Slashdot Mirror
' Naughty Bits' Decision Not So Nice
While some comments evaluated the decision as a victory for filmmakers as artists rather than merely as copyright holders, some readers aren't so sure that directors' and studios' interests have much to do artistic integrity, and suggest that it's primarily their commercial rather than aesthetic interests being served here. TheFlyingGoat makes a case for this view:
"I understand where the movie companies are coming from in terms of copyright... they don't want people taking a DVD, adding additional clips/features/menus/etc, and selling that for a profit. ...As for the directors and producers that claim their artistic vision was impeded upon, they sure don't have an issue with those movies being modified in the exact same way for broadcast on network tv. All they care about is the large amount of money the networks give them.
So, what this really comes down to is the movie studios wanting complete control over their works, which I'm surprised to see much of the Slashdot crowd backing up. Seems it's better to hate "the red states" than to hate the MPAA."
Whether even the financial interest of the studios is being served by nixing the Cleanflix service, though, is a point that the same reader finds ambiguous, too. [the studios are] "getting just as much money from each DVD sale, so it's not like they're losing any business. In fact, they're probably gaining business from those people who wouldn't normally buy a certain movie due to violent/sexual/etc content, but will if they get an edited version of the movie."
MarcoAtWork says he doesn't swallow the "artistic integrity" argument either, and notes the bizarre script deviations which licensed showings on broadcast or cable television sometimes end up with: "Something tells me that the director's 'artistic vision' for example didn't include Bruce Willis saying 'Yippee-ki-yay Mister Falcon.' in Die Hard, or 'This is what happens whey you find a stranger in the Alps!' in the Big Lebowski."
Anticipating a "kneejerk reaction," reader Brian_Ellenberger has a more aggressive reaction of his own, writing
"Don't approve of this action just because you think it only hurts a bunch of 'right-wing Christian zealots.' Remember fair use! There was a one-to-one copy sold with each of these DVDs---the original and the edited. The filmmakers did not lose one dime, and in fact made money with each copy sold. ... So if we are to argue that, if you bought something you have the legal right to do whatever you want to it (Fast Forward through commercials, play on a Linux box, rip to a hard drive), then you cannot allow Hollywood to start acquiring new rights for their so-called 'artistic vision.' Otherwise, you will find yourself unable to fast forward through scenes (or commercials) because that would violate the 'artistic vision' of Hollywood."
More concise is reader Raul654's capsule description of the result: "If I own a DVD, I cannot pay someone to make a copy of that movie for me sans parts I might find offensive. It's not censorship, because I'm the one asking him to do it for me."
There are plenty of mixed feelings about motives and results in this discussion, though: reader m874t232 says he doesn't like people who "scrub" movies, but he still doesn't like the outcome because of the short-sightedness he perceives in it, writing "For millennia, art has progressed and evolved by taking some prior artist's work and modifying it, often in ways that the original artist didn't agree with. Except for possibly receiving financial compensation for a limited time for each copy created, artists should not have the power to control what happens to their creations after they have released them to the public."
Reader zakezuke took issue with that viewpoint, arguing instead that"Fair use would be you making a backup copy, putting the one you bought into storage, and using the backup. This is fair use. Heck, even taking a film that you own, making a copy and cutting out scenes you don't like... that is also fair use. What's not fair use is making a copy, cutting scenes, and selling it as a new version without any consent. This is not a one to one copy as there are scenes cut. Money is beside the point... a copyright holder has every right to choose how a work is distributed. This would include not wanting some bozo cutting scenes on a work that took time to create. Any flaws, mistakes, anything which affects the overall presentation can damage the reputation of the respective studio and artists that created the work. It's like taking spray paint to a piece of fine art and going over the bits one finds offensive, this affects the quality of the piece and the viewer might assume the artist is sloppy dolt or doesn't have the technical skill or is too reserved to make a winkle."
Reader spencer1 offers some insight into why people might want to watch movies in other than their all-killing, all-cursing original versions:
"As others have already stated, this has absolutely nothing to do with Walmart. This applies to services such as CleanFlix, which are very popular in Utah and Idaho. I am a Mormon, and I frequent Cleanflix often. Some movies are very enjoyable, but contain bits that I don't wish to see. If the mainstream want to see those bits, fine, go ahead; these services are not for them. If I don't want to see it, how does it affect you? Cleanflix allows me to rent movies that I would not otherwise rent, they are now turning away a potential customer. This does not hurt the copyright holder, they still receive the full purchase price for all the movies that Cleanflix uses. Their revenue is not altered in any way by this editing."
For anyone who has reason to desire a version other than the theatrical release of a film, the decision against Cleanflix doesn't mean the end of expurgation; reader jambarama points out a technical solution which seems much less legally fragile (and which seems to meet zakezuke's objection above), in the form of another service with a similar practical result, but without the messiness of reproducing a derivative work, writing:
"A good alternative for those who don't want their young children to see 'bad' stuff is Clearplay. We've had it for a while, here is how it works:
- Buy a normal DVD with all the "naughty bits"
- Get the filter from the clearplay website for that DVD
- Transfer the filter via USB or CD to the clearplay DVD player
- Watch your DVD - the filter tells the DVD player where to skip the naughty bits - no editing, just timecodes to be skipped."
Something similar could probably be put together fairly quickly using programs like Avidemux or VirtualDub for those who don't mind distributing the work of classifying and sharing the necessary edit-decision lists. Reader OYAHHH outlines how such a system might be implemented for those unlikely to apply hand-edited EDLs:
"What somebody needs to do is to devise a DVD player that can read a file delineating where the objectionable parts are on the particular DVD. Once the bad parts are known to the player the player simply skips them.
People who want to view the unedited version are happy and those that don't desire to see whatever content can be happy as well.
The original content on the original DVD is not altered in any manner. Copyright is protected.
Religious groups could then produce the "files" to correspond to their own needs and distribute these files via the Internet. The files are uploaded to the special DVD player."
Thanks to all the readers who contributed to this discussion, especially those quoted above.
I'm a vocal anti-copyright advocate and I repeatedly try to get people to realize what most Federal legislation does, especially regulatory legislation: it removes rights from the individual and creates cartelization: legal monopoly. It has happened in every industry that has any form of federal regulation: oil refinery, content distribution, medical licensing, campaign finance rules, even the stock market is cartelized now moreso than every before. Regulation at the national level is unconstitutional regardless of what people think of the non-applicable "interstate commerce clause."
Cartels exist because they have the legal monopoly to do so. Copyright only helps create and empower the cartels -- it has never helped an individual unless that individual was protected by a cartel. If you created a movie and someone wanted to hack it so that more peopl could watch it -- and they paid you for each and every hack -- you'd love it because you are getting income, you're gaining a new audience, and even more profitable: you're learning what people want. DVD players already allow for multiple versions, and maybe companies would start taking advantage of it had it not been for the big cartel that controls the flow of movie productions and releases.
Consider you're that same small movie maker -- if someone copies your movie (with or without hacking it), how would you battle them in court? What money would you use to fight the hacker/pirate/modifier/copyright violator? Is the financial risk of losing in court worth the reward? Definitely not -- more proof that cartelization is always bad.
Stephan Kinsella made a great case as to why intellectual property restrictions are anti-consumer in his free PDF titled Against Intellectual Property. (PDF WARNING) Stephan is a IP lawyer, as well, and has offered dozens of great articles on the problems with IP and how more laws aren't going to support more consumer freedom, better quality products and more competition. When you create federal regulations, you create cartelization. He also has a great non-PDF article from last year titled No such thing as a free patent, which goes beyond copyright but makes very good arguments for why they're all bad. This guy makes his living with the law, amazing that he cries out against it.
While I'm anarcho-capitalistic, I do understand that the Constitution DOES allow regulation of some sort to be created at the state level. This is preferably where regulations "should" be, if at all. The states that over-regulate will see less choice (and higher prices due to decreased supply). The states that don't over-regulate would likely see better choice, safer products and better pricing.
As usual, the federal government oversteps its bounds predictably -- in the direction of cartels. I won't call them "big business" because no real business exists with the help of government. Thankfully the future of the free market is proving to the world that copyright is insignificant to most people: they'll continue to find new ways to distribute all media products "for free," and the producers of content will have to learn the reality of supply and demand: if it is digital, it has a virtually unlimited supply. Put infinity in the supply/demand/price equation and the price will always fall to zero. This means it is time to find new ways to promote value added products along with your content.
At the bottom of most of Slashdot's pages it says:
Since the copyright to each post is owned by the posters and the editors quoted entire posts verbatim, I doubt that their use qualifies as fair under US Copyright law.
It is ironic then that the editors are trying to stoke up discussion on what represents a reasonable limit to copyright while unintentionally demonstrating why the law as it currently stands is horribly broken.
Just a thought for a Tuesday evening!
Simon.
but what the hell is the summary saying?
Many readers found stifling Judge Richard P. Matsch's decision yesterday that Cleanflix, a service selling versions of popular movies edited (some would say censored) to remove violence, nudity and other elements, was in violation of U.S. copyright law for selling these edited versions, while others welcomed the decision as appropriately respecting the intent of those who made the original movies..
I've read this like 5 times and can only conclude it has something to do with US Copyright law?
This is no better than a car company banning its customers from modding their cars on the grounds that it distorts their original aesthetics. Funny how the corporatists turn property rights into a mechanism for controlling others rather than as a foundation for individuals to control themselves...
Perhaps now the movie industry will implement thier own version of Cleanfix and sell the movies for even more to cover the labor costs. My take on this is that if cleanfix was working with the movie houses to clean up things while maintaining "Artistic Integrity" this would have been moot. As it is I cannot take a movie and alter it then give it away without giving the original can I?
The Poetry of Google Voice is very strange.
gv-poetry.com
whether or not you can basically take a knife to someone's work, reshape it to an audience and then make money from it. The answer quite clearly is no.
This is very important to remember: Your intention in violating copyright law is irrelevent.
This sword cuts many different ways.
You know, it seems to me that the Clearplay DVD player mentioned above could become popular, but only if those outside of Clearplay can generate the necessary filters. I can't help but think that there's a market for a DVD player that can skip everything else and play JUST the naughty parts of a DVD...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The posters of the quoted comments should sue /. for copyright infringement!
Have you ever seen an artist make a collage? You know, cut up portions of photographs, text, whatever and incorporate them into a new creation (assuming that they purchased them in the first place, that is)? Well, this ruling takes a big step towards forbidding that in the future. Hell, ever purchased a pair of used jeans that weren't exactly in brand-new condition, maybe were missing a piece or two? Nope, that'll be illegal too.
Am I taking this to an absurd conclusion? I hope so, but think about it for a minute. Heck, let's go back to the original comment, as it relates to movie distribution. Let's say that Lucas releases Star Wars again, but this time it will only play on THX-certified stereos. After all, if he's allowed to forbid you from editing it (after purchasing a copy), isn't he also allowed to forbid you from "editing out the sound" that he thinks you'd get from an approved stereo system? Now what if you replace THX with Windows, is that still okay? Same legal issue, methinks.
Beware the slippery slope.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
"Originally this technology was being used by religious freaks to keep their children from hearing/seeing bad thing in movies. That sounds ok, but when the intent of the movie is changed, I don't think they should be watching the movie in the first place. If you can't appreciate the movie the way it was intended, then don't watch the damn thing. However, it's supposed to be a free world and if morons want to remove the bloody scenes from Saving Private Ryan, then they should be able to."
It's amazing how open-minded about rights this crowd generally is until someone uses those rights in a way that does not jive with their world view. I expect fundies and other nuts to stay out of my life, and I already stay out of theirs.
I some people that are into some rather hardcore movies (hint hint) that would still rather not see the "eclair scene" in Van Wilder. It takes all types.
You'll probably soil your trousers when you hear that you can get your steak cooked to different levels at a restaurant!
