' Naughty Bits' Decision Not So Nice

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. Read on for the Backslash summary of the conversation, with some of the best comments of the more than 1200 that readers contributed to the story.

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:

1. Buy a normal DVD with all the "naughty bits"
2. Get the filter from the clearplay website for that DVD
3. Transfer the filter via USB or CD to the clearplay DVD player
4. 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.

Comments

More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

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.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[raehl]

There are many cases where the only thing worse than one regulation is 50 different sets of regulations.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually copyright (and patents) is explicitly mentioned in the constitution as something the Federal Government is responsible for. I'm not sure legislation at the state level is even constitional, not without an act of Congress anyway.

And, for what it's worth, protecting the integrity of artistic works strikes me as a worthy use of copyright. Nor is it necessary to be a giant cartel to win, as Gilliam vs ABC (one of the first "moral rights" cases) proves.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[pete-classic]

If George can take your 4th amendment to fight terrorists, Hillary can take your 2nd.

Vote Libertarian.

-Peter

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

And, for what it's worth, protecting the integrity of artistic works strikes me as a worthy use of copyright

I agree, it strikes me as a worthy use of the law, too. But does it work? No. Does public welfare at the national level work? No. Does retirement funding at the national level work? No. Nothing seems to work at the national level -- all national laws sound great when you read their titles, but the descriptions show the fallacy of a large central government.

Think about it when you consider the "worthy use" of the feds -- they really have no use other than true national defense and the protection against the individual states of trampling basic human rights.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

Welcome to the club, either way :) I have a ton of friends who still prefer big-L libertarianism (through legal means) than small-l libertarianism (encompassed by a variety of voting and non-voting ideals). The most recent LP problems are REALLY scary because it seems that some of the paleoconservative and paleoliberal policies of the LP are being usurped by neoconservative and neoliberal thoughts.

Keep a look out at the LRC and at the Mises Institute blog for more updates on the LP issue. I gave up my membership a few years ago when I realized that the LP internal politics prevented anything from moving forward. Only in the past 2 years did I realize that voting is also fraudulent, coercive, and against almost everything that can be labeled as "free" or "pro-liberty."

Copyright is one of those issues that even Mises and the LRC don't agree with me on -- I guess I'm a fringe libertarian.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[wall0159]

Well, I think you're right in parts...

"Cartels exist because they have the legal monopoly to do so" - my (somewhat naive) understanding of economics is that the unregulated free market tends towards mega-corporations - which are basically cartels. I think this has been shown using many computer models, and many initial conditions and that the only way to prevent it is to add some other factor (like regulation/legislation). While free-trade (or libeterianism) seems like a nice ideal, I think that (like other nice ideals: communism, capitalism) it would be horrible in reality (horrible like a boot stamping on a human face, forever).

Anyway, back to the point, I agree that copyright law, as it stands, isn't working. However, I think this is a problem with the implemtation rather than the concept. Copyright law is about respecting the creations of others - it doesn't have to be about killing the market. There are several problems with copyrights, as I see it:
1. They last too damn long
2. They're transferable (can be sold / given away). This comes from the idea of 'intellectual property'. If this wasn't the case, things would be better, I reckon.
3. The big companies that own a majority of the copyrights also own our governments, and bribe them to enact stupid legislation (DMCA).

However, I reckon having a non-transferable copyright that lasted say 10 years would work much better, and would be a better result than just scrapping copyright altogether.

Having said all this, I dind't read your links, but will sometime! ;-)

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[yali]

I do understand that the Constitution DOES allow regulation of some sort to be created at the state level.

Actually, that power is specifically granted to Congress as far as intellectual property is concerned. The Constitution is pretty clear that it's a federal power.

Of course, the Constitution is also pretty clear that artificial monopolies (patents, copyrights, etc.) on intellectual property are supposed to be granted "for limited times." And it's also pretty clear that the rationale for granting such monopolies is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," not to promote business interests. Both of those have been pretty much ignored by Congress.

