Slashdot Mirror
Judge Makes Lawyers Pay For Frivolous Patent Suit
Gallenod writes "The Denver Post is reporting that the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the decision of a Federal judge who threw out and reversed a jury decision in favor of a patent infringement claim and ordered the plaintiff's lawyers to pay the defendants' court costs. U.S. District Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch sanctioned the plaintiff's attorneys for 'cavalier and abusive' misconduct and for having a 'what can I get away with?' attitude during a 13-day patent infringement trial in Denver. With the Appeals Court in agreement, could this case be the 'shot heard round the world' in the revolution against patent trolls?"
So why did the judge reverse? I always thought that the Jury was the "trier of fact".
Aha, first post?
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
...if dumb lawsuits slowly disappear, where will I get my humor from on /.?
I never thought this one would stand up to appeal...The judge threw out the jury verdict and then made the plaintiff pay the court costs. Read that again: he threw out the jury verdict.
And the appeals court backed him up! Holy crap! I guess that's one way to deal with stupid juries and slick lawyers...Get some decent judges who aren't willing to put up with the crap.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Is that you? We've missed you!
And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
Frivolous cases, of all kinds, are often struck down with costs. No reason to think this will have any significant impact on patents, any more than on other laws.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Law is a slow beast to change, by design. Technology will advance much faster then Law. As a result, we'll continue to see issues like the one we face with "patent infringement". But, Law does eventually change to correct itself. I'm relieved to see that things are working as they should.
How is that the same? The small label wouldn't be "patent trolling" since they would have a legitimate claim. They also wouldn't be displaying a let's see what we can get away with attitude. The judge made the kind of impartial corrective action they are supposed to make. If anything, this sets precedent for less frivolous lawsuits.
As long as the 21st Amendment doesn't get infringed upon. No one cares about the others.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
You commented kind of on what I was thinking. When is someone going to get hit with a suit for abusing copyright? After all, we can outwait patents, which only last 20 years. Copyrights are forever, or as close to forever as can matter to anyone still breathing.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Whenever a cavalier S.O.B. gets kicked square in the nuts there should be much rejoicing.
Reading the article (gasp!) left me with the impression that the Judge was ticked off because of the attorney's behavior and method of prosecuting their case and not that the Judge thought the patents were bogus. It's as if the plaintiff is getting nailed because it hired a pair of SOB's to press its case.
Perhaps there's a clearer report out there?
However this guy has done some cool things, like halting clean dvd edits, he was involved in the McViegh trail and even the Kobe Bryant trial among other things .
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
The exact opposite is what happened here; a bunch of slick, highly paid lawyers smooth-talked the jury, and then the judge tossed the jury verdict and stuck the plaintiff with the costs for their litigation.
This kind of thing is most common when the lawyers get out of control...If the judge decides that the lawyers are running amok, they can throw the whole thing out and charge them with contempt or whatever. There is some precedent in also tossing cases where the juries decision contravenes the material facts of the case, but that's a much greyer area, though it has been upheld more often than not.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
...you insensitive clod!
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
The article notes that the technology here is for guiding scalpels to do precision work on brain tumors, so the subject matter is highly technical in nature. I'd like to see what the actual patents involved are before making a judgment. This case might have come down to the (apparently off the wall) behavior of the lawyers, even if the plaintiff may have had a legitimate case.
One thing you have to remember is that (with rare exceptions) the court is only going to go with the arguments that each side presents. It is not the judge's or jury's job to go out and collect evidence and make up a decision, it is instead their job to decide the case based on the evidence actually submitted and arguments actually made by opposing parties (this is called the "adversarial system"). Even if the plaintiff may have had a case, if these lawyers went out and did a completely shitty job of presenting it, presented no real evidence, and made no real legal arguments, then they can and will lose the case. The extra sanctions here are quite unusual, and go beyond the negative consequences of just not doing a good job of lawyering. I think that these "respected litigators" were probably ignoring the judge's instructions and committing other infractions that REALLY pissed the judge off. On appeal, the court does NOT hear new facts, so the appeals court went with the factual record and judgment of the District Court judge on this one.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Judge Matsch was the presiding judge at Timothy McVeigh's trial, if anyone remembers.
12:50 - press return.
Patent Trolls have fast healing 7... the judge tried using some acid to make sure it stayed down but I'm not sure...
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
But, this is Slashdot, guilty as charged...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Anon cow forgets that the Federal United States is a different entity than the several states u.s. The constitution applys to the several states.
Translation: once you step foot on federal ground (courthouse,military base,atomic test sites,U.S.highways,etc.) your constitutional rights are more like constitutional favors you are granted if they feel like it. Other ways you are wangled out of your rights are by having a Federal address on your house(for reasons of recieving mail from Federal Post Office, signing documents whose fine print makes you subservient to Federal regulation, etc.)In other words Your constitutional rights were lost long ago by sneaky legislation hidden in history and enacted for the convenience of the Federal Government.
Many may disagree but will find that it explains the carte blanche the Fed takes with regards to things like wiretapping,income taxes,national debt. and other things that nothing ever gets done about and even the press blindly accept now.Anyone who speaks up is instantly just a nut job and taken for granted because after all,"whoever heard of such a thing? They never taught us anything like that in (Federally funded)school! We are a Democracy(only since the last century) and pay our fair share of taxes(also from the same time frame) .
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
This is great because the earlier article entitled "Apple, Starbucks Sued Over Music Gift Cards" concerns a Utah couple (they are both attorneys) who presumably brought their patent suit in Utah, which is a part of the 10th Circuit. All of which means they should have known better.
We willna be fooled again!
Me make fun of illiterate editors
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
"could this case be the 'shot heard round the world' in the revolution against patent trolls?"
Not until/unless (take your pick) US legal jurisdiction extends round the world - on an official level!
AT&ROFLMAO
"The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals saw it differently and affirmed Matsch's decision to overturn the verdict."
This has already gone through the appeals court. While they could go to the supreme court, I suspect it's done and over.
GE/CS/IT d- s: a- C++++$ UL+++ P-- L++++ E W+++$ N+ o? K- w---() !O M- V- PS+ PE(++) Y+ PGP+++(+) t+++ !5 X++> R- t
If you read the article, or at least the summary, you would have seen that this was held up by a court of appeals. There are only two more possible challenges left 1) an En banc rehearing by the 10th circuit, and 2) The Supreme Court of the United States.
0*0
00*
***
Yes, so it is who used the words, "out there?" Qualitatively speaking. And out there may be "in there," as far as we are concerned, and on many other occasion, "right on."
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
Imagine the little record label suing Sony for re-listing their catelog without permission, and Sony simply out-spends them, then forces them out of business by having them pay for the legal costs?
Funnily enough, you don't hear about this happening very often in the UK, which has a loser-normally-pays system (rather than loser occasionally pays, as in the US). Now this could be because UK law has a substantially different culture to the US (although I'm far from convinced that this is true) or it could be because the threat is blown up out of all proportion by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Here's a suggestion: google tort reform astroturf. I highly recommend the first link that comes up, and some of the others are good too.
