If someone doesn't want to see something, they should just not look at it. If they aren't going to watch/read the 'controversial' part then why are they bothering?
Meh. If someone wants to write Romeo and Juliet with a happy ending, then it doesn't bother me. And hell, maybe they'll do such a good job that it'll be better than Shakespeare's version. (And remember, he didn't create the story either; he got it from an earlier play, and just made his own version)
I don't see how having lots of different versions hurts us, so long as they're all available. In fact, I think it makes things better. We get to see different takes on the same stories, and some will be better than others. I mean, how hard would it be to make a better version of the Star Wars prequels? In fact, people have done this. Not wanting to see Jar Jar is not significantly different from not wanting to see breasts. Both are offending someone, and if the new version is better or worse, it will succeed or fail on its own merits. The general appeal of breasts is such that I'm not worried about them vanishing from popular culture anytime soon. In fact, remember that if we can create different versions of works, this means that we can add breasts just as easily as we can take them out.;)
1. No one owns the content on the disc. If it were possible to, we wouldn't need copyright, which tries to approximate what it would be like if someone could. 2. Copyright is not a personal freedom. It is an artifical right to limit other people's personal freedoms. It is a right granted by the people via our government, and it is a right we can alter and take away again. It is granted to suit our purposes, not to make artists happy. Whether it does or not is merely incidental. It's like giving hay to a dairy cow. Farmers don't do so out of charity; they do so to exploit the cow and get milk from it. Basically, copyright is used to exploit artists and get works out of them. It's utilitarian, and nothing but.
This may just be limited to the production of edited DVDs for public sale.
I've read the opinion, and effectively it's not. But remember that 17 USC 110(11) is there, and while not applicable on these facts, can be used to achieve the same ultimate result as these companies and their customers wanted. It's not a huge deal.
I mean since when do you get to rule on my artistic integrity??
Since forever, basically. Why would I care about your artistic integrity. What's in it for me? Since copyright is entirely utilitarian, this is the central question. And since the public equally values original works and derivative works -- we want the most of both, after all, and absolute freedom with regard to them -- why is this bad?
Otherwise all the aspects of culture would be smeared out into a thin, boring gruel by the masses of opposing opinions.
Actually, you could not be more wrong. Having countless variations on a work strengthens art. It means that derivative artists who are better than the original artist will have their works gain in popularity. It means that everyone can find an alternative that they like, since there's no such thing as objective artistic merit. It means that all the ideas that are going to be explored, are explored. And it means that with all these variations, the artists can react to one another, creating versions that play off of other versions.
Such a culture is the definition of vitality and diversity. What you suggest is a boring monoculture with only approved versions of works existing, by the fiat of a mere artist.
A good example might be the plays of Shakespeare -- who himself was a derivative author who ripped off other plays left and right. You can see versions with simplified language (e.g. the Lambs'), or different settings (e.g. Baz Luhrman's), or as musicals (e.g. West Side Story), or as meta-stories (e.g. Kiss Me, Kate), or very loosely adapted (e.g. Strange Brew). And that's just off the top of my head! And they're all valuable to culture. Imagine if we could only stage it the way that Shakespeare -- or more accurately, the people before him, since he was a derivative author too -- did. That would not be nearly so good.
You might be an artist, but you don't know shit about art or copyright law. As an artist and a copyright lawyer, I suggest you educate yourself.
Protection against the unchecked distribution of derivative works is part of copyright law because of the desire to protect artists of any stripe from having poorer versions of their works in any way harm the artist's ability to extract value from their creations.
No. It's there because people were creating derivatives period. Quality wasn't a factor. The main one that did it was a German translation of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Since German isn't English, the court decided the original work wasn't copied, and that was the end of that. Congress had to create a derivative right.
I am comfortable with a copyright law that gives, at the start, the creator of Brazil (or the future owner of those 'rights') the ability to prevent such atrocities without their consent.
If authors will create works regardless, then they should not get those rights because it would be wasteful for them to have them. Given that we barely have reputational rights in the US at all, and that they're very new, and we had plenty of works before, I think it's clear that we should not have it.