I think this whole current controversy over sanitized DVDs would be much less of a big deal if Congress had been actually taking those things seriously from the getgo. If the "limited times" were actually limited in a meaningful way -- only for enough years as is necessary to establish an incentive for scientists and artists to continue creating -- it would be much less worrisome for copyright holders to exercise the kind of control they've been granted.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

In a free market without regulation, we do see SOME mega-companies that grow into being a majority of the market provider. On such "monopoly" was Standard Oil, which was never a monopoly -- they were large because they lowered the price of oil to the end user every few months. They were never an evil company, but they were sued and dissassembled due to the competitors who could not produce oil as cheaply. When we think of monopoly, we think of high prices and restricted products. The free market of competition seems to give us MORE choice, LOWER prices and HIGHER quality everywhere that it still exists. Look at PC hardware. Look at the new online media. We have more choice because of the lack of regulation -- and competition keeps quality and prices in check (and forces things to get better with time).

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[raehl]

Well, it's not a statement on who is right, merely that you can't allow your constitutional rights to be taken away just because you're not interested in that particular right, because then when the leadership changes, they'll make off with the rights you do want.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

That is the problem with all concepts that entail using the monopoly of force that we call government -- things don't exist as you or I would wish. We could vote for people with our ideas, but they'll never enact them exactly as we wish. Even worse, with time we end up living with laws that our fathers, grandfathers or great-grandfathers created to deal with limited problems but are now existing in manipulated versions to help a select elite few.

I'll accept government with one condition: a sunset clause on that government every new generation (10-12 years). Destroy all laws and regulations, and force society to regroup and attempt to make new ones. Maybe even create a 2 year period where there are no laws at all except for the basic property rights: don't hurt someone's physical body or property. I think we'd see amazing growth in human development and charity rather than tyranny and disregard for basic rights.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

if someone copies your movie (with or without hacking it), how would you battle them in court?

How do you battle anyone who has reneged on a contract with you and has more access to lawyers than you? There is nothing particular to IP here.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[Abcd1234]

Umm... that's quite the randroidian rant, you have there, but I fail to see how it answers my question. You stated that copyright doesn't work. Why?

And before you start, I should point out that the copyright system, as it exists *today*, is buggered up not because it's enacted by the government, or that it's a federal law, but because the US democratic system itself is broken, thanks to the acceptance of institutionalized bribary by it's citizenry. Quit equating money with speech and make bribary illegal, and I guarantee you, the US will be better off.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[The Snowman]

So, we should have massive social programs and regulations and raise taxes to support them? If we don't have a tax and spend government, it doesn't work?

Bullshit. Cut taxes, cut spending, let states and private organizations handle most of what the government does. I'd cut half the federal government and throw it in the garbage, and take the other half and shrink it to essential functions. THEN our government would work at the national level, and people would get the services they need closer to home, where they can be more effective. All massive taxes, spending, and regulation does is redistribute wealth -- federal taxes beyond the bare Constitutional duties are basically welfare.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

Nothing works. Thanks to the Mises Institute for battling all your fallacies of working government:

The FAA Is a failure PDF WARNING
The Government's Highway System
The FCC and telephone tragedies of government
NSF irresponsibility
NAS PDF WARNING
The Trouble with NASA
PTO
USGS failures
NOAA
National Park Service - more
NEA

and as for education, let's look at No Child Left Behind and the Department of Education PDF WARNING.

That enough?

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[zotz]

"I would think these things would be legitimate in a "totally" free-market, without legislation."

MS's market is by definition not a free market...

Just about everything I know that they sell is protected by copyrights and patents.

And what are copyrights and patents?

Government interventions in the market... Think about it.

"Your example of PC hardware is interesting."

Here again, this is not a free market. There is so much that is patented in a PC it is not even close.

all the best,

drew
(da idea man)

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

So you think that the individual states have done better in the past?

We did do better -- 1776 to 1865. The dollar was stable for nearly 200 years, the individual states as a whole were very competitive and prosperous, and we were the wealthiest nation in less than 100 years.

The last time the individual states ran things before the national government got involved we had: the worst stock market crash of all time,

Created by the Federal Reserve, my friend. The dollar was stable for almost 200 years until the FEderal Reserve destroyed it. Since 1913 the dollar has lost 96% of its value. How can the poor save, now?

states that would not recognize another state's currency,

Good, currency should be a free market provided product, preferably 100% gold reserves. Read Rothbard's free e-book: What Has government done to our money? to learn more about free market currencies and why we had a Great depression.

race and gender segregation the likes of which you have never seen,

Most of which occured because of the White Supremecist Abe Lincoln and his hatred of the black race. Too much proof there to even begin. Lincoln created the worst segregation which continued up until even the 80s in the south and the north.

and a host of other screw the other guy mentalities. We weren't a country but rather a loose confederation of oligarchy's out to make the most buck they could. Anarchy-Capitalism at its finest.

