in no way harmful to Disney's interests.

So any use of legal rights (which you apparently don't even really understand in the first place, anyway) constitutes an "abuse"?

Quote:

If I legally purchase a product from Disney, I do indeed have the right to alter that product in any way I see fit.

Really? Care to cite some statutes and case law to back that up? Anyway, the reality is that it's really a big maybe. The Copyright Act gives copyright holders the exclusive right to create derivative works, and a wide range of alterations could be considered derivative works. Still, you might have a viable fair use defense, depending on the circumstances, and especially if the alterations were made solely for non-commercial personal use. However, distribution of such a derivative work, especially in a purely commercial method that involves the exchange of money as a prerequiste to acquisition, would almost certainly destroy any fair use defense.

Your bold declarations of your rights are unfounded, to say the least.

Quote:

In Disney's eyes, if I bought one of their DVDs and wrote my name on the front cover in marker to identify it as belonging to me, that would be a violation of their sacred copyright and a litigious offense.

Really? So Disney goes around and sues people over this? Or are you just fantasizing this? Give up the pointless straw man arguments.

Quote:

As you may recall, Disney was an early and enthusiastic supporter of Circuit City's DivX format over DVD. They don't even want you watching one of their damn movies without notifying them and obtaining permission in advance.

Really? A Disney executive told you this? Or are you just making it up? Again, spare me the straw men.

Quote:

You can play devil's advocate all you want and cite the letter of the law, but the intent and purpose of the law are not being honored with these frivilous lawsuits and Cease & Desist orders.

Really? Did you do a lot of research into the "intent and purpose" of the law? Do you even know what laws are involved in this discussion and how they function? Or are you just making declarations based upon how you want the law to be?

DJ

Nice post. I agree that Disney is being unfairly villified. The problem is for every nice guy that makes a cool cover, there is some guy that tries to take that work of charity and make a dime on it.

The artwork available on DVDCoverArt was not distributed with any prerequisite exchange of money. Anyone who participated in the community and uploaded their own cover creations could obtain the credits to download other covers.

We understand that. BUT DVDCA did accept money, or more to the point, charged a fee to download.

The fee was not a requirement. The site was established so that fans with a common interest could exchange projects amonst themselves, and in doing so (by uploading their own covers) would not have to pay a fee. The credit system, if anything, was established to discourage bootleggers from coming in and downloading every cover on the site.

I am going to assume that no one who has participated in this thread is actually employed by Disney corporate management or is a member of their legal counsel. If so, I feel you have an obligation to speak up and announce yourself.

Assuming that's not the case, the group of you are merely playing devil's advocate for a situation that does not personally affect you. Probably you wouldn't have an interest in custom cover art even if there were no pending lawsuits involved. So I would like to ask this: Setting aside all devil's advocate arguments, how do you as a consumer personally feel about a corporate entity specifically targeting and punishing fellow consumers such as yourselves for an action that in no way harmed them, therefore setting a precedent further limiting your rights to usage of products that you have legally purchased?

Let's keep all the armchair Lionel Hutz legal analysis out of this. How far does Disney have to go before they actually offend you with how aggressive and unnecessary their tactics have become?

How you can keep legal analysis out of a thread that is based on the law is beyond me.

If it was up to me, I would be running around and stealing whatever I wanted. Unfortunately, thats not how our legal system works.

DVDCA never proved to be worth my effort anyway... no loss to me.

Oh for crying out loud.

Look, DVDCA, for whatever reason, whether it was for profit or for site management, exchanged moneys for product.

That's it. End of story. It doesn't matter if DVDCA was "improving" upon Disney products, nor does it matter if DVDCA, in the grand scheme of things, was relatively harmless.

The law is the law, it's been cited here, and hemming and hawing that "it's unfair" or "screw Di$ney" just means that you're ignoring the straight-up, smack in your face reality that you can't do what DVDCA did.

I'm not a devil's advocate here; I make covers. I had made a set of covers I made available at MSCL.com, to replace the god-awful set that was released in the box set, but it eventually made it's way onto Ebay.

I had to make a decision; do I keep them online and possibly have this continue, which could MAYBE point the eyes of Buena Vista directly at MSCL.com, or just let it go?

I asked to have them pulled because I knew that ANY money exchanged ANYWHERE could get someone in trouble, and all roads led back to MSCL.com. And as a mod at that site that cared whether or not they got in trouble, I wouldn't let it happen.

Morale of the story? BV owns the rights, I don't, and it was chancey to publically release them. I did what I felt was best.