Furthermore, copyright law has nothing to do with artistic merit. The crudest fingerpainting is protected just as much as the finest, most exquisite portrait. Derivatives such as you describe are exactly as important to copyright as the works upon which they are based. They are exactly as desirable to have, and we want to promote the creation of both. If we have to temporarily limit the derivatives in order to get many, many more originals, then that's one thing. But protection is never tolerable for its own sake. If it does not yield a greater public benefit -- bearing in mind that we want both works -- then that protection ought not to exist. Copyright is utilitarian. It's about results for the public. Not about artistic integrity or happy artists.
One would expect that the original authors to rage at that sort of thing. It's easy to see why: their name and their work is being used to push an agenda which they find offensive. In a case like this, removing material fundamentally changes the content of the work and perverts its intent.
Which is great, except copyright law has nothing to do with that. They ought to try looking under trademark, unfair competition, and publicity rights.
copying for your own use is fine, editing your own copy is fine
Wrong. It's prima facie infringement. It's more likely to be fair use than if you were acting commercially, but it's still up to you to defend it. It isn't automatically fine.
Fair use essentially only extends as far as your own personal usage.]
Wrong. It covers commercial use too. That makes it trickier, but commercial fair use is common.
Copyright law speficially allows him to make a copy.
Wrong.
Anything I buy I can alter and resell.
Wrong, with possible exceptions.
If I bought a DVD and made my legal backup copy,
No such thing. It's illegal to decrypt it in order to make a copy, and it's illegal to make a copy, decryption or no. Backing up might, but probably wouldn't, be allowed for encrypted backups, but would still not be relevant for the decrypted hypo. In any event there's no blanket exception for this.
then took the original and sanded it to a nice matte finish, I can sell that to my neighbor as long as I destroy or transfer the backup to him as well.
Wrong, unless 17 USC 117 applies, which is virtually never ever the case.
So lets say i do not have the ability to copy some pages from the book myslef so i decide to ask you to help and do it for me. Would that then make you a violator?
Yes.
This is esential what these people were doing, asking someoen else to copy and edit something because they didn't have the time or ability.
No, IIRC at least some of the defendants here did it sua sponte.
Now does it change any if you say "Yes, I will help but it will cost $35.00 for supplies and my time."?
Yes, a little. It hurts fair use arguments. Doesn't change the prima facie case, though.
I agree that this is a grey area.
No, it's really not.
It is probably one that will get turned around on apeal several times.
No, I don't think they're planning to appeal.
I don't think this is much different then Me buying a dvd, editing out parts i don't want my kids to see, then burning it so they can watch it.
I agree. But what makes you think that's legal either? I can think of a couple of good arguments against it off the top of my head.
No. Copyrights are bought and sold all the time. The creative works that the copyrights pertain to are unownable, and thus impossible to buy and sell. Remember, that the same work exists simultaneously in all the copies of the work. Michael Jackson didn't buy anything within my Beatles records. He just bought rights that govern what I can do with them.
I believe it would be technically legal to sell a partial-photocopy of a book, as long as I could prove that I destroyed the original.
No. Making the copy is illegal, regardless of what happens to the original. How many copies there are at the end of the day is irrelevant. Who made the copies is what's important. Look at 17 USC 106(1). It does not say "...unless the original copy was destroyed."
I buy a VCR tape of a Hollywood movie. I then take this tape to a business that is experienced with cutting and splicing the magnetic tape inside VCR type tapes. I instruct them to cut out certain portions of the tape and splice it back together. I, of course, pay them for their services and take my tape home and play if for my Mormon grandmother.
Am I violating copyright law in this process?
Maybe. Without getting into too much detail, you are making a derivative (though this court wouldn't say so, oddly enough!) and that's illegal. You didn't make a new copy (which did happen in the case at hand) so that's in your favor. And you'd have a good fair use claim (although again, this court wouldn't say so!).
Because a copy is made? Because the bits are digital?
Digital works are treated the same as everything else for our purposes here. That's a red herring. But yes, making a copy is relevant.
As for the courts, I doubt they're really corrupt on copyright issues. But they're largely stuck with what Congress legislates. Your real beef is with them.
EDLs and patch files are probably not derivative works.
