The freedom to deny people in other countries jobs?
If you want to quit your job so that someone in another country can have it, that's your business, but don't get your ass puckered up when those of us who don't live in our parents' basements want to keep our jobs.
Or the principle that the rest of the world owes American residents something?
No, the principle that American companies owe America something. The executive officers of these companies are happy to enjoy the benefits that come from being located here. They don't mind the tremendous infrastructure supported by U.S. taxpayers. They don't mind having great roads to transport their products, police to help secure their safety, and eager consumers who buy their goods. Most of them didn't mind building up their companies on the hard work of American workers.
Support companies that make products that are worth buying at prices that are worth paying - wherever they are made.
That's typical short-sighted stupidity! Support companies that lay off your neighbors, family members, and close U.S. plants. Support companies who will take a large portion of your U.S. dollars and ship them overseas, throwing off the trade balance even further. Support companies that will lower the standard of living for the majority of people in the U.S. Who do you think pays unemployment benefits? The tooth fairy? No, taxpayers like you and I.
Let's put this on a smaller scale that you can better grasp:
* Company X outsources, laying off 1,000 engineers who made an average of $75K/year. * Those 1,000 engineers are out of work an average of six months each. * While they are off of work, they collect unemployment benefits, draining money paid into the system by taxpayers. * Because they can't make ends meet financially on unemployment, they stop buying TVs, stereo equipment, DVDs, CDs, computers, video games, telephones, camcorders, digital cameras, etc. * Because of a drop-off in sales, Best Buy closes the store near the now abandoned bulding that used to house the engineers. * The Best Buy employees now have to find jobs, too, and while they are looking, many of them go on unemployment. * Both the engineers and the Best Buy employees are forced to take jobs that, on average, pay less (since there is now a labor glut). * Because the engineers and Best Buy ex-employees aren't paying as much in taxes, funding for schools, police, and road maintenance falls short of needs. * Because there is a tax shortfall, property taxes go up, sales tax goes up, gasoline taxes go up, and business taxes go up. * Because it costs Company X more money in taxes, their profits don't soar, as they assumed they would as a result of outsourcing.
You call it idiotic distortion, the Supreme Court called it a Fifth Amendment issue. Since convicted criminals have lost their right under the law to have firearms, they would be incriminating themselves to register them, thus convicted criminals are exempt from registration laws.
If we had registration, gun dealers and individuals selling guns would have to indicate to whom guns were sold. Do you think that gun dealers would just remain the registered owners and not file paperwork showing to whom they sold the gun?
Sure. And some of them are stupid enough to commit a crime that can be easily traced back to them. That's why I conceded that registration would catch a few really dumb criminals.
Most criminals are "really dumb." Look at how many surveillance camera images we have of criminals who rob banks and convenience stores with their faces exposed. Look at how many of them leave fingerprints at the scenes of crimes. If they won't even take the trouble to don a ski mask or pair of gloves, what's the chance that they will try to modify a gun barrel?
A fired-bullet database would not be searched by ballistics experts, but by computers.
If the President was shot, are you suggesting that they'd turn the matter over to the computers and never have a person look at it? Do you think that's what would happen if another sniper were to terrorize a major metropolitan area? They spent millions of dollars in the DC sniper case alone. I'm sure that computers would get a first crack at identifying the best matches, but ballistics experts would make the final call and do additional searching if necessary.
The computers already have trouble matching bullets correctly:
And everyone on Slashdot knows that computers haven't progressed at all in the last ten years, so we should assume that computers will never get better at this task. Besides, even your data showed a 38% success rate in the worse of the two cases. That's pretty darned useful if you ask me.
And given the special status of firearms -- people use them to defend their families, and they are the last resort against a tyrannical government -- you will need to show exceptional evidence to convince me. Because registration, while it may not inevitably lead to confiscation, certainly paves the road for it.
If the U.S. government decides to unleash the full force of the U.S. military on the people, whether you have a Glock, AK-47, or Remington shotgun is not going to make any difference. You're toast. As to the belief that registration would pave the road to confiscation, I just don't see it. I'm not expecting them to confiscate my car and I registered that. This country has too long a history of supporting individual gun ownership to have me believe that it would turn around and confiscate all guns.
Except that it doesn't work. The Supreme Court has already ruled that criminals don't have to register their guns, so by definition only law-abiding folks will register their guns.
That's idiotic fabrication and/or gross distortion. If it wasn't, you would have provided a link to substantiate it. Just stop wasting our time with that kind of crap. Did it ever occur to you that "law abiding folks" sometimes become criminals? Ever hear of a crime committed by someone who had no prior record? Ever hear of someone snapping and shooting people? If not, do you get out from under your rock often?
A fired-bullet database sounds like a good idea, but it is fraught with problems. Brand-new barrels don't make the same marks as barrels that have been used a while, and a savvy criminal can take some cartridges, smear some grit on the bullets, and fire the bullets from the gun. Now the barrel marks don't match the database.
As to the marks changing over time, ballistic forensic scientists understand and can predict the changes which will occur. You also act like normal people buy a handgun and put 500 rounds through it ever couple of months. They don't. Most people buy guns, shoot them a few times, and put them in a closet, nightstand, etc. Do you really think that ballistics experts would be fooled by the effects from some grit-smeared bullets? That's as idiotic as saying that the FBI won't be able to identify your fingerprint because you have a paper cut.
And of course criminals have access to machine shops just as law-abiding folks do, so they could have the barrels machined or replaced.
No, they do not have the same access. Criminals have, on average, far less money. Some guy who's about to steal $300 from a convenience store to fund his crack habit can't afford to pay a machine shop to modify or swap out the barrel of gun he stole. Even the ones who can afford it are not going to be able to walk into the average machine shop and find someone willing to help them change the ballistic fingerprint of a gun. Every time they go into a machine shop, they risk someone at the machine shop tipping off the cops. If you worked in a machine shop and some street thug showed up with a Glock and wanted you to change out a perfectly good barrel, wouldn't you get suspicious?
Since many criminals use stolen guns anyway, all you would be able to do is figure out from whom the gun was stolen. Doesn't help find the criminal.
You wouldn't make much of a cop, would you? If the police could have identified where the DC sniper's gun was stolen from, they could have much more easily determined the identity of the sniper. As it was, they didn't know if it was someone local, from halfway across the country, etc. They didn't have a way to tell if the same gun had been used in crimes elsewhere (it had). If they could have used a national database, they could have linked the crimes together, gotten eyewitnesses who could have described the perpetrators, etc.
Registration will catch a few really dumb criminals, but that's about it.
Maybe if one of the "few really dumb criminals" shoots your father, mother, wife, or child, you will get a better perspective on the value of catching them.
This sounds good, but statistics show that places with such laws aren't actually safer than places without such laws.
I don't care about hand-picked statistics since they are normally flawed, skewed, and cooked. You picked a state with a high average income, low crime rate, limited urban areas, low gun ownership, and limited the sample to that tiny minority of people who apply for a concealed carry permit. Such statistics are as meaningful as "studies" by the Tobacco Institute showing that smoking doesn't cause cancer. I can create statistics to support any position that I want to. 'Look! Somalia doesn't have gun control and England does and Somalia has way more deaths by gunfire. That proves gun control works.'
There are plenty of people who would like to ban and confiscate all firearms, and some of them are in government positions.
There are also plenty of moderate people who would like gun registration to make the job of law enforcement easier (e.g., "who has a gun that shoots 9.2mm Makarov ammo and lives within ten miles of the freeway"). Others want to have a database of bullet "fingerprints" (from the rifling) so that police can search for a match after a crime. Having been in the DC area during the snipers' murder spree, I'd have sure preferred that the police be able to compare bullets to those in a database. It might have saved some lives. Still others support it because it makes it harder for someone to buy guns and then sell them to felons.