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Well then, lets see what the movie companies think when the people that buy the clean version of the movie quit buying the movies all together and they start to lose revenue. Its a person's choice to watch a movie or not if it offends them and if they can't watch a clean version of it, well then they just won't watch it. Will this be a lot of revenue. I don't know, but but I bet it will make a small dent.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
It is a violation of "artistic moral rights" to select specific posts and re-present them according to an agenda that was not part of the original posters' vision.
As your attorney in this matter, I recommend that you all sue.
but I typically only ANAL once a month or so. Like many of you, especially slashdot subscribers, I'd love to ANAL every day if I could. So how about it, slash-holes, how about giving some love and giving up the anal to a fellow slashdotter.
Thanks in advance.
Tim
timothy@monkey.org
In all this hubbub, people failed to notice that a competing form of "editing out the naughty bits" digitally, ie, simply skipping over the deleted scenes as requested by the user *while watching the dvd* was deemed perfectly legal. The difference: the original movie content is still there for someone who wants to watch it uncensored, but the act of censoring it to one's tastes is trivial.
...the submitting user grants OSTG the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
;-)
don't you understand? I mean, it's right there in the terms of service at the bottom of every page, just below the "owners" text you quoted.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
How about people that don't want their 6 year old calling them a bitch because they heard it on TV.
How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. Everyone wants their kids to experience everything, well guess what...they do experience everything when they are young, then get get pregnant, or a STD at age 16 and then guess what, their life is screwed. And why is it screwed...because mommy and daddy let their kids watch sex scenes in movies at age 10 and their kids wanted to do it as soon as they could.
A good action film is still entertaining to watch without hearing the 'F' word every 5 seconds.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
"If you can't appreciate the movie the way it was intended, then don't watch the damn thing."
Yes, that's right...let's let you tell everyone else how they should live their life while you exclaim no one has the right to tell you the same.
I expect fundies and other nuts to stay out of my life, and I already stay out of theirs./i>
That's both noble and naive of you. You stay out of their lives, good. You may not have noticed that they have no intention whatsoever of staying out of yours. This is what invites the hostility you are complaining about.
Some say "censor"?
You can't be censored by a private citizen.
You can be told to shut up. Your post can be deleted. But you weren't censored.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
We live in an age when information comes the way we want it. If religious folks want movies that abide their standards let them have it. News outlets, shopping, entertainment, speech patterns, spelling, language, interperative dance, all of it's gotta eventually adapt or folks will find another way around it. Better a bunch of religious folks step part way into the 21st century than that they choose to remain in the 14th and start blowing stuff up... ...oh wait...
--Ray
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Well, here it is: can copyrighted works be modified and redistributed without explicit permission by the copyright holder? The court says no, I agree in this case.
I don't see why we should allow someone to use copyrighted work of others to make money without first getting permission from the holders of the copyright.
There are many people who believe copyrights must be abolished, I disagree with them, but I agree that the copyright system maybe in need of a reform. Copyrights should apply within a limited timeframe - in case of a person, they should apply as long as the person is alive (my believe, but YMMV,) and in case of corporations copyrights should not exceed some time period that maybe just as long as life of a patent (20 years?)
Without a real time limiter distribution of the copyrighted material becomes more difficult to control, and that is when corporations start meddling with existing and new technologies, trying to impose control systems such as DRM at the government levels.
The copyright law should be made more realistic and it should be changed in such a way, that it would make less sense for corporations to try and limit technological developments.
You can't handle the truth.
Not that that should be terribly surprising. Despite the summary stating that "others welcomed the decision as appropriately respecting the intent of those who made the original movies", not a *single* comment was referenced which took this stance. What about this comment, which is one of many that points out that this ruling can be considered consistent with existing copyright law, which holds the right to create a derivative work as exclusive to the creator. Or this one, which points out that the derivative work rights assigned to a copyright holder are what give the GPL it's teeth.
But, hey, it's a lot more fun to editorialize, in this case by selectively choosing user comments in order to manufacture a perceived concensus.
This new format for backslash is an interesting idea. I haven't decided if I like it or not yet. If the editors are reading, I do have one suggestion though. Could you file all the backslash articles in the backslash section? One of the excellent features that you guys have added recently is the per-user settings on what stories get displayed on the front page, and whether they are in full or abbreviated form. However, it is only usefull if the stories are properly catagorized. While backslash stories will always fit into another catagory, I personally would prefer that they be marked as backslash, and filterable as such.
Who said anything about intent? My kids love the movie "Twister", but I wish it had a few less "goddamns". Am I really "religious frek" and a "moron" because I'd prefer not to hear gratuitous bad language?
Look, I did my time in the Navy, and have heard (and uttered) more than my fair share of profanity. It's all about context, though. My wife and I liked Pulp Fiction, but I wouldn't dream of censoring the language there. The cursing is appropriate in that context. However, I'm sure we could both list otherwise family-friendly movies that just had to drop a few F-bombs to earn a PG-13 rating.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
A studio sells a normal R-rated version of a film for $20 on DVD. It decides to sell a censored PG version for $30 (it's a niche market, people are willing to pay more for the censored version.)
An outfit in Utah comes along, buys a copy of the $20 R-rated version, edits it to PG level, and sells it for $25.
The studio is out $5, and it's an easy to argue copyright violation.
Now my issue is that the studios are not taking advantage of their full copyrights and issuing the PG version. I feel that if they don't after a few years, they should relinquish those rights and let the company in Utah innovate appropriately (by buying the $20 DVD and then editing it.) It'd really only take a law to change, and in today's political environment would be an easy sell to Congress.
I was reading the comments in the original story yesterday, but just ended up confused. I realize now that all I needed was a car analogy. Thanks Mike!
This is really simple to implement using AviSynth, if anyone wants to try it. Just install that, an MPEG-2 (DVD) codec, and AnyDVD or DVD43 to decrypt the DVD on-the-fly. Then create a text file called myscript.avs with this code:
You can then open that in any DirectShow or VfW compatible player, such as WMP. Or distribute the *.avs files to others.
I don't see why they can't slipstream it so from the menu, the viewer can select the "edited" version.
Heck, they (DVD's) do have the functionality to do multi-angles (mainly for p0rn) and the "follow the white rabbit" icons (easter eggs), and such allowing for almost endless combinations without requiring those combinations to be statically stored.
Some creative menu/content layouts should be able to this just fine.
And since the original content is on the disc, it should be a non-issue as it's just like using a cheat-sheet for a novel that lists which sentence/paragraph/pages have vulgar language and skipping it while you read it.
But seriously, teen pregnancy rates are much lower in countries (like England) that have a much more open view of human sexuality. If you have cable in England or Australia, you probably have a 24-hour porn channel thown in with your regular cable service. Billboards in Frace encouraging breast feeding of babies just show two enormous bare breasts with a tagline below.
My 12 yo daughter has caught my wife and I fooling around a few times. But she is in no hurry to have sex just because she witnessed it. She has been informed about it since she was 5 years old. There is no titillating curiosity. It's just where babies come from.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Some control is to control the quality of the product to the consumer. It is when this is overstepped that there is a problem. Again, when you buy a video do you want to have to read every video to see what editing is done. We already has this issue, and it forms a barrier to effecient commerce.
The issue is when a product is advertised as a certain thing, for instance a certain movie by a certain director starring certain people, or a certain handbag, or a certain car, we as consumers must have some confidence that the product is as advertised. Simply making it Star War instead of Star Wars, or Prata instead of Prada, or Fard instead of Ford may not be enough. I cannot believe I am taking this side, but I think this is where the issue is. The films that these people are hacking are obvious of some worth because no one is going to spend $10 on a CDR that is crap. So the pirates^w, i mean editors are basing thier income on the work of someone else, and only added a miniscule amount of added value. If there were a glut of quality appropriate entertainment, it seems that they would set up a production house and make it.
Since this has somewhat become an issue of religion, let me add a counter example. Let's say I went to this site and linked to all the sermons. The reaons for this was that I wanted to help them get listeners by arranging the sermons differently, say by content of racism, sexism, violence, hatred, and created a more attractive design. I propererly attributed the sermons to the person and back to the original site. However, for some sermon I also supply several different versions, to appeal to other constiuencies. In some I bleep out the word god. In others I might replace with another discriptor, such as universal power, dictator, master, lord, oppressor. Now, I link and maybe supply. the orignal, I clearly mark the changes, and I clearly supply all attributions. Do anyone think this is legitimate? I am not even charging. I am just editing someone elses words, and, in some cases, making them say something they never intended. Certainly covered under fair use.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
At the end of this feedback summary, the Clearplay solution is mooted.
The studios purport to be every bit as unhappy with Clearplay as the re-recording service providers that were the subject of this lawsuit. They are currently suing Clearplay in the case Huntsman v. Soderbergh/a? which is pending.
You can read all about it at the linked EFF site.
Basically, the arguments are almost all exactly the same -- except that the copyright issue is obviously different as there is no copy being sold. With Clearplay, you buy or rent the regular disk, and the Clearplay-supplied DVD player and service skips the naughty bits. The directors filing the lawsuit complain that their names and trademarks are applied to a "created" movie that is not their original movie -- and they are attempting to use trademark as well as copyright law to fight Clearplay.
From the pace that this case has been proceeding through the courts, it's going to be a very long time before it is resolved.
Thad Beier
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
These discussion of whether the studios release their own expurgated versions of movies are totally beside the point. The question is who gets to decide what gets edited. Maybe some copyright-holders make terrible decisions on how their works should be edited, but that is their choice. It certainly isn't the right of some third-party like Cleanflix to decide how a movie is edited. I also don't see how what this has to do with fair use. This doesn't relate to what the viewer of a work can do non-commercially with his or her own copy of the movie. This has to do with a for-profit company making money by making edited copies of someone else's work and selling those copies.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Historically, copyright law used to protect derivitive works, you know.
This was probably pointed out in the last discussion on this topic; if so, it's worth mentioning again. Here's an interesting comic from Duke Law that points out some of the landmines of copyright law. Instead of collage, it uses documentary filmmaking as its example. It tries to be balanced, but to me it paints a bleak picture of the future of art.
SharkJumper
Would you consider it unfair to sell books with the added feature of having certain objectional pages removed? Seems like a reasonable comparison.
It is ironic then that the editors are trying to stoke up discussion on what represents a reasonable limit to copyright while unintentionally demonstrating why the law as it currently stands is horribly broken.
How does this demonstrate that the system is broken? What if I don't want the Slashdot editors to use something *I've* created in order to push their agenda? How is this any different from, say, Microsoft taking parts of the Linux kernel and then not respecting the license by refusing to release the source? A license, I might point out, which is only enforceable due to copyright law.
The fact is, there are many people around here who like copyright as long they can get what they want for free, preferably under the GPL. The minute someone wants to exercise their rights in any other way, the system is 'broken'.
Frankly, I think the copyright system, as it stands, is still workable, as long as copyright terms don't get continuously extended. What's broken is the government, thanks to institutionalized bribary, and the laws that were passed as a result, such as the DMCA, which work to break the system entirely by allowing the media cartels to effectively hold exclusive control over their works indefinitely.
Note, I don't feel the same way about, say, the patent system. Unfortunately, around here, patents, copyrights, and trademarks seem to get mashed together and demonized equally.
Lets remmember the point of the copyright privlidge.
To keep people from claiming your material. It had nothing to do with 'artistic vision'.
Also, it did not deal with media that could easily be altered.
With current technology, the copyright privlige needs some changes to deal with new technolgy.
For example:
We should allow content altered DVDs if it is clearly marked, the original credits are given, and who did the editing.
If I purchase a disk, I should be able to make an edited version and sell it along with the oprginal version.
So a company buys movie A. the can then make an edit and sell it, IF the original is included.
The viewer gets to choose which version(hance NOT censorship) the studio has gotten there cut, and nobody is taking claim for someone else work, and the cast and crew are not being given credit for the new edited version.
Meaning is someone sees it they know it's has been altered from final release.
This solves the money issue, artistic issue, and the viewer gets what they want. Nobody is hurt, harmed, or looses copyright protection.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Thanks, that's a great burden off of me!
I'M FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
You, sir, are my hero.
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
of Mister Falcon has no fairy godmother.
Give MEE the keys!
