SansFin
-
Posts
10,146 -
Joined
-
Days Won
29
Posts posted by SansFin
-
-
I do not know why so many are fixated on the issue of photographs.
The original post of the thread was a full, new article which had been written for a specific site and paid for by them. The notation which replaced it stated it was removed by request of the copyright holder.
A later post which had contained a photograph was replaced by a notation also but it was a simple reminder of copyright concerns and it did not state that it was removed by request.
I believe it may have caused great confusion if the thread had been deleted in toto. Some may have assumed that it was the nature of the actress' movies which had led to its deletion.
I believe it may have been considered inappropriate to have a thread open when the original post could not be seen because that is the root and core of the thread and many will refer to it in attempts to keep thread from drifting..
I believe the TCM Moderator deserves apologies and consolations as receiving a cease-and-desist letter from one of the world's largest media corporations' legal team had to be a terrible start for the day.
-
-
> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote}
> I only wish I could speak the language.
To do well in Odessa you should learn both Russian and Ukrainian and you must learn to read Cyrillic also.
> Sometimes I get very romantic about Russia -- samovars, KNIGHT WITHOUT ARMOUR, sleigh rides in the snow, lithe dancing soldiers, caviar, blinis on a lazy Sunday morning, ANASTASIA, Yul Brynner....Yul Brynner...Yul Brynner...
You are romantic for Tsarist Russia. We must buy you a kovsh and bundle you into a time machine.
This is Stagecoach's view of modern Odessa:
This is a different view which is familiar to us:
-
Anne Shirley or Frances Dee?
-
> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}
> Wasn't that a movie already, with Mamie Van Doren?
>
> "The college goes wild, the battle of the sex kittens begins..."
I was thinking of a kitten which many Americans wished to adopt: Brigitte Bardot as she appeared in *Babette Goes to War* (1959).
I believe there is a scene where she runs into a wall.
I was inspired also by this:
-
> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}
> they could have said this is causing a great deal of distress, so we're taking it down, as we are allowed to.
Reductio ad absurdum
A person could decide to firebomb a city hall and have paid-supporters, anarchists and idlers stage a corresponding riot. The person could claim the act was motivated by a kitten which the city animal shelter let be adopted being objectified, ridiculed and mistreated in a video in which the kitten runs into a wall because it was chasing the spot from a laser pointer even although the video was created months after they began organizing their violence.
Should YouTube then remove all videos showing cats?
-
> {quote:title=SonOfUniversalHorror wrote:}{quote}
> Michael's comment in that thread simply explained the reasons why the content was deleted by him.
> He never stated it was at the request of any copyright holder. I saw nothing to indicate such a thing.
The very first line of his comment which replaced your original post of: Oct 18, 2012 9:02 AM is:
"The contents of this post have been deleted at the request of the copyright holder."
http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?threadID=166788&start=15&tstart=15
-
> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote}
> Some of my favorite characters in film are those in service who are more implacable, stodgy and prejudiced than their upper crust masters.
I find those are the most believable also. The servants had to be much more straight-laced than their masters. The worst that an aristocrat might suffer from displaying a wild mood is a look-down-the-nose from an older relative. A servant doing precisely the same thing could be turned out of their job which was also their home and their reputation would make it difficult or impossible for them to find new employment.
A maid such as in *Cluny Brown* (1946) would have been sent back to her uncle quite quickly.
-
> {quote:title=Filmbluff wrote:}{quote}
> I have always felt that there are enough people who want a good selection of quality viewing that this kind of service would be sustainable...
I may be cynical but I have great faith in corporate greed. Such a service will be available as soon as it becomes viable. I am sure all cable channels regularly run analyses regarding options outside their normal venue.
Even HBO has decided it can not now offer streaming as a standalone product because of the low revenue and fear of backlash from carriers.
-
> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}
> It may be their position to allow free speech, but there is no obligation for it to do so.
There was no legal obligation for them to take it down or for them to leave it on their site.
-
> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}
> In this case of "stolen"?
I am sorry to say I do not understand your use of quotation marks.
Intellectual property has an owner who can chose when and where it is used. For it to be placed elsewhere without that choice is theft.
It is the same as if a taxi was taken from a company. Recovery soon after in good condition does not negate the loss of income which might have been earned had it not been used by an unauthorized person. Posting an entire article deprives the original site of hits and a reduced hit rate negatively affects their advertising return.
We would have no movies if there were not proper copyright laws to ensure creators the right to profit in some way by their work.
-
> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}
> But the irony is that YouTube refused to take down a film that caused riots, and worse; but they would take down a copyrighted movie clip, or photo, or something like that, in a second, if it infringed on someone's economic rights!
Both decisions support rights.
The copyright holder has the right to chose where and when their property is copied. To refuse to honor requests to remove material violates a copyright holder's rights.
To remove the other video you mentioned would have violated YouTube's position regarding individuals' right to free speech.
-
> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote}
> I think this was a purposeful choice, but I didn't feel that it entirely jibed with Parker's style as an actor.
I have always liked him in the kind of roles where he does well within his normal daily duties and he is confused and uncomfortable with any matter which is in even the slightest degree unusual.
This is also shown well in *Indiscreet* (1958). He is an official whose efficiency has raised him in the ranks to a significant position within the government. His preference for conformity is aptly shown when he states that he is often asked if he wishes to hear a secret and he always replies: "No" and that he has never regretted it. It is by this made plain that his comfort zone is order and routine and that he believes secrets constitute disruptive excitement. His sister-in-law's secret throws his normal mode of behavior out of the window and he feels he is not up to the task.
