In the other case, the home user has the license of how they can view the copyrighted material, and fair use does apply so they can mix and match and edit the DVD however they want to.
ClearPlay, not the customer, is editing their DVD, albeit remotely via an automated process. ClearPlay is the one that prepares a derivative work, not the customer. The customer has no idea of what edits are being made, therefore it is absurd to claim that the customer is the one editing the DVD.
But all of this only holds true if the editing script itself is a derivative work - and the editing script is just a series of time codes. If you stretch the definition of derivative work that far then things like movie reviews are derivative works, and web sites like imdb.com are just big copyright infringements.
I don't see it that way nor would I ever consider the editing script to be a derivative work. I'd fight long and hard against that interpretation.
The derivative work is the edited version of the film which a customer sees. I believe that the delivery of the derivative work to the user is what is important here -- regardless of whether the edits are completed at ClearPlay's offices or via a special DVD player at the user's home. I view the Clearplay situation as being analogous to a theater. If a theater had a license to show a "Lost in Translation", they could not show an edited version without the permission of the copyright holder(s). If a theater can't show that to 100 people sitting in front of a large screen, then why can ClearPlay show it to 100 people sitting in front of 50 small screens?
It has *nothing* to do with art.
While that might be true of the studios are concerned, there are many directors, some of the most influential of which are plaintiffs in the suit, who are very concerned about the artistic content of their films.
I'm just as cynical about the state of copyright law as you are, but I don't advocate scrapping all protections they offer, just curtailing their unbridaled expansion. I don't view this as an expansion. It was not possible for a ClearPlay to do this before the DVD and I don't think that a new media should be used to circumvent existing copyright laws.
DOS is what my EPROM programmer software runs on. The reason? DOS is not a multitasking OS. I'm not going to screw up an E-PROM because the programming algorithm's timing was hosed by task-switching, a hung application, accessing a swap file, etc.
I recommend that you avoid any logic analyzer which relies on software for any timing-critical elements of its operation. If that's not possible, then avoid software which runs on a multitasking OS.
I've never worked with a tool for diffing binary files, but I have used standard diff to compare text files. If the two files being compared have nothing in common, then the output of diff alone would allow you to re-create one of those files - you wouldn't need the source or target files.
There are diff tools which specify what changes between two versions. Maybe my argument would have been better served by specifying a bytewise XOR between the files. XOR that with either of the files to create the other. Since the XOR between the two ISOs would be neither Redhat nor Windows, would it be covered by copyright? I think so, even if it's considered "contributory infringement" (such as publishing serial numbers for registered software).
I think the key here is whether the ClearPlay edit instructions are themselves a derivative work. You may not distribute a derivative work, but the law says nothing about distributing the instructions to make a derivative work.
I think that our difference of opinion hinges on this.
I contend that ClearPlay has developed a means of distributing their derivative work -- otherwise, how could a viewer see it? ClearPlay has certainly "prepared" a derivative work, having spent many hours per film identifying the edits and that, in and of itself, is prohibited unless they had the permission of the copyright holder. From Title 17, Section 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
That seems pretty clear cut except for fair use exceptions for consumer, not-for-profit editing.
It's important that RCA/Clearplay win this case because it draws a line in the sand: once you have paid for a product, then any fair use rights that you have on that product can be contracted out to third parties.
Despite the claims (and flames) to the contrary in this thread, you will not find a more staunch supporter of fair use rights than me. I spoke with a Philips attorney on the phone for over 45 minutes urging him to press for legal action against the so-called CDs that are copy-protected and, thus, don't follow the CD standard. I've called my Congressional representatives urging them to repeal the DMCA. I urge people to boycott music purchase sites which supply music with DRM restrictions built in. I've called my congressional reps to voice my opposition to grossly overreaching laws like the Hollings proposals to put DRM hardware into PCs, consumer electronics, etc. I've told the FCC my opinion of technologies to give broadcasters the ability to limit what consumers can record, skip, etc.
That said, I do think that a copyright holder should have the sole right to determine how their works are modified by others (exclusive of consumer fair use). In this case, ClearPlay is preparing derivative works which harm the artistic integrity of the movies and that damage the reputations of the directors, actors, and studios (by associating their names with substandard edits). Tom Hanks showed the horror of war in "Saving Private Ryan" because he though it was necessary artistically and so that the viewer would understand what the characters went through, not because he was creating a slasher flick. "Schindler's List" shouldn't be edited down to make the Nazis into nothing more than unpleasant people. Movies shouldn't be transformed into easily digested pablum for delicate people and those who want to show inappropriate movies to children (if your kid would get nightmares from "Full Metal Jacket", then maybe he's not mature enough to see that movie yet).
If you want to edit your own copy, that's your right. If you want to boycott the movie because you think that it's too violent, has nudity, or has vulgar language, then that's your right, too. You can h
I can't believe that you think your Redhat CD example is remotely close to this. Spend 2 seconds to think about it. You cant take a DVD of Freddy Vs Jason, and with ClearPlay data create a DVD of Saving Private Ryan. That is the closest to your half-baked analogy.
Redhat ISO + DIFF file = Windows ISO
Saving Private Ryan + ClearPlay edit instructions = Derivative Work based on Saving Private Ryan.
Distribution of Windows ISO prohibited by copyright.
Distribution of unauthorized derivative works prohibited by copyright.
The analogy is designed to show that you can "distribute" a copyrighted work via a set of instructions and that such distributions, when unauthorized, are illegal.
Bull crap. You chose to buy the DVD, and you chose to use the ClearPlay/RCA DVD player. The only reason you would buy the DVD player is if you wanted to edit your DVD's on the fly.
Who the f*** cares what you want? We're talking about the legal rights of the copyright holder, not about what you want. The fact that you want the ClearPlay edited version displayed on your television doesn't mean that ClearPlay has a right to distribute that version (via commands to the DVD player) to you.
The intent of the law is clearly defined in Title 17 USC, and it definately doesn't prevent self-censorship.
"Self-censorship" is the act of an individual consciously limiting what they say or write, but I know what you meant.
Title 17 106 "Exclusive rights in copyrighted works" says:
Title 17 106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: [...] (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
That means that the copyright owner has say over whether ClearPlay is authorized to prepare edited copies of the movies.
Don't waste my time by saying that the owner of the ClearPlay device is doing the edits. They are not and that can be clearly shown by the fact that they don't know the number of edits, the time offset for each edit, the duration of each edit, or the type (fast-forward or muting) of edits being done.
The only party doing any praparation of derivative works in this case is ClearPlay. See the word "prepare" in the section of law quoted above? The definition of prepare is "to make ready beforehand for a specific purpose". What is the owner doing "beforehand" to create the edited version? Nothing. What is ClearPlay doing "beforehand" to create the edited version? Hours and hours of work for each title, defining the position and type of each and every scene skip and audio muting.
The fact that a lawsuit was filed does not mean anything.
It means that they created a legal argument supporting their claims and that they think it likely that they will prevail in a court of law. If they thought that they would lose, they would not have brought the case since they know it's better to have no decision than one which favors the defendents.
In fact, I'm surprized that they are fighting this at all. If anything, it will open up a new market of people to them that otherwise would not spent any money on their products.