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
How is one's entire life screwed because they got an STD at 16? I got a couple then too. You go to the free clinic and got your shots. It becomes a learning experience. There has been recent discussions on how the younger generation is developing problems with being able to act independently. The studies seem to point to that the over-zealousness of the parents in wanting someone else to take the responsibility of their kids. As well as the fact that the parents are directly over-looking their kids behavior. Why do you really want to where little Johnny drives the car? With GPS you can. All kids are looking for their own lives, and are sorely let-down when they realize that they might never be able to. Maybe its the fact that America is so repressed as a society sexually, that is causing the problems. If your kids want to run out and have sex, I think is called PUBERTY, and HORMONES! Its do easy to blame the movies for portraying something as dirty as your own sexuality. Sex is messy, and dirty, and smelly, and wonderfully so. If you have a hangup why pass it onto the kids?
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
I think the point that the vast majority of people are missing, is that at it's essence, this third party company is creating a derivative work For Profit. If this was a non-profit group, such as a church this would be 100% legal. However, editing a work in any way makes the current iteration of the production a Derivative and that changes the copyright statutes and precedents that apply to this. Think about it this way, what's the fundamental difference between removing scenes from a movie and adding them? With the latter, you have the possibility of a satire, or parody, yet even with that you do not have the right to use more then a few minutes of the original, if any at all, even in a not-for profit production. The issue would be different if, the defendant were to take the dvd that had been purchased by a consumer and edit that specific dvd, yet the simple action of buying (or acquiring through other means... specifically former trade-ins), involves a transfer of licenses, not just a service. In affect, the trade-in is actually a new purchase (the cost being your old dvd and the money), which is where the illegality comes into play.
The corner of a round room
...further and declare that directors should not be allowed to edit their own movies after they've been released in order to maintain artistic integrity. Han shot first.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
I can't believe that there are people here that condone intellectual property theft. So let me get this straight. If I bought a movie or music CD, and edited out parts, I should be able to reproduce it and sell it without giving any royalties to the artist and this is cool?
Films are created to tell a story in a specific way. Now, if that includes elements that may be offensive to others, oh well. You can't please everyone!
If you don't like blue language, sex or violence, don't see the movie. That's what the rating system is set up to educate you about. I know one person who walked out of the theatre on a PG-rated film because an actress said the word 'hell'. Hey, to each his own.
If anyone modified my films to please their families and kids, there would be HELL to pay.
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
it's real easy.
don't want to see boobs in a boob movie, don't watch it.
don't want to hear a movie's bad words, don't watch it.
look at all the wasted time you'll get back.
you can then waste it reading about the morons that have to watch the boob movie sans boobs
...my opinion is that people who buy those "castrated" movies are a bunch of pathetic prudes! Your wimpiness makes me laugh! HA!
Okay, so can you create a business out of modifying novels? You purchase a container of the latest blockbuster novel, then sell it to your readers. If they check the box on the order for that says "sanitize," you drop the book in the san-o-matic and it applies white-out to the objectionable parts and prints some alternate text, cuts out a few pages, pastes in a couple extra pages, puts a "Santized by the Purity Book Club Company" sticker on the jacket and then boxes it up for shipping.
Aside from the inability to modify a pressed DVD, this is what they seem to be doing. They are buying a proper copy, making changes as requested by the end user, and sending the modified copy (naturally, the source must be destroyed...couldn't tell if they did that or not from the original story). I think that, given the one copy bought - one (modified) copy sold, this should somehow fall under first sale doctrine. Is doing this any worse that burning a CD/DVD in public? Clearly the artists work is being damaged and defaced in a way they did not intend. I don't really expect the Dixie Chicks to win any money in Texas over that claim, though.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Thats bullshit, what about people that mix music, The Grey Album for Instance?.. It doesn't detract from the work so long as the party knows its a edited version. The copyright holder doesn't/shouldn't have control over what someone does with a said work after its released. When you put at work into the public it no longer belongs to you as a whole. It takes on a life of its own, other people take it and make something that they can relate to on a personal level (If they so wish). This isn't about what the public is doing to a said work, This all has to do with the creator's/financial backer's fear of loss, The loss of something you no longer have control over. We need to get over it, this idea that copyright holders should have this kind of power is ridiculous. It goes against the core understanding being human, giving without expecting anything in return. When you give to someone freely without restrictions, you get back more than what you put into it. If you hold it to your chest in attempt to keep people from it, you will lose it.
In this case people are making it possible to watch movies they wouldnt normally choose to watch because of content they dont identify with, don't make them wrong for that, give people enough credit to make there own decisions about what is right and wrong.
I dislike this decision, but I think I see why it was decided in this way. A copyright holder has some right to not only make money from their films, but also to grant licenses to who they choose. Part of that licensing structure is how they protect themselves and their works from being altered in a way that they did not intend and at the same time the altering person makes money doing that.
Let's say that you were a director and released a fairly hum-drum movie about life in the 'hood. You would probably have some violent scenes in there, where people of various minorities were vicious criminals. At the same time, you show how people of the same minorities are trying to fight back against gang violence or whatever. Indeed, that's the point of your movie.
What happens when someone's Neo-Nazi cutting service takes your movie and figures out how to cut out the sympathetic parts so that it almost turns into a modern-day Birth of a Nation? Then, they market the 'altered' version in much the same way that this cleaning service market's their services.
Now, technically, you got paid for what turned into Birth of a Nation II, but now your work, and your actors' performances are now on the Aryan Nation's hit parade. What if, due to the clever editing, your movie ends up being a more popular Neo-Nazi parapaganda film than it ever was before editing. Well, guess what? You're fucked. Your movie and actors are being clucked about on Oprah. I'm sure she'd be all upset that your well-intentioned movie was mangled in this way, but in the end, you're the guy who made Birth of a Nation II, or Triumph of the Will: The Next Generation.
I think there needs to be a careful line drawn about that can be done professionally. I agree that this service is probably completely harmless, and I HATE the fact that the studios are probably simply looking to make sure they *they* are the ones who make the money from any sanitizations done, but they have a point. Its probably something that needs some better definition within copyright legislation.
Oops, you just gave them royalties.
I don't think royalties is really the issue at hand. Apparently, the DVDs were being purchased by the scrubbing companies on a one-to-one basis. The artists were making their money. So the question becomes one of the "fair use" rights involved in having a company edit a copy of a DVD for a person versus the reputation of the artists who have their names attached to that DVD. I don't think royalties entered into the suit.
... and be careful throwing around the word "theft" when speaking of copyright law; you're liable to go down in flames, here.
SharkJumper
Well, you did use a lowercase 'g' in "goddamn", which would put you squarely in the non-religious-freak camp, except that you somehow find it offensive enough to want to hear it less in a movie. What is so offensive about the word (I would argue two-word phrase) "goddamn"? Is it the "god" or the "damn", or as American TV censorship clearly demonstrates, the combination of the two that makes for a profanity? If it's the "god", then you would appear to be a 'religious freak'. If it's the "damn" then I wonder just how many words you consider offensive. And if it's the combination, like the TV stations seem to think, then you're definitely being affected by religious bias.
They're all words. Just words, and the only power they have is what you give them. To an atheist, "goddamn" is just a way of emphasising something, e.g. "Those goddamn censors are at it again". The word holds absolutely no special meaning. To someone who holds particular issue with the commandment regarding 'taking the lord's name in vain', it has an entirely different connotative meaning - it inspires disgust with the utterer. I guess what I'm trying to say is that whilst I wouldn't call you a religious freak, I would call you a bit of a moron, because if you can't understand that "gratuitous bad language" should probably refer to words that are a little more universally reviled (viz: Carlin's Seven Dirty Words), then you need a little perspective.
Its hard enough judging the intent of another without their words being manipulated.
But if that principle were stretched also to journalism then we might see a very healthy change in the manner in which a reporter presents the words of the story's protagonists and commentators, who are so often misreprented. The final content of the report would have to be assented to by each of the quoted sources.
Censorship as it should be, perhaps.
How about the simple fact that those words or phrases are not considered "good manners" when in polite company? Whether or not you think it is blasphemy or cursing, I think everyone recognizes that it's at least somewhat uncouth, and maybe he just wants to teach his kids better than that.
Constitutionally Correct
No exposed breasts, but all the violence you want. Why is "kill" or "murderer" or "liar" not a swear word and killing and lying not more shocking to the American mainstream. It carries over into their public life as well, supporting wars of agression killing hundreds of thousands, and continuing them on past the point of obvious failure so that the soldiers who fought didn't do it for nothing, but being shocked at other indescressions that involve far less moral evil.
I am an American, but mainstream morality of the Christian Wrong rings very hollow. I support the right to edit, but it stems from Religious (not moral) positions that often do not resemble any reasonable sense of morality. Hearing the 'F' word or 'bitch' does nothing to diminish the morality of myself or my children, any more than my wife showing her face without a Burqa does. But in either case, people who try to use religions to define morality will object strongly, so it should be their right to adapt content to suit their religions.
Either that, or America is an enormously immoral nation for allowing women to show their faces in movies. I believe even early Christianity had similar (not identical) rules of moral behavior for women covering themselves and so on, and their list of swear words was probably of a completely different nature, as it also varies from language to language and also permits alternative ways of saying the same thing, which just don't have the "offensive" tag. It is dictated by the traditions of particular religions and groups, having little to do with morality. As America increases in diversity, do you want to restrict the cultural definition of "morality" to be the subset of what is allowed by all participating groups, each of which can make a good case for their choices? You go do it yourself, but don't expect me to believe it has any significant correlation with morality.
It is cute to see you referring to "The 'F' word" as though it is unspeakable, but using the word "screwed" which has a nearly-identical slang meaning and usage, where "screw" means "fuck" and "screwed" means exactly "fucked", but it doesn't have quite the same derogatory tag.
In Europe, for example, exposed breasts and related swear words, etc. may be acceptable in prime time, but the violence makes many action films that would slide past "Clean Flicks" completely unacceptable and not even obtainable at the video store without heavy editing.
It is your tradition speaking, not any real defensible sense of morality.
Two thoughts:
If there really is money in these alternate versions, why aren't they created as a matter of course?
Why not extend DVD players, DVRs, etc with "play profiles". The PG13 version of a porno would be short but the PG and G versions would be even shorter...
If scenes were rated, then it would be a simple matter for DVD player to skip to the next appropriate scene, no? Parental controls are a good thing.
Lets remmember the point of the copyright privlidge. To keep people from claiming your material. It had nothing to do with 'artistic vision'. Also, it did not deal with media that could easily be altered. - well, copyright deals with distribution of material, and this is where the case in question fails. They are redistributing modified copyrighted material for profit without a license from the copyright holder. It doesn't matter whether this is done for artistic purposes or any other purposes. At the end it is done to make money on other people's work.
We should allow content altered DVDs if it is clearly marked, the original credits are given, and who did the editing. - we should allow what with content altered DVDs? Should we allow distribution of content altered DVDs without permission from copyright holders? I don't think so. Whether you changing your DVD content and using it yourself falls under fair use or not, I am not sure, but I am certain that noone can legally take a DVD, modify its content and redistribute it without permission.
This case is not about someone modifying their own DVD and using it, it is about a firm that redistributing modified content for profit without permission.
You can't handle the truth.
(even if they're moralistic pussies)
Most people strongly supporting this decision seem to have the delusion that it applies only to (as per the FP title) "Naughty bits".
NO!
Instead, imagine Star Wars I through III with every scene containing Jar-Jar, or both Anakin and Padme, completely cut out! Poof, it goes from utter crap to a decent (if not as good as the original trilogy) watch.
Or for another angle on it - Mix CDs. This decision basically reduces to outlawing mix CDs. Now, I don't think I've ever made a RedBook mix CD, but imagine the implications for your "20 hour drive" MP3 CD, if you have to keep original albums as a whole. Bam, your choices just went from (literally?) millions of tracks, down to Pink Floyd or the soundtracks to musicals. Imagine 20 hours of musicals, people!!! Hey, I like the occasional JCS or Spamalot, but 20 straight hours? Think of the children! I like Floyd as much as the next guy, but I'd have to join Sid at Chalfont (well, The Great Beyond, now) after 20 hours of it.