United States District Court,
D. Colorado.
MEDTRONIC NAVIGATION, INC., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Sofamor Danek Holdings, Inc., St. Louis University, and Trustees of Dartmouth College, Plaintiffs,
v.
BRAINLAB MEDIZINISCHE COMPUTERSYSTEMS GMBH, Brainlab AG, Brainlab USA, Inc., and Brainlab, Inc., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 98-cv-01072-RPM.
Feb. 12, 2008.
Anthony Lawrence Giacomini, Sean Connelly, Daniel M. Reilly, Hoffman, Reilly, Pozner & Williamson, L.L.P., Conor Fitzgerald Farley, Lee Frederick Johnston, Holland & Hart, LLP, Denver, CO, J. James Li, Vera M. Elson, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Krista Leigh Vink Venegas, McDermott, Will & Emery, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt A. Luther, Leslie I. Bookoff, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Washington, DC, David W. Harlan, Senniger Powers, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs.
James Edward Hartley, Holland & Hart, LLP, Denver, CO.
Jay R. Campbell, John J. Del Col, Joshua M. Ryland, Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP, Kyle B. Fleming, Cleveland, OH, L. Andrew Cooper, Marc David Flink, Thomas H. Shunk, Baker & Hostetler, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
ORDER FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TO BRAINLAB DEFENDANTS
RICHARD P. MATSCH, Senior District Judge.
*1 The defendants (collectively BrainLAB) seek to recover all of their attorney fees and costs incurred in the defense of this suit for patent infringement, contending that it was filed and prosecuted not to protect the technology protected by the patent claims but to drive a competitor out of a market for an emerging technology for application in the navigation of surgical instruments in procedures requiring exquisite precision, as in the removal of a brain tumor. Medtronic Navigation, Inc. (Medtronic) and its predecessor Surgical Navigation Technologies, Inc. (SNT) marketed variations of a device called "StealthStation" in competition with BrainLAB's "VectorVision" devices. The accused devices can be described as passive optical systems in contrast to an active acoustic system. That contrasting technology was at the core of this case.
BrainLAB contends that it is entitled to fees and costs because this is an exceptional case justifying relief under 35 U.S.C. 285; that plaintiffs' lead counsel should be held responsible under 28 U.S.C. 1927 and that the Court should grant the motion in the exercise of its inherent authority to protect the integrity of the processes of adjudication. Upon reflection, this Court finds and concludes that the rulings on the claims construction issues adjudicated the fairly debatable issues in this case and that the manner in which plaintiffs' counsel continued the prosecution of the claims through trial was in disregard of their obligations as officers of the court. The fairness of the adversary system of adjudication depends upon the assumption that trial lawyers will temper zealous advocacy of their client's cause with an objective assessment of its merit and be candid in presenting it to the court and to opposing counsel. When that assumption has been contradicted by a trial record of conduct reflecting a winning is all that is important approach to the trial process, the court has a duty to redress this resulting harm to the opposing party.
BrainLAB has made a plausible argument that this entire civil action was frivolous. The chronology of the suit must be viewed against the backdrop of developments in the field of image-guided surgical navigation technology.
In approximately 1991, SNT began development of an image-guided surgical navigation product. SNT worked with Dr. Richard Bucholz of St. Louis University. SNT also collaborated with Dr. Peter Heilbrun of the University of Utah. In 1994, SNT obtained rights to the application for patent that issued as U.S. Patent No. B1 5,383,454 to Bucholz (the 454 Patent or the Bucholz Patent). The claims of that patent relate to a system that depends on the activation of sound emitters on a surgical instrument and the pati
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Simply put, no.
"After the court issued its claim construction rulings, Medtronic's counsel proceeded cavalierly, with reckless indifference to the merits of Medtronic's infringement claims," Matsch wrote."
"Matsch said the McDermott lawyers willfully ignored his rulings on claim construction in their arguments before a Colorado jury in 2005. In patent cases, those orders define the scope of the patents and, therefore, what the plaintiff's lawyers can argue for infringement."
"The judge said in his Tuesday ruling that while McDermott paid lip service to the orders, the lawyers improperly pointed the jury toward Medtronic's broad reading of the patents. McMahon also made comparisons of the two companies' products, the StealthStation and VectorVision, instead of comparing Medtronic's patents to BrainLAB's product, "contrary to established law," Matsch wrote."
Summary for lawyers
In the anatomy of the typical patent case, there is
1. The filing of a suit
2. Discovery
3. A so-called "Markman hearing" to resolve disputes between the litigants as to the meaning of disputed terms or phrases within the patent claims
4. Summary judgment motions
5. A trial (bench or jury)
6. Post-verdict motions
7. Appeal
If you read through the judge's ruling, or even the law.com article, it's apparent that the judge believed that the trial was unnecessary, and that the case could and should have been resolved by summary judgment (and any subsequent appeal). If the case had ended at this point, there would likely be no talk of sanctions or the like. Therefore the answer to the question at the end of the summary is no.
All the rest relates to the judge's determination that 1. the platintiff's attorneys misrepresented the state of the case in their briefs opposing the motions for summary judgment that would have ended the trial phase and 2. the plaintiff's attorneys disregarded both his rulings in case and unequivocable legal standards for what does and does not constitute patent infringement.
To use bad sports analogies, this ruling is the red card or the technical foul called on the field, not a warning that the team should never have attempted to play the game.
The judge should have been able to set against the frivolous lawyers a "strike" that would add up towards disbarment if they did it again. Given repeated frivolity found by courts, lawyers should get a warning, a fine, a suspension and finally disbarment as the strikes accumulate over time, perhaps resetting once a year or 5 or 10 or 20 if not repeated. Perhaps several strikes assigned at once when the frivolity is really serious and the judge wants to push them towards disbarment, or out completely.
Then lawyers will be a lot more careful about flooding the courts with these worthless cases just because they have nothing better to do (and the client pays). That's their sworn job anyway, as "officers of the court", but they don't honor that oath without teeth when they break it - they're lawyers. And for those who see good cases get rejected just because they're not open/shut for lazy lawyers, that kind of refusal is also grounds for suing lawyers; suits in which the judges typically look very critically on the lawyers who should be staying out of trouble. Maybe that counterbalance needs stronger teeth, too, but there's certainly plenty of ways to get these lawyers to respect the merits of a case, whether trying or refusing it.
--
make install -not war
If anyone fits the bill of useless waster of Judicial time, it's Jack Thompson. I think that EA might have unleashed him on Take Two to soften them up for a takeover.
(just kidding)
Still there is proof he is useless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Why you make fun of article? Hulk work hard on article! Not easy. Many long words. Hulk hands big, computer keys tiny!
The plaintiff's lawyers are being ordered to pay, not the plaintiff.
Now, where's my violin?
Ibid.
If we had "loser pays" for all civil cases the certain result would be that only rich people and companies could sue anyone.
Average Joe: I want to sue MegaFoodCorp.
Lawyer: Why?