Gee, then maybe it is about artistic integrity and control rather than just about making a quick buck.
Please Mr Speilberg, may I press the Fast Forward button?
That's not modifying something, you idiot. Editing for content and pressing fast forward are two totally different things. But, I can't imagine fast-forwarding a movie that I've never seen before, which is what the ClearPlay system does.
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.
To those of us who don't live in mommy's basement, our time has value. I'm not going to spend hours of my time hacking out sections of a film and muting selected dialog to save $10. Then what? Burn it to a $1 DVD blank? Gee, now we're talking a savings of $9. If I'm someone who is horribly offended by "dirty bits" in movies, I'm not going to want to see them over and over to edit them out, am I?
You must be really successful if you'd do hours of work to save $9-$10. Come back when your "job" no longer involves throwing newspapers out the window of daddy's car, moron.
Further, I absolutely did not make any ad-hominem attacks...I didn't insult you as a person, merely your understanding of the issues being debated.
Perhaps your memory needs refreshing:
Further, it's because you steadfastly refuse to actually read the law you're referring to, preferring instead to impose your own theories as to what should or should not be legal.
I could explain it all, but your mind is made up, and there is a better way.
In addition to being untrue (I did read the statute in question as soon as you provided reference), it was quite insulting to be told that I was unwilling to listen to reason and that I refused to read something related to this discussion.
Huh? Hey, man, you started it. I quote:
Mormon zealot... puritanical religious fanatics... conservative, puritanical, self-righteous, religious dogmatist who feels guilty about sex
You are quoting things I never said about you. How is my characterization of the people who run ClearPlay or anonymous posters on Slashdot an attack against you? If you consider yourself to be a "conservative, puritanical, self-righteous, religious dogmatist who feels guilty about sex", that doesn't mean that my calling someone else that is an attack against you.
That said, you've convinced me to at least read the complaint. Have a link?
http://www.dga.org/news/pr_expand.php3?281
That will provide the Director's Guild of America's press release which has links to all of the relevent documents. Note that there are some later press releases and the lawsuit is ongoing.
Sorry, there is absolutely no meaning to be found in the fact that some attorneys are willing to accept money to argue the suit. The *only* thing you can ascertain from that is that they figure they can make enough of an argument that their suit won't be considered frivolous and worthy of judicial censure.
I disagree. If the plaintiffs lose this case, it will set precedent and specifically rule the actions of CleanFlicks, ClearPlay, etc. to be legal. They would not run that risk if they believed that they would lose.
I believe that it is unethical to make unauthorized edits of a film.
What a bizarre notion.
Please expand on that. Why is it "bizarre" to believe that one should not modify the artistic products of another without permission? What is bizarre about having respect for the artistic vision of a filmmaker?
And as I said before, I have no problem with artists producing whatever they like and controlling it to maintain its "integrity", but when they choose to sell it to the public and make use of the society's grant of temporary monopoly on reproduction and preparation of derivative works, they give up a large measure of the control that they could retain, if they so chose.
No one is "selling" movies to the public. Your purchase of a DVD does not convey copyright of the work to you in whole or in part. It's still the property of the copyright holder.
In a nutshell: Since Cleanflicks and Clearplay are not making copies, the general exclusive rights from section 106 don't apply. It is not a creation of a derivative work to purchase a book, rip out some pages, and resell it (per section 109a). If you don't mention the torn-out pages, you may be misrepresenting the merchandise, but that's not the case here.
I think that you should reread section 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
Reproducing the works and preparing derivative works are two different exclusive rights. Section 106 does apply wholly to the preparation of derivative works. Are you claiming that Cle
That's because you don't understand the history or purpose of copyright law. Or the role of copyright and patent infringement on getting the Hollywood studios to their current position in the world. Further, it's because you steadfastly refuse to actually read the law you're referring to, preferring instead to impose your own theories as to what should or should not be legal.
I could explain it all, but your mind is made up, and there is a better way.
Until that set of insulting and rude remarks, I was going to put you on my "friends" list because, despite disagreeing with me, you had been civil and polite. I guess my hesitatation was justified.
I do understand copyright law, its history, and have read the law to which you referred. Unlike you, I've also read court cases and the text of the lawsuit currently pending against CleanFlicks, ClearPlay, etc. That's something you are apparently unwilling to do because it doesn't fit in with your world view and business aspirations.
You've really motivated me to get busy again on a project I started a couple of years back.. an open source automated editing DVD player.
You could have disclosed that conflict of interest a long time ago rather than carrying on the conversation to this point before doing so.
What do you think? You're good at stretching the implications of 17 106a to impossible lengths, can you see any way to twist it to attack this?
Why don't you ask the numerous, high-priced attorneys who agree with me (the ones pressing the suit against ClearPlay). They don't seem to think that suing ClearPlay for copyright infringement is some impossible stretch of existing copyright law and associated precedent. Personally, I see one possible attack, and that's "contributory infringement." I suggest you research along those lines.
Movie markup files, of course, are mere content descriptions, not modified versions or edits. They are clearly derived works, but seem to fall very naturally into the same category of Fair Use as any other critical analysis or review.
I do not believe that they would be considered derived works since they do not include any portion of the movie itself, nor are they literary or film works which make use of characters or settings created by the filmakers. A review is not considered a derived work nor is a critique of cinematography.
You ask what I think and I'll answer it from three standpoints:
1. Legal -- You may be at significant risk of facing a lawsuit. Whether you win or lose, you better have the financial means to defend against such a suit.
2. Ethical -- I believe that it is unethical to make unauthorized edits of a film. I also believe that it is unethical to build products which are primarily for the purpose of enabling such third-party edits.
3. Technical -- You should include the ability to specify artistic fades, wipes, and other transitions. You should also include the ability to substitute on-screen text for deleted scenes and words. A parent might wish to view such dialog but have children who cannot yet read. Of a particular scene might be important from a plot standpoint. For example, someone might choose to have a text screen appear which reads "Natalie and John make love..." without actually showing the act. You also should consider adding time-stretching so that you can cut a second of video and then stretch the surrounding video to allow the audio track to catch up.
In closing, I'm sorry that you elected not to debate me on the points and, instead, sunk to the level of the ACs by posting ad-hominem, insulting attacks against me.
actually, wasting bandwidth and storage to bait single-minded idiots like you falls under "fair use"
You'd be damned lucky if my IQ was only 30 points higher than yours (it's probably more than that), so try to pick fights with someone that's your mental equal. Perhaps you could find a stray dog with which to match wits.
I'm sure the Director's Guild is arguing that there is some key difference between the ClearPlay (automatic digital editing) and CleanFlicks (manual slice and glue editing) and they have apparently convinced the judge that their argument needs to be allowed to play out.
The suit in question names numerous defendents, including both ClearPlay and CleanFlicks.
IMO, if the DGA wins, it will be an absolute abuse of copyright, right up there with the travesty that is the DMCA.
Obviously, this is a point on which we disagree -- strongly. If a director's name, studio's name, or actor's name is going to be associated with a film, then they should be able to exercise control over how third parties (other than consumers exercising fair use) edit those films.