Okay, so can you create a business out of modifying novels? - certainly. As long as you get a license (permission) to do so from the copyright holder.
If you just want to distribute copyrighted material, you get a vendor's license, whatever that is, but I am certain that a vendor's license does not allow distribution of modified content.
The company in question is already breaking the current copyright law even if they simply COPY the DVD and resell it (even if they destroy the original!) forget about modifications.
You can't handle the truth.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I read the article, and I was confused to see these important points weren't summarized at all.
AccountKiller
It has happened in every industry that has any form of federal regulation: oil refinery, content distribution, medical licensing, campaign finance rules, even the stock market is cartelized now moreso than every before.
You're going to have to explain how medical licensing and campaign finance rules have led to more harm than good, especially when the alternative you present is their absence.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
My kids love the movie "Twister", but I wish it had a few less "goddamns". Am I really "religious frek" and a "moron" because I'd prefer not to hear gratuitous bad language?
No, but you can't redact the dvd and resell it. That's what this is all about.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Would it be illegal to rip certain pages out of a book and then sell it to those who wish to buy such a book? Or perhaps painting some sections over so text cannot be read? I bet nobody would get sued if they did. So why is it illegal to do the same with DVDs? Is it because they are by necessity copying content onto a new disc, due to limitations of technology that does not allow to simply scratch out offending bits? It is obviously not the kind of copying that copyright law is intended to forbid.
I still don't know why people can't just not watch things that offend them...I know that this case was mainly for the money, but I've made a couple short films and I would be somewhat offended myself if someone said "Yeah I want to watch your work, except for these 3 minutes here and 4 near the end." Why is it that we have to change things for everyone because certain people don't want to have to deal with them? When do people take personal responsibility? It seems never, nowadays.
Last week I just saw Debbie Does Dallas! Dont get what the fuss is about. It was freaking 30 seconds long.
"You say religious freaks. How about just moral people"
Not the same set. The loudest religions are frequently the least moral ones. That's certainly not a causal relationship, but it's a decent correlation.
"How about people that don't want their 6 year old calling them a bitch because they heard it on TV."
Don't have a TV. Explain to your child why that word is a wrong thing to say, and that they will be punished if they say it.
"How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies."
The number of sex scenes that cause teenage pregnancies is zero. The number of teenage pregnancies that are made more likely by parents abdicating their responsibilities to the TV and/or the federal government is not zero.
At the end of the day, I happen to agree with you: I think that CleanFlix or whatever is absolutely within their rights to buy a movie, re-edit it, and sell the movie to a different audience. However, I deny you the moral high ground. There are plenty of people who are a) not religious and b) moral. These two characteristics are not strongly correlated.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
...from the OTA versions of (some) movies the major broadcasters show all the time? Those versions are "censored" and have a lot of "naughty bits' taken out, you can see the disclaimers at the beginning of the movie. "this version has been edited for television and etc" So...where's their beef here? That someone else is doing it? The court was wrong in this case, past precedent and so on near as I can see it. And what about the classic "Own it today on DVD!". Wazzup with that, they *claim* if you buy it you can "own it" in their own words. I see those ads from the MAFIAA all the time, too. If I own it, I can chop it up, bend it spindle it mutilate it and re-sell it, it's physical property. I can't make a thousand dupes and sell them, but the single copy I have is mine. And these guys appear to have been very careful to do a one straight copy for one modded copy deal here, all monies still go to the MAFIAA, those they are owed.
Meh, the whole copyright business is so borken it's a waste of time. I think I'll stick with the "who cares?" model and only buy used stuff until they come to their senses with all this nonsense.
Here's a for instance, a variation on it, instead of censoring out, how about placing-in as an option? I think it would be a hoot to get something like star wars with some added scenes and dialogue from third parties, like more bar scenes! How about princess lea's half sisters and their "hidden secrets"? Huh, huh, sounding better now? How about a jabba the hut family BBQ scene? I mean, this has potential here!
"God" and "damn" are uncouth words? This is news to me. The only mindset that places any special meaning behind these words is one with a heavily religious background. If I'm in "polite company" and say "I was going to work the other day and my god, you wouldn't believe the traffic" nobody will bat an eyelid. I could construct similar sentences with "damn" and "goddamn". Now, maybe this is a function of me living in Australia, but I certainly don't recall being publicly shunned in California when I occasioned to use these words.
I can absolutely see your point for words that are genuinely offensive to most English-speaking people. But there is definitely a subset of 'offensive words' that is words which are offensive only to people who take religious language completely seriously, such as "god", "damn", "hell", and I'm sure many more. It is these words that I argue should not be considered offensive for the purposes of classification, as they only have an offensive connotation to the especially religious. I take issue with the grandparent's distaste for the overuse of what most would consider very mild profanity in a film rated PG-13.
If a collage ends up looking anything like the works it's derived from, then sure, but that defeats the point of calling it a collage.
As I understand it, an original work only needs to be a certain percentage of original content, even if several parts were taken from something else. Think like a feminist take of 'Saw' (say the killer was wracked from something abortion/pregnancy related, rather than cancer, and this affects the type of 'traps'): Assuming that the film contained entirely new footage and only retained the original "Play the tape, try to escape" format of the Saw traps, would you still consider it an infringement on the original 'Saw' films, or merely a derivitive/inspired work?
I don't give a crap about the legalities of this. I find it immoral to censor art. Even crappy art. I personally think that censorship is dangerous. I cannot begin to fathom why anyone would want to watch a butchered piece of art. If you think parts of it aren't suitable don't watch it. If you think parts of it aren't suitabe for your children don't show it to them. Watch something else. Having a specially censored version is just wrong. Network TV should be slapped silly for their destruction of movies. Even crappy ones. The studios should be ashamed for allowing it.
Once censorship of art becomes pervasive the censorship of real life becomes easy. The revisionists get to have the world filtered through their own special rose coloured glasses. It's sticking your head up your arse and pretending it smells of perfume.
It's wrong, it's stupid and it will bite us all in the end.
(Censorship pisses me off.)
"A studio sells a normal R-rated version of a film for $20 on DVD. It decides to sell a censored PG version for $30 (it's a niche market, people are willing to pay more for the censored version.)
/selling/ MP3s (wrong **AA, I know, but they all act the same way, don't they?).
An outfit in Utah comes along, buys a copy of the $20 R-rated version, edits it to PG level, and sells it for $25.
The studio is out $5, and it's an easy to argue copyright violation."
WTF? The studio is out a theoretical $10 as the $5 difference does not go to the studio.
That said, the only 'additional versions' they sell are "unrated." Not exactly what patrons of said outfits are after. It's like trying to ban MP3s instead of
*disclaimer: I haven't bought a Rated R movie in years. I do not find them appropriate for my children & I chose not to be a hypocrite in raising them (not starting a flame, to each his own). I have rented a few edited R Rated movies, ultimately this is $$$ in the pockets of the MPAA (as much as renting anywhere else). This revenue will go away, as when I can no longer rent edited movies I will not rent the unedited versions. I will just wait for TNT to play them 1000 times in a weekend.
-
Karma=bad
I care=no
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
the studios attempted to make the same claim about colorizing movies destroying the 'artistic vision'
it wasn't right then and it isn't right now.
David Lang
someone who enjoys old movies, including the ones in black and white.
I call bullshit. Technology has nothing to do with it. The founding fathers were just as much against the idea of re-setting blocks of lead type on a printing press and violating copyright of a printed book (edited or not). No difference here.
This sig intentionally left justified.
The money issue is only solved if you assume that the offering of the 'edited' version was going to be offered as a replacement at the same price. This is not necessarily the case -- one could envision an 'enhanced' version being planned for sale at a premium, for instance.
It is also potentially very disruptive of certain revenue models. For instance, consider the concept of paid placement of products. One could envision an attempt to edit a movie to remove brand names, perhaps replacing them with generics or even rivals. While original distributor may receive the normal price for -that- run, the decline in eyeballs viewing the intended placements may mean that the future market for such placements would be negatively impacted. (Not that is this necessarily a bad thing, but...)
More directly, imagine the editing of the currently available ad-supported television episodes and other downloadable content, where the revenue is either from ads in the original downloading platform or pages, or in the downloaded video files themselves. Permitting the unlicensed creation and redistribution of derivative content where the transformation constitutes removing a non-trivial amount of those ads directly harms this model.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
If it is about the director's intent, then
Why are there "director's cuts" of these
movies being sold?
Because the "artistic intent" of the director
was compromised by the production group on
the basis of sellability. That is OK, but
for me to edit the movie to suit my
sensibilities is not?
emt 377 emt 4
I want edited news. Clearnews! For any political or religious group, their personalized cut down version of reality. Depending on your mood, you can cut out the bad news, or the good news -- and what is good or bad might of course depend on your choices. FOX news already has 50% of the market covered, time to give them some competition!
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
if the court had gone the other way, the GPL would be fucked
each copy of linux would be aquired legally then modified and resold, perhapse loaded with DRM or otherwise corrupted, and since the company no longer needs permission to resell legally aquired but modified works the GPL would have no teeth
this was a good decision
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Well, here it is: can copyrighted works be modified and redistributed without explicit permission by the copyright holder? The court says no, I agree in this case.
I don't. Can copyrighted works be redistributed without explicit permission by the copyright holder? Yes they can, according to the first-sale doctrine. And this thing happens to be one of the "best" principles in the idea of copyright in the sense that it makes copyrighted works behave in essentially similar way to such "ordinary items" that you just don't know how to manufacture.
So why pray tell should it be any different when modification is involved? (granted it probably IS different because some idiot has miscrafted the existing law - but what I'm looking after is justification for such policy) I mean if this stuff applied to physical objects it'd be an obvious loss to the society: No modding - no repairing etc. except by licenced parties which cost a fortune. What makes IP so special in this regard?
A lot of the cheering really does feel like movie snobs defending their right to be of a higher culture than those who would harm their movies. That, or people who rejoice whenever something that smacks of conservative christianity gets put down.
It all sounds like fair use to me. If you don't like the separate DVD included with the original, you could always get a directly edited VHS tape.
-Scarface (there's even a bonus feature on the collector's DVD about it!)
-Mallrats
On a more serious note...
Personally, I think the US' obsession with violence and persecution of sexuality is indicative of a deeper social disease.
---k--
</stupid>
God(dess)(es) forbid a child see something on somebody else that they have a ~50% chance of having on their own body.
How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. Everyone wants their kids to experience everything, well guess what...they do experience everything when they are young, then get get pregnant, or a STD at age 16 and then guess what, their life is screwed. And why is it screwed...because mommy and daddy let their kids watch sex scenes in movies at age 10 and their kids wanted to do it as soon as they could.
Do you think that the ears and brains of children stop working as soon as the TV goes off? Kids will hear what parents teach them. If parents prepare their children for the world, they have a much better chance of doing well in it.
I watched all kinds of movies with sex scenes when I was a kid. Remember, I was a kid when the Porky's movies were out. Porky's, Slashers and the early 80's beach movies were all a part of my viewing lineup. Know what? When I was 17 and started having sex I was smart enough to wear condoms. That's right. Gratuitus sex scenes in movies didn't make me stupid. Now here I am nearly 14 years later and I have still not caused a pregnancy. Why? Because I didn't want to produce a child before I was ready to raise one. Before the snide comments start, my longest period of "inactivity" was from July 20 1994 through December 27 1994. I've done my fair share of lovemaking and yet, no babies.
A good action film is still entertaining to watch without hearing the 'F' word every 5 seconds.
Play it at half speed, then it will only be every 10 seconds.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Ah, the age-old dilemma. Must a tolerant person tolerate intolerance?
I don't see why we should allow someone to use copyrighted work of others to make money without first getting permission from the holders of the copyright.
Really? What if you buy a copy of a computer program which is shipped as source, and you want to use it to make money? The law currently allows you to compile it or otherwise modify it so it'll run. There are other current examples.
