Re: can you answer CHICAGO question?

"Michelle Steiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  "Mike Kohary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There doesn't need to be a legal basis, since I'm not making a legal
> > argument.  The ethics I've explained - it isn't fair to the millions
> > who made Star Wars was it is to withhold it forever.  Not until Lucas
> > decides he'd like to release it, but forever.
>
> You say it isn't fair to the millions; thus far, I've not heard an
> outcry from the millions.

That's what you're partially hearing in this newsgroup.  Many, many people
are upset about this.  There's even an online petition that's been very
successful at gathering signatures and comment, over 37,000 to date:

http://www.originaltrilogy.com/

Hopefully it will have some effect.  The fans are speaking.

> > What you're suggesting is that book burning is ok, as long as its the
> > author that's burning the book.  I think that's a veritable crime.
>
> No, I'm not saying that.  The owner of the physical media is entitled
> to burn it; I have the right to burn any book I own (provided I follow
> the fire and pollution codes); no one else has that right.  The author,
> though, so long he hasn't signed away his right, has the right to
> prevent republication of the book.

Speaking figuratively, how does that differ in effect from burning the book?
Preventing republication of a previously released work is wrong, because it
unfairly deprives the audience of that work.

> > > 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.
> >
> > It's not a stage production, so that's a red herring.  Further, I'm
> > not disputing he has the right to do whatever he wants, so that is
> > also a red herring.  I'm discussing what's right, not rights.
>
> It seems to me that you are insisting that you get to dictate to others
> what is right.

I'm expressing my opinion.

> > > > 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.
> >
> > It has nothing to do with our disagreement.  You stated that Lucas
> > had to cut Star Wars down for time demands made by the studio -
> > that's false.
>
> OK, then why did he cut it down?  Why didn't he leave Jaba the Hut in
> the original production?

Because he didn't have the time, money or technology to complete the
sequence the way he envisioned it.  It wasn't due to studio demands - he had
complete creative control (which isn't really as rare as a lot of people
like to think).

> > You have (to your credit) asked numerous questions that have
> > indicated you don't know basic factual information about Star Wars
> > and its history (for example, whether or not it has been released to
> > DVD, or whether or not it has ever been released in its original
> > format).
>
> Er, no; I have been asking questions to get you to clarify your position.

So then you know that Star Wars has *never* been released in it's original
format to any medium, ever.  The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi
have been, but not to DVD.

> > > 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.
> >
> > Again, pithy, but without substance.  Stick to the argument and leave
> > the ad hominem behind.
>
> Oh, so you are the only one allowed to engage in ad hominem?  Anyway, it
> wasn't ad hominem; it was a sarcastic summary of how you present
> yourself.

I haven't engaged in any ad hominem attacks.  As for the conviction of my
opinion, the best way to deal with that is to either concede, or present a
better counter-argument.  Sarcasm certainly isn't going to sway anyone,
least of all me.

> > > 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.
> >
> > This is a non-sequiter, because no one has said that Lucas doesn't
> > get to call the shots.
>
> I'm sorry; I was thinking that you were trying to dictate what he should
> do, and chastizing him for not doing it.

Yes, I am, but that is different from claiming he doesn't have the right to
do what he wants.  What he can legally do and what he should do are two
different things.

> Since I was wrong about that,
> and you agree that he can and may prevent the original version from
> being release, we don't have anything further to discuss on the matter.

Why?  Is it only a technical discussion on that level?  Is that the
important issue here?  Do you think that because a person *can* do
something, any debate stops at that point?  Talk about missing the forest
for the trees - that's a surprisingly narrow-minded viewpoint to take about
anything.

> > Yet I also detect in your tone (be that as it may on the internet)
> > that you feel none of us have the right to complain about any of
> > this, and you wish we'd just shut up about it. Correct me if I'm
> > wrong, but you seem to be saying that because Lucas has all the
> > rights in this case, we should just be quiet and take it.
>
> Oh, you have the right to complain about it, but you should realize that
> no one has the obligation to listen to your complaints or to pay them
> any heed.

Then I'm curious what you're responding to these posts at all for.  If you
only care about this on the most superficial level, why respond at all?
Just ignore these types of posts and move on.

> > Lucas is an intelligent man who has consistently demonstrated a
> > certain amount of concern and care for the fans of his films, and I
> > have faith that he'll see the light when he hears enough voices.
>
> Well, thus far, there haven't been enough voices.

We don't know that yet.

Mike