I also don't see why you think it would be an abuse of copyright. I am legally prohibited from providing you with an unauthorized edit of a movie on VHS, DVD, or film. I can't legally show an unauthorized edit of a movie in a theatre. I can't legally broadcast an unauthorized edit of a movie over the airwaves. Why should RCA/ClearPlay be permitted to present you with an unauthorized edit of a movie using technology in their DVD player? That seems totally counter to the spirit and practice of copyright law as we've always known it.
To win, they have to show that the edits are "prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation" (Title 17, section 106a). Given that people know that these films are edited, I don't see how the edited version can affect the director's honor or reputation.
While the consumer recognizes, at some level, that the film he/she is seeing has been "edited" by ClearPlay, they do not know what has been edited. For example, the character who is inexplicably morose and angry in the ClearPlay version might be reacting to the rape of his daughter, of which all references were removed by ClearPlay. Having been unaware of that crucial piece of information, the consumer is likely to think ill of the director and/or actor, not ClearPlay.
Even more telling, the fact that the studios themselves edit heavily for content, both to achieve the "desired" rating (NC-17 movies are cut to Rs, R movies are frequently cut to PG-13s, G and PG movies are occasionally "spiced up" to get PG and PG-13 ratings), and to meet the needs of special markets (airline versions, TV versions), is a very strong argument that the directors don't really think edited versions "damage" their reputations.
That's a seriously flawed argument. When a studio edits a film for content, they do so in a much more professional manner than does some bozo controlling fast-forward and mute functions. They often have access to additional footage that allows them to substitute scenes. They have separate tracks for the audio elements, allowing them to cut 1.6 seconds of scene without making the music skip 1.6 seconds. They have the ability to implement artistic fades, wipes, etc. for scene changes. But most importantly, they either own, or have been entrusted with, the film being edited. If, for example, Tom Hanks decides that Warner Brothers butchers films when they edit them, he has the choice to not do films for Warner Brothers. What does he do if he thinks that ClearPlay does a horrible job of editing films? How does he stop them?
Editors, for film and print, are entrusted with the works that they edit. Isaac Asimov's work was edited for publication, but that doesn't mean that I have a legal or moral right to reedit Isaac Asimov's books and redistribute my edited versions -- even if I figure out how to get an e-book reader to implement my edits on the fly.
If they had half a brain, they'd release those airline and TV versions on DVD and increase their sales, rather than paying through the nose to fight a court case they're almost certainly going to lose.
They obviously don't think that a loss is certain -- or even probable. They wouldn't be pressing the suit if they
I really thought I had made this clear, but apparently I did not.
You cannot "create" a DVD of the movie Overboard with the ClearPlay instructions.
You cannot "create" a CD ISO image of the Windows OS with just the diff file.
You can only modify your own licensed copy of the DVD, which is clearly within your rights.
You can only modify your own licensed copy of the Redhat CD ISO with the diff file. Do you think that is also within your rights?
You are not modifying your copy of the DVD. You don't know where the edits are to take place, the length of time for each edit, whether it's a mute or a scene skip, etc. Putting the disc in the player and pressing play does not constitute you modifying anything. It's RCA/Clearplay modifying it via an automated process.
You are mistaking a physical copy of a derivative work with the derivative work itself. RCA/Clearplay is delivering a derivative work for profit. So what if you own a copy of the DVD that they modify? That they do it on the fly rather than delivering it in a physical form is unimportant. A theater can't show an unlicensed derivative work for profit. They can't show the Wizard of Oz while playing Pink Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon as the sountrack -- even if they don't copy anything.
Consider the intent of the law. That's how judges evaluate existing laws as they pertain to new technology. When legislators outlawed the for-profit distribution of derivative works without the copyright holder's permission, do you think that they intended to allow a company like ClearPlay to circumvent the law by automating the editing process so that it takes place in the customers' homes? Of course not.
The top-tier attorneys representing the Director's Guild of America, the eight major motion picture studios, and the highly-regarded directors in their lawsuit against ClearPlay understand this. Are you claiming that they lack your keen understanding of copyright law?
the viewer may be left with an unfavorable impression of the film solely because of the changes
Boo hoo hoo.
Please, then, allow me to edit your e-mails before they are sent. I'm explaining why copyright laws exist and you're making fun of me for doing so? What a wanker.
Take your head out of your ass. Nobody is forced to use this product by the Mormon Church or otherwise.
Take the gerbil out of your ass and try to concentrate.
censorship - The practice of suppressing material that is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
If I have the right to edit my own DVD, then I most certainly have the right to pay somebody else to do that for me.
You have a legal right to have sex with another adult, but that doesn't mean that paying the person for sex is legal, too. You have a legal right to refinish your basement, but an unlicensed contractor doesn't have a legal right to do so for money. You have a legal right to pick up someone at the airport in your car, but you don't have the legal right to hang out at the gate and charge people as if you had a taxi service.
So your only problem is that Clearplay is making a profit?
No, my problem is that they are destroying the artistic integrity of movies and sullying the reputations of directors, actors, and studios in the process. The way to stop that, however, is to use copyright laws against them and those laws pivot around the question of whether something is not-for-profit fair use.
They are internally consistent and consistent with the legal arguments being made in the lawsuit against ClearPlay.
People have the right to control how they view a movie. Period. You have said so yourself.
Agreed.
There is no legal difference between fast forwarding through some scenes, and paying somebody to fast forward through those scenes for you.
Not so fast. This is where subtleties come into play. In your example, the consumer is deciding when to fast-forward in each case. And I'll agree that you can pay your butler to hit the fast forward button when you tell him to. But in the ClearPlay case, they have made editing decisions on their own, without the consumer's involvement. And they are charging not for the mechanical act of hitting the fast-forward button, but for ClearPlay's sense of how the movie should be edited. That's an important, but subtle, distinction.
If I create the "fmaxwell cut" of the movie BladeRunner, I cannot redistribute that legally. I can't cut it to a DVD and sell it. I can't sell a VHS cassette of it. I can't make it available for download. I can't even make a comic-book version of the fmaxwell cut of BladeRunner for sale. And I believe that I can't legally create DVD playing software that makes the cuts automatically. The key point is that I can't redistribute my edited version -- regardless of whether I do it in physical form, via download, in book form, or via instructions to a computerized DVD playing program.
Hey butt clown- the courts have ruled on this several times, and they dont agree with YOU.
Liar. Cite the rulings if you're going to make those claims.
From the article we are discussing:
"I think the American public is concerned and is looking for a solution, '' said Bill Aho, chief executive officer of ClearPlay Inc., the Salt Lake City firm that is one of several companies battling a lawsuit filed by the biggest movie studios and major directors like Steven Soderbergh, John Landis and Steven Spielberg. The suit claims that filtering technology such as ClearPlay's produces an unauthorized and illegal version of their artistic work.
So the lawsuit is ongoing and has not been decided at all. In fact, a federal judge in Denver refused to dismiss the suit, indicating that he thought is had merit. Now take that gerbil out of your ass so that you can concentrate enough to read the article that we're discussing.
Actually, it says that I can't *make* derived works, it doesn't say anything about selling them or distributing them. Go read USC Title 17, section 106.