Copyrights should apply within a limited timeframe - in case of a person, they should apply as long as the person is alive (my believe, but YMMV,) and in case of corporations copyrights should not exceed some time period that maybe just as long as life of a patent (20 years?)
Why so long? And so monolithic? I'd argue for very short terms, and multiple renewals of the terms so that the copyright won't last long in any event, and will not last longer than the author is interested in maintaining it. Maybe 25 years tops, and that's actually quite generous given the economic studies which tend toward a 15 year max.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Lets remmember the point of the copyright privlidge.
To keep people from claiming your material
No, that's not it at all.
The point was to promote the progress of science. This means encouraging the creation of original works, but it also requires encouraging the creation of derivative works, and in having no, or minimal copyright, so that everyone is as free as possible with regard to those works.
In fact, copyright has traditionally never cared about credit, and even today, as warped and awful as it is, it only rarely does, and wouldn't for a movie.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Is it the "god" or the "damn", or as American TV censorship clearly demonstrates, the combination of the two that makes for a profanity?
I always found it odd that they bleep out the first half, when the latter is what would traditionally be considered the (more offensive) curse word.
Did I say overlords? I meant protectors.
Actually, the derivative right in copyright didn't exist until the mid-19th century or so, so I'd say that the framers could not have given a rat's ass about sufficiently edited works. If they had cared, they would've covered it in the law.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Is the fact that if you can tell the DVD player to edit out the "naughty" bits, you can tell it to edit out the adverts-- and THAT is more specifically connected to revenue beyond just the price of the DVD. Plus, now the adverts are imbedded in the movie itself-- what if clearplay edits out the section that displays a condom brand-- when the manufacturer of the condom specifically paid for the exposure based on sales projections... The manufacturer is going to want a refund on his ad rate if the title is a big seller in the ClearPlay market, as he may not be getting the exposure he paid for...
Someone needs to come up with an open format for clearplay type players, that is a DVD markup that can be used to change play in order to chop various bits out. There also needs to be a database of these things somewhere similar to the freecddb so that when you insert a DVD it can go grab the markup and then apply your preferences to chop up the movie (and anyone can edit these things WIKI style). It could be extended to PVRs in general, but DVDs would be an excellent start. It also needs to be hosted somewhere with sane copyright laws, and a hacked DVD player created to use the format (a plugin for mplayer or similar would work.) Ideally you could use it to block out screen regions, chop out video, cut out just audio, etc. Subtitles would be a bonus (could add subtitles to the DB, or also block out words). Alternative cuts would also be a nice bonus (fixed SW:EP 1 as an example.)
Just a quick reply to part of the post:
The violence in movies is not, in fact, real violence. Anyone beyond a certain age knows this. However, the nudity in movies is actual nudity. And despite claims, pornography can, and does, ruin some lives.
PS: Cleanflicks does remove violence as well as nudity and language.
FUCK THAT!
censorship
1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.
censor
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
Example: you are a f***ing moron. (Here I, a private citizen, have elected to censor myself).
barack to the future?
If you can't resell modified forms of the original then hardened criminals can instead use a device, say a computer, to run mplayer on with data files that cause it to skip violent / sex laden segments (or cut out everything else instead!). The files to edit it at least are distributable under GPL, just time ranges in a datafile. A website could have all of these to download that people upload (higher score by known name, trust, vote rank, whatever). Throw ads all over the site and you've now got a legal business. Modify mplayer so that instead of segment cuts it bleeps audio or alters subtitles, or puts squares filled with GPL video kittens playing covering the naughtiest bits.
so you think that Cleanflix should exist to save you from parenting? If parents all did their jobs right, kids wouldn't be watching TV at the hours that there is swearing. And they wouldn't be letting their kids watch R16s at 10.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
One thing that appears to be overlooked by both sides in this - the films were edited then distributed to the original requestor, but with no kind of disclosure (according to TFA) about what was done. Sure, the purchaser knows what they ordered, although they don' know what specifically was changed, 'cause they didn't WANT to know the 'bad bits' and no mention was ever made of sending customers a list of deleted scenes.
My point - if I re-edit Star Wars: ROTS and distribute an edited version without changing the credits to reflect the fact that the work a viewer is about to see is NOT George Lucas' masterwork, I am misrepresenting my product. If I do such a disclosure, then I am committing a crime against the owner of the IP - there are fairly complex rules about who gets credit in movie 'credits'.
Derivative works I have no problem with - but if I make minor, difficult to detect changes to a film (difficult for someone who has *never seen the original* by definition) and pass it off as the original (i.e., original credits, including 'editor'), is that 'the Right Thing' even if I am paid by the initial purchaser to do so?
This decision is based on the same principle that powers the GPL: The right to control Derivative Works! The GPL could not control the terms licences of derivative works without the basic right to control derivative works!
Besides, authors do not necessarily write only for money. Without the right to control derivative works, anyone can come along and butcher your work which was intended to be a thing of beauty!
I think the heart of this question comes down to whether or not consumers of copyrighted works have the right to modify the work they have purchased. If I buy a book, is it within my legal right to tear pages out, scratch words out etc? What about a DVD? There's no way to change it at all without making a copy of the DVD. Should I be allowed to make a copy of the DVD so I can edit it as I see fit as long as it's only for personal use?
If you answered yes, then what if these companies that sell edited versions changed their business models a little. Instead of having the consumers purchase their videos directly from Clean Flix, what if they purchased their videos elsewhere and just brought the videos in to Clean Flix where the original would be put in an editing machine and the undesired parts would be edited out manually. The consumer would then receive their new edited version along with their original disc back. This would be a third party service doing the editing for us. Is that OK?
Somehow I think the studios would have an even bigger problem with that "revised" model than the one they are using now. So what's a good solution?
If you answered no, then is there any possible way you could have a business that legally provides an edited version or helps you edit your movies, since most studios seem unwilling to do it?
Some people have suggested the model of having an intelligent DVD player that would read a list of segments to cut out and edit the movie as it is playing. This isn't a good solution because people may want just language toned down, for example, without cutting significant scenes of the movie out. Or perhaps fuzz out certain parts of the screen, etc.
I can't seem to find any good solutions given the legal copyright framework that exists in the U.S. today.
In other news a private christian school decides to use open source software instead of microsoft software. --slashdot response...OMG WTF WHY DON'T THEY USE MICROSOFT!!!! STUPID CONSERVATIVES!!!!
I guess my comment wasn't clear enough, but what reader OYAHHH is suggesting is literally exactly what ClearPlay does.
Clearplay sells a customized DVD player (both the hardware type and the computer software type) that accepts "filter" files - files that contain timecodes as to what and when to skip stuff. They even have a version you can hook up to the internet that gets the filters automatically, but they still sell versions that accept filters from USB drive or CD.
With Clearplay you can still watch the original versions if you'd like, or you can set up the DVD player to only play "clean" versions (unless you enter an override).
Perhaps OYAHHH was suggesting a more open version of Clearplay, where anyone can create a filter. That'd be nice, but I'm willing to pay for someone else (whom I trust) to compile all the timecodes into such a file for me.
"Well, you did use a lowercase 'g' in "goddamn", which would put you squarely in the non-religious-freak camp, except that you somehow find it offensive enough to want to hear it less in a movie."
Wow, so those of us that type it with Uppercase are religious freaks huh? I'm glad that someone with your enlightenment and amazing intellect is beyond name calling and stereotyping people down.
I think in this case, copyright was correctly applied.
However, it could have the unintended side effect of mobilizing the now famous right wing "base" to do something about copyrights.
It could make copyright law worse or, if we are lucky, could put an end to mickey mouse legislation!
A summary:
Personally, I think if you compare this with software licenses, it makes perfect sense.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Yeah, except that once you've purchased the books, they're yours to do with what you like. Including modifying them and reselling them.
Worried that they're running afoul of their distribution agreement? Okay, buy the books at retail. Spray paint the covers blue. Cut our three or four pages. Put them up on eaby for 150% of what you paid for them. There's nothing illegal about that. What if you spill coffee on the disc liner for a CD and resell it on ebay. Legal? of course. Now spray paint the top of the disc green, then resell it. First sale doctrine says you can. What if you could alter the original dvd? What if you could alter the data on the original disc, then resell it on ebay. Still legal - it's yours to modify once you've bought it. You can scratch the disk to make a chapter unplayable and resell it, why not alter it more surgically?
Of course, the sticking point is that the content is not easily alterable on a DVD.
So, what if you bought the DVD, shipped it to them for editing for your personal use, and they sent you back the altered version (DMCA notwithstanding - this is not a DMCA ruling, it's copyright) with your original. Still smells like fair use to me. You bought it, you own it, you (had it) modified to suit your personal desires. No different than dubbing you're Eagles Greatest Hits album you've got on tape to eliminate "Life in the Fast Lane", or taking your CD collection and remixing it onto your MP3 player. But you're worried about someone making money off the alterations....so how about sending your CDs off to be ripped for you and tagged for you for a fee? It's happening now, apparently wihtout challenge - you can see for yourself here. They send you the ripped versions and your originals. Fair use. Now they do not alter the tracks, nor do they store and compile, but the implication is that if you can do A and B via fair use and first sale doctrine, doing both should not require a stretch of the imagination.
As for a vendor's license, all that does is make it easy for your locality to levy taxes on your business. They don't really care what you sell.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I know it's been said somewhere in here, but it bears repeating:
@#%@$#%^@ derivative work!
I don't care what you think about copyrights, or how much you want to complain about how the software companies of today are somehow destroying the world/system worse than the industrialists of the past (hint: they're not), but it's right there. In the statute. Which gains its authority explicitly from the constitution.
You can't take other people's stuff, repackage or modify it, and distribute it without their consent.
It's as simple as that.
How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.
This may be the single most bizare case of baseless causality I've ever seen.
Maybe it's because I dropped out of a vagina, or maybe it's because I sucked on a tit until I was a year old, or maybe it's because without sex I wouldn't exist, but I find it hard to follow this logic.
Then again, I was also fond of movies about robots from the future murdering innocent people, and yet, so far, I've yet to meet a single robot from the future or murder a single innocent person (they were all guilty I tells ya).
And, what if the sex scene in question was in regards to oral sex, or perhaps vaginal sex with a condom. By your "monkey see, monkey do" logic, this would lead in a direct DECREASE in teenage pregnancy, would it not?
I will assume the mods meant +5 funny and clicked the wrong button.
barack to the future?
"Don't approve of this action just because you think it only hurts a bunch of 'right-wing Christian zealots.' Remember fair use! There was a one-to-one copy sold with each of these DVDs---the original and the edited. The filmmakers did not lose one dime, and in fact made money with each copy sold."
Does this mean someone who used the service ended up with 2 DVDs? The original, and the clean version? If so, this is clearly copyright infrigement as only one copy was purchased. Who's to stop Joe from giving the original copy to his brother and keep the clean copy for himself? This means the copy that Joe now has infringes copyright as much as downloading the movie from bittorrent.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
First, you fail to identify what right is removed. One could frame anti-murder laws as taking away a right if you don't define 'right' robustly. A century of constitutional precedent disagrees with your interpretation of the interstate commerce clause but since this is about copyright, that is the portion of this paragraph most laughable.
The Constitution states:
Clearly, copyrights are not Unconstitutional but specifically attributed to the federal government under the Constitution.
Overlooking the historically and economically fallacious claim that cartels exist because of government sanction, this does not make any sense. For one, many artists (in cinema, theatre, literature, music, etc) would not want their work modified ("hacked") so as to make it more accessable, less offensive or otherwise not their 'vision.' This assumes that without your reviled evil regulation that anyone would pay the original author for such copies.
This is a drifting into incoherence. The existance of 'cartels' has nothing to do with the lack of resources in the movie maker to fight copyright violators. Indeed, it is one of the few arguments (other than profit) FOR the existance of such groups as they pool resources for such fights (and lobbying ).