And most people don't want to take your guns, or mine, away. I'm a gun owner. I have a shotgun, a rifle, a clip-fed pistol (Makarov), and a revolver. I'd have no problem with registering them. In fact, I welcome a registration program that required that owners prove that they are competent in gun safety and marksmanship.
Though you use this arguement as an example of what is not a slippery slope, if you examine the historical (recent) evidence: Germany, Austrailia, Canada, New York, etc, registration HAS always lead to confiscation.
New York passed legislation banning assault rifles. They sent a letter to each registered owner of such weapons. The letter required that the owner either provide a sworn statement that the gun was no longer in New York or that it been permanently rendered inoperable. If the owner did not want to do that, they could voluntarily turn it in (if they did not want to sell it or give it to someone outside of New York). That is not a confiscation.
As to the other examples, why can't the pro-gun people argue fairly? If a gun control advocate points out that there is a lower murder rate in another country where private gun ownership is banned, the pro gun side says that it's a 'different culture'. But then the same pro gun people give examples of gun confiscation in other countries with different cultures (and laws) and cite that as proof that registration of guns inevitably leads to gun confiscation.
Interesting. You chose to irritate "NRA-types" rather than clearly illustrate your point?
I can both clearly illustrate my point and irritate NRA-types. What you did is referred to as a "false dichotomy" -- implying that I had to do one or the other.
I wasn't clear, above. I won't argue that registration is inevitably followed by confiscation. Assertions that "confiscation is sure to follow" are arguably fallacious.
And that is, in fact, the exact example that I gave of a slippery slope fallacy:
An example of this is "if the government makes us register our guns, they will come to take the guns away."
I didn't say that they "might" or that they "could". I said "will."
What I was actually thinking of was the 1967 registration of rifles and shotguns, which was followed by the 1991 confiscation of rifles and shotguns, using the registration lists of course.
I'll be kind and call that a distortion. What actually happened was that The New York City Police Department (NYPD) notified 2,340 New Yorkers who had previously registered weapons covered by a recently-passed assault weapons ban that the weapons had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms. I would hardly call that a confiscation. The only confiscation was from a Staten Island man who publically proclaimed that he would not comply with the assault weapons ban.
That wasn't the Sullivan Law, and I apologize for the error.
No need to apologize. We all make mistakes occasionally.
Not the best example, because there are plenty of examples from real life where first the government required registration, and then the government came and took the guns away. It's hardly unreasonable to worry about something that has actually happened many times.
I actually chose that example to get the NRA-types all upset. When you say "the government", what I suppose you meant was "non-US governments not subject to U.S. laws." That's why it's a slippery slope kind of argument "Some other governments not subject to U.S. laws, confiscated guns some time after requiring registration, therefore, if we have gun registration in the U.S., confiscation of guns is sure to follow." Yeah. Sure.
I don't have any objection to these boxes. I'm a bit of a privacy nut, but I'm also a law-abiding citizen.
No you are not. You often exceed the posted limit by a few miles per hour. You occasionally go through a stop sign or make a right turn on red without coming to a full and complete stop. Every now and then, you change lanes or make turns without signalling (which, in the insane state of Virginia is a Class 1 Misdemeanor for which you can get up to a year in jail, $2500 fine, and a six month license suspension).
If we're talking about legislation that begins issuing citations to speeders every time their black box is scanned during an oil change, then I'll certainly join the naysayers.
Why? I thought that you were a law-abiding citizen. Or did you mean that you obey the laws which you consider to be reasonable?;-)
Having said that: I don't know what they told you in Philosophy 101, but "slippery slope" isn't a logical fallacy in a courtroom. It's a valid argument, and oftentimes a compelling one.
There are actually two kinds of slippery slope arguments. The fallacious one is where you say that "event X has happened, therefore event Y will inevitably happen." An example of this is "if the government makes us register our guns, they will come to take the guns away." The other kind of slippery slope argument is valid. That's where one argues against setting a legal precedent for fear of how it could be used.
Seriously, though. If any reasonable person on a jury in a court of law thinks that it's sexually explicit, then that's good enough.
Don't you think we should at least require a majority of them? By the way, the FTC requires the label "[SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT]" on all e-mail which is "sexually oriented."
The problem with this kind of law is the significant risk of the law being thrown out as being too vague. If someone is tried under that law in Salt Lake City, "sexually oriented" might be interpreted to mean a picture of a woman wearing a skirt that doesn't cover her knees. A Los Angeles jury might decide that "sexually oriented" is nothing short of photos of full penetration. Is a text ad for a site that sells lingerie "sexually oriented"? How about an ad with photos of women in bikinis to advertise www.ladies-swimwear.com? Is that "sexually oriented" or is it a site about beachwear fashion?
It's not the government's role to decide what is, or is not, sexually oriented. They should simply make sending spam, or paying a third party to send spam, illegal. They should pass a law like Virginia's, which entitles a recipient to damages from the spammer if they win in a civil suit. They should require that ISPs investigate spam and take action within 48 hours of receiving notification, reporting back to those who filed the complaints about what, specifically, was done, and whether they know the identity of the spammer (so that people decide whether it's worthwhile to get a court order to sue the spammer). They should shut down the connections of those who send spam (I don't care if it's someone's moronic relative who clicked on an attached virus that turned their system into a spam relay).
Spam is theft. Period. It is theft of bandwidth, theft of storage, and theft of CPU time. It's not a free speech issue. It's not analogous to physical junk mail. It's not like telemarketing. Laws can be effective whether spam is sent from with within the US or offshore. If you disagree with me, then go here and read so that you don't waste your time and ours with old, tired, discredited arguments.
No, I can assure you that it does not, as far as copyright is concerned. Every derived work is itself a copyrighted work, with it's own market value - copyright does not recognize a "network effect" of value enhancement - which is why you see so many suits for infringement of copyrights.
I get the feeling that you have a bit more formal training in the law than I do... Oh well, here goes nothing:
If I own the copyright to a film and that film is edited by ClearPlay, CleanFlicks, et al, it has an injurious effect on "the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." A market for a movie includes not only consumers who might purchase copies on tapes and DVDs, but also firms which might wish to purchase rights to release a version edited for content. If ClearPlay has significant penetration into their potential market base, then the rights to edit the film are significantly reduced in value.
No, but they do need to show that they are reasonably close - which is not the case here. Once again, I put it to you that your interpretation renders 107.4 null and void - I look forward to your reply.
See above. As an aside, the plaintiffs could, within a matter of weeks, release edited versions of any of their movies, so what do you consider "reasonably close"?
There is (yet) another term for this, and that is "Monopoly".
Yes. That is what copyrights grant -- temporary monopolies. It's the entire idea behind the copyright system.
I'm going to be a total nit-picker here: Clearplay doesn't make the player, they just provide the "feature"
Agreed. Making this more interesting since they are delivering product to the consumer's homes, unlike a pre-programmed device (such as an equalizer with a "Rock" setting).
Could you provide some citations pertinent to copyright legislation?
Only the MP3 of the talk given at Berkeley (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/event s/clearplay.mp3) by the lawyers involved with the ClearPlay/DGA case, in which Lon Sobel, Esq at 38 minutes into the presentation, refers to this having been decided by the courts a half-dozen times. Look at Title 17, Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. The first item considered about whether something is "fair use" is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." So, if I, as a student, were to photocopy materials for my courses, that might be considered fair use. But if Kinkos were to copy them as a commercial activity at my request, that might not be considered fair use.
That's actually besides the point: since the studio doesn't sell a cleaned up version of these films, there is no reduction of an actual market. I see where you're going with this - 107.4 says "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.", but they mean the potential market for the copyrighted work - in this case, the "dirty" version. If the studios had a "clean" version, then they would actually have a case
The "value of the copyrighted work" includes value derived from the market for future derivative products. The value of the copyright to "A Wizard of Earthsea" is not just calculated based on potential sales of existing books. The value includes the potential market for derivative products like movies, radio plays, illustrated books, sequels, prequels, DVDs, toys, games, hardcover "library" editions, and "Ged" hugging pillows (in Japan). A copyright holder does not need to rush products to market in order to assert a copyright claim that a third party is devaluing the market for derivative works.