Average Joe: There was glass in the food I bought from them. It severally cut my throat and stomach, I had to be rushed to hospital for surgery. I missed 3 weeks of work and lost my job. Now I have $80,000 hospital bill that I can't pay. Also since I lost my job my house is in forclosure and my wife left me.
Lawyer: They will spend at least a million bucks defending themselves. Since we have a loser-pays system in this state, you'll need to put a million dollars in escrow just in case we lose. But it sounds like you have no money. Too bad. Sucks to be you.
What's so cool about halting clean dvd edits? Do you find it morally objectionable to remove morally objectionable content from movies?
For example, I like the Matrix trilogy, but there is a completely unnecessary sex scene in the second movie. Is it your intent to force all who would wish to watch the movie to view that scene? Even "fast forwarding" still gives you glimpses, interrupts the flow of the movie, and requires either good timing or a quick backtrack-rewind to resume the movie after the scene.
Many movies are like this. If I want to see a movie without what many consider objectionable material, why are movie studios fighting this? Wouldn't they be better off releasing a clean version of the movie themselves, and keep the profit? But since they refuse to do this, then I do not think that there is anything wrong with editing a movie to clean it up.
More to the point, networks and cable stations do this regularly to air movies on TV. Rather than prohibit *other* people from editing movies, movie studios should do what they do for networks - provide a license to edit the movie.
Prohibiting things like this does nothing but reduce movie studios' monetary gains. I, for one, won't see movies that have objectionable material unless I can either buy an edited version or see it on TV (where it is edited anyway).
I'm not saying that someone should be able to buy one copy of a DVD, edit it, and sell dozens or hundreds of burned copies. I propose that every edited copy be sold attached to an original - that way the studios get their sales money. The price could be somewhat higher than the price of the original alone, to compensate the editors for their work. Additionally, whoever does the editing should need a license (or some other form of permission) from the movie studio for each movie they edit.
Prohibiting the editing of movies altogether is not the answer.
Apparently you can't read, have a reading comprehension problem, or are just plain stupid. Those is the only explanations for your horrible supposition. The cases have almost nothing in common.
This is a case where a company hired lawyers to file a frivolous lawsuit, lost, and the judge penalized the plaintiff's law firm for it's conduct.
What you describe is a small company suing a large company and being "out-spent" and being forced to concede the lawsuit or going bankrupt. It would be pretty hard for Sony to deny that they have violated copyright law as the copyrights are on file. It would be a fairly straight forward case, and the plaintiff could file for summary judgment if Sony tried to delay the trail and the would probably get it.
Now, please show me where Sony has ever re-listed someone's catalog without permission. It seems to me that you would be more likely to do that to Sony than Sony do that to someone else. After all, look at all the people who violate copyright laws now.
Sounds like you are afraid Sony will act like, well, someone like you.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I just wanted to add something based on a comment in that story, though it may be directly applicable to this particular case.
The comment had to do with some other case, over the law of adverse possession (which I believe is just another way saying squating). He said in that case the just was just doing his job, and judging based on the law.
Well that's not entirely correct. Yes, a judges job is to know the law and try to decide if one has been broken or not. And the judge can overide the jury if he chooses. But a judge (and the jury) can also decide to rule in a way disregarding the law at hand, if they believe the law to be wrong. That's one of the important powers of the judicial system and its how laws can get changed.
In the case of current patent law, its probably going to take more cases like this where the law is disregarded and the jury or judge rule in favor of common sense before our patent system has a chance of being reformed..
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
So half the movie is about killing various people, people that are locked up in a slimy bath for their entire life and people's life being controlled by robots and you actually dare complaining that the sex scene is "unneccessary" while all those other disgusting parts aren't?
What is wrong with you? Do you hate to be distracted by love while watching violence? To me you appear like a very, very sick person.
0x or or snor perron?!
For example, I like the Matrix trilogy, but there is a completely unnecessary sex scene in the second movie. Is it your intent to force all who would wish to watch the movie to view that scene? Even "fast forwarding" still gives you glimpses, interrupts the flow of the movie, and requires either good timing or a quick backtrack-rewind to resume the movie after the scene. This sort of things is one of the things that I wanted the Blu-ray and HD-DVDs to provide. Basically the content would still be there, but people that didn't want to view it could change a setting and those things would be skipped. Kind of like a V-Chip, but far less likely to make mistakes. Bonus points if there were a way for individuals to create their own cut points to avoid things they're uncomfortable with. I've got a few things myself that I don't want to see in movies.
It really does seem like a fair compromise, people that don't want to view the material would have an easy way of avoiding it, and the people that do could do so. It would also make it quite a bit easier to separate out the "please, won't somebody, think of the children" crowd from the people that just don't want their own kids watching it.
If they really wanted to buff up the bottom line, they could probably make a feature which would do the opposite, skip all the wholesome stuff and get straight to the T&A and B&G.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
Returning to the Matrix: did you see how the original Matrix was edited for TV? Instead of "give you the finger" it was "Why don't I give you the flipper." WTF does that even mean? If I were the W bros. I'd have been a bit ticked. Also the sex scene in th sequel was tastefully done, and I thought it added a bit of gravity and beauty to what would have otherwise been a ridiculous rave scene.
Why shouldn't people be able to watch it as they want to watch it?
Prohibiting the editing of movies altogether is not the answer. Yes it is the answer. Get over yourself.Let me guess... you're also against fast-forward, rewind, ad-skip in TiVo, and anything and everything else that allows consumers to watch content as they wish to do so?
Stop! Dremel time!
Ummm... the fact that Clean/Family flix - who held no rights in the movies they were redistributing - was redistributing copyrighted material for money in direct violation of the copyright holders' rights?
If you find the content morally objectionable, how is it more moral to buy an edited version from someone who has no right to sell it? It seems to me that the best thing you can do is vote with your wallet and not buy it.
And if that is too extreme for your tests, I respectfully suggest that you don't see that content as nearly so "objectionable" as you make it out to be.
Wouldn't they be better off releasing a clean version of the movie themselves, and keep the profit? But since they refuse to do this, then I do not think that there is anything wrong with editing a movie to clean it up. Yes, I'm sure they would. But that's their choice -- and they're under no obligation to give away their work for another company to profit off of, if they choose not to do it. Prohibiting the editing of movies altogether is not the answer.The courts prohibited only using copyrighted material without permissions, which is after all what copyright is for. Whether the owner of the copyright wishes to allow a company to PAY for the rights to do what Clean Flix wanted to do is entirely up to the owner(s). The court is quite correct in stating that it has no say in it.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that the article appears to be edited by Cookie Monster.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
This is definitely for the better - losing parties should generally pay for legal fees, especially if they are the instigator of the lawsuit. It makes it more fair, and prevents large companies from suing smaller companies just to get them out of business. Court costs are expensive and a small company shouldn't be expected just to eat those cost by a bunch or predatory lawyer companies.
Incidentally this is not new. In Canada it is standard practice in corporate cases to allow businesses to recoup their lawsuit costs from the other party if they successfully defend against a lawsuit.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Where does that leave jury nullification? In that situation the jury is explicitly judging the law itself to be unjust. That wasn't the case in this trial, but such a practice would seem to nullify nullification.