Competition, growth, a growing country of entrepreneurs and freedom advocates. Slavery was bad EVERYWHERE in the world -- only in the US did it take a war to "end" and the war didn't even end slavery -- the free market of industrialism did. Lincoln hated blacks, he wanted to deport them after the war. He supported the law in Illinois that prevented blacks from entering the state!

Of those who answer yes, how many of you actually paid for it out of your own pockets, up front? Grants, most of which are funded by the government, stafford loans are backed by the government, the majority of the programs you were involved in at any school were funded mostly by the national, not the state, government.

Before government grants, most education was EASILY afforded by people who wanted to go. In fact, there are FEWER people getting value of out college since its liberalization. The Federal government destroyed college affordability through licensing and grants (supply and demand).

Would you really like to see air rates triple because each state now emposes their own air traffic tax that is different from everyone else's? Or how about when you just drive across the boarder to the next state, but oh, since you aren't a citizen of that state you have to pay a toll, it keeps their taxes down you know. Or how about frieght costs quadrupeling because each state has their own driver's licence requirements and now a cdl is something you have to have a certification for in each state you plan on driving through? There is no more FAA because we have cut federal taxes for it, so now the airlines can do whatever the hell they want. Or even worse there are now mini-faa's in each state that do things just slightly differently and to be allowed flight through their airspace the airline has to conform or fly around, taking rates up even further.

Competition means most of these things would exist in a competitive market rather than a federally union-monopolized one. 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. 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). Driver's licenses are another state-created regulation that makes costs higher -- I believe that insurance companies can do a better job of providing driving priviledges in a free competitive market than the DMV or the Feds could offer.

Much of what you're ranting about are problems created BY the state, not fixed by it. More research is available, if you want links.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Copyright law is about respecting the creations of others

That claim is false.

At least it is false in countries that, like the USA, follow the Anglo-Saxon common law definition of Copyright. The US Constitution says so explicitly -- "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." There is nothing in there about "respect" - it is quite simply 100% about increasing the body of public knowledge.

While you, like many others, may disagree with the US constitution. You might feel that an author has "moral rights" to the result of his labors. You would still be wrong.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

Yet is it proven time and again that quality comes from competition not legally-enforced monopoly.

Where are lines faster -- the grocery store or the DMV?

It is ridiculous to think that the US government has made airlines SAFER. The airlines were "off the hook" BECAUSE of FAA mandates -- the big airlines openly WELCOME FAA mandates because they know it sets an unbearably high (and inefficient and useless) standard that most competitors won't be able to meet.

If an airline is given 100% responsibilities for its future, why would they want an explosion or a crash? If tort were properly returned to a more free-market system, insurance companies would have more reason to be involved in the safety of their customers.

The FAA _is_ guilty of 9/11 as well as flight delays. When Canada privatized their FAA, delays went from one of the worst in the Western world to one of the best, if not THE best. Unions are inefficient, public ones are terrible.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

I appreciate it!

I think that _most_ of my anarcho-capitalist thoughts (and convictions) comes down to the end game: if a law is to work for an individual (like yourself, or like me), how do we take advantage of the law if someone commits a crime regarding that law? Will the police work on our behalf? Will we be financially responsible to hire a legal team?

When my store was robbed (almost $50,000 gone in one night) and my insurance policy wasn't modified properly (my fault!), the police did NOTHING to track down the robbers. They were too busy radaring speeders that night to patrol my area. What good are they?

When my wife almost died after a glass pan kitchen explosion, she was saved by a private ambulance company -- the public one came 4-5 minutes late, and she'd have been dead from loss of blood. I'm glad I called 3 companies.

I don't see how the law can help me -- I can't afford to fight anyone with power. In a free market, I could fight anyone through competition -- especially if I didn't value my time as much as they did! I could plan on saving for the future because the government wouldn't be destroying my savings and wealth through fiat currency inflation, and I could try my luck at a new industry because I wouldn't have to go through elitist and monopolistic licensing schemes (and my customers would be taking a chance, but might get a huge savings in the process).

Government IS evil, but most people think it works for them. Wait till you need them for some reason, then you get the real picture.

