Slashdot Mirror
Selling Alterable Versions of Star Wars Is Still Infringement, Says Court (arstechnica.com)
A federal court ruled that video-on-demand streaming service, VidAngel, which enables the filtering of objectionable content to make it family friendly, is breaking U.S. copyright law. Ars Technica reports: VidAngel buys movie discs and decrypts and rips them. It then streams versions that allow customers to filter out nudity, profanity, and violence. In doing so, it breached the performance rights of Disney, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox, and Warner Brothers, the court ruled. VidAngel purchased a disc for every stream it sold, some 2,500 titles in all. "Star Wars is still Star Wars, even without Princess Leia's bikini scene," the opinion said. Just because objectionable content is removed, that doesn't necessarily transform the content enough to allow this type of behavior under a fair use analysis, the court wrote Thursday. VidAngel also unsuccessfully argued that it was protected under the Family Movie Act (FMA) of 2005. That legislation allows the cracking of encryption to remove objectionable content so long as no fixed copy of the altered version is created. The court didn't agree, however, because VidAngel didn't have the permission in the first place to stream the content.
The court didn't agree, however, because VidAngel didn't have the permission in the first place to stream the content.
Which basically means that's what the court ruled on, and videos being altered in this fashion before stream never even came up.
Nothing to see here. No precedent was set regarding the actual act of alterations.
1) Remove all scenes of Jar Jar from Episode 1-3
2) Sell new de-Jarred version
3) Profit!!!
Wrong. The court only ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail, and that the defendant's motion to terminate the preliminary injunction was denied. No precedent here.
I also have to say that I agree. Purchasing a DVD doesn't entitle you to stream the entire video to others, in any form. If you want a "clean" version of a movie, you can (1) sell a player that skips the objectionable parts or (2) make a video yourself. The copyright holder gets to control the distribution and modification of its work.
Damn those activist judges!
What's next, are they going to try to teach evolution in schools?
"Star Wars is still Star Wars, even without Princess Leia's bikini scene..."
Uh, if you filter out all nudity, profanity, and violence from Star Wars, you're cutting out a hell of a lot more than a "nude" bikini scene, especially with Jar Jar Binks being a violent attack on the senses.
I'm not exactly sure what the hell is the point with this kind of filtering. The average Fast and Furious movie would be filtered into 5 minutes of The Rock standing there flexing his eyebrows.
Censorship is an organization in authority saying: "You can't watch this part of the movie." VidAngel was giving people the choice of how they wanted to watch the movie. VERY DIFFERENT from censorship.
You are Fur Q and I claim my £5.
I suppose VidAngel could actually step up and buy the rights to cut and re-release StarWars without the 'naughty bits'. Just like the TV networks do with movies like Original Sin or Don't Look Now. But I suspect the market for the sanitized versions of such films is so small that the studios just can't be bothered. On the other hand, if the money is good enough, studios will butcher almost anything. I imaging we could even get a version where the Titanic doesn't sink. It's all about money and if some people want to live out on the fringes of our society they have to do so at their own expense.
Have gnu, will travel.
You are incorrect. To understand this better one needs to actually have read the Family Viewing Act. It contains some rather surprising, and refreshing, exceptions to copyright laws and content delivery restrictions. What Vid Angel and others are doing seems to be highly protected under this law.
The strategy the content companies have taken is the "bring me a rock" strategy where every company before and after vid angel that tries to sell bowlderized films, the company says yes that's all legal if you do it correctly but you are doing it wrong. They then fail to spell out what to them would be doing it right. Just everybody is doing it wrong.
I really enjoyed vid angel's original model because it made is affordable to strip out content of films that I was uncomfortable showing kids in the house (not just my kids). Their later model was much less convenient so I didn't use it.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Curious people can look up the now defunct company CleanFlicks which in the previous decade tried a different variation of this approach. They bought movies and edited them themselves to remove objectionable content (as they and their customers defined it) and sold those edited DVDs and VHS tapes. They lost in court and went out of business. I get that VidAngel isn't actually selling physical copies, which is their way to try to sneak around the CleanFlicks ruling, but a Fair Use argument was almost never going to fly. If you use, for example, 10 seconds of a movie, you can probably get away with Fair Use. If you use almost the entire movie, no, you can't get away with Fair Use. Fair Use has never been legally defied as to exactly what it is and isn't, but previous cases suggested that this argument was going to fail here.