However, two of these points are going to be tough: "any evidence of actual confusion by consumers" and "the degree of care likely to be exercised by the consumer". Given that the consumer proactively chose to access an edited version, these will be difficult to prove.
To be successful, a plaintiff does not have to show an 8-for-8 score on the criteria. In fact, the three minor criteria are not even examined in all trademark infringement cases.
That said, evidence of actual confusion could be nothing more than a getting a consumer up on the stand and getting them to admit that they don't remember if the copy of 'Movie X' that they saw was one run through ClearPlay. Or it could be a consumer having watched a movie with ClearPlay on while thinking it was not. As to the "degree of care likely to be exercised by the consumer", I don't think that this minor criteria would be considered in this case due to the player and movie being purchased at varying times and the derivative work being viewed any time thereafter. That's a tough one to consider in this case.
By the way, you said that the MP3 was 1:29:10 in length. The version that I heard was 1:28:45, so I can only assume that it was run through a ClearPlay-like system prior to my hearing it.
Yet you've spent the last few days forcefully declaring the exact opposite. Your brilliance has confounded the rest of us.
I have not argued a position counter to this, but this issue is one filled with subtleties and technicalities. That is the reason that it has dragged on this long.
I maintain that a parent, or any consumer, has the right to use any controls to avoid seeing material that they deem objectionable. I'll even drop a bomb here: they have a legal right to use the ClearPlay DVD player that we are discussing but my argument, all along, has been that Clearplay does not have a legal right to manufacture and sell the device. There is a general misconception that, if a person is legally permitted to do something himself, the law permits a third party to do the same thing for the consumer as a for-profit venture. That flawed concept has been repeatedly struck down by the courts.
and that one of the things judges look at most closely when the question of fair use comes up is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." - the defense being that, since people atually have to buy or rent a legal DVD, there is no loss of market so fair use is a valid defense.
Now this is an interesting avenue to pursue. CleanFlicks will edit a commercial video for a consumer, charging a fee of $14 and up. CleanFlick's business model proves that there is a market willing to pay a premium for such fare. If ClearPlay and CleanFliks sell services to this market, it reduces the potential market for the copyright holders: If you bought a copy of The Matrix for $19.99 to play on your ClearPlay DVD player, then it's unlikely that you will purchase another version which has been "cleaned up" by the studio for a fee of $34.95.
What I found especially interesting was the discussion on how this was really two lawsuits, and how the studios didn't really want to get involved because the market was so small.
Because the studios own copyright, they can sue under the copyright statutes while the directors are suing under the trademark infringement statutes.
I do wish to counter an argument made by the ClearPlay attorney. He stated that the consumer could determine what was edited out by watching the movie a second time with the ClearPlay device off. He went on to claim that the ability of the customer to determine the differences means that it is not trademark infringement. That's untrue. Trademark infringement claims do not require that the consumer have no possible way to determine what alterations were made, just that it be misleading or confusing.
but a religious person who fast forwards past violent scenes when their child is present is also, in essence, claiming that their rights to decide on what is appropriate viewing for their child (which may be in part determined by their religious position) supercedes the creators right to maintain the "artistic integrity" of their work... and I think you'll find that most US courts will agree.
I agree with you and the courts on this one. A parent, for whatever reason, be it religious, moral, or other, has a legal right to use any controls available to them to skip scenes or mute dialog that they deem inappropriate.
That's not the religious prudes - that's me. The fact is that studios are greedy. They're in this fight because of the money, and nothing else.
Two things:
1. Whether they are greedy, mean, unpleasant, rude, offensive, despicable, abhorrent, vulgar, or immoral has no bearing on their rights. Neither does their motivation for asserting their rights under the applicable laws. A Neo-Nazi has no less right to copyright protection than do you, me, Joan Baez, or the Make A Wish Foundation.
2. I contend that greed is not the sole motivating factor. Look at the CleanFlicks lawsuit. In that, CleanFlicks was buying one copy of each movie that they edited. Thus, the religious families that never would have bought unedited copies of Pulp Fiction, happily purchase edited, 21 minute long versions from CleanFlicks. And each of those purchases is money in the pockets of the studios. The Studios sued anyway.
These aren't technicalities, they're part of a healthy discussion on the expansion of the law.
I believe that it is important to consider the intent of the law. When the copyright and trademark laws were passed, did the legislators intend to ban third-parties from "providing" derivative works to customers. If so, isn't the ClearPlay system an attempt to skirt this law using new forms of technology? To me, it seems that it is.
You call it "expansion of the law" and I view this as a contraction of the law if ClearPlay is victorious. It's all about perspective.
No, we are not. Do you have ADHD? We are discussing whether people would pay a premium for movies which are edited to be clean.
I said that the studios could release edited movies for $10 more than unedited ones but that ClearPlay was reducing the potential demand for such movies with their product/service. The person to whom I responded said "If [the studios] think they can charge $10 more for doing something that you can legally do yourself, then they are as retarded as you are." I showed that there was a company (CleanFlicks) charging more for edited versions of movies (a minimum of $14 more). That proved, beyond question or doubt, that the person to whom I replied was completely wrong and clueless about this.
Just out of idle curiosity - have you ever posted this many comments in one discussion before?
I don't believe that I have, though there are discussions where I've posted a lot of messages before. Usually, when I post, it's probably an average of 3-5 messages per a discussion. I obviously post a lot of messages on Slashdot and enjoy the intellectual challence and exercise from a lively debate.
Not meant as a Troll or Flaimbait, but your current posting history is starting to look a little mono-maniacal. Again, this is in no way meant as some kind of personal attack on you - just, as I said, idle curiosity.
No offense taken. This is a subject which is important to me and one on which I was vocal when the CleanFlicks story was posted on Slashdot within the last year or two. I am very frustrated that people scream about their perceived "rights" while ignoring the rights of directors and copyright holders. Religious prudes justify the mutilation of films by declaring the films "immoral" or by saying that the studios and directors are greedy. They feel that they have an ethical right to tamper with the art of another because they don't approve of certain words, images, and ideas. What is particularly annoying about this is the often-voiced notion that the law as something to get around with technicalities (e.g., edits on the fly vs. distribution of a DVD).
I hope that you come to believe that I'm impassioned, but not insane.
If they think they can charge $10 more for doing something that you can legally do yourself, then they are as retarded as you are.
Here's the price list from CleanFlicks:
Ordering options A and B
A) Send us your VHS/DVD movie to be edited. We edit it and ship it to you.
* Edit a VHS movie for $14.00 plus shipping.
* Edit a DVD movie for $18.50 plus shipping.
B) We buy the VHS/DVD movie for you, edit it, and ship it to you.
* Buy and edit a VHS movie for $26.95 plus shipping.
* Buy and edit a DVD movie for $36.95 plus shipping.
OUCH! They are charging a minimum of $14 "for doing something that you can legally do yourself" -- and they are making money doing it. So, moron, do you still want to claim that I'm "retarded" for suggesting the a studio could sell a clean version of a movie for $10 more?
This virtual ass-kicking was brought to you by fmaxwell. Have a nice day!
Your Karma Whoring would be more effective if you didn't post as an AC.;)
That said, I really appreciate the MP3 link and I'm listening to the MP3 as I post this. Superb link! I'll be burning it to a disc to continue listen to on the way home.
Note that the arguments being made are not for "distribution", something that everyone in this discussion has latched onto. The main copyright argument is that exclusive rights to prepare and authorize derivative works belong to the copyright holder.