I disagree, based on two caes. 1) Midway v. Artic. There, the question was whether a video game was fixed as a visual work (there having been some disputes over software copyrightability at the time) since the visual appearance on the screen was variable depending on the user input. The court decided it was fixed because it was predictable; the same input would always yield the same visual appearance. Works don't have to be fixed in the form in which they're perceived, so long as they're ultimately capable of being perceived, even if with the aid of a device. 2) Micro Star v. Formgen. There, Micro Star sold a bunch of custom map files made for Duke Nukem 3D. The court found it infringing, since the files were fixed and produced works derivative of the original game.
Here, an EDL used on the original work would yield a specific derivative work. If not for 17 USC 110(11), which specifically allows this in some cases, I wouldn't have much hope for it.
There is a contrary case (which was considered and dismissed in Micro Star) that found in favor of the Game Genie, which did something similar. But the court decided that the key difference was that users had to manually set the Game Genie every time, whereas DN3D map files were already in fixed form. This isn't useful if you want to distribute EDLs or patchfiles.
2. The companies in question don't sell videos, they rent them. That falls under public performance for profit (I believe), which generally has the most stringent protections.
Rental is actually a form of distribution, not public performance. It is not subject to copyright due to first sale (see 17 USC 109) with exceptions for phonorecords and some but not all computer software. Also the protections for public performance are the same as for the other 106 rights; it's nothing special.
On the other hand, it is flagrant copyright violation for sake of grown men and women who haven't grown enough to handle the thought of seeing a boob. Keeping their world sanitized will probably only keep them in their child-like state of development. If people only see what they want to see, their views will never evolve or grow.
The merits of self or parental censorship have no place in discussions of copyright policy. It might be silly, but it really has nothing to do with promoting the progress of science.
Actually, the A.R.T. case has been a highly criticized opinion, and wouldn't be followed in most jurisdictions. Just avoid the 9th on that one until the circuit split can be resolved.
In a world without the DMCA, it would be perfectly legal to rip your own DVD, edit out the parts that you didn't want their impressionable little brains soaking up, and burning it to a new disc.
Actually, the studios could have pursued a circumvention cause of action here but they did not. The DMCA was not part of this case. And they still won. Basically, you're wrong. Making the copy is illegal, regardless of the DMCA. Altering it, doubly so. Maybe fair use would work there, and I certainly disagree with much of this court's fair use analysis, but it still would only be possibly legal, not perfectly so. Fair use is a case-by-case matter, after all.
As I understand it, copyright law in the US is, philosophically, primarily concerned with ensuring that the author can recover a reasonable amount of money for their work. It has little or nothing to do with "artistic integrity" or direct control over how a work is used.
Actually, the fundamental copyright law in the US couldn't care less about whether authors can make a cent from their work, and no copyright laws here have ever ensured that authors will. That's basically left to the market. The vast majority of works are monetarily worthless, in fact.
Rather, the law is ultimately concerned with furthering the public interest. There are three aspects to the public interest: having more original works created, having more derivative works created, and having no, or minimal, restrictions as to those works. The idea behind copyright is that, while some works are created without copyright, and we are totally free in regard to them, the public can enjoy a greater net benefit by temporarily sacrificing the minimum amount of freedom needed to cause the greatest number of original works to be created. By deferring our immediate gratification, we get a much greater ultimate gratification. And the point is to get the most benefit for the least cost in our rights.
We spur authors to create works by bribing them with a temporary, limited monopoly on their works. This is no different from bribing a donkey into doing useful work by dangling a carrot in front of it. No one cares whether the author actually benefits or not, just so long as he is exploited into doing what we want. As a practical matter he might have to have decent odds of benefiting for it to be enticing enough, but it's still a low bar.
It's just that in the past 100 years, and especially in the past 30 or so, the publishing interests and authors have twisted this system so that it benefits them more than it should, and harms the public, which is entirely unacceptable. We need to take it back.
This sort of decision seems very dangerous, in terms of shifting the underlying idea of copyright in the US. Anyone know if Cleanflix is going to appeal, or have any thoughts on what their chances are?
It doesn't really do much with copyright actually. It's a fairly straightforward decision, though it did have some oddities which hopefully won't catch on. As for Cleanflix, they went out of business some time ago, as I recall, and have no plans to appeal. There were other defendants, however, so maybe something will happen, but I doubt it. 17 USC 110(11) presents a perfectly good alternative for censoring movies for these sorts of businesses, so why bother pursuing this method of censoring movies?
