Re: can you answer CHICAGO question?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 "Mike Kohary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > > >He is the artist; he gets to call the shots.
> > >
> > > Doesn't make it right.
> >
> > According to you.  I don't see anything wrong with it.
> 
> Of course it's according to me - who else?  I speak for myself.

In this situation, your opinion doesn't count; only Lucas's opinion 
counts.

> To repeat myself for the third time:  Star Wars (1977) is an important piece
> of cinematic and artistic history, and it deserves to be preserved in its
> original state, irregardless of how George Lucas feels about that.

Says you.

> An artist should have control over the creation of his work, yes, and 
> Lucas has had that with the entire Star Wars series (contrary to what 
> you first stated). 

You mean that the studio gave him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted 
at whatever it might cost?

> However, that does not necessarily include control over the 
> distribution of said work.  Once a work is released, it belongs to 
> the audience as much as the artist.

The audience can dictate where the movie will be shown, how often, and 
when?  That is distribution.

> Now, an artist should have the full benefit and opportunity to profit 
> from the distribution of his work, and to generally control the 
> distribution of his work.  That's what copyright is all about, and I 
> fully support that. But I submit that it's immoral to release a work, 
> and then withhold it *forever*, with no intention of ever releasing 
> it again.

You have the right to that opinion.  Unfortunately for you, there is no 
basis in law or ethics for that opinion.

> Lucas is the artist, but he does not have the moral right to decide 
> that the millions upon millions of people who experienced the 
> cinematic revelation that was Star Wars (1977) will never get to see 
> it again.

Sure he does.  If he had presented it as a stage production, he would 
have the right never to allow it to be produced again.

> Judging from the numerous factual errors that you've introduced to 
> this thread so far, I wonder how much you actually know about Star 
> Wars and its history.

Contrary to your beliefs, disagreeing with you does not constitute 
factual errors.

> If you disagree with my position and care to rebut, please try to do 
> it with more than one sentence, and please try to do your research 
> first (or ask if you want to know something you don't currently 
> know).

Ah yes, you are the all knowing Oz; all must bow to your superior 
knowledge.  Your opinion is supreme above all, and is to be equated with 
fact.

The bottom line is that Lucas gets to call the shots, and whether you 
like it or I like it doesn't matter unless it affects his income--and 
there has been no appreciable effect upon that.

-- 
Never play strip tarot.