|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Feb 27, 2005 17:23:36 GMT
How many times.. This site is not owned by Paramount. It's owned by Rob Kinder, a fan.. and fans (like me) help run it. For free. If that was a joke, it's wearing a bit thin. If this site is becoming more sensitive it would be because of the irresponsibility of a few members. We do this for the love and fun of it and we are not going to let ANYONE spoil it for everyone else. This site has rules and everyone agreed to abide by them when they joined. If they can't do that, they must expect to be pulled up about it. It ain't rocket science. Back to the topic now.
|
|
|
Post by ulla123 on Feb 27, 2005 17:52:10 GMT
Exactly! Just my opinion...but appreciate the concern! We are all giving our opinions here.. Yes I know rusti was only stating his opinion but ulla123 stated his opinion too Ashe but you had a problem with that, I dont understand your reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by ulla123 on Feb 27, 2005 17:57:01 GMT
Sure - it's got nothing to do with the name "War of The Worlds", it's to do with the rights emanating from the HG Wells novel. Looking at the various copyright databases: In 1951 Paramount bought the film rights. It makes no difference if they call it Speilberg's WOTW (or TWOTW!) or HG Wells' WOTW, it's their right to make the film. In 1975, Wayne bought up everything else (other than the right to re-print the novel itself). Now, get to 2005, the novel itself is Public Domain in much of the world - but not in UK, Europe, S America and some other territories. So - where it is PD, anyone can do anything [the point I was making about those terriroties [MY OPINION ONLY!!!] was that it is highly unlikely that any distributor would compete with Spielberg on a film because they all wanna work him him on his next film - that's practical, not legal. Where the novel is still under copyright, Paramount can release their film and Wayne can do everything else. They can also collaborate so that Paramount can do merchandise and Wayne can release his CGI film, which is what they've probably done. Hope that makes sense!! You're a copyright lawyer, Ulla? Well then perhaps you can explain the situation about copyright and the title. Presuming Paramout holds the copyright to the title "War of the Worlds," is that why Pendragon had to change their title to "H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds" ?
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 27, 2005 18:07:59 GMT
How many times.. This site is not owned by Paramount. It's owned by Rob Kinder, a fan.. and fans (like me) help run it. For free. If that was a joke, it's wearing a bit thin. If this site is becoming more sensitive it would be because of the irresponsibility of a few members. We do this for the love and fun of it and we are not going to let ANYONE spoil it for everyone else. This site has rules and everyone agreed to abide by them when they joined. If they can't do that, they must expect to be pulled up about it. It ain't rocket science. Back to the topic now. No need to be so touchy nerf, NOBODY is talking about breaking site rules, to imply that is a little bizzare. My point was.... Rob sold off his other site to Paramount so this site may be more sensitive about censorship because they have had direct contact with Paramount, a major film company so they know from experience that what is posted is read and noticed by those who matter. And the article I read does say that Paramount has a finger in online.com for posting future tidbits of info so they will want an over all impresion of the site to be positive for future promotions via word of mouth. This will be achieved through laid down policys via Rob and his admins/mods. Although you may not realise it. I didnt realise 'paramount' was a dirty word the way you reacted there nerf. Like I said im just pointing out that when Ashe decided to tell ulla123 to re write his post for "legal" reasons it was a bit over the top. I say again all site rules must and will be adhered to. So relax
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on Feb 27, 2005 18:24:44 GMT
"I say again all site rules must and will be adhered to". That's rich coming from you. D.F.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 27, 2005 18:29:49 GMT
"I say again all site rules must and will be adhered to". That's rich coming from you. D.F. That was uncalled for David, shame on you. I thought it was a rather positive thing to post, you must disagree to post a counter post as negative as you have. However I dont think I have broken site rules, if I have once or twice I apologised at the time. I notice we have never realy locked hornes there DF, so lets keep it that way as you mostly dont interest me.