Cow Cube
Indeed, that ruling was just an end-run around the first sale doctrine.
Those clean-edits people were doing the effective equivalent of buying a book, blacking out certain sentences and pulling out specific pages and then reselling the book.
Just because a new storage medium inherently prevents direct alteration should not be an excuse to prevent a legitimate buyer from doing something that produces the same end result.
Stuck the -*-plaintiff's lawyers-*- with the litigation costs. Big difference. The only downside for the plaintiff is they lost the case.
What, you don't expect the lawyer to pass those "expenses" on to the client? Possibly with a markup.---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Only if they heard it loud and clear in Marshal, Texas.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Lastly perhaps the issue at hand is why anyone would find human sexuality so offensive they need to engage in censorship? Is it a religious thing? Ashamed of your own body/sexuality thing? I have trouble understanding it. Perhaps that's why it seems so outrageous to me.
I realize my personal stance is a bit on the other extreme end, what consenting people decide to do is fine by me. Wanna hunt humans and make it a televised sport? Fine by me. Want graphic all male orgies to go with that 6 o'clock news cast? Fine by me. The day people understand that violence and sex are part of the human condition and nature as whole will be the day we can really start moving forward as society.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
http://www.denverpost.com/popular/ci_8354619
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_Dec_31/ai_n21176158
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:MDT&morenews=10&rating=1&origin=71
Probably baaad news for Medtronic?
They might need to sign up for voluntary procedure at or products from Medasonic.
http://www.cja-jca.org/cgi/reprint/41/4/281.pdf
Maybe Judge Matsch's ruling see inCubation in courtrooms, and maybe the standing ruling will cause need for inTubation in shyster lawyers?
Remember Mr. Mudd, and the saying that followed his demise (your name will be MUD)? Maybe Judge Matsch will be famous for slaying corrupt patent lawyers... The headlines will read:
Cross THIS judge and you will be MATSCHED Out of Practice"
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
That's a bad analogy. Try purchasing one copy of a book, re-printing it under a new binding with only the content you don't want to censor, then selling it in large quantity -- and see how long you can get away with it.
My problem with the sex scene in question is it was just a particularly boring spot in what was on the whole a boring movie. I don't normally mind a good hot'n'steamy sex scene where it makes sense, but damn if that one didn't drag on forever. I would've been happier if they'd just spliced in a nice porn clip in its place. At least then I might've gotten something out of it.
How do your examples about the government forcing censorship on a company have anything to do with people choosing to purchase edited version done by a third party?
And I'm sorry but there are no financial justifications for this - allowing a third party to release censored versions increases total sales and total profits, period. The only legitimate objection is to preserve the integrity of ones artistic vision.
But that's not what they were doing. For each DVD that they sold, the consumer would get the Original DVD, and the Edited DVD. When they were renting the DVD, for each DVD that was rented, they had purchased an un-edited DVD that they would hold.
The content producers got their money. It really is exactly as the original poster said. It's like buying a book, blacking out certain sections, and then reselling it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here. I've never hired a lawyer, but I would expect each client to sign a contract. I mean, these are lawyers we're talking about here! It would be very easy for a slick lawyer to include a clause placing responsibility for this payment on the client.
Again, I suspect the client will wind-up paying it anyway!
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
So I don't have a right to decide what I want to see, but only the content creator has?
I agree that I should be able to see it the way the creator intended it. But if for some strange reason I decide I want to see a movie with every first word of a sentence removed, I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to. And if someone provides me the service to do the tedious work of removing all those first words, then why should they not get payed for their work.
Am I also not allowed to e.g. add some salt to an ordered Pizza if I consider it to have too little of it, because I'm not tasting it the way the creators intended?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
The content producers got their money. It really is exactly as the original poster said. It's like buying a book, blacking out certain sections, and then reselling it.
Thanks for clarifying, it's been a while since I read up on the case (probably since when it was first posted here...) Marginally better -- but still, it seems more like it's buying the book, printing up a redacted version of the book under new binding, and selling them both together. It's still violating copyright. The only way I could see them having a leg to stand on is if they gave away the edited version at no charge or profit.
Because the trial judge blew it. The lawyers were pushing the lines as hard as they could, and the trial judge didn't stop them. On the appeal, the lawyers basically said, "Hey, it's the judges job to stop us, and he didn't." So the appeals court overturned the trial verdict, because the trial verdict is invalid if the judge doesn't enforce the rules as to what the jury gets to hear. And the appeals court slammed the lawyers, because they knew what the lines were and stomped all over them anyway, just because the judge let them. The appeals court doesn't think that's acceptable, even if the trial judge lets it slide.
All in all: Good for the appeals court!
Note well: IANAL. This is just my opinion, based on reading the ABA summary.
"What's so cool about halting clean dvd edits? Do you find it morally objectionable to remove morally objectionable content from movies?"
Yes, I am deeply offended by people who censor art. If you think there is a facet to a piece of art that is objectionable then don't view any of the piece. Changing even the slightest detail is to take the work out of context. You might as well kick the artist in the nuts.
The Mona Lisa is a great piece of art except for that ugly chick. Let's replace her face with Paris Hilton. Better now?
Let's take all the sex and violence out of the Bible. That would leave us with a nice, if not substantial, notebook with a nice cover.
It's very important for people to encounter concepts that they find "morally objectionable" otherwise how do they understand their own morality? How can you grow as a human being if you live life in some sterile bubble of flowers, puppies and happy things? Someone has to challenge your morality to grow you has a human. How do you teach morality and ethics to children if they never encounter anything questionable? The world will turn out to be a big scary place if you never have your ideas challenged and then you suddenly find yourself faced with all the questionable morality and ethics we all deal with every day.
Oh right, I remember now. You give the little ones a bible. Tell them that's all they ever need to know and then stick your head back up your own arse.
I never said anything against using the tools at your disposal to watch the movie as you will, that's your business. I find it objectionable that 3rd parties can come along and edit as they will and turn a profit on someone else's IP.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What exactly is objectionable about me buying a copy of the movie making changes to it and selling that changed copy for a profit? The case in question was not people buying a copy and selling multiple copies. The company in the case paid the creator for every copy they sold.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
B.) The issue at hand was editing in regards to 'moral' objections. Which was nothing more than pandering to religious types that attempt to engage in a war mainstream culture.
You're attempting to argue that is someones right to watch this edited, family friendly media. And sure, I suppose they do have that right. But the sooner we ditch these archaic concepts ingrained in the major monotheistic religions the better off we will be.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
...the UK, which has a loser-normally-pays system (rather than loser occasionally pays, as in the US) I think you mean that the US has a "loser rarely pays" system. How often do you hear of a plaintiff's lawyers ever being forced to pay for the defendent's attorney fees? Some states, such as California, have anti-SLAPP laws, but this was a federal case and would not have applied here.On the other hand, the UK's libel laws are completely unreasonable, as the "McLibel Case demonstrates. The European Court of Human Rights found that the two defendents' right to a fair trial and right to the freedom of expression had been violated.