In particular, copyright as applied to electronically-readable goods seems to be completely backwards. Copying is inherent in the normal use of the item
Yes, this is a well-known defect and common complaint. Really though, nothing less than a total overhaul and radical lessening of copyright will do. This is part of the agenda, I assure you.
Actually, the case indicates that they did the former. And it wouldn't change the argument against them one bit. Making unauthorized copies is what's key, not the disposition of the authorized copies.
No they are not. The best you can get are 17 USC 117 and 1008, and they are almost never applicable because of the conditions that you have to meet in order to use them.
temporary copies used in facilitating playback - namely copying to RAM and/or a page file - are ignored as copies under case law
No they are not. In fact I can think of several cases that deal with precisely that. The major one is MAI v. Peak in the 9th Circuit. Copies in RAM are infringing copies, unless there is an applicable exception or authorization.
The entire point of Copyright is that the artists are compensated for their works.
I would strongly disagree. The entire point of copyright is to promote the progress of science. That is, to serve the public interest with regard to general knowledge. If authors happen to have the ability to get more compensation than otherwise, that's nice, but it is not the objective. It might be part of the method of serving the public, but it's not the point. It's similar to how a town setting up a cable tv monopoly is not intended to benefit the cable tv company, but is instead intended to get cable tv infrastructure built so that it can eventually be opened up to competition.
It is if the original work is copyrighted, and you don't have permission or an applicable exception. See 17 USC 501 and 106(3).
It is not illegal to aid someone in doing so
Yes it is. There are three different ways that it can be. It can be contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, or inducement to infringe. Depending on the facts involved, more than one might apply for the same act.
What is illegal is the redistribution of the derivative work.
That's also illegal, but it's far from the only thing that's illegal.
Nobody is arguing that it is a violation of copyright to have some gadget that automatically producees derivative works.
It could be, and people have argued over less. It would depend on just what the gadget was, what it did, and how it worked.
The law specifically allows for me to make a copy of a movie, song, etc.
No it doesn't.
And it specifically says that if I then sell the original I must destroy or transfer the copy along with the original.
No it doesn't.
You might be thinking of 17 USC 117, but that only applies to software, and then only if you own a lawfully made copy of it, which it is argued that most people don't. There's nothing of the kind with regard to anything else. Fair use could allow such things, but there's no guarantee. Every fair use case has to be looked at on its own merits; there are no blanket fair uses.
That's bullshit. First, a copyrighted work isn't something that can be bought and sold. If works were able to be treated like that, we wouldn't really need copyright. Second, copyrights are distinct from the works to which they pertain. Also there really are more things you can do with copies than just use them privately and selling them.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone doesn't want to see something, they should just not look at it. If they aren't going to watch/read the 'controversial' part then why are they bothering?
;)
Meh. If someone wants to write Romeo and Juliet with a happy ending, then it doesn't bother me. And hell, maybe they'll do such a good job that it'll be better than Shakespeare's version. (And remember, he didn't create the story either; he got it from an earlier play, and just made his own version)
I don't see how having lots of different versions hurts us, so long as they're all available. In fact, I think it makes things better. We get to see different takes on the same stories, and some will be better than others. I mean, how hard would it be to make a better version of the Star Wars prequels? In fact, people have done this. Not wanting to see Jar Jar is not significantly different from not wanting to see breasts. Both are offending someone, and if the new version is better or worse, it will succeed or fail on its own merits. The general appeal of breasts is such that I'm not worried about them vanishing from popular culture anytime soon. In fact, remember that if we can create different versions of works, this means that we can add breasts just as easily as we can take them out.
1. No one owns the content on the disc. If it were possible to, we wouldn't need copyright, which tries to approximate what it would be like if someone could.
2. Copyright is not a personal freedom. It is an artifical right to limit other people's personal freedoms. It is a right granted by the people via our government, and it is a right we can alter and take away again. It is granted to suit our purposes, not to make artists happy. Whether it does or not is merely incidental. It's like giving hay to a dairy cow. Farmers don't do so out of charity; they do so to exploit the cow and get milk from it. Basically, copyright is used to exploit artists and get works out of them. It's utilitarian, and nothing but.