But your interpretation of "derived work" would make it illegal for me to fast forward.
Numerous court cases have established "fair use" rights which allow you, for your own personal use, to do as you please with regards to copying, editing, etc. When I say "copyright law", I mean the law as written and as interpreted by the courts. But thank you for taking the time to identify the section of law to which you referred.
Well, since the courts have ruled that what Cleanflicks, Clearplay, etc. do is legal, why shouldn't RCA's electronic version be acceptable as well?
The copyright infringement lawsuit against ClearPlay is still, to the best of my knowledge, pending in federal court. That lawsuit was brought by the Director's Guild of America, eight major studios, as well as some of the most influential directors in the industry. A dismissal motion by the defendents was denied, indicating that the judge felt that the lawsuit had merit. You are right that the decision in that case will probably determine whether RCA's version would be legal.
What the fuck does that analogy have to do with anything?
I'm sorry for going too fast for you. Let me break this down to smaller steps.
1. Distributing a "derivative work" is a violation of copyright. 2. Distributing a Windows CD is a violation of copyright. 3. People have claimed that ClearPlay/RCA is not "distributing" a derivative work because they are distributing instructions to a DVD player as to how to edit a work, not the resultant edited work itself. 4. A diff file is analogous to the ClearPlay instructions to the DVD player in that it is a series of instructions for modifying something to make something else. 5. By distributing a diff of a Windows CD against a Redhat CD, you are making it possible for anyone with the Redhat CD to create the Windows CD in an automated process.
I contend that distributing such a diff file would be considered copyright infringement. Thus, ClearPlay's instructions should also be considered copyright infringement.
Please let me know if that clears up your confusion vis-a-vis the analogy.
I realize that most people do not, but this is a debate, not a popularity contest.
You sound like a desperate whacko trying to make a point, but every post just makes you look more retarded.
I wish that you would try to contribute to the debate in a meaningful manner and that you would stop using the word "retarded" as an insult. If you want to call me "stupid", then do so, but have some consideration for those who are unfortunate enough to have mentally challenged family members.
Since there is no copy involved here, this has nothing to do with copyright laws.
If I buy a DVD of a movie and then show it for profit, are you saying that I'm not violating copyright laws because I did not make a copy of it? If I offer an audio tape for sale of me reading a best-selling novel, do you think that I'm not in violation of copyright laws because I didn't make a copy of the book? You obviously don't have a lot of knowledge on copyright if you think that it only covers physical copies.
They are only providing a service to the people that have already purchased the movies. This is a basic fact that you for some reason can't understand. Copyright law does not enter into the equation.
Eight motion picture studios, the Directors Guild of America and 13 individual directors -- including Robert Altman and Steven Spielberg -- have sued ClearPlay for copyright infringement. A motion to dismiss the suit was denied by a federal judge. How can you be so smug as to think that you know more about copyright than the lawyers representing those studios and directors and the Federal judge who felt that the case had enough merit to go to trial?
Maybe you just don't know what the word 'distribute' means...
I do, but apparently you do not. They are distributing a modified version of the movie. Period. That they do it by instructing the player to make the edits on the fly is immaterial. The end result (the viewer seeing a modified movie) is what matters in a court of law.
Nobody is claiming this. Try to stay on topic, mmmkay?
Don't talk down to me, you turd. I am on-topic. You are claiming that third parties have a legal and moral right to edit out "offensive" content and I'm saying that they do not, whether the third party is me or ClearPlay.
Make arguments countering what I said instead of behaving like a moron. Debate like an adult. If it's not a distribution, explain why. Otherwise, go away.
These "straw man arguments" are actually better than your "you can't do that because you might offend Tom Hanks" argument.
I replied to someone who said "It will make everyone happy." I showed good examples of people who it would not make "happy." Another nice straw man arguement on your part -- claiming that I said that it was wrong because it would offend Tom Hanks.
Retard.
Does it make you feel like a real man to call people names online? Why don't you write back and tell me what a big tough guy you are in real life? I could use a good laugh.
Right. It's yours -- not RCA's and not Clearplay's. They don't have any fair use rights to create a derivative work from it for profit -- whether said work is delivered via media or via instructions to a player to create the derivative work on the fly.
What RCA has done is give us a tool to easily remove boobies instead of going through the painstaking process of ripping it onto a computer, editing it, and then burning it onto a new DVD.
No, what RCA has done is given themselves a means of delivering a derivative product to you at a profit.
I have an artistic vision of me using my copy of SPR for skeet shooting, and Tom Hank's can't say a word. As long as it is distributed to the customer full and unedited no one has any right to tell a consumer what they can or can't do with their property.
You are right and I agree with you 100% about your right to do with the DVD as you please. But that doesn't mean that you, or Clearplay, has a right to create derivative works from it for profit.
BTW, why do you HAVE to bash religious people?
Because they are constantly attempting to impose their religious morality on the rest of us, whether by complaining to the FCC because Janet Jackson's breast was visible for 3/10 of a second, by trying to get laws passed banning gay marriage, or by trying to limit what can be broadcast by a radio or television station.
Go here and learn about the terms that you're misusing: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Thus, these DVD players are not wrong for enabling the editing to take place, because they don't modify the original movie on the disc, but only on playback.
So what? They deliver a derivative work to the viewer. Whether they do it via a VHS tape, a DVD, or on-the-fly editing instructions is irrelevent. They are delivering a derivative work for profit.
This isn't some "right-wing zealot in Utah" editing the movie for you. I'm sure the players will have a quite broad latitude in terms of exactly what content will be blocked, thus allowing the END USER to choose what amount, if at all, the movie is edited.
Do you think that the player has AI and makes the edits on its own? No. It makes them based on the instructions it receives from the right wing zealot in Utah. That you can customize the derivative work doesn't change the fact that it is a derivative work.
As long as the option is off by default, there are no issues other than pissy directors and their sympathizers who don't want people to even be able to do jack shit other than watch their movies from beginning to end LIKE GOOD LITTLE SHEEP.
"Good little sheep"? What a hoot! Here's someone who's arguing in favor of letting the Mormon Church decide what people should see and you are calling someone with respect for artists a "sheep"! LOL!
You probably also support the right for someone to release a creative work to the world, then at some point in the future say 'no more, because I said so' and lock it away in a back room to disintegrate, never to be seen by anyone again, indeed to be completely lost to history.
In other words, it is YOU who truly have no regard for the creative media. Anyone who would allow an author to destroy their own work doesn't care about it one bit.
Now that's a straw man argument in the classic sense!
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
You made up something that I never said and then tried to tell me how flawed it was.
HOW F****** HILARIOUS! YOU START OFF BY FALSELY ACCUSING ME OF PRESENTING A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT AND THEN CONCLUDE YOUR POST BY USING A BLATANT STRAW MAN ARGUMENT AGAINST ME! I'm having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
You mean like your analogy that Clearplay selling this DVD player is JUST LIKE Clearplay creating and selling derivitive works?
No, that's not an analogy, nor it it something that I said. I said that they ARE creating and selling derivative works, not that they were doing something "JUST LIKE" that. You read about as well as you write.