But the sooner we ditch these archaic concepts ingrained in the major monotheistic religions the better off we will be.
Yeah, look how much better off people were in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia. We will all be so much better off when we get rid of those archaic ideas of human dignity and the worth of individuals ingrained in Judaism and Christianity.
Learn a little something from history. Every political movement that has attempted to build a society without religion has resulted in horrific mistreatment of human beings.
I wonder if anyone else notices how intolerant you are of people who have different beliefs from yourself?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re: the sequel
Somehow they must have snuck the TV version into the theater for my viewing. All I got was the ridiculous rave scene.
Why would it not be moral to buy the edited version? Assuming the seller actually paid for it, of course. The author is certainly getting his money (hence your suggestion to 'vote with your wallet'), and the reseller is just charging for the service his clients. If they could do it themselves (buy the move, edit it, burn it), why is it not moral to pay someone else to do it instead?
It may be illegal. That's different. Illegal, but not wrong. The seller is not profiting from the author's work - he is profiting for his own work, and paying the authors for theirs.
I'd say for the first offense, a day in stocks would be appropriate. For the second, hanging, drawing, and quartering.
You'd see frivolous cases go away in a big hurry.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
Actually, there's an intermediate step that could be taken before heading off to SCOTUS. The losing side can ask for a rehearing en banc, which would mean that all of the members of the Tenth Circuit would review the case, rather than the three-judge panel who just heard the appeal. However, en banc hearings are fairly rare, so this decision is likely to stand.
On the one hand, they could be acting on their clients explicit instructions, making the plaintiff directly at fault here. On the other hand, they ought to know better, and inform their client that there are lines they aren't supposed to cross. Either way, this is good news. Hopefully it will either lead to less people willing to bring frivolous suits, or less lawyers being willing to represent them.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
The plaintiff's lawyers are being ordered to pay, not the plaintiff.
So, roughly speaking, if we figure both sides spent about the same amount of time on the case, the plaintiff's lawyers, every once in a while, have to break even (+/- staff attorneys salaries, but small compared with billed rates). At the same time, the defendant's lawyers did just fine, and one would expect the burden to shift around over time.
It doesn't look like it pays to get out of this business.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
A case can be made that way ( and is, in another thread of this conversation), because morals are quite subjective things. Fortunately, the bulk of my post addressed the legal and copyright aspect, not the moral.
Well, for starters, that isn't what happened. The judge sanctioned the lawyers for ignoring his orders. To what degree his reversing the jury verdict was influenced by that misconduct (rather than, say, a differing interpretation of fact) is up for debate. It really wasn't about the patent itself though.
To actually answer the question... copyright is hard to ACTUALLY abuse. Yes, it lasts entirely too long--but the most recent Supreme Court decision is basically that that is up to Congress to determine, and I don't necessarily think that's an unreasonable position. The RIAA, for example, clearly are abusing the legal process with their John Doe lawsuits and other things, and using it for fearmongering, but in the event they actually had evidence against a person and brought it their actual case would have merit. They should be sanctioned as well, yes, and I think we're not far from that point. It has already happened a little bit. But again, that's about their legal tactics and not copyright itself.
Yeah, look how much better off people were in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia.
If you look at all of human history, you can find plenty of examples of theocracies which commit similarly egregious violations of human rights and decency. One need only look toward the Middle East if you need a recent example.
religion != morality
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
That's part of the problem. With the way things are now people are getting patents to last for nearly a hundred years.
No, the problem is your ears, or eyes, or possibly what's between them. You are confusing copyrights and patents.
Infuriate left and right
"They should watch it as the people who created intended it, first and foremost."
Are you using firefox? Just a question, you know a lot of those sites you visit were created with the intent of being viewed on Internet Explorer. Use any alternate OS? Your hardware was created with the intent of running Windows (or Mac).
Content creators don't have any power over their content once they release it. Oh sure, they can stop people from stealing it, but if I want to watch it some other way then you know what, I'm going to. Whether the creator wants it or not. The moment you start saying that the content creator has the right to force people to view their content ONLY how they created it is the moment you kill creativity and innovation.
I've never watched the Matrix Trilogy, only the first one. I have no doubt that they're great movies, and I've read the plots and a lot of the discussion, but I really don't want to see some purely gratuitous sex scenes in my movie. If that offends you then you, fair sir, are an idiot, it's my eyes, my mind. Why in the world should the Wa-whosit brothers be able to dictate to me what I see? What kind of philosophy makes you think in pure black in white terms, you can only watch the whole thing, as the creator intended it, or not watch it at all? I cannot honestly understand at all how someone could believe that, period.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
Would an iPoop make an iPlop?
It's the same piracy-is-ok-no-it's-not argument as always, except in this case someone was editing the movie before reselling it. I'm not ok with that.
Well see that's the point - they should be able to make that version, if they have the permission of the copyright owner.
If that's the issue (and I suspect it is) right now - that CleanFlicks or whoever didn't have permission - then that is the issue that should be corrected. Force CleanFlicks to license the material appropriately, rather than declare their business model illegal.
I've seen several DVD players at supermarkets that purport to automagically skip sex scenes and blank out swear words. Should these devices be outlawed as well? They are, after all, modifying the movie from what the original creators intended...
In the end, I believe this comes down to freedom. The creator has the right to produce the work they want and sell it or not. Once they sell it to me, I have the right to enjoy it as I want.
Back on topic, I'm not proposing that we censor art. I'm proposing that if a certain demographic wants to remove certain things from movies, that they be allowed to. That's a far cry from censorship.
You know, to insist that people should encounter material they find objectionable is extremely inconsiderate of you. Should we, in our sex education classes in high schools, depict scenes of graphic sex? No, because it would add nothing to the educational value of the course. It is not necessary for me to view pornography to know I object to it. It is not necessary for me to drink alcohol to know that I don't want to drink it. It is not necessary to do or see or hear anything to know it is objectionable.
Yes, there is sex and violence in the Bible. It does not, however, depict detailed scenes of sex or gory violence. Movies are far more effective at conveying an image than a book is.
You see, there's a difference between you and I. You insist that a person should either see a movie exactly as its creators intended, or not at all. I claim that if I think a particular scene in a movie is not only objectionable but contributes absolutely nothing to the plot, that I should be allowed to view the movie without that scene. I wouldn't dream of forcing movie makers to only produce movies I personally find morally clean; they should be free to make whatever movie they want, and people should be free to watch a movie however they want. One of us wants to force our views on the other - and it's not the one of us that's religious. Isn't that odd...
> Do you find it morally objectionable to remove morally objectionable content from movies?