I've always wondered why objectionable is usually bikinis, nudity, or sex, but not violence. It is okay to watch people get hurt or killed, but not having fun. I find that weird.
Any responsible business leader would record a Sale as a Sale, more reveunues and more porfits are the Real Bottom line.
As long as VidAngel pays full wholesale price for movies & streaming agreements, I don't care if they only show 35 minutes of a two hour film.
Their customers Want filtered product.
We want to sell more product.
VidAngel expands sales to the Gee Rated market space.
Sales and profits we wouldn't normally get.
So as long as Viewers are paying us full price, I really don't care if they watch all of it or none of it.
If you buy the happy meal, I wont force you to eat all your french fries.
The paying customer isn't always right, but I don't care, as long as I get the money.
I suppose VidAngel could actually step up and buy the rights to cut and re-release StarWars without the 'naughty bits'. Just like the TV networks do with movies like Original Sin [imdb.com] or Don't Look Now [imdb.com
I don't think that is how it works. The TV networks do not "buy the rights to cut and re-release" a movie for the most part. For TV showing, a version is created but the TV networks don't own the rights to it. The version most likely made for TV by the copyright owner. That's why you don't see NBC selling their version on Bluray or DVD.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Well, Monty Python objected when CBS removed the naughty bits. http://mentalfloss.com/article/501461/when-monty-python-took-american-television-court They thought it misrepresented their work. The point of that suit is that copyright does not protect artistic or reputational rights in the work apart from the permission to copy or make derivative works. Trying to make money by showing viewers what they want has been a long struggle.
I suspect that the networks do in fact do exactly this. Because I've seen a few movies made and then broadcast with significant differences in the amount of censoring done. Depending on which network they are shown on. The Ten Commandments immediately comes to mind. Specifically, that see-through gown that Anne Baxter wears. Some blur it out. Others don't.
That's why you don't see NBC selling their version on Bluray or DVD.
NBC doesn't buy the rights to release discs. If they did, they could release nipples/no nipples versions. Another anecdote: When a local network aired Ronin, they cut out the part where Michael Lonsdale tells the story of the 47 Ronin. Without that (and if you don't know the actual background) the plot of the movie is unintelligible. I doubt the studio signed off on that change. The network just figured that this would be a good place for an ad. So yes; networks screw with content once they buy the rights.
Have gnu, will travel.
I suspect that the networks do in fact do exactly this. Because I've seen a few movies made and then broadcast with significant differences in the amount of censoring done. Depending on which network they are shown on. The Ten Commandments immediately comes to mind. Specifically, that see-through gown that Anne Baxter wears. Some blur it out. Others don't.
But that doesn't mean the networks have bought a right to do the editing. It means there are multiple versions of edits. If you were a copyright owner which would make more sense: A TV network pays for right to broadcast a movie but being TV there are different edits to be made. Do you 1) grant the TV network the right to cut the movie themselves or 2) create an edit for them?
NBC doesn't buy the rights to release discs. If they did, they could release nipples/no nipples versions.
They certainly buy a right to broadbast. Other than it not getting past network censors would NBC do this. HBO on the other hand shows the movie entirely.
Another anecdote: When a local network aired Ronin, they cut out the part where Michael Lonsdale tells the story of the 47 Ronin. Without that (and if you don't know the actual background) the plot of the movie is unintelligible. I doubt the studio signed off on that change. The network just figured that this would be a good place for an ad. So yes; networks screw with content once they buy the rights.
Again nothing says the networks have a right to edit. They are multiple versions of edits. Certainly a network can work with a studio about particular edits like for time or content and format.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Certainly a network can work with a studio
Do you really think a studio would sign off on an uncontroversial edit (no naughty bits, no violence or bad language) that butchers the plot line of their movie?
Have gnu, will travel.
Do you really think a studio would sign off on an uncontroversial edit (no naughty bits, no violence or bad language) that butchers the plot line of their movie?
If they want to broadcast it on TV it is required that they make these changes. That is not up for discussion. So either they can control the edit or grant something the rights to someone else. Which leads me to my question: Do you think that a studio would grant a network (or anyone) the right to make any kind of edit they wanted thus forgoing all creative control.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Regarding post release censoring, it is far past time for a federal law to amend copyright to allow this to be done by any service as long as they offer both an un-altered version as well as the altered version, both clearly described as such (but the original can be locked behind a parental password). Hell, broadcast TV has been doing this exact same thing for what 50 years now...