What about the personal freedoms of the copyright holder who doesn't want people selling bastardized copies of their intellectual property?
He has no such personal freedom. Copyright is an artifical monopoly given to him that lets him restrict our personal freedoms. Big, big difference.
This may just be limited to the production of edited DVDs for public sale.
I've read the opinion, and effectively it's not. But remember that 17 USC 110(11) is there, and while not applicable on these facts, can be used to achieve the same ultimate result as these companies and their customers wanted. It's not a huge deal.
I mean since when do you get to rule on my artistic integrity??
Since forever, basically. Why would I care about your artistic integrity. What's in it for me? Since copyright is entirely utilitarian, this is the central question. And since the public equally values original works and derivative works -- we want the most of both, after all, and absolute freedom with regard to them -- why is this bad?
Otherwise all the aspects of culture would be smeared out into a thin, boring gruel by the masses of opposing opinions.
Actually, you could not be more wrong. Having countless variations on a work strengthens art. It means that derivative artists who are better than the original artist will have their works gain in popularity. It means that everyone can find an alternative that they like, since there's no such thing as objective artistic merit. It means that all the ideas that are going to be explored, are explored. And it means that with all these variations, the artists can react to one another, creating versions that play off of other versions.
Such a culture is the definition of vitality and diversity. What you suggest is a boring monoculture with only approved versions of works existing, by the fiat of a mere artist.
A good example might be the plays of Shakespeare -- who himself was a derivative author who ripped off other plays left and right. You can see versions with simplified language (e.g. the Lambs'), or different settings (e.g. Baz Luhrman's), or as musicals (e.g. West Side Story), or as meta-stories (e.g. Kiss Me, Kate), or very loosely adapted (e.g. Strange Brew). And that's just off the top of my head! And they're all valuable to culture. Imagine if we could only stage it the way that Shakespeare -- or more accurately, the people before him, since he was a derivative author too -- did. That would not be nearly so good.
You might be an artist, but you don't know shit about art or copyright law. As an artist and a copyright lawyer, I suggest you educate yourself.
Protection against the unchecked distribution of derivative works is part of copyright law because of the desire to protect artists of any stripe from having poorer versions of their works in any way harm the artist's ability to extract value from their creations.
No. It's there because people were creating derivatives period. Quality wasn't a factor. The main one that did it was a German translation of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Since German isn't English, the court decided the original work wasn't copied, and that was the end of that. Congress had to create a derivative right.
I am comfortable with a copyright law that gives, at the start, the creator of Brazil (or the future owner of those 'rights') the ability to prevent such atrocities without their consent.
If authors will create works regardless, then they should not get those rights because it would be wasteful for them to have them. Given that we barely have reputational rights in the US at all, and that they're very new, and we had plenty of works before, I think it's clear that we should not have it.
Furthermore, copyright law has nothing to do with artistic merit. The crudest fingerpainting is protected just as much as the finest, most exquisite portrait. Derivatives such as you describe are exactly as important to copyright as the works upon which they are based. They are exactly as desirable to have, and we want to promote the creation of both. If we have to temporarily limit the derivatives in order to get many, many more originals, then that's one thing. But protection is never tolerable for its own sake. If it does not yield a greater public benefit -- bearing in mind that we want both works -- then that protection ought not to exist. Copyright is utilitarian. It's about results for the public. Not about artistic integrity or happy artists.
One would expect that the original authors to rage at that sort of thing. It's easy to see why: their name and their work is being used to push an agenda which they find offensive. In a case like this, removing material fundamentally changes the content of the work and perverts its intent.
Which is great, except copyright law has nothing to do with that. They ought to try looking under trademark, unfair competition, and publicity rights.
copying for your own use is fine, editing your own copy is fine
Wrong. It's prima facie infringement. It's more likely to be fair use than if you were acting commercially, but it's still up to you to defend it. It isn't automatically fine.
Fair use essentially only extends as far as your own personal usage.]
Wrong. It covers commercial use too. That makes it trickier, but commercial fair use is common.
Copyright law speficially allows him to make a copy.
Wrong.
Anything I buy I can alter and resell.
Wrong, with possible exceptions.