:-)
Yes. What's morally objectionable to you might not be that to me. If we'd remove everything that is morally objectionable to someone, there would be nothing left. I guess if you are a really good person, you do not like to watch violence. You can still like Arnie, so here you go, this is Terminator for you, with all violence deleted. It is pretty much the opening and closing credits plus that scene with the empty street, but hey, it is still the Terminator, with morally objectionable scenes deleted! Do you think the gist of the film is still preserved? Does it have the same entertainment value (I think we can skip the "artistic integrity" in this case...)? In cultures where it is morally objectionable that women show their face publicly, should we sell versions of films where all scenes with a female actress with uncovered face are deleted? Queen Elisabeth would make an interesting viewing
There is the rating system. If you do not like to look at naked bodies, then do not watch films with 'nudity' and 'sex scenes' tags and by all means try to avoid any museum that hosts stuff from the great ancient places or from Europe during the Renaissance or later (the XI-XIV century period should be safe). But please do not demand museums to remove all the pictures by, say, Rubens just because they amorally show naked women, do not demand the chiselling off the penises of ancient statues (it was in vogue once, though, about 800 years ago). If Gauguin wanted all Tahitian women being painted in bikinis, probably he would have painted them that way. He didn't, there are half naked and fully naked women on a lot of his paintings. Yes, you could paint a bikini over every naked girl on his pictures, but that would not really be Gauguin any more, would it?
Deleting scenes that *you* don't like is dangerously close to declaring that they should not be available to *anyone* because it is our duty to save our fellow human beings from immoral temptation, then we can start burning books, then burning people...
I doubt that lack of religion was what made those societies evil. There are enough evil societies who embrace religion around the world to show that what you say is completely without merit. Take your wishful thinking that religion somehow improves the behaviour of a society as a whole and flush it.
Yeah, please give me an example of a theocratic ruler who killed more than 5 million of his citizens.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The original poster suggested that society would be better off without religion. I gave evidence of societies that were clearly worse after religion was removed, please feel free to give an example of a society that was improved.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
So you're telling me that the number of people killed by Christians during the Crusades is not significant?
More blood has been shed in the name of forcing one's views on others over the course of history than any plague, famine or natural disaster. Theistic religions are not the only guilty parties in this regard, but their hands are still quite bloody. One reason that "godless" regimes such as the Third Reich and Communist nations such as the USSR and China attempted to eradicate religion was the "undue influence" religion had on the actions of the populace. Conversely, we have the conflict in the Middle East not only between Muslims and Jews, but between various Muslim sects. Never mind the fact that on the one hand people in the US (where I was born and raised, and still reside) who think a religious government in Iraq would be bad but have a President of the United States who is not a devout Christian would be a harbinger of the end of the world. As long as there is intolerance of any kind, or a desire to push one's views as more "right" than someone else's, there will be conflict and there will be bloodshed.
And under copyright law (which governs things like movies), re-selling a derivative work (such as a clean edit) without explicit permission of the copyright holder is illegal. You have no "right" to purchase any form of a movie than those which are sold by the copyright holder or by someone who has been given explicit permission to sell their particular version of the movie. If you knowingly purchase a movie that has been edited and resold in violation of copyright law because you do not wish to see material that offends you, you are a thief (for abetting someone else's efforts to steal the original copyright holder's IP) and a hypocrite (for rationalizing that theft in the name of your beliefs). That ANYONE would be offended by the raw display of love that is made more urgent by the very real possibility that one might die in the near future to the point that they could not watch that scene, and yet not be offended by the even more graphic representation of death, bloodshed and human suffering that dominates the rest of the movie is positively gut wrenching. It is indicative of a society that has lost all sense of proportion, along with its soul.
People much wiser than I am said, "I'd rather have my son watch a film with 2 people making love than 2 people trying to kill one another. I, of course, can agree. It is a great sentence. I wish I knew who said it first. - George Carlin
-- daecabhir (this mind intentionally left blank)
>> Suppose my SO had persistent genital arousal disorder so she's always on the verge of orgasm.
... talkin'.
You two still together? If you split, can you, you know, let me know. In case she needs, you know, a friend to talk to. Nothing freaky. Just
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
No, they aren't confusing copyrights and patents. Read what they said, read what they're replying to, then engage your brain.
> > we can outwait patents, which only last 20 years...
> That's part of the problem. With the way things are now people are getting patents to last for nearly a hundred years.
They were pointing out that the patent system is being gamed so that patents last as long as copyrights. How this works is a new patent is submitted, adding very little to the previous patent but claiming to be completely novel.
This is where the serious fun begins.
Continuous positive slashdot karma since... uh, maybe next year.
Here's an example of clean Slashdot post edits. I've removed the morally objectionable content from your post. Of course, you don't mind, right?
What's so cool about morally objectionable content from movies?
For example, I like the Matrix trilogy, there is a completely necessary sex scene in the second movie. I force all who would wish to watch the movie to view that scene? Even glimpses requires good timing or a quick back-wind to resume the movie after the scene.
Many movies are like this. I want to see a movie with what many consider objectionable material, why are movie studios fighting this?
More to the point, air movies on TV.
Prohibiting things like this does nothing but reduce movie studios' monetary gains. I, for one, see movies that have objectionable material anyway.
I'm saying that someone should be able to buy one copy of a DVD and sell dozens or hundreds of burned copies.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
HeronBlademaster wrote:
For example, I like the Matrix trilogy completely unnecessary sex scene in the second movie. Force all who would wish to watch the movie to view that scene.
Fixed that objectionable content for you.
Now lets ban all boobies and add lots of good wholesome morally uplifting violence and death instead. We can't have little Johnny wondering why his peepee starts feeling funny during that bit between the explosions and someone having their head blown off now can we? Much better if he gets a clear message that blowing stuff up is good, but naked flesh is obviously the work of the devil....
Seriously.. If you really are so freaked out by an occasional sex scene in a movie, I suggest you get some professional help. Your response is quite abnormal and could be an indicator of some hidden emotional trauma that may very well surface in a very negative and potentially dangerous way later in life.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
"They should watch it as the people who created intended it, first and foremost."
So when reading a book, I should be forbidden to jump over pages? Or should I be forced to listen an entire album of music when I only want to listen to two songs?
You don't have a God-given right to impose me something - and I hate those non-skippable commercials at the start of a DVD with a movie I've already paid for.
You can edit the DVD in your home and produce your own copy for your family -- just like you can remix music compilations under Fair Use privileges.
What isn't ok, is a large mega-corp producing their own "edited" version, where they might change dialogue, (or add dialogue), cut scenes out, etc. The problem is that once you allow that, viewers in a "captive market" (Utah, Blockbuster) are shut out of the rental market because the only video store in town is a BB. Would it be "equally ok" for a state to declare certain scenes as "pornographic", and require the removal of such scenes in order for the movie to be "rented" or "let" out in the state? Local standards are supposedly applicable in deciding obscenity cases. Suppose your "locality" wants to have only "clean" movies? Suppose someone "cleans" your movies for you and you aren't even aware of it (this was happening until it was stopped)? Allowing commercial vendors to vend or rent "cleaned" movies is a bad idea for artistic expression and freedom.
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this post is too small to contain.
The article has the facts wrong. The actual appellate decision on the merits was made one year ago, and not by the 10th circuit, but by the Federal Circuit court. The when the case returned to the District Court, the defendants moved for attorneys fees and costs. The current sanctions were made by the district court judge. If the plaintiffs and their attorneys appeal, it will go back to the CAFC, not the 10th circuit.
