Draugluin wrote:
They LEGALLY purchased his works, so they can do whatever they want with them, within the boundaries of the contract of course. If the Pub didn't have permission, then the owners of the (SZ) have completely legal reasons for suing them.
I did not dispute that they had the right to sue. My point, is that the pub represents no real threat to SZ, and they are just being used as a pawn is disputes over rights between SZ and other film makers (Jackson & co as I understand). This is a case of a company targeting small and vulnerable businesses guilty of clearly trivial breaches of copyright, so that they can show in court that they're maintaining their claim to the rights.
Draugluin wrote:
A FOR PROFIT company trying to make money? GASP! Who'd have known that that's how the world works.
Oh for...Stop throwing that around as though its an insult. OF COURSE I know they're a for Profit company (
as is GW). How stupid do you think I am? But thats not whats at issue here is it? Theres no suggestion that the SZ company might actually profit from the pubs use of the IP etc. They're not offering a licence or other agreement beneficial for both sides. So profit doesn't come into it - its SZ targeting a small company who can't afford to defend themselves; as part of an ongoing feud with other Hollywood types.
Draugluin wrote:
Maybe the only business' to target are British. I haven't heard of a single LotR related pub in the US. It's not American culture that steals it, it's Hollywood.
Well yes, I was mainly talking about Hollywood. I didn't mean American Culture per se; rather that Hollywood constantly takes events from the history of foreign nations and imposes American Culture on it. Thats what I was getting at. It shouldn't be such of a big deal, but because Hollywood is Global and is in a uniquely dominant position, the
Americanised Hollywood Point Of View is what most people encounter in media, and that has a distorting effect on how people everywhere perceive what is quite often recent history.
Draugluin wrote:
All they're trying to do is make money (again, GASP!) and they can take whatever story they want.
Ah, the "because I can" argument.
Draugluin wrote:
Besides, the only WW2 movie that had an American in it that I know of who wasn't actually there was The Great Escape. And I've seen ALOT of WW2 movies.
Apparently not. Take U571 for instance. Hollywood took real historical events, in which the Royal Navy captured a U-Boat and some documents which contributed to the British breaking the German Enigma code; and instead made American sailors the stars of the film. No British serviceman in sight. Or The Bridge On The River Kwai. Historically, Allied POWs (mostly British and Commonwealth) were forced to construct the Burma railway and bridges in poor conditions. The bridge in question was sabotaged by the POW's several times before being destroyed by Allied aerial bombing. In the film; an American is made the star and after escaping the camp, is sent back to destroy the bridge in a Commando raid. And the senior British officer in the camp, is replaced with a fictional Officer and portrayed as a colloberator (completely contradicting history).
{ PORTAL }
Print view
Top
"Leave Sauron to me."