A helpful demonstration by Slashdot

[Ckwop]

At the bottom of most of Slashdot's pages it says:

"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2006 OSTG."

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.

Re:A helpful demonstration by Slashdot

[dada21]

Excellent comment -- if I hadn't posted already I'd mod up for sure.

My only problem is with your phrase that copyright is "horribly broken." If it is broken, how do you fix it?

I know a lot of slashdot/FOSS advocates love Lessig's Creative Commons, but to me CC is just another shill for state-destruction of individual rights. In EVERY situation where the law is supposed to protect you (and the "crime" is so easy to accomplish), you will have zero power to protect those rights that the law seems to create. Even under CC, how can you enforce the law that backs it up? With what money, with what attorney, and in what court?

Copyright is dead -- not broken. Copyright is useless and enables nothing; no one creates because of copyright. I repudiate copyright on every single thing I publish in the public eye (blogs, music, video productions, etc). I use the free distribution of information to increase my billable rate for people who want to know more about my trade secrets: I'll write about things I can do, and then charge customers more for the secrets I hold back. That is where the power of creation is: in creating a bigger market for your private knowledge or unique talents (such as a band performing live for a fee but giving their digital music aware freely).

Re:A helpful demonstration by Slashdot

[Jerf]

There is an implied license granted to Slashdot when you post to do what Slashdot does. I think you'd have a hard time standing up in court and claiming damages from Slashdot doing exactly what you expected Slashdot to do.

Could that be a little more bullet-proof? Yes. Does it matter? Not until someone sues them and tries to make this argument. I don't think that's going to be anytime soon.

Copyright's broken, but this isn't one of the ways in which it is broken.

Re:A helpful demonstration by Slashdot

[timothy]

File a bug report :)

I agree with you -- it should be clearer that Slashdot may display a reader's comment in more than one context. I've requested this, too, but it's one of those things which timewise so far hasn't been high-priority. I'm sure not (yet) a lawyer, but I do think that implied license when posting to a public forum is plentifully sufficient, *really*, but making it more explicit is a good idea. I'll lend you some patience, if you lend me some right back ...

timothy

Who cares about their original intent?

[MikeRT]

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...

Re:Who cares about their original intent?

[professionalfurryele]

Kinda a technical point but this is actually slightly different. If the judge hadn't ruled the way he has, the GPL would be dead. Here is what I see as being the problem. This company is selling a derivative work. They are not modifying an existing work without distribution, they are selling a derivative. Sure, they require you to bring in an existing copy, but they do not use that copy, they give you a new one.

If they took that copy and modified it on behalf of the owner, and did not distribute the work, or if the person who bought the work did the same, then I think this should be counted as fair use. However, you have to hand over all copies of the work at the end, and if another client wants to job done, then you have to do the work over again.

Consider the following situation. I want to make a closed source version of Linux, so I ask that people bring me a copy of Ubuntu and then sell them my modified version. See the problem? If this ruling was allowed then close sourcing GPL code would be as easy as giving someone a copy of the code, asking them to give it back to you, then burning the CD.

The judge got it right in this case. You can modify works for your own use, and you can modify other works if you don't distribute, but you cant modify and distribute.

Re:Who cares about their original intent?

[dave420]

It's not really a question of corporatists trying to control the people - if you sign your name to a document, would you want someone fucking with it afterwards, to make it appear as if you signed something detrimental to your image? That's what this ruling is protecting against, in this case. If Mr. Director directs a film, then some christian guy in the midwest decides he doesn't like something and cuts it out of the film, then Mr. Director no longer directed the film. I certainly wouldn't want my work being modified to shit with my name still attached. Try to think of all the parties involved, and not just the consumer.

Re:Who cares about their original intent?

[zakezuke]

        But you can't take a toyota, copy it, and sell it as a toyota.

True, but you can most certainly take a Toyota, alter it, and sell the result as a Toyota, in much the way that you should morally be able to buy a copy of a string of bits, media-shift it, chop parts out, and sell the resulting string of bits.

Again, this falls under the catagory of property rights, perhaps even trademark rights. I would "imagine" looking at your analogy that one would have to disclose the fact that the Toyota in question is not stock, and the fact that it's a used car not sold by Toyota. Toyotas reputation would not be affected by some joker who decided to drop a v8 hemi into a Tercel, not unless it wasn't disclosed that it was an afermarket modification. Usually the fact that it looks like a hotwheels car is a dead giveaway, and though I think it stupid and a waste of time to make a car look like a big arse hotwheels car, it's phsyical property with physical ownership, you can do with it what you like. You can call me stupid for painting my wheels blue, but it helps me find my car in parking lots.