I had already read Bowdlerizing for Columbine? but don't agree with the author's contentions (no surprise there). As to the title "There Shouldn't Be a Remote Control on How We Watch DVDs", I snickered a bit as that's exactly what I view ClearPlay being; a remote control on the DVD player.
I was just getting a little tired of seeing section 106 pasted again and again again.. sometimes in text, sometimes marked up in bold, sometimes in italic...
I was getting tired of pasting it over an over. I kept hoping that I would hit upon just the right combination of fonts, formatting, and indentation to actually get someone to read it.
Give it up- we all know that is you posting AC, fmaxwell.
Not very observent, are you? When I post, I do so under my own ID. Unlike you, I'm willing to stand behind my comments, and not hide behind anonymity so that no one can attribute my comments to me. Sounds like you are as good at psychology as you are at copyright law.
ClearPlay cannot be guilty of soiling the reputation of the artists by distributing a derivative work if, by your (whoops! I mean his!) admission ClearPlay is not making a derivative work.
ClearPlay "makes" the video that appears on the consumer's screen. That's a derivative work. Saying that they aren't responsible for the end-result of what comes out of the DVD player that their script controls is asinine. It's like saying a virus writer is not responsible for damages because his virus ran on a machine that someone else owned.
No, the video on the customer's screen comes from a legally purchased or rented DVD.
And hence the term "derivative work." The video the customer sees is based on the DVD they put into the drive, but the video is modified.
Says who?
Me. I say that it is immaterial.
But you have said that ClearPlay is not making a derivative work...
I said that the editing script was not, in and of itself, a derivative work. They are "making" the derivative work shown on the consumer's screen.
Do you really think that a DVD player is a legal agent of ClearPlay? Wow.
Buy a dictionary: "A means by which something is done or caused; instrument."
are going to harm the sacred "honor and reputation" of movie directors during conversations at the watercooler because they might forget to tell people that the movie they saw was edited?
Where did the word "sacred" come from"? "Honor" and "reputation" came from the copyright law:
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.--Subject to section 107 and
independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art--
104a Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright Copyright Law of the United States 17 (1) shall have the right-- (A) to claim authorship of that work, and (B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create; (2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and (3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right-- (A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modifi- cation of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation,...
Copyright law recognizes that a substandard edit can harm the reputation or honor of someone. Why can't you see that? Are you going to try to tell me that you've never chosen or avoided a movie based on the recommendations of someone you know?
I don't think that many film critics or members of the academy of motion pictures will buy one of these devices.
Most people see, or avoid, movies based on the recommendations of friends and associates, not professional film critics or people judging awards.
I actually understand your argument for preserving the artistic integrity of the work
Thanks for saying that. Understanding my argument is not a popular position these days.
, but I don't see myself picketing Walmart to protest the sale of these machines.
Fair enough.
If sitting home and watching badly edited versions of these movies will keep these people out of my hair (or let's just go ahead and say out of the Attorney General's office;) then, hey - more power to it.
I fully understand where you are coming from and empathize with that position. On the other hand, I also empathize with a writer or director who has poured their heard and soul into creating a movie and I know how I would feel if I were watching my work be butchered like that.
The people that use this DVD player are aware that there are some things that will be edited out, but they have decided that they would like to see the movie enough that they are willing to risk ruining the artsy-fartsy flow of the movie in order to remove those things.
The term "artsy-fartsy flow" speaks volumes about your lack of taste and understanding of the gravity of this. Who cares if the consumers know that some, unidentified, "things" will be edited out? It doesn't mean that, in their minds, they will divorce the director from the resultant derivative work that they see on the screen or that they will refrain from speaking ill of the film. If they see a film on this contraption and don't like the film, they will be at the watercooler the next day telling their colleagues that the film was lousy. They won't say "I can't judge the film because I saw an edited version." That's the most idiotic argument that you've made yet -- and that's saying something.
I am seriously disappointed if that is the basis for your argument. You just spent 4 days on that?
I spent four days trying to drum that into your head. What you should be disappointed in is your own inability to grasp the arguments that I, the studios, the directors, and the lawyers representing the directors and studios, have made. Now address my points instead of grandstanding and pretending to be superior:
A consumer manually editing a DVD is made aware of each and every edit. There is no doubt in the consumer's mind when an edit takes place. He is not left thinking that the director or studio was responsible for clumsy edits or odd scene changes. He understands how many changes are being made, when they are being made, the magnitude of the changes as measured by time, and the type of content being edited (nudity, profanity, violence, etc.).
With the automated process, the consumer sits there passively, unaware of the edits being made by ClearPlay's remote editing capability. At the end of a film, the consumer isn't consciously aware of any edits other than those so obvious that they could not be mistaken for the work of a studio. And thus that consumer only knows that what he did see was created by the people shown in the credits. If a consumer knew that there were, say, 26 fast forwards, 67 mutings of the center channel, 51 mutings of the left channel, and 72 mutings of the right channel, for a total edited/removed time of 14 minutes, he/she would not be nearly so confused as to why the film was less than coherent and satisfying.
Consider the word of mouth effect: "I saw American Beauty last night. It's really confusing and I can't figure out what motivated the characters. It just wasn't very good..." Do you think that the person is going to add "but my DVD player takes out all of the sex, violence, and vulgarity because I'm very easily offended." Nope, probably not. And thus the reputations of the film, the director, and the studio are harmed.
Do you just want to make it a pain in the ass for people to avoid seeing things that they don't want to see?
It's not a "pain in the ass" at all. If you don't want to see sex, witness violence, or hear profanity, then don't rent Pulp Fiction. Don't buy a copy of Saving Private Ryan. Don't put Full Metal Jacket into your DVD player. There is already a rating system for movies that will let you easily choose movies that are more to your tastes. If I want to see sex in a movie, I rent a movie that contains sex. I do not buy a Disney DVD and pay some company to automatically insert sex scenes into it.
But you've already admitted that what is being distributed by Clearplay - the so-called "edit script" is NOT a derivative work.
What is being distributed by ClearPlay is the video on the customer's screen. Whether they do the edits in-house and send the whole video or do the edits in the DVD player is immaterial.
We understand it, but it's just not valid: a) copyright law governs (amongst other things) the distribution of works derived from a copyrighted work
Untrue. It governs the preparation of derivative works.
but b) copyright law does not govern the distribution of tools used in the making of a derivative work
This is not a "tool". The ClearPlay DVD player is acting as an agent of ClearPlay and performing the edits on the fly "delivering" a video to the consumer's screen. You just can't get it through your head that you can violate copyright without ever copying anything.
and anyways c) copyright law has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the customer knows what edits are being made.
Another fallacy on your part. Copyright specifically covers derivative works which can harm the "honor and reputation" of the copyright holder. The directors in the suit have already stated that the ClearPlay edits hurt their reputations -- and they are in a better position to know that than are you.
So, you admit that this edit script that ClearPlay makes is not a derivative work.
Yes. It is not a derivative work.
So you would have no problems with ClearPlay selling a piece of paper that told you when to mute and fast forward while playing a DVD.
Of course not. That's free speech.
You also admit that people have the ability under Fair Use to edit and censor their own DVD's. So you would have no problems with somebody buying the edit script from ClearPlay and manually muting and fast forwarding through the times on the list while watching a DVD.
No problem there. That's fair use.
How does the consumer chosing to use a special DVD player to make the edits for him/herself differ from the consumer using his/her DVD player's remote and an edit script to do it manually?
Finally, I understand where the confusion is. Thank you for prompting me to address it.
A consumer manually editing a DVD is made aware of each and every edit. There is no doubt in the consumer's mind when an edit takes place. He is not left thinking that the director or studio was responsible for clumsy edits or odd scene changes. He understands how many changes are being made, when they are being made, the magnitude of the changes as measured by time, and the type of content being edited (nudity, profanity, violence, etc.).