That his nature includes giving orders and having them obeyed is shown by the ease with which he includes formal conditions when he tells his wife to stay out of his office: "unless you are announced and I am there". His reaction is absolutely classic befuddled-and-beset Cecil Parker when his wife shushes him.
I see this in his performance in *23 Paces to Baker Street* (1956). He calmly and efficiently carries out all tasks normally associated with his being a butler and he anticipates and properly handles situations arising from same. He become disoriented when forced into the role of co-detective.
I believe that when he is following the woman he clearly demonstrates his intelligence by taking the best opportunity to purchase a camera and to use the stairs in order to hopefully place himself in front of her so that he might take a good picture of her. His later hesitancy to contribute his thoughts to a discussion shows he feels there is a proper time and place for a butler to use his intelligence and he fears his comments may be unwarranted or unwelcome because it goes against tradition.
I saw also that his failure to follow the woman to her home weighed heavily on him. It is as if his failing to do what was asked of him is a new experience and it makes him uneasy that he is acting outside his normal quiet efficiency.
I believe this is classic fish-out-of-water which he did so very well.
> Hathaway would have done better to create a maze of the outside world, rather than retreating to the apartment all the time, though perhaps he was going for the cloistered suffocation of Van's life, exhibited most by his home.
It may be that I am cynical that I believe it may have been budget concerns. Location filming at night must be expensive as it requires transporting and setting up equipment within a small frame of time and while paying higher wages than are experienced by shooting on a sound stage during days.
> Vera was great.
As she always is!
-
I believe the problem is one of cost.
The owners of the movies license them to TCM on the basis of being aired only.
They would charge much more for a license to stream the movies also. It would take a very large number of streaming customers to recoup those costs.
There may also be conflicts as some owners may have given other companies exclusive rights to stream their movies.
I believe the industry is constantly changing and we may see such streaming in the future but I hold out little hope that it will be possible soon.
-
> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote}
> It seems all kinds of people read these forums.
It may be that I am cynical but I doubt it was happenstance of an involved person reading these forums. Copyrights provide the basis of income for many and so they are proactive in searching for violations. Google allows searching for an entire paragraph of text by placing it within quotes in the search box.
> I can't imagine what objection the copyright holder to anything connected to Ms. Kristal would have, as the image or text wouldn't have BEEN posted for financial gain or exploitation.
It is the same as if a person steals your auto in that it does not matter whether they wished to profit from the theft by making it into a taxi or if they merely wished a joy ride. Posting an entire article deprived the copyright holder of hits to their site and that negatively affected their income.
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}
> The author and fact gatherer of the original article might still be trying to sell the article to individual media, such as newspapers, magazines, and commercial websites.
I believe that is often the situation.
It appears to me that in this instance the copyright holder is BBC. They paid the author for the work and they recoup that expense by placement of advertising on their site. No one will visit their site if the articles are posted elsewhere.
-
> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}
> But... I didn't really explore the thread in question and so don't understand why just the photo in question could not have been removed rather than the whole thread.
I have no 'inside information' concerning the action but I suspect the thread was locked because the original post in its entirety was a violation of existing law and this forum's Code of Conduct. It was not a matter of a photograph or two but an entire page of text and the basis for the entire thread.
-
> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}
> There's a word for the rights holder who complained. Starts with an A, ends with a hole.
People who do not want their property stolen deserve to be called names?
-
> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}
> As I understand it, if one wants to post written material from other sources, one must give attribution, a link and "quote' no more than four paragraphs of material.
That agrees with the standard practices which most websites have adopted because it meets the laws' protections while allowing 'fair use' of material.
-
I wish very much I could watch *The Pure Hell of St. Trinian's* (1960) as I imagine his reactions to the antics of the fourth-formers are priceless.
-
Where would you go to watch old movies if you lived during the 1920s?
-
> {quote:title=SueSueApplegate wrote:}{quote}
> I also enjoyed Cecil Parker in *Indiscreet*.
I believe he is the best to portray dithering stodginess. He appears always to be intelligent and yet constrained by tradition so he dares not suggest a thing which has not been done before. I feel nearly as if he might be the uncle of Jeeves and is proud of him and yet does not fully approve of his flamboyant nature.
-
I took a chance and checked out the database page for one of my favorite movies because of your mention of heist movies.
*How to Steal a Million* (1966)
Tuesday, January 22 @ 08:00 PM (ET)
YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!
-
> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}
> Speaking of zombie movies, ENOUGH ALREADY!! When you read stuff like this
> you know they are making wa-a-a-y too many zombie movies.
The CDC page on preparedness for the zombie apocalypse is at:
http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies.htm
I believe it is not so much that there is extreme awareness or fear of zombies as it is that few news services will front-and-center press releases from the CDC concerning disaster preparedness which does not have a fantastic premise.
Those people who would never consider looking at such a page will visit it in order to see how strange it is and they will be exposed to the information despite their normal surfing habits.
Most of the January 2013 schedule
in General Discussions
Posted
I am very sorry that in my glee I forgot to thank you very sincerely and deeply for bringing us this information, calvinme!
I am happy also to see *Zardoz* (1974) in the schedule as well as many movies which will be new to me.