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Feb 27, 2005 18:29:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 27, 2005 18:32:24 GMT
Hey Motile .. perhaps Hines can sue you for slander for calling his film crap maybe he can Tom, good luck to him, and if he was successful at least it would be one success in his life.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Feb 27, 2005 18:33:12 GMT
I actually don't mind if Pendragons film comes out in North America first and we in Britain have to wait 'a bit' longer to see it. As long as it's a fantastic movie of course.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 27, 2005 18:39:37 GMT
Never broken site rules ..eh?? ..well maybe skirted them very thinly ... maybe put a foot across the VERY THIN LINE!!! eh Mottie Lets not turn this into a motile bashing session Tom, I might get close to that line.....
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 27, 2005 18:43:25 GMT
Is that a threat Motile?. D.F. What? Are you insane DF? How can we threaten each other here? So I say again, lets not lock horns, you may enjoy it but I do not. (I must say that if you took "I notice we have never realy locked hornes there DF, so lets keep it that way as you mostly dont interest me." as a threat you must be a very troubled person and you may want to seek help)
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Feb 27, 2005 18:46:59 GMT
Can you please keep to the topic of this thread. Any more personal remarks and this thread will be locked.
Thank you
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on Feb 27, 2005 18:48:27 GMT
Your the one throwing personnal insults around Motile, how am i meant to percieve your answer?.
D.F.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Feb 27, 2005 18:51:50 GMT
Motile, Rob sold Paramount a domain name only and in no way do they have any input or say in what is or isn't said here. That's all there is to it. I think I know the article you read and some parts of it were exaggerated. We ask for the rules to be followed because 1) they requests a grasp of basic, reasonable behaviour towards the board and other posters and 2) this site cannot afford to potentially have the pants sued off it because someone can't be bothered to follow a set of basic, reasonable rules. Therefore, as I said, the rules are laid down for the protection of it's members and it's very existence. There is nothing in the board rules to even suggest that Paramount have swayed them. Not only that, but the rules were in place long before Rob sold the domain. But, of course, you are welcome to your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Feb 27, 2005 19:04:27 GMT
Hmm to get this back on topic ...shall we just wait until Hines gives us more news ...I thought though there were going to be new cinema trailers due end of Feb ....WELL it is the end of Feb ..and .......
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 27, 2005 19:07:25 GMT
Motile, Rob sold Paramount a domain name only and in no way do they have any input or say in what is or isn't said here. That's all there is to it. I think I know the article you read and some parts of it were exaggerated. We ask for the rules to be followed because 1) they requests a grasp of basic, reasonable behaviour towards the board and other posters and 2) this site cannot afford to potentially have the pants sued off it because someone can't be bothered to follow a set of basic, reasonable rules. Therefore, as I said, the rules are laid down for the protection of it's members and it's very existence. There is nothing in the board rules to even suggest that Paramount have swayed them. Not only that, but the rules were in place long before Rob sold the domain. But, of course, you are welcome to your opinion. Jesus nerf, IM NOT DEBATING THE SITE RULES. ok? I was sticking up for ulla123 when Ashe asked for him to rewrite his post and I didnt and still dont understand why his post was a problem. I cant be arsed anymore, every thing I post is being twisted. So be it. DF, would you like to point out exactly what insults im throwing around? H_C, you lock threads as a last resort or else you run the risk of being seen as over the top. Just a tip.
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Feb 27, 2005 19:08:36 GMT
Could we get this back on topic now please. I've asked once and now so has Horsell. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on Feb 27, 2005 19:09:33 GMT
"you must be a very troubled person and you may want to seek help"
I consider that an insult.
D.F.
|
|
slayer
Full Member
"...if it bleeds...I can kill it"
Posts: 124
|
Post by slayer on Feb 27, 2005 19:09:40 GMT
Whoa !!! This thread has turned into a firestorm. I have been it following and have had nothing new to contribute that had not been already stated, but should I do....I'm thinking it would be best to keep it to myself cause of the personal attacks that may befall me. I seen many other threads that opinions varied without all this anger....I hope this won't get anymore out of hand. The Moderators are doing a good job but its up to the members to show the proper restraint and respect......IMO.
|
|
|
Post by themotile on Feb 27, 2005 19:09:50 GMT
Hmm to get this back on topic ...shall we just wait until Hines gives us more news ...I thought though there were going to be new cinema trailers due end of Feb ....WELL it is the end of Feb ..and ....... Fair play Tom, thats an excellent point.
|
|