The fact is that Clearplay is offering a service that has nothing to do with copywrite laws. There is no copy and no distribution, and therefore your whole rant is irrelevant. Shut up please.
Anyone who is so stupid that they can't even spell "copyright" has no business discussing it. So don't tell me to "shut up" you loser.
Slashdot Mirror
In the other case, the home user has the license of how they can view the copyrighted material, and fair use does apply so they can mix and match and edit the DVD however they want to.
ClearPlay, not the customer, is editing their DVD, albeit remotely via an automated process. ClearPlay is the one that prepares a derivative work, not the customer. The customer has no idea of what edits are being made, therefore it is absurd to claim that the customer is the one editing the DVD.
But all of this only holds true if the editing script itself is a derivative work - and the editing script is just a series of time codes. If you stretch the definition of derivative work that far then things like movie reviews are derivative works, and web sites like imdb.com are just big copyright infringements.
I don't see it that way nor would I ever consider the editing script to be a derivative work. I'd fight long and hard against that interpretation.
The derivative work is the edited version of the film which a customer sees. I believe that the delivery of the derivative work to the user is what is important here -- regardless of whether the edits are completed at ClearPlay's offices or via a special DVD player at the user's home. I view the Clearplay situation as being analogous to a theater. If a theater had a license to show a "Lost in Translation", they could not show an edited version without the permission of the copyright holder(s). If a theater can't show that to 100 people sitting in front of a large screen, then why can ClearPlay show it to 100 people sitting in front of 50 small screens?
It has *nothing* to do with art.
While that might be true of the studios are concerned, there are many directors, some of the most influential of which are plaintiffs in the suit, who are very concerned about the artistic content of their films.
I'm just as cynical about the state of copyright law as you are, but I don't advocate scrapping all protections they offer, just curtailing their unbridaled expansion. I don't view this as an expansion. It was not possible for a ClearPlay to do this before the DVD and I don't think that a new media should be used to circumvent existing copyright laws.
DOS is what my EPROM programmer software runs on. The reason? DOS is not a multitasking OS. I'm not going to screw up an E-PROM because the programming algorithm's timing was hosed by task-switching, a hung application, accessing a swap file, etc.
I recommend that you avoid any logic analyzer which relies on software for any timing-critical elements of its operation. If that's not possible, then avoid software which runs on a multitasking OS.
I've never worked with a tool for diffing binary files, but I have used standard diff to compare text files. If the two files being compared have nothing in common, then the output of diff alone would allow you to re-create one of those files - you wouldn't need the source or target files.
There are diff tools which specify what changes between two versions. Maybe my argument would have been better served by specifying a bytewise XOR between the files. XOR that with either of the files to create the other. Since the XOR between the two ISOs would be neither Redhat nor Windows, would it be covered by copyright? I think so, even if it's considered "contributory infringement" (such as publishing serial numbers for registered software).
I think the key here is whether the ClearPlay edit instructions are themselves a derivative work. You may not distribute a derivative work, but the law says nothing about distributing the instructions to make a derivative work.
I think that our difference of opinion hinges on this.
I contend that ClearPlay has developed a means of distributing their derivative work -- otherwise, how could a viewer see it? ClearPlay has certainly "prepared" a derivative work, having spent many hours per film identifying the edits and that, in and of itself, is prohibited unless they had the permission of the copyright holder. From Title 17, Section 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
That seems pretty clear cut except for fair use exceptions for consumer, not-for-profit editing.
It's important that RCA/Clearplay win this case because it draws a line in the sand: once you have paid for a product, then any fair use rights that you have on that product can be contracted out to third parties.
Despite the claims (and flames) to the contrary in this thread, you will not find a more staunch supporter of fair use rights than me. I spoke with a Philips attorney on the phone for over 45 minutes urging him to press for legal action against the so-called CDs that are copy-protected and, thus, don't follow the CD standard. I've called my Congressional representatives urging them to repeal the DMCA. I urge people to boycott music purchase sites which supply music with DRM restrictions built in. I've called my congressional reps to voice my opposition to grossly overreaching laws like the Hollings proposals to put DRM hardware into PCs, consumer electronics, etc. I've told the FCC my opinion of technologies to give broadcasters the ability to limit what consumers can record, skip, etc.
That said, I do think that a copyright holder should have the sole right to determine how their works are modified by others (exclusive of consumer fair use). In this case, ClearPlay is preparing derivative works which harm the artistic integrity of the movies and that damage the reputations of the directors, actors, and studios (by associating their names with substandard edits). Tom Hanks showed the horror of war in "Saving Private Ryan" because he though it was necessary artistically and so that the viewer would understand what the characters went through, not because he was creating a slasher flick. "Schindler's List" shouldn't be edited down to make the Nazis into nothing more than unpleasant people. Movies shouldn't be transformed into easily digested pablum for delicate people and those who want to show inappropriate movies to children (if your kid would get nightmares from "Full Metal Jacket", then maybe he's not mature enough to see that movie yet).
If you want to edit your own copy, that's your right. If you want to boycott the movie because you think that it's too violent, has nudity, or has vulgar language, then that's your right, too. You can h
Redhat ISO + DIFF file = Windows ISO
Saving Private Ryan + ClearPlay edit instructions = Derivative Work based on Saving Private Ryan.
Distribution of Windows ISO prohibited by copyright.
Distribution of unauthorized derivative works prohibited by copyright.
The analogy is designed to show that you can "distribute" a copyrighted work via a set of instructions and that such distributions, when unauthorized, are illegal.
Bull crap. You chose to buy the DVD, and you chose to use the ClearPlay/RCA DVD player. The only reason you would buy the DVD player is if you wanted to edit your DVD's on the fly.
Who the f*** cares what you want? We're talking about the legal rights of the copyright holder, not about what you want. The fact that you want the ClearPlay edited version displayed on your television doesn't mean that ClearPlay has a right to distribute that version (via commands to the DVD player) to you.
The intent of the law is clearly defined in Title 17 USC, and it definately doesn't prevent self-censorship.
"Self-censorship" is the act of an individual consciously limiting what they say or write, but I know what you meant.
Title 17 106 "Exclusive rights in copyrighted works" says:That means that the copyright owner has say over whether ClearPlay is authorized to prepare edited copies of the movies.
Don't waste my time by saying that the owner of the ClearPlay device is doing the edits. They are not and that can be clearly shown by the fact that they don't know the number of edits, the time offset for each edit, the duration of each edit, or the type (fast-forward or muting) of edits being done.
The only party doing any praparation of derivative works in this case is ClearPlay. See the word "prepare" in the section of law quoted above? The definition of prepare is "to make ready beforehand for a specific purpose". What is the owner doing "beforehand" to create the edited version? Nothing. What is ClearPlay doing "beforehand" to create the edited version? Hours and hours of work for each title, defining the position and type of each and every scene skip and audio muting.
The fact that a lawsuit was filed does not mean anything.
It means that they created a legal argument supporting their claims and that they think it likely that they will prevail in a court of law. If they thought that they would lose, they would not have brought the case since they know it's better to have no decision than one which favors the defendents.
In fact, I'm surprized that they are fighting this at all. If anything, it will open up a new market of people to them that otherwise would not spent any money on their products.
