bboisvert

When is that argument ever successful (or even used) in a legal dispute?

If I start selling R&B bootlegs (without a watermark) on eBay and I'm taken to court... what's my defense?

"Look, I realize that this is copyrighted material that is owned by other individuals. But look -- there's no watermark on my copies. I used a print that I found buried in some guy's backyard in Yemen. Obviously the FBI and Interpol arrested me in error -- I've broken no laws."

????

Again, if the watermark was any sort of actual deterrant (legal or otherwise), everyone would be doing it. Universal would add a watermark to their upcoming SCARFACE DVD. Lucas would put them all over STAR WARS DVDs. etc. Having a watermark (a) doesn't prevent copies and (b) doesn't make existing copies with or without the watermark any more or less illegal. It serves absolutely no purpose.

I've yet to see any logical, legal, or other reason why that damn bug has to pop up on my screen every 5 minutes. I think people are just 'living with it' because they consider this to be simple TV cartoons that aren't worthy of anything better. If LORD OF THE RINGS or INDIANA JONES had a watermark on it, people would be going absolutely apesh|t.

NearysEpiphany

I remember DVDTalk 4-5 years ago before the "we don't give a **** about presentation" crowd had discovered the personal computer. I guess that's what happens with mass consumer acceptance.

Ahh, the memories.

KTIK

"The watermark enables us to trace the source of the video masters to prevent future copyright infringement and piracy, and to protect the Jay Ward legacy.
-E-mail posted on Page two

So I guess it's so the consumer will know they are getting the actual DVDs, and not bootlegs.

bboisvert

That idea doesn't float either. How does a watermark let me know that I'm not getting a bootleg. Can't someone make a bootleg from the watermarked source?

El-Kabong

So if indeed you dont give a rats ass about presentation, then why dont you stick with VHS? I mean, the prices on tapes are dropping through the floor - since the picture quality is meaningless to you, this should be a golden time.

bboisvert

I think you are completely misreading his post. He's making the same complaint you are -- that OTHERS don't seem to care about presentation.

El-Kabong

Sorry - my bad. Upon rereading, I did totally misread that. That's what you get when you're on your 7th 13 hour day at work. The mind tends to go. . . .

Jboone

I find the altered titles equal to the watermark.


I still think they both are wrong. Thisthread has had very little bitching about the altered titles.

El-Kabong

Well, it's time for a quick thread bump for Season Two: Watermark Boogaloo. Looks like I'm passing on the new boxed set because Sony fucked the set up again with that stupid watermark.

In fact you know, I think I'll go download the series and send the company a tea-bag in protest. While I hate piracy, if I have to live with a defective product, I'm sure as hell not going to pay for it.

Oh well. I guess I'll spend this weeks DVD money on Star Trek or something.

El-Kabong

Oh, and because it's buried deep on page 4 or 5, here's a repost of screen-caps of the changed title and the watermark:

badger1997

I got it for $25 from Target today. Could care less about the watermarks, this series is too good to pass up. It's not like if I passed up on this I could get the season sets elsewhere and myself and my family enjoys them too much to miss. But like they say, different strokes.

digidoh

I think the problem lies with Ward Productions' use of the terms 'bootleggers' and 'piracy'. As I noted back in August of '03, GoodTimes Home Video released a 5-volume VHS set of 16 episodes of The Bullwinkle Show, as well as a two-hour compilation of Fractured Fairy Tales. Both were unauthorized, but presumably GoodTimes did their homework, so there had to be some public domain loophole. Ward Productions is characterizing GoodTimes (and other companies?) as bootleggers. And as bboisvert wrote, the watermark prevents another budget company from using the superior copy as a source.

What bothers me more than the watermark, is the music has been changed, because the composer (and forgive me for not knowing his name) raised a fuss about not being paid for previous video releases. A legitimate complaint, but the redubbed music throws me off. I was still glad to see the banned Dudley Do-Right episode, Stokey the Bear.

dvd-4-life

Any reviews for season #2?

Scott27

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/siterevi...ReleaseID=3603

obscurelabel

I have never seen a complete explanation of why the music was replaced. A lawsuit was filed by Fred Steiner (or his estate) vs. Disney (distributors of R&B VHS in the 90s) and Ward productions in 1999, at issue was payment for use of music on the VHS releases. The thing is, the Steiner music is what's on the DVDs unless I'm mistaken, the Frank Comstock music from the first season is missing. I know the Comstock music was used on the VHS (I have a couple of them), perhaps replacing the Steiner music where it should have been used, and use of the Steiner music on the DVD is to make amends??? I have no idea. I do not like at all the disingenous comments put out by the DVD producers about the second season music being Jay Ward's favorite, which may or may not be true, but the replacement was certainly because of legal/financial reasons.

I have also never seen a complete explanation as to why the titles were replaced. A vague comment about General Mills owning the title "Rocky and his Friends" is all I could find.

I also miss the end title "shooting gallery" sequence (it used music by Comstock I believe).

It would be great if anyone knows a definitive answer for these changes.

By the way, I got the first set based on fond recollections of seeing the show in re-runs in the late 60s and early 70s. I found that, for me, a little R&B goes a long way and I probably won't be getting the second season (or any subsequent) sets. The early shows with the different animation style and the heavy cold war vibe were the most interesting for me.

digidoh

I found some more on this, but still not a definitive answer. Comstock had a suit going in 1992. See the last post for 04-25-04.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...ock+bullwinkle

obscurelabel

Sincerely, I appreciate the link. But that was my post as well. I had done some googling back in April and didn't remember every bit of the results when I posted today.

Well, maybe one day we'll find out the complete story ...

RevKarl

Be thankful they couldn't change Bullwinkle's color. At one point before his death, Jay Ward decided that the moose "stood out better" when colored orange, rather than brown.

WarriorPrincess

I agree with all of this. It is just like with what they did to beauty and the beast - they made it so bright that the entire film is altered. Some don't see the problem. I see it as a travesty. That story is told through light and shadow as much as through words and songs, and when you brighten the whole thing up to the point where the beast is in full light the entire time, as is the west wing, the mood is ruined.

Some say, it's only a cartoon, who cares? I CARE. This is a piece of art, it's not 'just a cartoon'. Would you care if Angel or Buffy were shown super-bright so the monsters are no longer hidden in the shadows? I sure would. Would you care if greedo shot first? I sure would. It alters the mood. Would you care if your most coveted film were essentially bleached on dvd? I sure would.

These are examples of why I agree - no alterations are acceptable.

And they're certainly not acceptable when I pay to own a licensed copy. Now if they had a way for the watermark to show up only on illegal copies, or some such thing, no problem at all.

And I care about Rocky and Bullwinkle, too. I won't buy these dvds until they remove the watermark, and I'll tell them so.