If I bought a DVD and made my legal backup copy,
No such thing. It's illegal to decrypt it in order to make a copy, and it's illegal to make a copy, decryption or no. Backing up might, but probably wouldn't, be allowed for encrypted backups, but would still not be relevant for the decrypted hypo. In any event there's no blanket exception for this.
then took the original and sanded it to a nice matte finish, I can sell that to my neighbor as long as I destroy or transfer the backup to him as well.
Wrong, unless 17 USC 117 applies, which is virtually never ever the case.
So lets say i do not have the ability to copy some pages from the book myslef so i decide to ask you to help and do it for me. Would that then make you a violator?
Yes.
This is esential what these people were doing, asking someoen else to copy and edit something because they didn't have the time or ability.
No, IIRC at least some of the defendants here did it sua sponte.
Now does it change any if you say "Yes, I will help but it will cost $35.00 for supplies and my time."?
Yes, a little. It hurts fair use arguments. Doesn't change the prima facie case, though.
I agree that this is a grey area.
No, it's really not.
It is probably one that will get turned around on apeal several times.
No, I don't think they're planning to appeal.
I don't think this is much different then Me buying a dvd, editing out parts i don't want my kids to see, then burning it so they can watch it.
I agree. But what makes you think that's legal either? I can think of a couple of good arguments against it off the top of my head.
No. Copyrights are bought and sold all the time. The creative works that the copyrights pertain to are unownable, and thus impossible to buy and sell. Remember, that the same work exists simultaneously in all the copies of the work. Michael Jackson didn't buy anything within my Beatles records. He just bought rights that govern what I can do with them.
There's a difference.
I believe it would be technically legal to sell a partial-photocopy of a book, as long as I could prove that I destroyed the original.
No. Making the copy is illegal, regardless of what happens to the original. How many copies there are at the end of the day is irrelevant. Who made the copies is what's important. Look at 17 USC 106(1). It does not say "...unless the original copy was destroyed."
I buy a VCR tape of a Hollywood movie. I then take this tape to a business that is experienced with cutting and splicing the magnetic tape inside VCR type tapes. I instruct them to cut out certain portions of the tape and splice it back together. I, of course, pay them for their services and take my tape home and play if for my Mormon grandmother.
Am I violating copyright law in this process?
Maybe. Without getting into too much detail, you are making a derivative (though this court wouldn't say so, oddly enough!) and that's illegal. You didn't make a new copy (which did happen in the case at hand) so that's in your favor. And you'd have a good fair use claim (although again, this court wouldn't say so!).
Because a copy is made? Because the bits are digital?
Digital works are treated the same as everything else for our purposes here. That's a red herring. But yes, making a copy is relevant.
As for the courts, I doubt they're really corrupt on copyright issues. But they're largely stuck with what Congress legislates. Your real beef is with them.
EDLs and patch files are probably not derivative works.
I disagree, based on two caes. 1) Midway v. Artic. There, the question was whether a video game was fixed as a visual work (there having been some disputes over software copyrightability at the time) since the visual appearance on the screen was variable depending on the user input. The court decided it was fixed because it was predictable; the same input would always yield the same visual appearance. Works don't have to be fixed in the form in which they're perceived, so long as they're ultimately capable of being perceived, even if with the aid of a device. 2) Micro Star v. Formgen. There, Micro Star sold a bunch of custom map files made for Duke Nukem 3D. The court found it infringing, since the files were fixed and produced works derivative of the original game.
Here, an EDL used on the original work would yield a specific derivative work. If not for 17 USC 110(11), which specifically allows this in some cases, I wouldn't have much hope for it.
There is a contrary case (which was considered and dismissed in Micro Star) that found in favor of the Game Genie, which did something similar. But the court decided that the key difference was that users had to manually set the Game Genie every time, whereas DN3D map files were already in fixed form. This isn't useful if you want to distribute EDLs or patchfiles.
2. The companies in question don't sell videos, they rent them. That falls under public performance for profit (I believe), which generally has the most stringent protections.
Rental is actually a form of distribution, not public performance. It is not subject to copyright due to first sale (see 17 USC 109) with exceptions for phonorecords and some but not all computer software. Also the protections for public performance are the same as for the other 106 rights; it's nothing special.