With the automated process, the consumer sits there passively, unaware of the edits being made by ClearPlay's remote editing capability. At the end of a film, the consumer isn't consciously aware of any edits other than those so obvious that they could not be mistaken for the work of a studio. And thus that consumer only knows that what he did see was created by the people shown in the credits. If a consumer knew that there were, say, 26 fast forwards, 67 mutings of the center channel, 51 mutings of the left channel, and 72 mutings of the right channel, for a total edited/removed time of 14 minutes, he/she would not be nearly so confused as to why the film was less than coherent and satisfying.
Consider the word of mouth effect: "I saw American Beauty last night. It's really confusing and I can't figure out what motivated the characters. It just wasn't very good..." Do you think that the person is going to add "but my DVD player takes out all of the sex, violence, and vulgarity because I'm very easily offended." Nope, probably not. And thus the reputations of the film, the director, and the studio are harmed.
Do you just want to make it a pain in the ass for people to avoid seeing things that they don't want to see?
It's not a "pain in the ass" at all. If you don't want to see sex, witness violence, or hear profanity, then don't rent Pulp Fiction. Don't buy a copy of Saving Private Ryan. Don't put Full Metal Jacket into your DVD player. There is already a rating system for movies that will let you easily choose movies that are more to your tastes. If I want to see sex in a movie, I rent a movie that contains sex. I do not buy a Disney DVD and pay some company to automatically insert sex scenes into it.
Slashdot Mirror
The freedom to deny people in other countries jobs?
If you want to quit your job so that someone in another country can have it, that's your business, but don't get your ass puckered up when those of us who don't live in our parents' basements want to keep our jobs.
Or the principle that the rest of the world owes American residents something?
No, the principle that American companies owe America something. The executive officers of these companies are happy to enjoy the benefits that come from being located here. They don't mind the tremendous infrastructure supported by U.S. taxpayers. They don't mind having great roads to transport their products, police to help secure their safety, and eager consumers who buy their goods. Most of them didn't mind building up their companies on the hard work of American workers.
Support companies that make products that are worth buying at prices that are worth paying - wherever they are made.
That's typical short-sighted stupidity! Support companies that lay off your neighbors, family members, and close U.S. plants. Support companies who will take a large portion of your U.S. dollars and ship them overseas, throwing off the trade balance even further. Support companies that will lower the standard of living for the majority of people in the U.S. Who do you think pays unemployment benefits? The tooth fairy? No, taxpayers like you and I.
Let's put this on a smaller scale that you can better grasp:
* Company X outsources, laying off 1,000 engineers who made an average of $75K/year.
* Those 1,000 engineers are out of work an average of six months each.
* While they are off of work, they collect unemployment benefits, draining money paid into the system by taxpayers.
* Because they can't make ends meet financially on unemployment, they stop buying TVs, stereo equipment, DVDs, CDs, computers, video games, telephones, camcorders, digital cameras, etc.
* Because of a drop-off in sales, Best Buy closes the store near the now abandoned bulding that used to house the engineers.
* The Best Buy employees now have to find jobs, too, and while they are looking, many of them go on unemployment.
* Both the engineers and the Best Buy employees are forced to take jobs that, on average, pay less (since there is now a labor glut).
* Because the engineers and Best Buy ex-employees aren't paying as much in taxes, funding for schools, police, and road maintenance falls short of needs.
* Because there is a tax shortfall, property taxes go up, sales tax goes up, gasoline taxes go up, and business taxes go up.
* Because it costs Company X more money in taxes, their profits don't soar, as they assumed they would as a result of outsourcing.
You call it idiotic distortion, the Supreme Court called it a Fifth Amendment issue. Since convicted criminals have lost their right under the law to have firearms, they would be incriminating themselves to register them, thus convicted criminals are exempt from registration laws.
If we had registration, gun dealers and individuals selling guns would have to indicate to whom guns were sold. Do you think that gun dealers would just remain the registered owners and not file paperwork showing to whom they sold the gun?
Sure. And some of them are stupid enough to commit a crime that can be easily traced back to them. That's why I conceded that registration would catch a few really dumb criminals.
Most criminals are "really dumb." Look at how many surveillance camera images we have of criminals who rob banks and convenience stores with their faces exposed. Look at how many of them leave fingerprints at the scenes of crimes. If they won't even take the trouble to don a ski mask or pair of gloves, what's the chance that they will try to modify a gun barrel?
A fired-bullet database would not be searched by ballistics experts, but by computers.
If the President was shot, are you suggesting that they'd turn the matter over to the computers and never have a person look at it? Do you think that's what would happen if another sniper were to terrorize a major metropolitan area? They spent millions of dollars in the DC sniper case alone. I'm sure that computers would get a first crack at identifying the best matches, but ballistics experts would make the final call and do additional searching if necessary.
The computers already have trouble matching bullets correctly:
And everyone on Slashdot knows that computers haven't progressed at all in the last ten years, so we should assume that computers will never get better at this task. Besides, even your data showed a 38% success rate in the worse of the two cases. That's pretty darned useful if you ask me.
And given the special status of firearms -- people use them to defend their families, and they are the last resort against a tyrannical government -- you will need to show exceptional evidence to convince me. Because registration, while it may not inevitably lead to confiscation, certainly paves the road for it.
If the U.S. government decides to unleash the full force of the U.S. military on the people, whether you have a Glock, AK-47, or Remington shotgun is not going to make any difference. You're toast. As to the belief that registration would pave the road to confiscation, I just don't see it. I'm not expecting them to confiscate my car and I registered that. This country has too long a history of supporting individual gun ownership to have me believe that it would turn around and confiscate all guns.
Except that it doesn't work. The Supreme Court has already ruled that criminals don't have to register their guns, so by definition only law-abiding folks will register their guns.
That's idiotic fabrication and/or gross distortion. If it wasn't, you would have provided a link to substantiate it. Just stop wasting our time with that kind of crap. Did it ever occur to you that "law abiding folks" sometimes become criminals? Ever hear of a crime committed by someone who had no prior record? Ever hear of someone snapping and shooting people? If not, do you get out from under your rock often?
A fired-bullet database sounds like a good idea, but it is fraught with problems. Brand-new barrels don't make the same marks as barrels that have been used a while, and a savvy criminal can take some cartridges, smear some grit on the bullets, and fire the bullets from the gun. Now the barrel marks don't match the database.
As to the marks changing over time, ballistic forensic scientists understand and can predict the changes which will occur. You also act like normal people buy a handgun and put 500 rounds through it ever couple of months. They don't. Most people buy guns, shoot them a few times, and put them in a closet, nightstand, etc. Do you really think that ballistics experts would be fooled by the effects from some grit-smeared bullets? That's as idiotic as saying that the FBI won't be able to identify your fingerprint because you have a paper cut.
And of course criminals have access to machine shops just as law-abiding folks do, so they could have the barrels machined or replaced.
No, they do not have the same access. Criminals have, on average, far less money. Some guy who's about to steal $300 from a convenience store to fund his crack habit can't afford to pay a machine shop to modify or swap out the barrel of gun he stole. Even the ones who can afford it are not going to be able to walk into the average machine shop and find someone willing to help them change the ballistic fingerprint of a gun. Every time they go into a machine shop, they risk someone at the machine shop tipping off the cops. If you worked in a machine shop and some street thug showed up with a Glock and wanted you to change out a perfectly good barrel, wouldn't you get suspicious?
Since many criminals use stolen guns anyway, all you would be able to do is figure out from whom the gun was stolen. Doesn't help find the criminal.
You wouldn't make much of a cop, would you? If the police could have identified where the DC sniper's gun was stolen from, they could have much more easily determined the identity of the sniper. As it was, they didn't know if it was someone local, from halfway across the country, etc. They didn't have a way to tell if the same gun had been used in crimes elsewhere (it had). If they could have used a national database, they could have linked the crimes together, gotten eyewitnesses who could have described the perpetrators, etc.