Morality is beside the point, you don't have the right to copy a string of bits created by someone else that is still protected under copyright without their express permission and sell it. The moment you do this and it leaves your posession, you created a bootleg, an unauthorized derivative work. It doesn't matter what you think of the creative work, it doesn't matter whether you think they will make more money, or wish to edit something you and others you know find as moraly objectionable. You simply have no right to do so, not without express permission. I'm not saying it's wrong... I'm not saying don't enjoy a good bootleg or unauthorized subtitling of a foreign work, only you have no rights to do so.

The arangement was in exchange for complete control over your creative work you in turn agree to give up that work to the public domain after a set period of time. This would include the copyrights on much of the GNU and BSD licensed software which tends to be popular around here. Some Joe might think the people who release software under these these licenses are stupid, moronic, and a bunch of idealistic hippies out to change the world. But they have every right to be stupid, moronic, and the God given right to be a bunch of idealistic hippies seeking to change the world.

For example... Bruce Springsteins "Born in the USA" was a song I first noticed doing the Reagan election year IIRC (note my brain is fuzzy between Reagan and Bush), and I thought to my self what a terrible thing, stupid pro-war song. It was only later in life I learned that Bruce didn't license his work to be used as a political adverts and fought tooth and nail to get it removed, and it was intended as an anti-war song. This use, which i'm sure helped the song's popularity and helped make Bruce a ton of money with free advertising, did cause him irrevocable harm by giving some of the youth the impression this man was pro war, when clearly he wasn't. Bruce had every right to tell Mr. Reagan not to use his work, and legaly he was correct, morally he was even more so.

The question seems to be...

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

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.

Re:The question seems to be...

[Moofie]

"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. "

Spoken like somebody who's never heard of a "hot rod". The answer, quite clearly, is "Yes, yes you may take the Ford frame you found in a junkyard, refurbish it, do whatever you want to it, make it sparkle, and sell it for many tens of thousands of dollars."

Re:The question seems to be...

[Martin Blank]

So, I presume it's also wrong to modify any code. Hell, we should just chuck out the whole "open source" movement. I mean, making any mod eradicates the artistic intention of the original author.

Open-source licenses generally explicitly allow the downstream user to alter the work, provided certain requirements are met, such as preserving copyright notices and licenses, so your point falls flat.

And if I had a 9 yr old kid. I'd probably like to pass on the scene as well.

It was rated PG-13.

Re:The question seems to be...

[Cadallin]

Except that the ruling made it clear that it is fine for YOU to do that. The problem is when I make an edit, and then sell it to YOU.

Re:The question seems to be...

[igy]

I don't think so, the question is more akin to "Whether you can take a knife to someone's work, reshape it to an audience and make money from it, after the artist has already been paid for their work".
If I want to pay a company to edit a DVD I've paid for and remove objectional content, that's my choice;
I've already paid for the original DVD and the artist's been paid!

New Use for the Clearplay DVD player

[ReverendLoki]

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...

Re:New Use for the Clearplay DVD player

[yali]

That comment was probably meant to be funny, but it makes me think... what if somebody created a Clearplay-like technology for DVRs? It would be a great way to skip commercials. All it would take would be 1 person to upload a list of start and stop timecodes for the commercials in a given show, then everybody else downloads the list of timecodes and watches commercial-free. You'd have to make sure everybody's recording was synced to the same start-point, but otherwise it'd be trivial.

Collages, et cetera

[rjstanford]

Money is beside the point... a copyright holder has every right to choose how a work is distributed.

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.

Re:Collages, et cetera

[Vellmont]

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.


Exactly how is taking a movie and editing out a few minutes of it while keeping the rest anything like a collage? A collage uses multiple sources and bears little resemblence to any single one of the works used in the collage. If you want a valid analogy, look no further than the music sampling world. Fair use means you can take short parts of the song without violating copyright. It doesn't mean huge portions that resemble the original work. There were multiple lawsuits over this in the 80s/90s. See Negativeland being sued by U2 for an example of a derivative work. Negativland lost (settled out of court) and copies of the album were destroyed. The song was largely similar to the original U2 song. On the other side there's all kinds of music that has samples in it that are small enough to not be a deriviate work, so no one ever bothers suing. There's a gray area in-between, and that's where you'd see court rulings that would effect what's fair use and what's a derivative work. This lawsuit is nowhere near that gray area.