You're emphasizing the wrong aspect of those transactions. People here want to share their software via the GPL and use the software that others have written and freely distributed, and want the same freedom in their entertainment. I don't think that's inconsistent.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'll skip the George Carlin-isms, and I respect that your children's useage of language is your responsibility. You also have an excellent point regarding the context of language. I tend to have a potty mouth myself, but when around children or people who find it offensive, I bite my tongue.
This is why I oppose this ruling; editing a PG version from a movie you have PURCHASED or LEASED is perfectly acceptable IMO. The problem here is that your right to do so has been called into question; rather than offering multiple versions (like HBO v. network TV already does for example), the "powers that be" are offering some blather about the "aritstic integrity" of "X-Men IV: happy meal justice". As a result, we have two bad choices: a) keep the bad language, forcing YOU to adapt to MY preferences, or b) lose the bad language, forcing ME to adapt to YOUR preferences.
The way I see it, you have the RIGHT to raise puritan children, and I have the RIGHT to worship filth. Rather than focus on a "working solution" or "fair compromise", I see more polarizing, radical opinions being used to divide and conquer.
It would seem to me that this problem is better solved with common courtesy and common sense, not legal opinions by those without the authority to enforce it.
barack to the future?
How would everyone feel if instead of movies, they were editing the "naughty bits" out of books like Catcher in the Rye and Lady Chatterley's Lover? Wouldn't we all be crying censorship?
I think an artist, actor, publisher, producer, or studio has every right to say, "I don't want you to sell a derivative of my work." Doesn't matter if it's just taking out the bad words, or deleting scenes they don't think are right, such as a scene where a woman gets an abortion; a discussion about evolution; or a character that hates Mormons. It dilutes the value of the original product, or outright changes the story the person is trying to tell, probably to meet a certain religious belief system.
I'm sure if these services worked with the studios to determine what changes were acceptable to both parties, the studios would be more than happy to license these works to them. Heck, they do it on airlines all the time.
I haven't seen a censored version of Pulp Fiction, but I have to say I much prefer the censored Repo Man to the original. "Gold-Darn Melon Farmer!" Haahahahahaha!!!
I fricken love that shoot!
Shame we won't get any more....
I took copyright law in college because I came up studying the recording industry (I am an audio engineer). There is something in US Copyright law called "right of integrity [of a work]". This is the legal ground that the plantiffs are using in this case I bet.
"The right of integrity -- the author's right to prevent, in the words of Article 6bis of the Berne Convention -- the "distortion, mutilation, or any other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to [his or her] work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation"
The right of integrrity is closely linked to the right of attribution. Feel free to Google for more information.
Libertas in infinitum
Can this be applied as an argument against butchering incoming anime?
E.g. One Piece was put through a proverbial meatgrinder before reaching the screens in the states. It's to the point that it's painful to watch.
Would this mean that what Fox's 4kids did could be considered illegal?
I may have missed something regarding where money is flowing in the article.
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
I agree with the ruling in principle, and I understand the rationale behind it. My question to Monday morning /. legal representatives is, does this ruling pertain to the Clearplay player as well? AFAICT, the distinction between the two is that Cleanflix physically strips the "naughty bits" from the DVD, whereas the Clearplay player simply uses a downloaded filter to automagically fast forward through unwanted scenes.
Actually, an even better possiblity would be the folowing example. Consider a hypothetical standalone DVD utilizing the Clearplay concept. Imagine having a DVD that included all those nasty scenes, but only played them when specifically called for (akin to a director's cut DVD with the "watch with deleted scenes" option). Even better, what if the data on the DVD was left intact, but a third party menu was bootstrapped onto it? You could then choose to watch the censored movie (as programmed by a third party menu system) or simply escape to the original content of the DVD.
I'm no lawyer, but the line here seems to be drawn based upon the location of the original, unedited source material. If you have the physical DVD, the Clearplay system is legit because it falls under the same concepts that govern fast forwarding a VHS. Basically anything you do in private (without redistribution) is ok as far as the law is concerned. Cleanflix is no good because it redistributes an unauthorized, edited version of a copyrighted work. I wonder, would the ruling have been the same if the Cleanflix DVDs also included the original, unedited material?
I only mod funny =D
Here are the legal grounds:
The right of integrity -- the author's right to prevent, in the words of Article 6bis of the Berne Convention -- the "distortion, mutilation, or any other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to [his or her] work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation" -- is a reflection of an important principle.
You can look for other posts by me on the subject.
Libertas in infinitum
I concur. I'm an atheist. (At times I've been a "card carrying atheist", having membership in an atheist organization.) I don't like excessive violence or (to a lesser extend) excessive swearing. I often avoid movies specifically because of their violence. While I wouldn't go so far as to buy one of these edited movies, if a DVD came with a 'reduced violence and swearing' option, I would usually activate it. If I have kids, a "less scary" option will also be useful.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
..who's doing the cut? If you are watching-random here- say a move on ABC and it is "edited for television", is ABC doing the cut, or does the movie producer do the cut? And again, if you own the copy, and they admit in public in their ads you can "own it today on DVD!", you can't delete scenes if you want to? Or you hire a service that does it for you? How about a translation, if they won't provide one in *your* language?
Gray area at best, I am not seeing a clear black/white here yet, but I usually fall on the side of owner's rights, in this case, the owners of the purchased legitimate disks. No one in this situation is taking anything from the original copyright holder, neither money nor credit, and the only copies involved in any of these transactions are legitimately purchased ones. There has been zero copyright infringement that I can see. It's not even a derivative AFAIK, because nothing has been added or altered, just scenes cut.(don't know on that, do they change dialogue?). If so I 'll give one point to the MAFIAA then, but cutting scenes out? Nope, fair use, same as tearing a page out of a copyrighted book and re selling it "as is". Or is it your belief that that is illegal? So does it matter the media used for cutting out a scene? Copyright for print is different than for disks? Can I go to a bookpage ripping company and tell them "I really don't like the word "zebra", gives me the willies, if you find any such word in these books, cut them out please". Illegal? Weird maybe, but illegal, voids copyright? Don't think so....
On reflection, I'll still stick with my orginal assessment, judge = out to lunch-proly on the MAFIAA tab
I rented the first season of Deadwood from Cleanflix, and I thought the sound had gone out on my television!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Not at all. I think it was the intent of the director of Twister to sprinkle around "cocksucker" and "shit eater" every few seconds, but somewhere along the line he got fucked in the ass one too many times and decided to tone it down.
Yeah, except that once you've purchased the books, they're yours to do with what you like. Including modifying them and reselling them. - wrong. Under the copyright law you CANNOT modify contents of a book and redistribute it either for profit or even gratis. You are just confused because you don't hear about such things because they don't really happen.
You can't handle the truth.
Really? What if you buy a copy of a computer program which is shipped as source, and you want to use it to make money? The law currently allows you to compile it or otherwise modify it so it'll run. There are other current examples. - jeez, DISTRIBUTION. We are talking about distribution, not about usage.
Why so long? And so monolithic? I'd argue for very short terms, and multiple renewals of the terms so that the copyright won't last long in any event, and will not last longer than the author is interested in maintaining it. Maybe 25 years tops, and that's actually quite generous given the economic studies which tend toward a 15 year max. - an opt into copyright rather than an opt out? Would you be for an opt into your health/credit privacy? What if the author is lying there in coma and cannot once again opt into his copyrights, would you deny him the rights to his work because of that? No, my personal belief is that while I am alive, my works should be copyrighted to me.
You can't handle the truth.
I don't. Can copyrighted works be redistributed without explicit permission by the copyright holder? Yes they can, according to the first-sale doctrine. And this thing happens to be one of the "best" principles in the idea of copyright in the sense that it makes copyrighted works behave in essentially similar way to such "ordinary items" that you just don't know how to manufacture. - BS. First-sale does not apply to COPIES or modified copies, only to the original. By making a copy and distributing it you are violating copyright.
You can't handle the truth.
How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.
If you think that cutting out sex scenes will lead to reduced teenage pregnency then you are either too old to understand "kids these days" or you are just completely and obliviously unaware of how the world works.
then get get pregnant, or a STD at age 16 and then guess what, their life is screwed.
The vast majority of STD's are curable if detected quickly and treated. I bet your one of those right wing wackos who wants to closed down planned parenthood and not let them hand out condoms in school too. Pregnancy does not have to ruin your life. Even if you dont like it abortion IS an option and is a honestly a good option for many people.
And why is it screwed...because mommy and daddy let their kids watch sex scenes in movies at age 10 and their kids wanted to do it as soon as they could.
Let me guess, back in your day kids didn't know what sex was and also never wanted to have it when they did find out. WHow do you explain all of the children who are allowed to watch violent and sexual movies and yet turn out to be perfectly normal people?
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Permitting the unlicensed creation and redistribution of derivative content where the transformation constitutes removing a non-trivial amount of those ads directly harms this model.
I do the same when I pay the garage to remove the car dealer's sticker from my new car or pull down the for sale sign on my new house.
The copy is mine; I should be able to do anything I like with it, including paying a third party to cut out the naughty bits, even if that third party is used a different-but-identical copy of what I have. Copyright law is broken.
---
Creating simple artificial scarcity with copyright and patents on things that can be copied billions of times at minimal cost is a fundamentally stupid economic idea.
And I will say it again: Hollywood, the MPAA, and anyone else that was fighting this in court is doing it for one reason. There is a DVD sold, that is fine. Then you get another one that they are not getting paid for. There is no way that they are going to accept this. It doesn't matter if there is a trade, the new one must be a copied version. So they see two copies here and only one being paid for, I bet if you offered to pay for two in order to get the edited version there might not be a problem here.
"You go to the free clinic and got your shots."
That works fine for curable STDs; not so good with herpes or AIDS (both are treatable but not curable).
So does the ruling mean that pop-up blockers and adblock are illegally violating US Copyright law by "irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression" in those web pages?
Andrew Yeomans
Apparently, it's not completely clear what the cause is (no "duh" erlebnis here), if you look at TV shows every country in western europe gets is fair share of the usual crap (temptation island, big brother, and I don't know what), an interesting quote:
In comparing rates between Europe and the US, where rates are much higher - it found the difference in levels of sexual activity were small.
What I get from the article, there are two most probably causes, which is the socially and economically f**ked up family life in england, and (therefore) the missing of someone taking the effort to actually talking to the kid about sex and what its consequences can be.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
doesnt cleanflix apply their artistic vision and creativity? shouldnt hollywood promote artistic creative ventures instead of limiting it through patents copyright ect. hollywood should promote the continued financial support of artists, but not limited the creativity of others
This is my sig.
in my opinion censoring films etc should be allowed, but only in specific cases, if a film is rated adult, then they should expect rude scenes or violent scenes, however if these films contain children as main characters then maybe censorship should be allowed
JAWs
Um, the paragraph you quoted doesn't even contain the word "copy".. the point there is precisely about the original so there's no bullshit either. /should/ matter BUT it also acknowledged that there are legal problems.
Now, the paragraph after that DID raise the question about why it
Did you fail reading comprehension?
How about you don't watch it then! Why should the world have to edit to your tastes? There is a control on your TV to turn it off. It is very simple to use, I'm surprised you haven't figured it out. Those among you that don't like what is on TV and the movies, can pay to make your own films. There is a whole channel of this bible thumping crap in my area. Do I demand that they add violence and stop all the religious nonsense? No, I remove that channel from the list. Now go send that guy on television another check to save you, and leave the media content alone.
an opt into copyright rather than an opt out?
Yes. This way only works where the author wants a copyright will be copyrighted. If the author doesn't care enough to expend a token effort with regard to the work, why should we? Especially since copyright encourages authors to create what they otherwise would not. When we can identify works that he would've created anyway -- and an opt-in system does that -- he shouldn't get a copyright. He didn't need the incentive for that work, and since copyrights are a cost on the public, we shouldn't be wasteful.
Would you be for an opt into your health/credit privacy?
Not the same thing. Remember, we don't have copyright for the hell of it, or because authors deserve it or some nonsense, we have it for very specific public policy reasons. It's more like, oh, student loans. We want to encourage people to go to school even if they can't immediately afford it, but we don't just give out free money left and right.