When will the idiots in Hollywood realize that the old adage "The customer is always right" exists to enhance business. The customer didn't like commercials, didn't like being a slave to TV schedules, didn't like crowded, noisy movie theaters, and now streaming services are killing off the old models because it is what the customer wants.
In the same way, if I want to watch an obscenity censored version of Terminator (or whatever) because I don't want the kids walking in Arnold's dick flopping around, I as the paying customer should have that option. Maybe Hollywood can collect some statistics and realize that a movie doesn't need T&A, exploding heads and obscenities every 5th word to be a good story or a commercial success, even with the majority of adults. Hollywood's "artistic integrity" ends at my front door. They wonder why their profits are down when 60% of the country refuse to buy 90% of the movies they make because of the extraneous filth they shovel in.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Here's another stupid case of not allowing a third party to do what is legal if done by oneself.
Copyright really needs an agent clause. A timeshifting/commercial removing service should be a totally legit thing.
...
Title II: Exemption from Infringement for Skipping Audio and Video Content In Motion Pictures - Family Movie Act of 2005 - (Sec. 202) Creates an exemption from copyright infringement for: (1) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing from an authorized copy of the motion picture; or (2) the creation or provision of technology that enables such editing, is designed and marketed for such use, creates no fixed copy of the altered version, and makes no changes, deletions or additions to commercial advertisements or promotional announcements that would otherwise be performed or displayed.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If the network gave the studio enough money, they will likely allow anything. Remember the content is controlled by the studio, not the people who actually put the move together (director, actors, etc)
Do you think that a studio would grant a network (or anyone) the right to make any kind of edit they wanted thus forgoing all creative control.
Yes. Like cutting out key plot points (no obscenity, violence, etc.) just so they can fit an ad in instead of listening to the characters talk.
If they want to broadcast it on TV it is required that they make these changes.
The network can butcher a production just to fit in some extra advertising.
Have gnu, will travel.
Kids grew up seeing adult sex for most of human existence. From adult animals out in nature to actual humans and they likely knew those humans, quite possibly their parents.
Humanity wasn't messed up until modern times somehow saved the children... actually, we treat and value children less in modern "civilized" times.
Not that improper exposure can't cause mental harm but improper exposure to a great many topics can damage a child. Such as killing animals in the wrong way/setting... or not being exposed to it.... Me, I would go vegan if I had to prepare and collect all the animal products I consume... Now if I was forced over the initial dislike of the process I'd adapt and be fine with it, but since I never will have to do it... Being sheltered from sex completely makes it seem unnatural and promotes the number of possible negative interpretations; lacking a "this is not a big deal" context that a routine natural exposure provides.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Again, you are saying that any movie studio would gladly give control to a network studio to make any changes they wanted? Or a movie studio wants to broadcast a movie, they have to make it TV friendly to pass the censors. Some movies will probably never make it to broadcast TV like Deadpool because the amount of edits required changes the movie. They will make it to cable where the TV rules don't apply.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
gladly give control to a network studio to make any changes they wanted?
Yes.
have to make it TV friendly to pass the censors
Cutting the dialog about the 47 Ronin out of the movie Ronin has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Not a naughty word or thought in that. But if you don't know the story, the movie doesn't make sense. So there's a cut that the networks made and the studio presumably either signed off on (which I find hard to believe), or had no control over (much more likely) when they handed complete editorial control over to the network.
So, yes. There is precedent for studios handing creative control over to a distribution channel. Just to reach their viewers. The difference here is that the studios don't consider VidAngel's market to be worth reaching. Not that there is some noble principal at work here.
Like the old joke, the studios have already established how big a slut they are. They are just arguing over the price.
Have gnu, will travel.
Cutting the dialog about the 47 Ronin out of the movie Ronin has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Not a naughty word or thought in that. But if you don't know the story, the movie doesn't make sense. So there's a cut that the networks made and the studio presumably either signed off on (which I find hard to believe), or had no control over (much more likely) when they handed complete editorial control over to the network.
Listen, I'm sorry that the cut of Ronin was terrible, however, you have yet to demonstrate that the studio gave control to the network for the cut. It was horrific cut but that doesn't mean the studio didn't do it. After all the studio puts out terrible cuts of new movies in the theater.
So, yes. There is precedent for studios handing creative control over to a distribution channel. Just to reach their viewers. The difference here is that the studios don't consider VidAngel's market to be worth reaching. Not that there is some noble principal at work here.
No there is a precedent of the studio making terrible cuts to reach more viewers and get more money. You haven't shown that they've actually handed over creative control.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.