What's happening here is nothing at all like a collage. It's quite obvious it's a derivative work, and distributing it therefore violates copyright law.


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"


Why are there so many people that make this out to be a limit on what you can edit and view yourself in the privacy of your own home? These companies were DISTRIBUTING this content. That has nothing to do with making your own version of Star Wars and taking out the sound.

Well then..

[GmAz]

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.

You will pay the price for your theft of "vision"

[0xdeadbeef]

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.

Other Censoring Technology is Okay

[fatdog789]

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.

Re:Other Censoring Technology is Okay

[Overzeetop]

You know, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

What it really comes down to is selective enforcement. By making everything unlawful, the power that be can cherry pick the "violations" that suit their agenda or revenue stream. Convenient for them, but not for the general population. It's all about the golden rule, and I'm not talking about the one that has a "thou shalt not" in it.

What part of...

[Overzeetop]

...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. ;-)

Re:What part of...

[raehl]

...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

1) Post on Slashdot
2) Wait for someone to read Slashdot in Space
3) Profit!!!

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[GmAz]

You say religious freaks. How about just moral people. You know, morality; that thing that used to exist in the majority of people instead of the minority.

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.

Gee, that was a biased summary.

[Abcd1234]

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.

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[Just Some Guy]

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.

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.

One reason for why studios would care

[JimBobJoe]

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.

howto: AviSynth

[ben there...]

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.

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:

# Combine all the VOBs.
a=DirectShowSource("E:\VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_1.VO B")
b=DirectShowSource("E:\VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_2.VOB" )
AlignedSplice(a,b)

# Cut out frames 1500-1550 and 3000-3023
Trim(0,1500) ++ Trim(1550,3000) ++ Trim(3023,0)

You can then open that in any DirectShow or VfW compatible player, such as WMP. Or distribute the *.avs files to others.

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[Itninja]

then get get pregnant, or a STD at age 16 and then guess what, their life is screwed.

It's not just their life that got screwed. hehe.
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.

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

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. This world is beyond retarded.

Now I know why Bush sent thousands of American troops to their deaths in Iraq - he watched the bloodless version of Saving Private Ryan and thought "hey nobody died, I think I'll try that."

MPAA et al not happy with Clearplay, either

[Thagg]

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

Who decides?

[ortcutt]

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.

Broken my ass.

[Abcd1234]

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.

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[MrShaggy]

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?

Redistributing a copyrighted work for profit

[Zelucifer]

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.

Ugh

[tnk1]

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.

Re:Ugh

[asuffield]

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.

Actually, they could make a case for this being legitimate. Since they are not reproducing your product, but are instead creating something new, it is 'transformative'. That means it is possible to classify this as fair use. Even with commercial intent, even with significant copying, it can still be okay. The significant case here is the SCOTUS ruling about 2 Live Crew's "Pretty Woman" remake.

Obviously you'd have to prove in court that it wasn't just a cheap attempt to undercut the original, but you could make a good case for it.

without giving any royalties to the artist?

[SharkJumper]

If I bought a movie or music CD

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

Re:editing for profit

[Overzeetop]

You missed the point. They're buying a shrinkwrapped version for each modified version they're selling. The studios are getting a sale to an enduser that wouldn't otherwise buy the movie. What is in question is that they are charging a fee for the modification.

The American slant on morality...

[expro]

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.

Re:The American slant on morality...

[atomic_toaster]

...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.

It's not just a moral/religious issue; it's a regional/language one as well. A native French speaker may not see anything wrong with the F-word while they would have serious problems with religious-based swearing (tabernacle, chalice, etc.). British film/TV uses the word "fag" frequently (meaning "cigarette"), but and American person could be offended by the word's use, assuming that it meant something else. Aussies use the word "root" as synonymous with the F-word. I could go on, but I'd guess you get the idea.

The real question is, do we all want one (or a small group of) Americans deciding what should be acceptable viewing for our children? The rating system, while it can be flawed, pretty much gives us an idea of the age level that a TV show/movie was intended for. However, if I want to be a cautious parent and be sure that nothing I consider inappropriate is watched by my children, I pre-screen everything first.