Gee, then maybe it is about artistic integrity and control rather than just about making a quick buck.
Please Mr Speilberg, may I press the Fast Forward button?
That's not modifying something, you idiot. Editing for content and pressing fast forward are two totally different things. But, I can't imagine fast-forwarding a movie that I've never seen before, which is what the ClearPlay system does.
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.
To those of us who don't live in mommy's basement, our time has value. I'm not going to spend hours of my time hacking out sections of a film and muting selected dialog to save $10. Then what? Burn it to a $1 DVD blank? Gee, now we're talking a savings of $9. If I'm someone who is horribly offended by "dirty bits" in movies, I'm not going to want to see them over and over to edit them out, am I?
You must be really successful if you'd do hours of work to save $9-$10. Come back when your "job" no longer involves throwing newspapers out the window of daddy's car, moron.
Perhaps your memory needs refreshing:
In addition to being untrue (I did read the statute in question as soon as you provided reference), it was quite insulting to be told that I was unwilling to listen to reason and that I refused to read something related to this discussion.
Huh? Hey, man, you started it. I quote:
Mormon zealot... puritanical religious fanatics... conservative, puritanical, self-righteous, religious dogmatist who feels guilty about sex
You are quoting things I never said about you. How is my characterization of the people who run ClearPlay or anonymous posters on Slashdot an attack against you? If you consider yourself to be a "conservative, puritanical, self-righteous, religious dogmatist who feels guilty about sex", that doesn't mean that my calling someone else that is an attack against you.
That said, you've convinced me to at least read the complaint. Have a link?
http://www.dga.org/news/pr_expand.php3?281
That will provide the Director's Guild of America's press release which has links to all of the relevent documents. Note that there are some later press releases and the lawsuit is ongoing.
Sorry, there is absolutely no meaning to be found in the fact that some attorneys are willing to accept money to argue the suit. The *only* thing you can ascertain from that is that they figure they can make enough of an argument that their suit won't be considered frivolous and worthy of judicial censure.
I disagree. If the plaintiffs lose this case, it will set precedent and specifically rule the actions of CleanFlicks, ClearPlay, etc. to be legal. They would not run that risk if they believed that they would lose.
I believe that it is unethical to make unauthorized edits of a film.
What a bizarre notion.
Please expand on that. Why is it "bizarre" to believe that one should not modify the artistic products of another without permission? What is bizarre about having respect for the artistic vision of a filmmaker?
And as I said before, I have no problem with artists producing whatever they like and controlling it to maintain its "integrity", but when they choose to sell it to the public and make use of the society's grant of temporary monopoly on reproduction and preparation of derivative works, they give up a large measure of the control that they could retain, if they so chose.
No one is "selling" movies to the public. Your purchase of a DVD does not convey copyright of the work to you in whole or in part. It's still the property of the copyright holder.
In a nutshell: Since Cleanflicks and Clearplay are not making copies, the general exclusive rights from section 106 don't apply. It is not a creation of a derivative work to purchase a book, rip out some pages, and resell it (per section 109a). If you don't mention the torn-out pages, you may be misrepresenting the merchandise, but that's not the case here.
I think that you should reread section 106:
Reproducing the works and preparing derivative works are two different exclusive rights. Section 106 does apply wholly to the preparation of derivative works. Are you claiming that Cle
That's because you don't understand the history or purpose of copyright law. Or the role of copyright and patent infringement on getting the Hollywood studios to their current position in the world. Further, it's because you steadfastly refuse to actually read the law you're referring to, preferring instead to impose your own theories as to what should or should not be legal.
I could explain it all, but your mind is made up, and there is a better way.
Until that set of insulting and rude remarks, I was going to put you on my "friends" list because, despite disagreeing with me, you had been civil and polite. I guess my hesitatation was justified.
I do understand copyright law, its history, and have read the law to which you referred. Unlike you, I've also read court cases and the text of the lawsuit currently pending against CleanFlicks, ClearPlay, etc. That's something you are apparently unwilling to do because it doesn't fit in with your world view and business aspirations.
You've really motivated me to get busy again on a project I started a couple of years back.. an open source automated editing DVD player.
You could have disclosed that conflict of interest a long time ago rather than carrying on the conversation to this point before doing so.
What do you think? You're good at stretching the implications of 17 106a to impossible lengths, can you see any way to twist it to attack this?
Why don't you ask the numerous, high-priced attorneys who agree with me (the ones pressing the suit against ClearPlay). They don't seem to think that suing ClearPlay for copyright infringement is some impossible stretch of existing copyright law and associated precedent. Personally, I see one possible attack, and that's "contributory infringement." I suggest you research along those lines.
Movie markup files, of course, are mere content descriptions, not modified versions or edits. They are clearly derived works, but seem to fall very naturally into the same category of Fair Use as any other critical analysis or review.
I do not believe that they would be considered derived works since they do not include any portion of the movie itself, nor are they literary or film works which make use of characters or settings created by the filmakers. A review is not considered a derived work nor is a critique of cinematography.
You ask what I think and I'll answer it from three standpoints:
1. Legal -- You may be at significant risk of facing a lawsuit. Whether you win or lose, you better have the financial means to defend against such a suit.
2. Ethical -- I believe that it is unethical to make unauthorized edits of a film. I also believe that it is unethical to build products which are primarily for the purpose of enabling such third-party edits.
3. Technical -- You should include the ability to specify artistic fades, wipes, and other transitions. You should also include the ability to substitute on-screen text for deleted scenes and words. A parent might wish to view such dialog but have children who cannot yet read. Of a particular scene might be important from a plot standpoint. For example, someone might choose to have a text screen appear which reads "Natalie and John make love..." without actually showing the act. You also should consider adding time-stretching so that you can cut a second of video and then stretch the surrounding video to allow the audio track to catch up.
In closing, I'm sorry that you elected not to debate me on the points and, instead, sunk to the level of the ACs by posting ad-hominem, insulting attacks against me.
actually, wasting bandwidth and storage to bait single-minded idiots like you falls under "fair use"
You'd be damned lucky if my IQ was only 30 points higher than yours (it's probably more than that), so try to pick fights with someone that's your mental equal. Perhaps you could find a stray dog with which to match wits.
I'm sure the Director's Guild is arguing that there is some key difference between the ClearPlay (automatic digital editing) and CleanFlicks (manual slice and glue editing) and they have apparently convinced the judge that their argument needs to be allowed to play out.
The suit in question names numerous defendents, including both ClearPlay and CleanFlicks.
IMO, if the DGA wins, it will be an absolute abuse of copyright, right up there with the travesty that is the DMCA.
Obviously, this is a point on which we disagree -- strongly. If a director's name, studio's name, or actor's name is going to be associated with a film, then they should be able to exercise control over how third parties (other than consumers exercising fair use) edit those films.
I also don't see why you think it would be an abuse of copyright. I am legally prohibited from providing you with an unauthorized edit of a movie on VHS, DVD, or film. I can't legally show an unauthorized edit of a movie in a theatre. I can't legally broadcast an unauthorized edit of a movie over the airwaves. Why should RCA/ClearPlay be permitted to present you with an unauthorized edit of a movie using technology in their DVD player? That seems totally counter to the spirit and practice of copyright law as we've always known it.