What if the author is lying there in coma and cannot once again opt into his copyrights, would you deny him the rights to his work because of that?
No. First, there's not going to be many works to worry about from that author, unless he's typing away at a word processor while in a coma. The only pending works will be those he had already made and hadn't copyrighted. Second, in that kind of situation, there are usually guardians who can make decisions for the comatose author: spouses, parents, state-appointed guardians, etc. Third, that's a hell of an unusual situation; I'd rather worry about the more common cases in finding a general policy, and then deal with those outliers, rather than the other way around.
No, my personal belief is that while I am alive, my works should be copyrighted to me.
And my personal belief is that your works should not be. Traditionally, I've won, and when the eventual wholesale reform of copyright law comes along, I think I'm going to win again. Your argument is the one of the copyright maximalist who got us into this rotten situation with regard to copyright. It's a bad argument.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The article does pick out some important points.
I have the idea that once you buy something, you should be able to do what you want with the item you purchased. This includes copying, backing up, and if you want altering.
You should also be able to sell the unaltered original whereupon you should destroy all the copies or altered versions you have.
To uphold copyrights, the government cannot allow someone to make money producing an alteration or derivative work without the artists involvement.
For the most part, I support copyrights. If you dont, then chances are good that you dont really like the artists that produced the work. (Yes, music and movies cost too much and their representatives seem to make quite a noise.)
If the altered version was made available for free, it could work.
For example, I have entertained the idea that it would be nice for example to obtain foreign films, with the region code removed and English subtitles added.
I however, want the translation to be as close to the original language in meaning as possible.
This brings us to the issue of alteration.
If you are an artist, then you are preparing work by yourself and are presented to your audience. Outside alteration is interference.
The essential quality of most censors is that the censor performs his actions on unwilling participants - the source of the work and audience.
I suppose the other kind of censor, it one that performs its actions for willing participants.
I feel uncompelled to help either kind of censor.
They do feel compelled to alter others works. Obviously their audience might not want to feel left out.
These people could try to produce their own movies and then see which one the audience likes better.
If this kind of alteration is allowed later then get rid of DMCA for every owner.
If you really want to compensate for bad journalism, it's not by doing more bad journalism yourself, but to do good journalism.
/. more credible.
Showing some really "insightful" comments (instead of the ones that get modded up just for defending one side) would make the whole discussion on
Now they just lowered themselves to the level of the "mass media" (nice generalisation by the way).
I am all for fair use. Time shifting and even making copies for personal use.
That is not what was going on here. I heard this guy on the radio yesterday.
He maintained that this was a service. That his customers would purchase the original movie, send it to him, he would edit it and send the edited version back.
What struck me as strange was that he mentioned that they did not do edit on request. That he had a "standard" that he followed and that every movie was edited for the same things.
Here is what I think is most likely happening.
1 - Customer buys DVD.
2- Customer sends DVD to him
3 - He checks to see if he has ever edited this movie before
4 - if no, edit and send back (saving an edited copy for his archives)
5 - if yes, copy edited copy from archives and send to customer
Therefore this is not a service but a product he is selling (the edited version of the movie).
A product he does not own.
QED
"They are redistributing modified copyrighted material for profit without a license from the copyright holder."
What do you mean by "redistributing"? Under your definition, is reselling a copy "redistributing"? If so, any retail store or, especially, used cd/dvd/book store would be in trouble.
"At the end it is done to make money on other people's work."
This is similarly irrelevant. Copyright is not intended to prevent you from making money on someone else's work. If I buy a painting for $100, and turn around and sell it at auction for $100,000 - do I owe the painter something? Of course not. Copyright, as you note earlier, is specifically concerned with the right to make copies. I'm not sure I see how modifying the painting before selling it should matter, either. If I don't like one of the figures in the painting, and I paint over it myself...should that change my right to sell it, or to profit from the sale?
"...but I am certain that noone can legally take a DVD, modify its content and redistribute it without permission."
Well, that _would_ seem to be the gist of this court decision, whether or not you agree with it. But, "Should we allow distribution of content altered DVDs...?" is a different question. I personally don't see any reason why copyright law should (morally or legally) be used to prevent this. The copyright owner gets paid for each copy, which is all that the spirit of the law requires. The specifics of who edits the disc (end user or intermediate company) or whether the disc itself is edited rather than a "cue list" of scenes to skip should not matter - the law should be technologically neutral, in that the end result (not the specific details) matter. For commercial purposes, one copy is bought from the copyright owner, and one copy is sold to the end user. No additional commercial copies are made. In other areas, the courts seem to pay more attention to the intent and end results. The only area where I think the firms should possibly get into trouble is trademark law (I can't remove the Coca-Cola from the soda bottle, replace it, and resell it as Coca-Cola), but with sufficient markings such that the average buyer will not suffer any reasonable confusion, that should be a moot point. (I can buy Coca-cola, add a few drops of orange extract, and sell it as My New Soft-Drink, flavored with Coca-Cola![not associated with the Coca-Cola corporation])
The problem here is that the courts aren't appreciating that for digital work, the idea of a copy is irrelevant. There are numerous forms of ephemeral and fixed copies which are necessary to the normal use of electronic media. Even if you play a cd in an old-fashioned cd player, you still make a copy of the cd in the player's memory, in the microprocessor embedded in the player, and in the DAC chip in the player, all ephemeral copies. In the case of media used with a more complicated gadget like an mp3 player or computer, you may also have copies that are somewhat more fixed - an encoded mp3 version of the song on flash memory or a harddisk, or a backup copy. None of these copies violates the spirit of copyright law - they are made in the course of using the work, not as a means of illegally creating additional copies for distribution without compensation. The law doesn't seem to have evolved to understand this yet. And it's a shame that the courts haven't come forward to help with this, because they seem to have been more than willing to unilaterally expand other aspects of copyright law to help content owners at the expense of users when the technology has advanced faster than the law.
It's amazing that so many people take this so personally, as if their rights have been taken away... their right to see editted or censored movies. That's not the case. There has been no such revocation of rights. This is about whether someone has the right to take someone else's copyrighted creative work, hack it up, and sell it for a profit. The people who created that film put months or even years of effort into it, and they proudly put their names onto it. Their reputations as creative artists are at stake with every film they release. They have the right to insist that their creations are seen in the way that they meant them to be seen. If some people don't want to see what is there, they have that choice.
And I have something to say to those who point out that, the studios still make a sale so why care. News flash: the studios know that perfectly well. This isn't about making the sale. It's about their artistic integrity. The studios and artists involved know very well that squashing these services will mean fewer sales.
I think the real tragedy is the idea which Maitch (sp?) espouses that the essence of Copyright is control. In my view the essence of copyright is not control but the right to make money on ones work, a thing of often fleeting value.
One could argue that control and what I have proposed are one in the same, but I disagree. Copyright legacy has been applied to art, music, literature, and more recently motion pictures. The point of the exercise was about ensuring that artists, writers (fine distinction), directors/producers could live off their labors. The point of Copyright was not about control, it was about these folks making a living. Things have and are changing, but the laws regarding copyright are not.
The point is when I bought a book since the original Gutenburg, no one could control where/when/how I read it, no one could control the dosage, volume, or sequence of music I chose to listen to. The same applies to theater, and movies to some lesser degree. I would grant that to see a play it is kind of hard to without actors, a theater, etc. but I made my point. Now all of a sudden digital media comes into play. The theaters, the producers, the advertisers, and the rest of the media see an opportunity (associate $$) to make more by exerting more control over the work. The problem is that most people kind of grate on the idea that something they grew up being able to do in the bathroom incrementally (reading a chapter) is now illegal, and worse yet because of the new media impossible (rendered so by technological bombs placed in firmware, hardware, software, etc.)
Using Encryption to notionally ensure that someone only "reads" their DVD/CD on "approved" devices, and software is just really offensive to folks like me. It always will be, and there is no amount of law which will change that. I do not make copies of DVD's, I do not sell/resell them, I do not share them on the net, I do not edit content (because I have no time), but beyond this anything which prevents me from "reading" the DVD is not a valid law to me. It is worse yet that some of these DVD's attempt to ensure that I watch the now mandatory previews, advertisements, and legal disclaimers which waive all my rights, and ensure that I am appropriately frightened by the FBI, INTERPOL, etc. into compliance. So the idea that I will remove encryption, macrovision, copy my media to backup, remove editing/viewing & region restrictions, alternate endings, subtitles, etc being illegal is FINE with me.
The RIAA crap is very similar. I don't use P2P, but I have all my media converted to MP3 and will continue to do this for all my music. I share the physical media for my music with my family, but I do not make any money for doing so. The idea that they can tell me that if my media gets scratched that I need to go buy a new copy of some rare CD is absolutely not happening. It would be like someone telling me that if I was procuring a rare book that if I should digitize the pages that I have commited some felony. This would be the equivalent of telling me I cannot conserve the property rights I bought when I procured the book.
I could go on and on with the now ridiculous things the industry is now doing to exert its "RIGHTS" to the intellectual property it is/has created. In my estimation many of these interpretive "RIGHTS" are totally un-envisioned by the framers of the original Copyright statutes, and would be repugnant to them.
The idea Maitch proposes is ludicrous. There is some reason for Copyright law, and there is some fairness to the idea that the copyright owner has rights, both to make a living, and to have retention of some rights to how the property is moved, transferred, and to a lesser degree used. But, I propose fair use has a larger meaning than currently proposed, far moreso than Maitch proposes, and than Hollywood would currently be comfortable with. Finally, and somewhat on tangent, someone needs to define some reasonable standard for the length of Copyright, and the impact of technology as applied by the large combines. Someone needs to set a standard for fair use in law which will put judicial activists like Matich in their place.
That's the effect of society and culture. I was taught that if you know something is known to offend a largish group of people, you refrain from doing it in public. Even when it's something you personally don't find objectionable. That's the polite thing to do. In America, yes, a largish subset of the population is historically religious, and it is simply understood that "g*****n it" and similar phrases are simply not used in polite company, and are best not used in public in general. Doing so may make you look unsophisticated or boorish. It's about being considerate of others and appropriate to the setting.
Constitutionally Correct
"How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies."
What?? You can get pregnant by watching sex scenes???
I am anarch of all I survey.
I hate the expansion of copyright law as much as the next guy, but this is a pritty clear violation. There is no fair use here, someone is modifying the film and selling it for profit. This is a case of an unlicenced party distributing the copyrighted work for profit, which is just the kind of thing copyright was intended to prevent. You still have the right to modify your owne personal copy any way you like, which would be fair use.
If it's dead, you killed it.
Oh boy, here we go with the "back in my day, things were better" rant.
If you think sex scenes are what cause teenage pregnancy, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Seriously, the only thing that causes teenage pregnancy is unprotected teenage sex. Since you're not going to stop teenagers from having sex, then they should be educated about it and have protections available to them. So many people talk about "protecting the children" yet when it comes to something as simple as a millimeter thick piece of rubber, everyone claps their hands over their ears (and the children's ears) and starts shouting "lalalala, I can't here you!"
Proof please? I've yet to see a scientific study that shows even a *correlation* (which we know does not imply causation) between children watching sex scenes and children having sex.
Oh, and it's okay for children to see a person getting ripped to shreds or shot through the head as long as the people on screen aren't saying shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker or tits?
Look, I respect the right of every parent to raise his or her child as he or she sees fit. But when people start making up bullshit it just annoys me, and I'm sure others.
Nathan's blog
I think you are misunderstanding the basic business model of these companies. They are not editing the works and then selling them. They are selling original copies and then editing them.
So how do you explain the massive market in used textbooks which are marked and highlighted? I don't see anybody being sued over that.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I did a bit of reading here and I think thereis something mssing.
The company sells the original DVD along with the altered DVD. OK. So what is the condition of the altered DVD? Is it playabe? If so jhow would you reply to someone taking a music CD and burining a copy only dropping the sound level a few db. Would that be legal? I doubt very may reader here would think so. So why is it OK to distribute TWO copies for the price of one. No matter if the viewer ~*says~* they only watch the altered DVD. What happens to the other one? Their kid watches it when no one is around? They sell it. We all know that religion does not stop anyone from making a profit.