Hell, your kids don't have to watch TV all the time, and if you don't want to take the time to pre-screen things, send them outside to play! Then they'll only have to contend with the violence, sex, and rude language in the real world.

Re:The American slant on morality...

[Just Some Guy]

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.

I agree, but don't presume to make that decision for me and my children.

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.

"Shit" and "poop" are nearly perfect synonyms as both nouns and verbs, but my preschooler can say one of them without getting in trouble. That you think this is "cute" or unusual speaks more to your distorted view of society than the way the rest of us experience it.

Re:Redistributing work of others without permissio

[roman_mir]

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.

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

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.

Erm...

[POKETNRJSH]

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.

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[Moofie]

"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.

How is this different...

[zogger]

...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!

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[DragonWriter]

How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.

How about improving sex education, so people don't think pregnancy is caused by watching sex on TV.

Linux

[Lehk228]

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

Sex vs Violence

[Other Than That...]

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.

decsion based on same principle that powers GPL!

[anwyn]

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!

Reading the case

[illuminatedwax]

Reading the case: http://www.joegratz.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/07 /CleanFlicksDistCtOpinion.pdf
A summary:

• Clearflix removes the DVD encryption (against DMCA)
  
• Their "fair use" claim rests on the fact that they are "criticizing" the movies they are censoring. I really don't buy that.
  
• This is a good quote:
  

  They seek some comfort in language appearing in the opinion deciding Chicago Bd. of
  Education v. Substance, Inc., 354 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2003), that the privilege protects public
  criticism and may justify substantial copying of that which is being criticized. The holding in that
  case was an affirmance of the denial of the fair use defense under summary judgment standards.
  Ironically, Judge Posner wrote that a teacher does not have the right to publish the criticized tests
  indiscriminately "any more than a person who dislikes Michelangelo's statue of David has a right
  to take a sledgehammer to it." Id. at 630. Or, as may be more aptly said in this case, to put a fig
  leaf on it to make it more acceptable for viewing by parents with young children.

  
  
• Definition: "transformative" - contributing to a larger body of work, for example, using a few quotes from one source to create a larger essay of your own. A previous court case which the judge cites says tranformative means it "adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message."
  
• The defendants say that their copies are "transformative" in the name of criticism and deny that their work is a derivative work. The studios say that it is a derivative work and say that they are not transformative. Looks like most here on Slashdot agree with the studios. The judge provides other examples and (I think correctly) decides that the works are not transformative.
  
• The judge rejects the one-to-one argument because he claims it interferes with the copyright owner's right to control the content of the copied material. Personally I think he's right: if I give you a book to rent, I don't think you should be able to change it and rent that. It's very much like the djb software style: you can distribute it BUT DON'T TOUCH A SINGLE LINE OF CODE IT'S THE BIBLE AS FAR AS YOU'RE CONCERNED. No argues that software license do they?
  
• The judge ruled that the works are not covered under fair nor are they derivative works.
  
• The defendants tried using the "first sale" doctrine which makes no sense
  
• The judge says the loss of the defendant's business has no bearing on the case.
  
• Therefore the defendants lose.
  

Personally, I think if you compare this with software licenses, it makes perfect sense.

Re:Some of those aren't bad.

[Valdrax]

You don't think people should be able to see some kind of doctor when they are sick when they can not afford one covered by YOUR preferred level of licensing? In the meantime, the rest of us can choose to use only doctors who opted in to some kind of voluntary licensing and history reporting system.

You have to be crazy if you think that AMA licensing is a significant portion of any physician's business expenses or even of the expenses (including education) to get to be a doctor in the first place. In exchange for it, we get a nation mostly free of snake oil peddlers, quacks, frauds and unethical experimenters like we had back in the 19th century before medical licensing. Read your history. It's amazing how so many people who are trying to drag us back into the Guilded Age are so ignorant of what life was like back then before the people demanded the government step in and "interfere" in their lives.

What about books?

[pico303]

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.

Re:netweork tv does it but I cant?

[Corydon76]

Network TV gets explicit permission to edit the movie before showing it. It is well known, for example, that Steven Spielberg withholds permission to show 'Saving Private Ryan' with any cuts whatsoever. If network TV wants to show 'Saving Private Ryan', they have to show the whole movie or not show it at all.