Did it suck? YES. But I'm not bitching or saying screw Disney and their damn laws.

Play by the rules or get a C&D letter. DVDCA got the latter.

Here's what you're really asking...

"Setting aside all devil's advocate arguments, how do you as a DVD cover art artist or cover art buyer personally feel about a corporate entity specifically targeting and punishing fellow cover artists and collectors such as yourselves for an action that you feel that in no way harmed them, therefore setting a precedent further limiting your assumed rights to continue to make or obtain cover art that you had or have have illegally purchased?"

Do you get it now, because your "rights" to these covers are all you're really talking about?

If the fees were NOT a requirement, then all of this "have to recoup the cost of bandwidth" was a load of hooey. If everyone simply uploaded coverart to exchange, then how would the bandwidth costs be covered?


Sorry, but just because I don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean that I'm "playing devil's advocate". My disagreement with your assertion is genuine. Your opinion is not based on the law.

Do you even know what rights you have when you purchased that DVD? Do you know that there are websites not affiliated with Disney that host Disney-related content and haven't been asked to shut-down or remove that content? Do you know why DVDCA has been singled out?


Ummm, forced trailers on their DVDs was offensive to me. Disney taking action to protect their rights under the law is not offensive to me.

DVD Cover Art is refusing to refund people's money now for unused credits? It's like they're asking for it.

Nope. No refunds, mostly because - and I'm quoting Matt - "as much as I'd like to offer refunds to everyone, I simply cannot as I've never made a dime off the site."

From the DVDCA forum:

Now this is interesting to me because I was under the impression that the money collected before the site went down was for the cost of bandwidth. That money, and I'm assuming, has now been diverted into a legal fund.

However, DV-Depot (the business DVDCA is attached to) is offering a discount to members for items on their site (there are limits).

Full post by Matt is here.

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm correcting bold and baseless legal assertions. My interest is doing away with persistent myths about the US Copyright Act. I don't need to have a dog in the Disney v. DVDCA fight in order to justify my posts. Your attempts to personalize your argument with those who disagree with you on the law simply serves to shine a spotlight on how desperately you needed to deflect the situation before you had to actually admit you have no clue what you're talking about when you make claims about the law.

Quote:

Setting aside all devil's advocate arguments, how do you as a consumer personally feel about a corporate entity specifically targeting and punishing fellow consumers such as yourselves for an action that in no way harmed them,

Assuming that no harm ever resulted could ever actually be determined, I'd still have no problem with it. The presence of actual harm is not prequisite to the exercise of rights either under the Copyright Act or in my moral judgment. The violation of rights without permission is harm enough. Further, if Disney did nothing, legal harm could result: they could be estopped from bringing a claim at some later date should some "real" harm that even Josh Z would acknowledge (assuming you could ever acknowledge harm to Disney) arise out of DVDCA's practices.

Quote:

therefore setting a precedent further limiting your rights to usage of products that you have legally purchased?

This sets no precedent, least of all because no court decision has come down on the matter. Still, the unauthorized distribution of unauthorized derivative works was illegal long before DVDCA was a glint in anyone's eye. This is nothing new. No right to create and distribute derivative works without authorization existed before this situation arose, so Disney has put no limit on any right.

Quote:

Let's keep all the armchair Lionel Hutz legal analysis out of this.

...Says the man who has, until this point, profferred non-stop erroneous legal assertions.

Quote:

How far does Disney have to go before they actually offend you with how aggressive and unnecessary their tactics have become?

If Disney was not within their legal rights, their tactics would offend me. Until that point is reached, I don't see the proper exercise of legal rights as "abuse."

Indeed, I find it just a tad ironic that you rail against one entity for "abuse" by properly exercising their legal rights while you bemoan the terrible fate of another entity who has trampled upon the legal rights of many others at will.

DJ

Face it, when DVDCoverArt hooked up with a retailer and started charging for their product, they put their dick on the chopping block. It was probably there before, but once money started changing hands, they became an even bigger target. Whether or not it was a prerequisite, and they allowed people to "trade" original covers for downloads is beside the point. They accepted money. To download, and to print.

Is this really that different than, say, printing up T-shirts? If I'm going to set up a website, and start "selling" T-shirts with movie posters on them, I'd better have permission from whoever owns the trademarks, or I'm going to get my ass sued. It's really as simple as that.

Damn right, I've got to the point of emailing ppl before a bid asking if it's genuine or not.

This is an excellent analogy. Even if you printed up some shirts and traded them, you would probably be in hot water.