I never said anything against using the tools at your disposal to watch the movie as you will, that's your business. I find it objectionable that 3rd parties can come along and edit as they will and turn a profit on someone else's IP.
So you are also against any kind of VAR (Value Added Reseller) type of company or relationship? What about OEMs? They make money by taking an original manufacturer's product, putting their sticker on it and selling it as their own at increased price, and value-add by providing support and customizaton.
Why is doing this for money particularly heinous? Does this mean it is morally objectionable for me to sell my used books, even though the copyright holders would prefer that people buy new copies?
Copyright is not a right like the right to life and liberty. You have those rights even if Congress and the President are determined to take them away. Copyright is different. It is a statutory privilege established because on balance it promotes the public good. Your analysis is correct, in that the right to authorize derivative works is one of the "rights" that a copyright holder "owns" and therefore can sell. But it's hardly a cause for moral outrage. The line between a "derivative work" and something else is not precise, however the way the law works a thing must be one thing or the other.
Imagine somebody was selling a bunch of stick on templates that covered the objectionable passages in a book, like Jaws for example, which has completely irrelevant (and rather puerile) sex scenes in it. The way the templates work is that each template is sized to fit over a page in a particular edition; you take the template numbered "page 115", and stick it over that page in your copy of Jaws, and it covers up the swear words or sex scene or whatever. Is that a derivative work?
I'd say that on balance, it is so tied to the content of the original book it really has to be called a derivative work. So technically I'd call it a violation of the copyright laws. However, I can hardly get worked up into a lather of outrage, since Peter Benchley and his heirs got the royalties they demanded for the book. So while this sort thing is probably not allowed by copyright law, it should be. Copyright law is there to make sure that creators are paid enough so that they'll create things. I don't think copyright holders are actually harmed by people reselling bowdlerized copies because in practice the copyright holders don't sell or authorized bowdlerized versions of their works.
Clearly, there is a market for such things, and one could argue that copyright holders should be allowed a monopoly on that market segment for a limited term. However, I don't think they can. They companies in that market are selling something distinct from the copy of the work itself. They are selling trust. It is the very independence of those companies from others that make most of their money selling, say, sexually vulgar material that gives people who are strongly averse to such materials reason to trust them.
You or I might not think much of these companies' work or have much in common with people who buy from them. However these companies do perform a valuable service for their customers: they allow them grater freedom in their participation in popular culture. Producers very often add completely gratuitous material to movies after they are essentially complete, for pure marketing reasons: they want to get the "right" MPAA rating for the demographic they're targeting; if 18-25 year old males won't look at a movie with G rating, throw in some nudity to get your PG-13. It leaves people who are decidedly out of that demographic a Hobson's choice: either take it or leave it. There's no artistic reason to do this. It comes down to credibility again. The producers of a movie aimed at the 18-25 male demographic have no credibility selling a G rated movie. If they sold a G and PG-13 rating, they'd have no credibility marketing to either crowd. So I don't think unauthorized selling to the people who don't want to see the gratuitous bits harms copyright holders economically, as long as they get their normal royalty.
And that's what it boils down to. I don't
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Will copyright terms be lowered to a reasonable length? Don't hold your breath.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
The moral framework you ascribe to, divine command theory, is but one of many mankind has dreamed up over the millennia . Take a philosophy class sometime -- you'd be amazed at the breadth the field of ethics brings to morality. Though, I'd argue most, if not all frameworks ultimately boil down to the golden rule.
Yeah, reversing the meaning of my sentence is real mature. Thanks. /sarcasm
I'm not suggesting that editing a movie should change the meaning of a movie. Removing a sex scene that contributes nothing to the plot does not change the meaning of a movie.
Do you suggest that network television stop editing movies they broadcast as well? They have permission of the studios, you know.
Oh, wait, you don't care if children see sex scenes.
See, you probably get mad when religious people try to force their views on you. That's exactly what you are doing.
You, sir, are an idiot.
All I'm saying is that if a small portion of the population wishes to view a movie without a certain scene, that they be allowed to. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone else be forced to view the movie without those scenes.
Yes, there is a rating system. It has become more and more lenient over even just the last ten years - ten years ago a studio would have been hard pressed to get certain swear words into a PG-13 rated movie; five years ago, one instance of the f-word was "ok", and recently I've seen a PG-13 movie with several.
The ratings are no longer a reliable guide regarding a movie's content, but yes, you are correct in stating that if I do not want to see certain content I can avoid those movies altogether.
The bigger problem comes when I see a movie on TV, enjoy it, and do not realize what was edited out. I rent it, gather a group of friends to watch, and suddenly there's a sex scene or nudity or whatever that was not in the edited version. This has not happened to me personally, but there have been many times where I see a movie on TV and decide to rent it and watch it with my wife, but when I get to Blockbuster I see the rating and I am sorely disappointed.
Movies can be enjoyable without sex and nudity, even those that contain such when they were made. There are many great movies that I would undoubtedly buy if they were available without those scenes. Without fail, every edited movie I have seen has lost nothing from editing those types of scenes out. I've spoken with friends who have seen the non-edited versions and they generally agree with me.
Moreover, I've seen some non-edited movies and I have been disappointed at the way some movie makers include such scenes "just because they can" while doing nothing to forward the plot. As someone else pointed out, simply showing Neo and Trinity in bed together in some way, or even just showing them go to the bedroom, would be enough to convey the fact that they're having sex. It is not necessary to actually show them doing it.
...who said they had to? I'm not so sure you know what a story actually is. This isn't some tutorial or KB article - it's a movie. As in entertainment. This means the viewer can take it in any way he or she desires. If someone doesn't want sex scenes in it, what's the harm in their cutting those out for their own consumption? Are they suddenly denying you the right to see them? Of course not, since you still have access to the unedited original.
but I am not going to be happy with companies making a profit off of someone elses IP that they have butchered just to pander to the Ned Flanders of the world.Cripes - you sound just like an *AA mouthpiece. Lookit - the whole 'clean flicks' idea is to increase the IP holders' profit by accessing a market that would otherwise not bother spending the money. The 'clean flicks' guys still pay their vig to the MPAA affiliate. Let me repeat that: The IP holders still get paid their regular rate.
If it's the fact that someone else made some dough off the deal on top of it all? Then kindly stay away from every record store, video store, eBay, used movie and CD stores, etc...
If you're so eager to keep the right to be hedonistic, "free", or whatever you apply to your person, then you had best start supporting the rights of prudes to be non-intrusively prudish within their own environments. I myself will happily support to the death the right of someone else to be as prudish as they desire, so long as they don't infringe on my right to be a heathen (you're reading this from someone who recently converted his old VHS copies of Caligula and Heavy Metal to DVD, so please don't point and shout "prude!" in my direction).
I realize my personal stance is a bit on the other extreme end, what consenting people decide to do is fine by me.Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I agree... that's why I said (more than once) that companies wishing to edit movies should get a license of some sort to do so, just as network stations do.