To win, they have to show that the edits are "prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation" (Title 17, section 106a). Given that people know that these films are edited, I don't see how the edited version can affect the director's honor or reputation.
While the consumer recognizes, at some level, that the film he/she is seeing has been "edited" by ClearPlay, they do not know what has been edited. For example, the character who is inexplicably morose and angry in the ClearPlay version might be reacting to the rape of his daughter, of which all references were removed by ClearPlay. Having been unaware of that crucial piece of information, the consumer is likely to think ill of the director and/or actor, not ClearPlay.
Even more telling, the fact that the studios themselves edit heavily for content, both to achieve the "desired" rating (NC-17 movies are cut to Rs, R movies are frequently cut to PG-13s, G and PG movies are occasionally "spiced up" to get PG and PG-13 ratings), and to meet the needs of special markets (airline versions, TV versions), is a very strong argument that the directors don't really think edited versions "damage" their reputations.
That's a seriously flawed argument. When a studio edits a film for content, they do so in a much more professional manner than does some bozo controlling fast-forward and mute functions. They often have access to additional footage that allows them to substitute scenes. They have separate tracks for the audio elements, allowing them to cut 1.6 seconds of scene without making the music skip 1.6 seconds. They have the ability to implement artistic fades, wipes, etc. for scene changes. But most importantly, they either own, or have been entrusted with, the film being edited. If, for example, Tom Hanks decides that Warner Brothers butchers films when they edit them, he has the choice to not do films for Warner Brothers. What does he do if he thinks that ClearPlay does a horrible job of editing films? How does he stop them?
Editors, for film and print, are entrusted with the works that they edit. Isaac Asimov's work was edited for publication, but that doesn't mean that I have a legal or moral right to reedit Isaac Asimov's books and redistribute my edited versions -- even if I figure out how to get an e-book reader to implement my edits on the fly.
If they had half a brain, they'd release those airline and TV versions on DVD and increase their sales, rather than paying through the nose to fight a court case they're almost certainly going to lose.
They obviously don't think that a loss is certain -- or even probable. They wouldn't be pressing the suit if they
#5. What? Apples to oranges.
I really thought I had made this clear, but apparently I did not.
You cannot "create" a DVD of the movie Overboard with the ClearPlay instructions.
You cannot "create" a CD ISO image of the Windows OS with just the diff file.
You can only modify your own licensed copy of the DVD, which is clearly within your rights.
You can only modify your own licensed copy of the Redhat CD ISO with the diff file. Do you think that is also within your rights?
You are not modifying your copy of the DVD. You don't know where the edits are to take place, the length of time for each edit, whether it's a mute or a scene skip, etc. Putting the disc in the player and pressing play does not constitute you modifying anything. It's RCA/Clearplay modifying it via an automated process.
You are mistaking a physical copy of a derivative work with the derivative work itself. RCA/Clearplay is delivering a derivative work for profit. So what if you own a copy of the DVD that they modify? That they do it on the fly rather than delivering it in a physical form is unimportant. A theater can't show an unlicensed derivative work for profit. They can't show the Wizard of Oz while playing Pink Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon as the sountrack -- even if they don't copy anything.
Consider the intent of the law. That's how judges evaluate existing laws as they pertain to new technology. When legislators outlawed the for-profit distribution of derivative works without the copyright holder's permission, do you think that they intended to allow a company like ClearPlay to circumvent the law by automating the editing process so that it takes place in the customers' homes? Of course not.
The top-tier attorneys representing the Director's Guild of America, the eight major motion picture studios, and the highly-regarded directors in their lawsuit against ClearPlay understand this. Are you claiming that they lack your keen understanding of copyright law?
Boo hoo hoo.
Please, then, allow me to edit your e-mails before they are sent. I'm explaining why copyright laws exist and you're making fun of me for doing so? What a wanker.
Take your head out of your ass. Nobody is forced to use this product by the Mormon Church or otherwise.
Take the gerbil out of your ass and try to concentrate. There's nothing in that definition about force.
If I have the right to edit my own DVD, then I most certainly have the right to pay somebody else to do that for me.
You have a legal right to have sex with another adult, but that doesn't mean that paying the person for sex is legal, too. You have a legal right to refinish your basement, but an unlicensed contractor doesn't have a legal right to do so for money. You have a legal right to pick up someone at the airport in your car, but you don't have the legal right to hang out at the gate and charge people as if you had a taxi service.
So your only problem is that Clearplay is making a profit?
No, my problem is that they are destroying the artistic integrity of movies and sullying the reputations of directors, actors, and studios in the process. The way to stop that, however, is to use copyright laws against them and those laws pivot around the question of whether something is not-for-profit fair use.
Try to keep your arguments consistant.
They are internally consistent and consistent with the legal arguments being made in the lawsuit against ClearPlay.
People have the right to control how they view a movie. Period. You have said so yourself.
Agreed.
There is no legal difference between fast forwarding through some scenes, and paying somebody to fast forward through those scenes for you.
Not so fast. This is where subtleties come into play. In your example, the consumer is deciding when to fast-forward in each case. And I'll agree that you can pay your butler to hit the fast forward button when you tell him to. But in the ClearPlay case, they have made editing decisions on their own, without the consumer's involvement. And they are charging not for the mechanical act of hitting the fast-forward button, but for ClearPlay's sense of how the movie should be edited. That's an important, but subtle, distinction.
If I create the "fmaxwell cut" of the movie BladeRunner, I cannot redistribute that legally. I can't cut it to a DVD and sell it. I can't sell a VHS cassette of it. I can't make it available for download. I can't even make a comic-book version of the fmaxwell cut of BladeRunner for sale. And I believe that I can't legally create DVD playing software that makes the cuts automatically. The key point is that I can't redistribute my edited version -- regardless of whether I do it in physical form, via download, in book form, or via instructions to a computerized DVD playing program.
Hey butt clown- the courts have ruled on this several times, and they dont agree with YOU.
Liar. Cite the rulings if you're going to make those claims.
From the article we are discussing:
"I think the American public is concerned and is looking for a solution, '' said Bill Aho, chief executive officer of ClearPlay Inc., the Salt Lake City firm that is one of several companies battling a lawsuit filed by the biggest movie studios and major directors like Steven Soderbergh, John Landis and Steven Spielberg. The suit claims that filtering technology such as ClearPlay's produces an unauthorized and illegal version of their artistic work.
So the lawsuit is ongoing and has not been decided at all. In fact, a federal judge in Denver refused to dismiss the suit, indicating that he thought is had merit. Now take that gerbil out of your ass so that you can concentrate enough to read the article that we're discussing.
Actually, it says that I can't *make* derived works, it doesn't say anything about selling them or distributing them. Go read USC Title 17, section 106.
But your interpretation of "derived work" would make it illegal for me to fast forward.
Numerous court cases have established "fair use" rights which allow you, for your own personal use, to do as you please with regards to copying, editing, etc. When I say "copyright law", I mean the law as written and as interpreted by the courts. But thank you for taking the time to identify the section of law to which you referred.