Registration will catch a few really dumb criminals, but that's about it.
Maybe if one of the "few really dumb criminals" shoots your father, mother, wife, or child, you will get a better perspective on the value of catching them.
This sounds good, but statistics show that places with such laws aren't actually safer than places without such laws.
I don't care about hand-picked statistics since they are normally flawed, skewed, and cooked. You picked a state with a high average income, low crime rate, limited urban areas, low gun ownership, and limited the sample to that tiny minority of people who apply for a concealed carry permit. Such statistics are as meaningful as "studies" by the Tobacco Institute showing that smoking doesn't cause cancer. I can create statistics to support any position that I want to. 'Look! Somalia doesn't have gun control and England does and Somalia has way more deaths by gunfire. That proves gun control works.'
There are plenty of people who would like to ban and confiscate all firearms, and some of them are in government positions.
There are also plenty of moderate people who would like gun registration to make the job of law enforcement easier (e.g., "who has a gun that shoots 9.2mm Makarov ammo and lives within ten miles of the freeway"). Others want to have a database of bullet "fingerprints" (from the rifling) so that police can search for a match after a crime. Having been in the DC area during the snipers' murder spree, I'd have sure preferred that the police be able to compare bullets to those in a database. It might have saved some lives. Still others support it because it makes it harder for someone to buy guns and then sell them to felons.
And most people don't want to take your guns, or mine, away. I'm a gun owner. I have a shotgun, a rifle, a clip-fed pistol (Makarov), and a revolver. I'd have no problem with registering them. In fact, I welcome a registration program that required that owners prove that they are competent in gun safety and marksmanship.
Though you use this arguement as an example of what is not a slippery slope, if you examine the historical (recent) evidence: Germany, Austrailia, Canada, New York, etc, registration HAS always lead to confiscation.
New York passed legislation banning assault rifles. They sent a letter to each registered owner of such weapons. The letter required that the owner either provide a sworn statement that the gun was no longer in New York or that it been permanently rendered inoperable. If the owner did not want to do that, they could voluntarily turn it in (if they did not want to sell it or give it to someone outside of New York). That is not a confiscation.
As to the other examples, why can't the pro-gun people argue fairly? If a gun control advocate points out that there is a lower murder rate in another country where private gun ownership is banned, the pro gun side says that it's a 'different culture'. But then the same pro gun people give examples of gun confiscation in other countries with different cultures (and laws) and cite that as proof that registration of guns inevitably leads to gun confiscation.
I can both clearly illustrate my point and irritate NRA-types. What you did is referred to as a "false dichotomy" -- implying that I had to do one or the other.
I wasn't clear, above. I won't argue that registration is inevitably followed by confiscation. Assertions that "confiscation is sure to follow" are arguably fallacious.
And that is, in fact, the exact example that I gave of a slippery slope fallacy: I didn't say that they "might" or that they "could". I said "will."
What I was actually thinking of was the 1967 registration of rifles and shotguns, which was followed by the 1991 confiscation of rifles and shotguns, using the registration lists of course.
I'll be kind and call that a distortion. What actually happened was that The New York City Police Department (NYPD) notified 2,340 New Yorkers who had previously registered weapons covered by a recently-passed assault weapons ban that the weapons had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms. I would hardly call that a confiscation. The only confiscation was from a Staten Island man who publically proclaimed that he would not comply with the assault weapons ban.
That wasn't the Sullivan Law, and I apologize for the error.
No need to apologize. We all make mistakes occasionally.
Not the best example, because there are plenty of examples from real life where first the government required registration, and then the government came and took the guns away. It's hardly unreasonable to worry about something that has actually happened many times.
I actually chose that example to get the NRA-types all upset. When you say "the government", what I suppose you meant was "non-US governments not subject to U.S. laws." That's why it's a slippery slope kind of argument "Some other governments not subject to U.S. laws, confiscated guns some time after requiring registration, therefore, if we have gun registration in the U.S., confiscation of guns is sure to follow." Yeah. Sure.
I don't have any objection to these boxes. I'm a bit of a privacy nut, but I'm also a law-abiding citizen.
;-)
No you are not. You often exceed the posted limit by a few miles per hour. You occasionally go through a stop sign or make a right turn on red without coming to a full and complete stop. Every now and then, you change lanes or make turns without signalling (which, in the insane state of Virginia is a Class 1 Misdemeanor for which you can get up to a year in jail, $2500 fine, and a six month license suspension).
If we're talking about legislation that begins issuing citations to speeders every time their black box is scanned during an oil change, then I'll certainly join the naysayers.
Why? I thought that you were a law-abiding citizen. Or did you mean that you obey the laws which you consider to be reasonable?
Having said that: I don't know what they told you in Philosophy 101, but "slippery slope" isn't a logical fallacy in a courtroom. It's a valid argument, and oftentimes a compelling one.
There are actually two kinds of slippery slope arguments. The fallacious one is where you say that "event X has happened, therefore event Y will inevitably happen." An example of this is "if the government makes us register our guns, they will come to take the guns away." The other kind of slippery slope argument is valid. That's where one argues against setting a legal precedent for fear of how it could be used.
Seriously, though. If any reasonable person on a jury in a court of law thinks that it's sexually explicit, then that's good enough.
Don't you think we should at least require a majority of them? By the way, the FTC requires the label "[SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT]" on all e-mail which is "sexually oriented."
The problem with this kind of law is the significant risk of the law being thrown out as being too vague. If someone is tried under that law in Salt Lake City, "sexually oriented" might be interpreted to mean a picture of a woman wearing a skirt that doesn't cover her knees. A Los Angeles jury might decide that "sexually oriented" is nothing short of photos of full penetration. Is a text ad for a site that sells lingerie "sexually oriented"? How about an ad with photos of women in bikinis to advertise www.ladies-swimwear.com? Is that "sexually oriented" or is it a site about beachwear fashion?
It's not the government's role to decide what is, or is not, sexually oriented. They should simply make sending spam, or paying a third party to send spam, illegal. They should pass a law like Virginia's, which entitles a recipient to damages from the spammer if they win in a civil suit. They should require that ISPs investigate spam and take action within 48 hours of receiving notification, reporting back to those who filed the complaints about what, specifically, was done, and whether they know the identity of the spammer (so that people decide whether it's worthwhile to get a court order to sue the spammer). They should shut down the connections of those who send spam (I don't care if it's someone's moronic relative who clicked on an attached virus that turned their system into a spam relay).
Spam is theft. Period. It is theft of bandwidth, theft of storage, and theft of CPU time. It's not a free speech issue. It's not analogous to physical junk mail. It's not like telemarketing. Laws can be effective whether spam is sent from with within the US or offshore. If you disagree with me, then go here and read so that you don't waste your time and ours with old, tired, discredited arguments.
No, I can assure you that it does not, as far as copyright is concerned. Every derived work is itself a copyrighted work, with it's own market value - copyright does not recognize a "network effect" of value enhancement - which is why you see so many suits for infringement of copyrights.
I get the feeling that you have a bit more formal training in the law than I do... Oh well, here goes nothing:
If I own the copyright to a film and that film is edited by ClearPlay, CleanFlicks, et al, it has an injurious effect on "the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." A market for a movie includes not only consumers who might purchase copies on tapes and DVDs, but also firms which might wish to purchase rights to release a version edited for content. If ClearPlay has significant penetration into their potential market base, then the rights to edit the film are significantly reduced in value.
No, but they do need to show that they are reasonably close - which is not the case here. Once again, I put it to you that your interpretation renders 107.4 null and void - I look forward to your reply.
See above. As an aside, the plaintiffs could, within a matter of weeks, release edited versions of any of their movies, so what do you consider "reasonably close"?
There is (yet) another term for this, and that is "Monopoly".
Yes. That is what copyrights grant -- temporary monopolies. It's the entire idea behind the copyright system.
I used quicktime to play it. You?