But that's my opinion. You're entitled to yours. I'm not trying to force my opinion on you, you shouldn't try to force yours on me. If I want to watch a movie without its sexual content, it does not affect you - you can still see it in its original form. I'm not trying to stop you from doing so, and I do not support others who would try to stop you.
No, I don't "get mad" when religious people try to force their views on me. I listen politely and courteously, point out any errors or logical inconsistencies in what they've said, and get on with my life. Mostly, I just ignore what they have to say, because I'm not particularly interested in it, so I filter it out.
It's called "being a grown-up". You should try it.
The key to this is that the sole person in charge of judging whether a change to the work affects it's character is the copyright holder. So "cleaning up" a movie may, in the opinion of the creator of the movie, damage their reputation and be a misuse of their work. Which is why it's at their sole discretion (with the "fair use" exceptions) to allow it or not, under copyright law.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
No, it is not the divine command theory. Although that is close. If there is no absolute standard for "good", then "moral" is a meaningless word. If there is no God, where do you find an absolute standard for "good". I have taken philosophy classes and read philosophy. I have yet to hear of a "moral" code that is not based on the existence of divinity that calls for a man who has made good his escape from those who are pursuing him in order to torture him to death to turn back and save one of those pursuers from drowning at the expense of his escape.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
On the other hand, the UK's libel laws are completely unreasonable, as the "McLibel Case demonstrates. The European Court of Human Rights found that the two defendents' right to a fair trial and right to the freedom of expression had been violated.
Note that the laws the ECHR found had been violated in the trial are part of UK law, so it is not so much that the UK libel law is unreasonable, as the courts in this case applied the laws incorrectly. The fault is that of the court, not of the law, and I understand that as a result of this case the courts are generally more careful of the right to free expression than they were before. Additionally, legal aid is now available for libel cases (thus the right to fair trial is no longer an issue), and already was by the time the ECHR published their verdict in this case.
You're looking at a case where UK law was misapplied, not one that shows it to be inadequate.
You have a point there, but, if I want the edited movie for myself, why shouldn't I edit it? And why shouldn't I pay someone to edit it for me?
If that company, instead of cutting pieces out of the move, were to provide a dvd player + a service to tell that dvd player what to skip, would that service also be illegal? Would you consider it wrong, given that the net result is the same (with more work for the client)?
I would assume that the editing company made clear that those weren't the originals. If they didn't, then I fully agree with you. (A step further - it would be ideal that they sent out both versions, but that would seem even more attractive to the lawyers).
Would you be happy if someone figured out how to use a high-powered laser to burn out individual bits on a mastered DVD and that's what these people did instead?
What if they took the original VHS tape and clipped out certain sections, and over-dubbed other sections?
The end result is the SAME -- the studio gets paid for one copy of the movie either way. Do you really think a quirk of technology should be the deciding factor?
You ask for examples and I shall give.
Modern western civilization.
Most of the major advances of western civilization happened as a result of the distancing of religion from mainstream culture. Separation of church and state is a prime example. Also, the abolition of slavery was a great moral victory of western ideals over religion. The foundation of modern science was another victory over religion, which was previously the sole arbiter of what was considered real. The concept of individualism and personal freedoms and rights is a relatively new concept, as previous religiously dominated cultures would not allow such independent thinking. Family planning and birth control would not exist if the church had it say. In my country (Canada), the abolition of religious schools for aboriginals was a great step forward in improving their lives. The list goes on...
Most of the good things you cherish about modern civilization exist because religion has been pushed to the sidelines. You have no idea how horrifically stifling a society is when religion dominates.
First off, you say modern western civilization, do you include the US in that? All polls I have heard indicate that somewhere in excess of 78% of US citizens consider themselves Christian. So, the US at least does not qualify as a society that. I am guessing that you consider Canada to be part of Western Civilization, yet over 70% of Canadians consider themselves religious. So exactly what society are you using as an example of one that did away with religion and was improved, because the US and Canada are societies that are from doing away with religion.
The idea of separation of church and state entered modern thought in 1525 when the Swiss Brethren rejected the right of the Zürich City Council to tell them the correct way to worship. So, separation of church and state was an idea that was developed by people with religious convictions.
You obviously haven't studied the abolitionist movement. The abolition of slavery was championed by people with very strong religious convictions and their objection to slavery grew out of their religious convictions. In the US, the overwhelming majority of those responsible for the abolition of slavery were evangelical protestants. I am unaware of any non-religious person who was active in the abolitionist movement.
The concepts of individualism, personal freedom and rights is based on the principle of the supreme and intrinsic value of the individual human being. This principle is clearly expressed in the New Testament.
I do not know anything about the abolition of religious schools for aboriginals, but question what evidence that shows the connection between that action and the improvement of their lives. What evidence do you ahve to support that assertion?
I am sorry, but you have failed to make your case about a society that was improved by eliminating religion for two reasons. First, you have failed to list a society that has eliminated religion. Second, most of the points that you credit to the absence of religion are actually the actions of religious people acting on the basis of their religious convictions.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The US is included in that. Though the majority of USA'ers are Christian, their constitution has kicked them out of government in all forms except some purely ceremonial that still remain. So yes, my argument was valid for the USA too.
The process of disentangling religion from the important functions of western civilization is long and complex, and much of it has been done by people who consider themselves religious People dismantling their own institutions doesn't invalidate my claim. The fact remains that much of religion is now irrelevant to western civlization, as evidenced by the multicultural and non-specific religiosity of the main aspects of western culture.
As for the abolitionist movement, of course there are religious people on both sides of the equation, everyone had to be religious back then or face discrimination. The point is that they replaced a strict theological interpretation of the bible with one that's much kinder, gentler, and less close to the dictates of the bible. Keep in mind the slavery side of the debate had the bible on their side. Jesus and Paul of the new testament encouraged slaves to be obedient, so it can hardly be considered a beacon of truth and right. The bible only condemns slavery when it's the Jews or Christians who are enslaved, so enslaving black people at the time was biblically the correct thing to do. I suggest YOU read about the abolitionist movement. The Bible's position on slavery is at best murky, which is hardly the right and wrong that one would expect. Again, western civilization's progress is one of people reaching for a moral high ground that is far above what religion dictates.
As far as the New Testament is concerned, morality is weak and selective. Why does it not speak against slavery? Or women's rights? Or science? Morality on these subjects have risen far higher than religious doctrine strictly allows. Religion has meekly followed higher western morality else it faces abandonment.
As far as residential schools in Canada are concerned, I will not provide examples. For this you will have to build a relationship with Google, and all your questions will be answered.
Ok, to counter your last 2 claims... I have not provided any lists of society that has eliminated religion. Such do not exist. Not even the hardest Marxism has succeeded in completely stamping it out. What I have provided is clear evidence of benefits of a society that has pushed religion to the sidelines of morality and governance. And as to your second assertion, I don't dispute that many religious people did it themselves. It is not necessary for everyone to do it to be an atheist. Religious people themselves are often capable correcting the failings of their own religion by making a society that is even more morally good than the Bible. It's not that hard, really.