Maybe if they drilled a hole into the original the outcome would have been different.
Books are marked and highlighted doesn't mean that the content is modified. The book can be scratched, pages ripped out, and it doesn't mean that the content is modified, you can call it wear and tear. Noone is going after the that aftermarket because those books are not being copied and then copies sold. You will see lawsuits right away if someone decides to publish books without a license (as in sold unauthorized copies.)
You can't handle the truth.
The maker of a movie (song, book, whatever...) owns the copyright. That includes not just the movie as you see it originally, but any "derivative" works. If there's money to be made by modifying those works, then that money can only be made with permission of the copyright holder.
So, say we allow someone to remove some sexual content; remove swearing... OK. Can they add "bleeps"? What else can they add? Can we chop the movie and resequence it so that "greedo shoots first" if we are not the copyright owner?
Can I alter dialog - have the hero say "Oh, fudge" instead? Can I add dialogue or sound effects? What's the difference between adding silence and adding sounds?
If you can add stuff, or re-arrange it, then where does it stop? Can I duplicate some scenes so it looks like the hero shoots the bad guy twice, or 3 times, instead of once? Can I use computer graphics so that it doesn't look like an identical scene repeats when he does?
Can I add a bit more blood splatter and gore? Can I use computer graphics to throw in a few car crashes in the background street scenes to liven things up; "Terms of Endearment" could use that. Maybe I'll throw in some computer-generated scenes where the bad guy kills the girl and the hero brings her back to life... fits in with the religious theme I'm peddling. I'll sell you a nice clean version of Pulp Fiction where Travolta and Jackson are Mormons going door to door prosletyzing... (That one might be OK under the parody clause...)
Better yet, send me both Star Wars I-III and a 3-Stooges DVD and I'll replace Jar-Jar with the 3 stooges...
Can I do a whole new movie, using bits of the old one? Or just computer-generated characters from the old movie? Send me Star Wars and I'll send you Star Wars III.5 as a replacement...
When does a "modification" stop being a modification and become a derivative work? Crappy as a movie might be, it belongs to the people who made it. Any alterations done for money (or... not done in the privacy of your own home under fair use) should only be done with the explicit permission of the copyright owner.
This goes back to other, previous court cases where excessively wide-spread "fan fiction" type derivative works have been suppressed; after all, if you're Disney, you don't want to have a widespread market of stories on the sex life of Mickey and Minnie or Donald and Daisy... (Where did those "nephews" come from, anyway???)
People shouldn't be supporting movies that contain material they don't approve of anyway. It's saying things like "sex in movies is bad, but I'll go ahead and support sex in movies with my hard earned dollars". That is hypocritical. If you don't like a scene in the movie, don't buy the blasted thing! It's not a requirement to view the latest and greatest flick that Hollywood has put out.
Mike D. Smith http://www.elecorn.com
and then editing them.
"editing" = creating a derived work. They have no license from the copyright holder to do this.
The right to control derived works is one of the rights granted by copyright.
And it powers the GPL.
Yes, they are editing it. So, by that same token, can I not rip a DVD and ignore the commercials? Can I not edit them myself using an EDL w/mplayer or something similar? Is that somehow a derivative work that they copyright owner can use against me?
If you create a new modified DVD you are creating a derived work. You would be violating the author's copyright. If you do this for private use, it may be difficult to find you, to prosecute you. But if you do it commercially you may be caught, sued and/or prosecuted.
Should I be able to tear a page out of a book and resell it?
For a lot of movies, the naughty bits are all that's worth watching. I'm thinking late night made for cable stuff.
Nobody watches softcore erotic thrillers for the artistic vision.
So modifying anything for private use is violating copyright?
The FAA in Canada was privatized and it is one of the most efficient ones ever -- in fact, it is safer and cheaper than the US' FAA.
Since they appear to have signed on to most of the FAA's regulations (either through EUROCAE, who did much of the same, or through treaty), I can't say I'm surprised that it is cheaper to copy the efforts of the FAA instead of spending time and money inventing their own. Not to mention that the number of flight paths in Canada is easily half that of the US.
Freight costs are cheaper to ship from LA to China than from LA to New York (I know, I just started an import/export business).
And that has nothing to do with the immense size and power of the Pacific fleet (which does drive down costs), the painstaking process in the 1980's of hammering out shipping container rules and international shipping doctrine (which are regulations you conveniently forget to mention), or the fact that naval shipping is at least an order of magnitude cheaper than ground over any useful distance (diesel ships are cheaper than diesel trucks - they can ride with currents and there are not appreciable geographic obstacles in an ocean).
-- Anonymous becauseProbably. Is reediting a DVD and burning it to a disc the same thing, or is it more like reprinting a book and rebinding it?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
People are surprised that the geek crowd isn't all against the ruling, but you have to remember: Even the Creative Commons license allows for an artist to slap a "no-derivatives" clause on their works. Sorry fundy censors, but this is *exactly* what copyright is meant to protect against! You can't make derivative works without the copyright holder's OK.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
I just don't get it. One of the "selling points" of DVD was the "Parental Modes". If I remember correctly, there are several levels. I don't see why certain DVD watchdog Groups couldn't be set up to "OWN" the various levels. ie: One level may be exclusion of "adult material" (standard censorship). Another level could be Extended Censorship (Same Plus Exclusion of swear words etc) while the final level could be "Exclusion of anything objectionable". These DVDs could have certification marks (ie: Censor-Certified Stickers) to alert consumers. I'm sure that studios would oblige. Uncensored Mode on the DVD would be the "guts and all movie". That way, everyone could have their cake and eat it too.
we should allow what with content altered DVDs? Should we allow distribution of content altered DVDs without permission from copyright holders? I don't think so. Whether you changing your DVD content and using it yourself falls under fair use or not, I am not sure, but I am certain that noone can legally take a DVD, modify its content and redistribute it without permission.
See, here's the basic problem with copyright in the digital age: there is absolutely no way to modify a particular copy of a work and redistribute it, because it automatically becomes a derivative work. In the old days censors could tear pages out of a book or snip sections out of cassette tape and then sell the remainder (as long as it was not represented as the entire work, which would be fraud and not a copyright violation). It is very difficult, if not impossible, to erase sections of video on a DVD. In fact, due to MPEG encoding, the portion of the movie you want to keep may be composed of P or B frames that require data from an unwanted scene. Even if the edited movie is written to a new DVD and the original destroyed, copyright law still considers the edited movie to be a derivative work, instead of simply the truncation of the original work. Basically, there is no legal concept of the work as anything other than its physical manifestation, however the DVD is not truly the physical manifestation that actually matters. The work itself is encoded with enough redundancy on the DVD to separate it into two works that could retain a full copy of the entire work, simply for error correction. The work is also stored in the discrete frequency domain truncated by a quantization table and compressed by an efficient binary or arithmetic coding and represented as a multiple of some irriducible polynomial that is itself represented as an overdefined set of points lying on a second polynomial whose binary representation is frequency modulated onto the surface of the DVD as a series of pits and lands, or in the case of recordable discs, as patches of differently reflecting dye. The physical copy of the work bears no similarity to the resulting video and audio that can be generated by repeatedly copying data from the DVD into registers in a microprocessor, applying functional transformations and table lookups and finally copying the digital signals into analog approximations that drive a mechanical speaker element and display as individual pixels.
In fact, since the MPEG patent prevents the user from personally performing the decoding algorithm, the user cannot legally be the one who actually decodes the DVD, which implies that the user must *give a copy* of the DVD to a third party, namely the licensed DVD player, simply to play the DVD. Technically, this means that either fair use allows the owner of a DVD to copy it and give it to a third party, that somewhere there is a license agreement giving DVD owners the right to copy DVDs to their DVD player, or that it is illegal to play DVDs. Personally, I haven't seen any license agreement on a DVD comprehensive enough to cover these situations without stupid edge cases cropping up. Copyrights and patents are simply undue burdons in the digital age. Not only that, but the thing that really annoys me is that if Shannon had patented information theory and all the coding methods he developed, DVDs wouldn't even exist today. People just can't comprehend the vast mathematical breakthroughs that are freely used to drive society today, and they still allow corporations to patent what amounts to tiny shadows upon the monuments of mathematics that make them possible.
there is absolutely no way to modify a particular copy of a work and redistribute it, because it automatically becomes a derivative work - which is of-course irrelevant, you are a looking for a technological loophole to declare that the two works are different, that one is not a real copy of another, right? The encoding/decoding/recoding all of that produces not an exact copy of what was on DVD. I understand that, but it doesn't matter if the end result contains visual/audio/text information that is perceived by humans to be equivalent to the original. Good luck with that argument in court.
You can't handle the truth.
which is of-course irrelevant, you are a looking for a technological loophole to declare that the two works are different, that one is not a real copy of another, right?
Wrong, I'm looking for the ability to chop a work in half, or in pieces, and still be able to own those pieces. If you own a physical piece of property, you can chop it up however you like and give it away to anyone you want. You can even chop up someone else's physical copy of a work if they pay you to censor it for them. However, there is no feasible way to do this with optical media because of the reasons I outlined. The problem is that copyright law does not recognize that *all* digital works require numerous copies to be made just for normal use. If it did, there would be no problem in cutting up a work and recombining it. Look at it this way: copyright is currently spacetime compatible, because you can move your physical copy of a work around spacetime, but copyright is not information theory compatible, because it does not allow you to move a digital copy of a work through mathematical transformations that are the digital equivalent of common physical actions.
So, you don't think it is appropriate to curse in a movie involving some large fucking tornadoes destroying everything and everyone in their path?
You don't think that people swear when under large amounts of stress because they are a few hundred meters from a whirling vortex of wind that can lift a car and fling it into the side of a house?
What a weird world you live in.
About half those 15 are in the context of people in dire circumstances. The rest were just thrown in for the fun of it.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Then I am not sure what is it that you are trying to ask copyright to do?
Do you expect copyright law to be modified for any technology that comes along and requires 5 simultaneous temporary copies to be made in a DVD player's RAM as opposed to the current DVD players that only require 1 temporary RAM copy?
I think that in spirit copyright is being upheld by all DVD players that do not create a PERMANENT copy of a DVD on another media (either internal harddrive or another disk or some external permanent storage.)
The spirit of copyright is not trying to implement obstacles infront of DVD players that simply are used to playback the data from the DVDs, the spirit of copyright is in prevention of illegal distribution of copies of copyrighted material, whether it is modified or in its original form.
You can't handle the truth.
From their perspective, there's nothing wrong with damning someone for a terrible action, but invoking the name of God in a curse is profane.
sweet thing are easy to say, sweetthing are easy to buy, sweet thing are easy to watch , but beautiful girl like you difficut to fine. thank G od i found you. you may reply black with this mail
Can you buy a book, rip some pages out, or hire someone to rip some pages out, and re-sell it? 'Joe's naughty scenes ripped out of these books bookstore' Isn't that still legal? What's the diff, ohh, this is "digital", that makes it "special" so it is illegal? The "artistes" will get the swooning fantoids if you do that?
I say, if they got their money they can go pound sand after that, you can do whatever you want with your tangible property after you paid for it. You can't setup a mass duplication effort, but on a one to one basis, screw 'em. We HAVE to be consistent, if YOU want freedom to do what you want with your stuff, then let other people have freedom too. You can't just willy nilly decide about "artistic integrity" because you don't approve of ripping out the naughty bits, then turn around and bitch when the copyright goons tell you you can't skip their forced commercials or whatever. If you love freedom, BE CONSISTENT ABOUT IT..
Agreed! The DVD format has content filtering --- the studios are just too lazy/concerned with thier "artistic integrity" to enable the scene-by-scene ratings. They were designed to allow those at home to automatically skip scenes above a certain rating (eg, program it for "G", and skip the one obligatory gore scene which makes it "PG-13"). So, anybody see anything remotely resembling that? I think that feature gets used less than the "multiple angles" feature!