QCD.
I'm going to be a total nit-picker here: Clearplay doesn't make the player, they just provide the "feature"
t s/clearplay.mp3) by the lawyers involved with the ClearPlay/DGA case, in which Lon Sobel, Esq at 38 minutes into the presentation, refers to this having been decided by the courts a half-dozen times. Look at Title 17, Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. The first item considered about whether something is "fair use" is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." So, if I, as a student, were to photocopy materials for my courses, that might be considered fair use. But if Kinkos were to copy them as a commercial activity at my request, that might not be considered fair use.
Agreed. Making this more interesting since they are delivering product to the consumer's homes, unlike a pre-programmed device (such as an equalizer with a "Rock" setting).
Could you provide some citations pertinent to copyright legislation?
Only the MP3 of the talk given at Berkeley (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/even
That's actually besides the point: since the studio doesn't sell a cleaned up version of these films, there is no reduction of an actual market. I see where you're going with this - 107.4 says "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.", but they mean the potential market for the copyrighted work - in this case, the "dirty" version. If the studios had a "clean" version, then they would actually have a case
The "value of the copyrighted work" includes value derived from the market for future derivative products. The value of the copyright to "A Wizard of Earthsea" is not just calculated based on potential sales of existing books. The value includes the potential market for derivative products like movies, radio plays, illustrated books, sequels, prequels, DVDs, toys, games, hardcover "library" editions, and "Ged" hugging pillows (in Japan). A copyright holder does not need to rush products to market in order to assert a copyright claim that a third party is devaluing the market for derivative works.
However, two of these points are going to be tough: "any evidence of actual confusion by consumers" and "the degree of care likely to be exercised by the consumer". Given that the consumer proactively chose to access an edited version, these will be difficult to prove.
To be successful, a plaintiff does not have to show an 8-for-8 score on the criteria. In fact, the three minor criteria are not even examined in all trademark infringement cases.
That said, evidence of actual confusion could be nothing more than a getting a consumer up on the stand and getting them to admit that they don't remember if the copy of 'Movie X' that they saw was one run through ClearPlay. Or it could be a consumer having watched a movie with ClearPlay on while thinking it was not. As to the "degree of care likely to be exercised by the consumer", I don't think that this minor criteria would be considered in this case due to the player and movie being purchased at varying times and the derivative work being viewed any time thereafter. That's a tough one to consider in this case.
By the way, you said that the MP3 was 1:29:10 in length. The version that I heard was 1:28:45, so I can only assume that it was run through a ClearPlay-like system prior to my hearing it.
Yet you've spent the last few days forcefully declaring the exact opposite. Your brilliance has confounded the rest of us.
I have not argued a position counter to this, but this issue is one filled with subtleties and technicalities. That is the reason that it has dragged on this long.
I maintain that a parent, or any consumer, has the right to use any controls to avoid seeing material that they deem objectionable. I'll even drop a bomb here: they have a legal right to use the ClearPlay DVD player that we are discussing but my argument, all along, has been that Clearplay does not have a legal right to manufacture and sell the device. There is a general misconception that, if a person is legally permitted to do something himself, the law permits a third party to do the same thing for the consumer as a for-profit venture. That flawed concept has been repeatedly struck down by the courts.
and that one of the things judges look at most closely when the question of fair use comes up is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." - the defense being that, since people atually have to buy or rent a legal DVD, there is no loss of market so fair use is a valid defense.
Now this is an interesting avenue to pursue. CleanFlicks will edit a commercial video for a consumer, charging a fee of $14 and up. CleanFlick's business model proves that there is a market willing to pay a premium for such fare. If ClearPlay and CleanFliks sell services to this market, it reduces the potential market for the copyright holders: If you bought a copy of The Matrix for $19.99 to play on your ClearPlay DVD player, then it's unlikely that you will purchase another version which has been "cleaned up" by the studio for a fee of $34.95.
What I found especially interesting was the discussion on how this was really two lawsuits, and how the studios didn't really want to get involved because the market was so small.
Because the studios own copyright, they can sue under the copyright statutes while the directors are suing under the trademark infringement statutes.
I do wish to counter an argument made by the ClearPlay attorney. He stated that the consumer could determine what was edited out by watching the movie a second time with the ClearPlay device off. He went on to claim that the ability of the customer to determine the differences means that it is not trademark infringement. That's untrue. Trademark infringement claims do not require that the consumer have no possible way to determine what alterations were made, just that it be misleading or confusing.
but a religious person who fast forwards past violent scenes when their child is present is also, in essence, claiming that their rights to decide on what is appropriate viewing for their child (which may be in part determined by their religious position) supercedes the creators right to maintain the "artistic integrity" of their work... and I think you'll find that most US courts will agree.
I agree with you and the courts on this one. A parent, for whatever reason, be it religious, moral, or other, has a legal right to use any controls available to them to skip scenes or mute dialog that they deem inappropriate.
That's not the religious prudes - that's me. The fact is that studios are greedy. They're in this fight because of the money, and nothing else.
Two things:
1. Whether they are greedy, mean, unpleasant, rude, offensive, despicable, abhorrent, vulgar, or immoral has no bearing on their rights. Neither does their motivation for asserting their rights under the applicable laws. A Neo-Nazi has no less right to copyright protection than do you, me, Joan Baez, or the Make A Wish Foundation.
2. I contend that greed is not the sole motivating factor. Look at the CleanFlicks lawsuit. In that, CleanFlicks was buying one copy of each movie that they edited. Thus, the religious families that never would have bought unedited copies of Pulp Fiction, happily purchase edited, 21 minute long versions from CleanFlicks. And each of those purchases is money in the pockets of the studios. The Studios sued anyway.
These aren't technicalities, they're part of a healthy discussion on the expansion of the law.
I believe that it is important to consider the intent of the law. When the copyright and trademark laws were passed, did the legislators intend to ban third-parties from "providing" derivative works to customers. If so, isn't the ClearPlay system an attempt to skirt this law using new forms of technology? To me, it seems that it is.
You call it "expansion of the law" and I view this as a contraction of the law if ClearPlay is victorious. It's all about perspective.
That's Clean Flicks - we're discussing Cleanplay...
No, we are not. Do you have ADHD? We are discussing whether people would pay a premium for movies which are edited to be clean.
I said that the studios could release edited movies for $10 more than unedited ones but that ClearPlay was reducing the potential demand for such movies with their product/service. The person to whom I responded said "If [the studios] think they can charge $10 more for doing something that you can legally do yourself, then they are as retarded as you are." I showed that there was a company (CleanFlicks) charging more for edited versions of movies (a minimum of $14 more). That proved, beyond question or doubt, that the person to whom I replied was completely wrong and clueless about this.
Just out of idle curiosity - have you ever posted this many comments in one discussion before?
I don't believe that I have, though there are discussions where I've posted a lot of messages before. Usually, when I post, it's probably an average of 3-5 messages per a discussion. I obviously post a lot of messages on Slashdot and enjoy the intellectual challence and exercise from a lively debate.
Not meant as a Troll or Flaimbait, but your current posting history is starting to look a little mono-maniacal. Again, this is in no way meant as some kind of personal attack on you - just, as I said, idle curiosity.
No offense taken. This is a subject which is important to me and one on which I was vocal when the CleanFlicks story was posted on Slashdot within the last year or two. I am very frustrated that people scream about their perceived "rights" while ignoring the rights of directors and copyright holders. Religious prudes justify the mutilation of films by declaring the films "immoral" or by saying that the studios and directors are greedy. They feel that they have an ethical right to tamper with the art of another because they don't approve of certain words, images, and ideas. What is particularly annoying about this is the often-voiced notion that the law as something to get around with technicalities (e.g., edits on the fly vs. distribution of a DVD).
I hope that you come to believe that I'm impassioned, but not insane.
If they think they can charge $10 more for doing something that you can legally do yourself, then they are as retarded as you are.
