Miramax C&Ds Kung Fu Movie Reviewer

Mirkon writes "When a movie distributor attains rights to a film, it's rather predictable that they go after individuals offering the movie for sale or free. But Miramax took it a step further - as reported by Wired and on the site itself, Mark Pollard of Kung Fu Cinema received a Cease & Desist letter from Miramax concerning a link on Kung Fu Cinema to a movie purchasing site for the Jet Li movie Hero (set to be officially released in North America in April 2004). Fearing Miramax (and thus Disney) and their army of lawyers, Pollard deleted the link, as well as another for Shaolin Soccer, also unreleased in North America. Pollard criticized the studio for not permitting the original version of such films to hit the states, saying "If they own the rights to this film, then this film is not available to U.S. consumers -- period." The EFF also has some comments regarding the fact that Pollard has done nothing wrong in the first place."

Comments

Miramax release dates -- hah

[ceenvee703]

the Jet Li movie Hero (set to be officially released in North America in April 2004).

Yeah, I believe that one. Shaolin Soccer was supposed to have come out this past summer... saw trailers for it during Bend It Like Beckham and saw movie posters for it hanging in theaters. Has it been released theatrically here? No. Even if it had been, it was going to be a highly-edited version.

That's why people end up having to buy things like Hero "illegally." In fact, I think I'll go order a copy right now... before Miramax tells eBay to cease and desist...

Not wrong, maybe...

[wrinkledshirt]

The EFF also has some comments regarding the fact that Pollard has done nothing wrong in the first place.

Whether or not he did something wrong is irrelevent. It's whether or not he did something unprofitable. Some corporations these days seem to believe they have a god-given right to profit, and that censorship and lawsuit chill is an acceptable tool to that end.

Until the average freedom-loving American starts to wake up to this and works to get the courts to adjust, it's probably only going to get worse. What happens when they realize that not talking about it on a website doesn't curb the problem? Tinfoil hats, people, they'll be after your thoughts next.

I'm sort of kidding, but not really. They're already blaming text messaging for ruining movie profits.

Re:Not wrong, maybe...

[splattertrousers]

Whether or not he did something wrong is irrelevent. It's whether or not he did something unprofitable. Some corporations these days seem to believe they have a god-given right to profit

Companies that are out to make a profit stick around. They get investors. Most companies that aren't out to make a profit disappear rather quickly. Therefore, most companies that exist are out to make a profit. It's not evil. It's pure business.

Companies will do what they feel they need to do to make profit or to stop losing profit.

and that censorship and lawsuit chill is an acceptable tool to that end.

It's both acceptable and successful. They said, "please stop telling people where to buy this DVD that our contract says shouldn't be sold in the US", and the guy in question said, "OK".

It's not as if they passed a law that trampled this guy's rights. They just asked him to stop and he did. IMHO, he should have said "no", but he's allowed so say "OK" if he wants.

It's just unfortunate that saying "no" would cost the guy a lot of money and time. Something needs to be done about that, IMHO.

Re:Not wrong, maybe...

[fermion]

Not only is the private citizen doing nothing wrong when posting methods that the US consumer can purchase a product, or get the best deal on product, but the firm that thinks they can suppress such information is exhibiting increasingly unsustainable historical behavior.

US firms pretty much want the opportunity to purchase source material or finished parts anywhere in the world, put those items together into a product anywhere in the world, engineer those products anywhere in the world, support those products anywhere in the world, and then sell those products to US consumers without any tariffs, tolls or taxes. The firms say any government imposed fees will cause unnecessary friction in trade that will only hurt the consumer. OTOH, these same firms want the government to create as much friction as possible for the consumer that attempts to find the best way to spend his or her money.

This is really just modern imperialism pushed by multinationals. It is no different from the British government forcing the Indian people to pay a tax on a critical produce they could easily purchase themselves. This is really no different from certain countries denying their women independence by denying them an education. This is really no different from the imperialistic method of stealing local resources, manufacturing them in the imperialist country, and then selling them back to the oppressed savages. These are really just laws that limit arbitrage opportunities to a privileged few.

US firms cannot have it all. Firms cannot claim the right to destroy communities by exporting production to cheaper labor markets, and then deny those communities the opportunity to bypass US firms in their purchasing decision. Firms cannot claim the right to limit the availability of product to the US consumer, the one basic right we still enjoy in the US, just because it will hurt the bottom line.

The Failure of the Region System

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Region system" for CD's makes no sense, as all it does is hinder sales.

If I am in Region 1 and want one of the many Region 2 DVD's (that will never come out in Region 1), I have to get a hacked DVD player, or get a pirated/cracked version of the CD.

Next time you see those "Movies: They're worth it" anti-piracy ads about lost revenues, remember that the movie industry is throwing roadblocks in the way of those who want to legally purchase AND view legitimately-pressed DVD's. If they wanted money, they'd make the DVD's available to those who want to buy them.

Another case of idiots in legal departments

[downix]

And here is Miramax proclaiming it a grand victory. It is such a victory that they just forced hundreds of formerly potential customers into p2p file sharers. Miramax must love how they're encouraging the illegal file sharing that their other movie studio bretheren have damned as dangerous. Give a hand for Miramax, another promoter of P2P technology.

A file swapper is not born, he is created when something desired is not availible at the price desired. When that something is not availible at all, that turns all of those that wish it into p2p file junkies.

Sorry state of affairs, honestly.

Exclusive rights to movies?

[yar]

It appears that Miramax is stating that their exclusive rights to movie distribution include the purchase of IMPORTS. Since when is it illegal to import a legal copy of a video from another country? There are import CD and movies available at video and music stores all the time.

You should lose your exclusive distribution rights

[mocm]

if you delay distribution for more than 1 year. Some companies seem to buy up exclusive distribution rights for asian movies just to prevent them from competing with their own products. Like Disney did with Studio Gibli and Miramax with Hero, Shaolin Soccer or others. (Just try to get a DVD of Drunken Master 2).
These tactics are in total contrast to the purpose of granting distribution or copyrights. Which should promote the arts and encourage artists to publish their work.

Re:I have mixed feelings...

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

But it seems like this is somewhere along the lines of telling someone where the nearest drug dealer is.[sic] Isn't/shouldn't that be illegal?

Um, no.
Talking isn't/shouldn't be illegal.
Doing things that harm others is/should be illegal.
If person A is selling drugs, and person B is saying where person A can be found, then go and prosecute person A.

--

No

[IshanCaspian]

The trick is, if we allow consumers to decide what they want for themselves, they will find and come to expect GOOD movies, which are much more difficult to make than "Gili". It's easier to ensure that you have a good return on your investment in a movie when you can totally control what it's competing with. Additionally, it's easier to milk each region for what it's worth, rather than having one price.

In short, they don't care about hypothetical sales for "hero." They want kung fu fans to shut up, get out there, and start paying up for whatever they have decided is the kung fu movie for december 2003 is. Stop telling them what you want. The movie / music industries will tell you what you want, and when you can have it.