Well, since the courts have ruled that what Cleanflicks, Clearplay, etc. do is legal, why shouldn't RCA's electronic version be acceptable as well?
The copyright infringement lawsuit against ClearPlay is still, to the best of my knowledge, pending in federal court. That lawsuit was brought by the Director's Guild of America, eight major studios, as well as some of the most influential directors in the industry. A dismissal motion by the defendents was denied, indicating that the judge felt that the lawsuit had merit. You are right that the decision in that case will probably determine whether RCA's version would be legal.
What the fuck does that analogy have to do with anything?
I'm sorry for going too fast for you. Let me break this down to smaller steps.
1. Distributing a "derivative work" is a violation of copyright.
2. Distributing a Windows CD is a violation of copyright.
3. People have claimed that ClearPlay/RCA is not "distributing" a derivative work because they are distributing instructions to a DVD player as to how to edit a work, not the resultant edited work itself.
4. A diff file is analogous to the ClearPlay instructions to the DVD player in that it is a series of instructions for modifying something to make something else.
5. By distributing a diff of a Windows CD against a Redhat CD, you are making it possible for anyone with the Redhat CD to create the Windows CD in an automated process.
I contend that distributing such a diff file would be considered copyright infringement. Thus, ClearPlay's instructions should also be considered copyright infringement.
Please let me know if that clears up your confusion vis-a-vis the analogy.
Do you realize that nobody here agrees with you?
I realize that most people do not, but this is a debate, not a popularity contest.
You sound like a desperate whacko trying to make a point, but every post just makes you look more retarded.
I wish that you would try to contribute to the debate in a meaningful manner and that you would stop using the word "retarded" as an insult. If you want to call me "stupid", then do so, but have some consideration for those who are unfortunate enough to have mentally challenged family members.
Since there is no copy involved here, this has nothing to do with copyright laws.
If I buy a DVD of a movie and then show it for profit, are you saying that I'm not violating copyright laws because I did not make a copy of it? If I offer an audio tape for sale of me reading a best-selling novel, do you think that I'm not in violation of copyright laws because I didn't make a copy of the book? You obviously don't have a lot of knowledge on copyright if you think that it only covers physical copies.
They are only providing a service to the people that have already purchased the movies. This is a basic fact that you for some reason can't understand. Copyright law does not enter into the equation.
Eight motion picture studios, the Directors Guild of America and 13 individual directors -- including Robert Altman and Steven Spielberg -- have sued ClearPlay for copyright infringement. A motion to dismiss the suit was denied by a federal judge. How can you be so smug as to think that you know more about copyright than the lawyers representing those studios and directors and the Federal judge who felt that the case had enough merit to go to trial?
Maybe you just don't know what the word 'distribute' means...
I do, but apparently you do not. They are distributing a modified version of the movie. Period. That they do it by instructing the player to make the edits on the fly is immaterial. The end result (the viewer seeing a modified movie) is what matters in a court of law.
Nobody is claiming this. Try to stay on topic, mmmkay?
Don't talk down to me, you turd. I am on-topic. You are claiming that third parties have a legal and moral right to edit out "offensive" content and I'm saying that they do not, whether the third party is me or ClearPlay.
*coughbullshitcough*
Make arguments countering what I said instead of behaving like a moron. Debate like an adult. If it's not a distribution, explain why. Otherwise, go away.
These "straw man arguments" are actually better than your "you can't do that because you might offend Tom Hanks" argument.
I replied to someone who said "It will make everyone happy." I showed good examples of people who it would not make "happy." Another nice straw man arguement on your part -- claiming that I said that it was wrong because it would offend Tom Hanks.
Retard.
Does it make you feel like a real man to call people names online? Why don't you write back and tell me what a big tough guy you are in real life? I could use a good laugh.
It's my fucking DVD.
Right. It's yours -- not RCA's and not Clearplay's. They don't have any fair use rights to create a derivative work from it for profit -- whether said work is delivered via media or via instructions to a player to create the derivative work on the fly.
What RCA has done is give us a tool to easily remove boobies instead of going through the painstaking process of ripping it onto a computer, editing it, and then burning it onto a new DVD.
No, what RCA has done is given themselves a means of delivering a derivative product to you at a profit.
I have an artistic vision of me using my copy of SPR for skeet shooting, and Tom Hank's can't say a word. As long as it is distributed to the customer full and unedited no one has any right to tell a consumer what they can or can't do with their property.
You are right and I agree with you 100% about your right to do with the DVD as you please. But that doesn't mean that you, or Clearplay, has a right to create derivative works from it for profit.
BTW, why do you HAVE to bash religious people?
Because they are constantly attempting to impose their religious morality on the rest of us, whether by complaining to the FCC because Janet Jackson's breast was visible for 3/10 of a second, by trying to get laws passed banning gay marriage, or by trying to limit what can be broadcast by a radio or television station.
Go here and learn about the terms that you're misusing: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Thus, these DVD players are not wrong for enabling the editing to take place, because they don't modify the original movie on the disc, but only on playback.
So what? They deliver a derivative work to the viewer. Whether they do it via a VHS tape, a DVD, or on-the-fly editing instructions is irrelevent. They are delivering a derivative work for profit.
This isn't some "right-wing zealot in Utah" editing the movie for you. I'm sure the players will have a quite broad latitude in terms of exactly what content will be blocked, thus allowing the END USER to choose what amount, if at all, the movie is edited.
Do you think that the player has AI and makes the edits on its own? No. It makes them based on the instructions it receives from the right wing zealot in Utah. That you can customize the derivative work doesn't change the fact that it is a derivative work.
As long as the option is off by default, there are no issues other than pissy directors and their sympathizers who don't want people to even be able to do jack shit other than watch their movies from beginning to end LIKE GOOD LITTLE SHEEP.
"Good little sheep"? What a hoot! Here's someone who's arguing in favor of letting the Mormon Church decide what people should see and you are calling someone with respect for artists a "sheep"! LOL!
You probably also support the right for someone to release a creative work to the world, then at some point in the future say 'no more, because I said so' and lock it away in a back room to disintegrate, never to be seen by anyone again, indeed to be completely lost to history.
In other words, it is YOU who truly have no regard for the creative media. Anyone who would allow an author to destroy their own work doesn't care about it one bit.
Now that's a straw man argument in the classic sense!You made up something that I never said and then tried to tell me how flawed it was.
HOW F****** HILARIOUS! YOU START OFF BY FALSELY ACCUSING ME OF PRESENTING A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT AND THEN CONCLUDE YOUR POST BY USING A BLATANT STRAW MAN ARGUMENT AGAINST ME! I'm having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
You mean like your analogy that Clearplay selling this DVD player is JUST LIKE Clearplay creating and selling derivitive works?
No, that's not an analogy, nor it it something that I said. I said that they ARE creating and selling derivative works, not that they were doing something "JUST LIKE" that. You read about as well as you write.
The fact is that Clearplay is offering a service that has nothing to do with copywrite laws. There is no copy and no distribution, and therefore your whole rant is irrelevant. Shut up please.
Anyone who is so stupid that they can't even spell "copyright" has no business discussing it. So don't tell me to "shut up" you loser.