Here's the price list from CleanFlicks:OUCH! They are charging a minimum of $14 "for doing something that you can legally do yourself" -- and they are making money doing it. So, moron, do you still want to claim that I'm "retarded" for suggesting the a studio could sell a clean version of a movie for $10 more?
This virtual ass-kicking was brought to you by fmaxwell. Have a nice day!
Your Karma Whoring would be more effective if you didn't post as an AC. ;)
That said, I really appreciate the MP3 link and I'm listening to the MP3 as I post this. Superb link! I'll be burning it to a disc to continue listen to on the way home.
Note that the arguments being made are not for "distribution", something that everyone in this discussion has latched onto. The main copyright argument is that exclusive rights to prepare and authorize derivative works belong to the copyright holder.
I had already read Bowdlerizing for Columbine? but don't agree with the author's contentions (no surprise there). As to the title "There Shouldn't Be a Remote Control on How We Watch DVDs", I snickered a bit as that's exactly what I view ClearPlay being; a remote control on the DVD player.
I was just getting a little tired of seeing section 106 pasted again and again again.. sometimes in text, sometimes marked up in bold, sometimes in italic...
I was getting tired of pasting it over an over. I kept hoping that I would hit upon just the right combination of fonts, formatting, and indentation to actually get someone to read it.
Thanks again for the really useful links.
Give it up- we all know that is you posting AC, fmaxwell.
Not very observent, are you? When I post, I do so under my own ID. Unlike you, I'm willing to stand behind my comments, and not hide behind anonymity so that no one can attribute my comments to me. Sounds like you are as good at psychology as you are at copyright law.
ClearPlay cannot be guilty of soiling the reputation of the artists by distributing a derivative work if, by your (whoops! I mean his!) admission ClearPlay is not making a derivative work.
ClearPlay "makes" the video that appears on the consumer's screen. That's a derivative work. Saying that they aren't responsible for the end-result of what comes out of the DVD player that their script controls is asinine. It's like saying a virus writer is not responsible for damages because his virus ran on a machine that someone else owned.
And hence the term "derivative work." The video the customer sees is based on the DVD they put into the drive, but the video is modified.
Says who?
Me. I say that it is immaterial.
But you have said that ClearPlay is not making a derivative work...
I said that the editing script was not, in and of itself, a derivative work. They are "making" the derivative work shown on the consumer's screen.
Do you really think that a DVD player is a legal agent of ClearPlay? Wow.
Buy a dictionary: "A means by which something is done or caused; instrument."
are going to harm the sacred "honor and reputation" of movie directors during conversations at the watercooler because they might forget to tell people that the movie they saw was edited?
Where did the word "sacred" come from"? "Honor" and "reputation" came from the copyright law:Copyright law recognizes that a substandard edit can harm the reputation or honor of someone. Why can't you see that? Are you going to try to tell me that you've never chosen or avoided a movie based on the recommendations of someone you know?
I don't think that many film critics or members of the academy of motion pictures will buy one of these devices.
;) then, hey - more power to it.
Most people see, or avoid, movies based on the recommendations of friends and associates, not professional film critics or people judging awards.
I actually understand your argument for preserving the artistic integrity of the work
Thanks for saying that. Understanding my argument is not a popular position these days.
, but I don't see myself picketing Walmart to protest the sale of these machines.
Fair enough.
If sitting home and watching badly edited versions of these movies will keep these people out of my hair (or let's just go ahead and say out of the Attorney General's office
I fully understand where you are coming from and empathize with that position. On the other hand, I also empathize with a writer or director who has poured their heard and soul into creating a movie and I know how I would feel if I were watching my work be butchered like that.
The term "artsy-fartsy flow" speaks volumes about your lack of taste and understanding of the gravity of this. Who cares if the consumers know that some, unidentified, "things" will be edited out? It doesn't mean that, in their minds, they will divorce the director from the resultant derivative work that they see on the screen or that they will refrain from speaking ill of the film. If they see a film on this contraption and don't like the film, they will be at the watercooler the next day telling their colleagues that the film was lousy. They won't say "I can't judge the film because I saw an edited version." That's the most idiotic argument that you've made yet -- and that's saying something.
I am seriously disappointed if that is the basis for your argument. You just spent 4 days on that?
I spent four days trying to drum that into your head. What you should be disappointed in is your own inability to grasp the arguments that I, the studios, the directors, and the lawyers representing the directors and studios, have made. Now address my points instead of grandstanding and pretending to be superior:
But you've already admitted that what is being distributed by Clearplay - the so-called "edit script" is NOT a derivative work.
What is being distributed by ClearPlay is the video on the customer's screen. Whether they do the edits in-house and send the whole video or do the edits in the DVD player is immaterial.
We understand it, but it's just not valid: a) copyright law governs (amongst other things) the distribution of works derived from a copyrighted work
Untrue. It governs the preparation of derivative works.
but b) copyright law does not govern the distribution of tools used in the making of a derivative work
This is not a "tool". The ClearPlay DVD player is acting as an agent of ClearPlay and performing the edits on the fly "delivering" a video to the consumer's screen. You just can't get it through your head that you can violate copyright without ever copying anything.
and anyways c) copyright law has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the customer knows what edits are being made.
Another fallacy on your part. Copyright specifically covers derivative works which can harm the "honor and reputation" of the copyright holder. The directors in the suit have already stated that the ClearPlay edits hurt their reputations -- and they are in a better position to know that than are you.
So, you admit that this edit script that ClearPlay makes is not a derivative work.
Yes. It is not a derivative work.
So you would have no problems with ClearPlay selling a piece of paper that told you when to mute and fast forward while playing a DVD.
Of course not. That's free speech.
You also admit that people have the ability under Fair Use to edit and censor their own DVD's. So you would have no problems with somebody buying the edit script from ClearPlay and manually muting and fast forwarding through the times on the list while watching a DVD.
No problem there. That's fair use.
How does the consumer chosing to use a special DVD player to make the edits for him/herself differ from the consumer using his/her DVD player's remote and an edit script to do it manually?
Finally, I understand where the confusion is. Thank you for prompting me to address it.
A consumer manually editing a DVD is made aware of each and every edit. There is no doubt in the consumer's mind when an edit takes place. He is not left thinking that the director or studio was responsible for clumsy edits or odd scene changes. He understands how many changes are being made, when they are being made, the magnitude of the changes as measured by time, and the type of content being edited (nudity, profanity, violence, etc.).
With the automated process, the consumer sits there passively, unaware of the edits being made by ClearPlay's remote editing capability. At the end of a film, the consumer isn't consciously aware of any edits other than those so obvious that they could not be mistaken for the work of a studio. And thus that consumer only knows that what he did see was created by the people shown in the credits. If a consumer knew that there were, say, 26 fast forwards, 67 mutings of the center channel, 51 mutings of the left channel, and 72 mutings of the right channel, for a total edited/removed time of 14 minutes, he/she would not be nearly so confused as to why the film was less than coherent and satisfying.
Consider the word of mouth effect: "I saw American Beauty last night. It's really confusing and I can't figure out what motivated the characters. It just wasn't very good..." Do you think that the person is going to add "but my DVD player takes out all of the sex, violence, and vulgarity because I'm very easily offended." Nope, probably not. And thus the reputations of the film, the director, and the studio are harmed.
Do you just want to make it a pain in the ass for people to avoid seeing things that they don't want to see?
It's not a "pain in the ass" at all. If you don't want to see sex, witness violence, or hear profanity, then don't rent Pulp Fiction. Don't buy a copy of Saving Private Ryan. Don't put Full Metal Jacket into your DVD player. There is already a rating system for movies that will let you easily choose movies that are more to your tastes. If I want to see sex in a movie, I rent a movie that contains sex. I do not buy a Disney DVD and pay some company to automatically insert sex scenes into it.