On the other hand, it is flagrant copyright violation for sake of grown men and women who haven't grown enough to handle the thought of seeing a boob. Keeping their world sanitized will probably only keep them in their child-like state of development. If people only see what they want to see, their views will never evolve or grow.
The merits of self or parental censorship have no place in discussions of copyright policy. It might be silly, but it really has nothing to do with promoting the progress of science.
Actually, the A.R.T. case has been a highly criticized opinion, and wouldn't be followed in most jurisdictions. Just avoid the 9th on that one until the circuit split can be resolved.
In a world without the DMCA, it would be perfectly legal to rip your own DVD, edit out the parts that you didn't want their impressionable little brains soaking up, and burning it to a new disc.
Actually, the studios could have pursued a circumvention cause of action here but they did not. The DMCA was not part of this case. And they still won. Basically, you're wrong. Making the copy is illegal, regardless of the DMCA. Altering it, doubly so. Maybe fair use would work there, and I certainly disagree with much of this court's fair use analysis, but it still would only be possibly legal, not perfectly so. Fair use is a case-by-case matter, after all.
As I understand it, copyright law in the US is, philosophically, primarily concerned with ensuring that the author can recover a reasonable amount of money for their work. It has little or nothing to do with "artistic integrity" or direct control over how a work is used.
Actually, the fundamental copyright law in the US couldn't care less about whether authors can make a cent from their work, and no copyright laws here have ever ensured that authors will. That's basically left to the market. The vast majority of works are monetarily worthless, in fact.
Rather, the law is ultimately concerned with furthering the public interest. There are three aspects to the public interest: having more original works created, having more derivative works created, and having no, or minimal, restrictions as to those works. The idea behind copyright is that, while some works are created without copyright, and we are totally free in regard to them, the public can enjoy a greater net benefit by temporarily sacrificing the minimum amount of freedom needed to cause the greatest number of original works to be created. By deferring our immediate gratification, we get a much greater ultimate gratification. And the point is to get the most benefit for the least cost in our rights.
We spur authors to create works by bribing them with a temporary, limited monopoly on their works. This is no different from bribing a donkey into doing useful work by dangling a carrot in front of it. No one cares whether the author actually benefits or not, just so long as he is exploited into doing what we want. As a practical matter he might have to have decent odds of benefiting for it to be enticing enough, but it's still a low bar.
It's just that in the past 100 years, and especially in the past 30 or so, the publishing interests and authors have twisted this system so that it benefits them more than it should, and harms the public, which is entirely unacceptable. We need to take it back.
This sort of decision seems very dangerous, in terms of shifting the underlying idea of copyright in the US. Anyone know if Cleanflix is going to appeal, or have any thoughts on what their chances are?
It doesn't really do much with copyright actually. It's a fairly straightforward decision, though it did have some oddities which hopefully won't catch on. As for Cleanflix, they went out of business some time ago, as I recall, and have no plans to appeal. There were other defendants, however, so maybe something will happen, but I doubt it. 17 USC 110(11) presents a perfectly good alternative for censoring movies for these sorts of businesses, so why bother pursuing this method of censoring movies?
In particular, copyright as applied to electronically-readable goods seems to be completely backwards. Copying is inherent in the normal use of the item
Yes, this is a well-known defect and common complaint. Really though, nothing less than a total overhaul and radical lessening of copyright will do. This is part of the agenda, I assure you.
Actually, the case indicates that they did the former. And it wouldn't change the argument against them one bit. Making unauthorized copies is what's key, not the disposition of the authorized copies.
Backup copies are explicitly legal
No they are not. The best you can get are 17 USC 117 and 1008, and they are almost never applicable because of the conditions that you have to meet in order to use them.
temporary copies used in facilitating playback - namely copying to RAM and/or a page file - are ignored as copies under case law
No they are not. In fact I can think of several cases that deal with precisely that. The major one is MAI v. Peak in the 9th Circuit. Copies in RAM are infringing copies, unless there is an applicable exception or authorization.
Except that the copying of content to a new disc isn't what this ruling is about. That part is legal.
Actually, having read the opinion, that's precisely what this case is about. And it is illegal, by the way. See 17 USC 501 and 106(1).
The entire point of Copyright is that the artists are compensated for their works.
I would strongly disagree. The entire point of copyright is to promote the progress of science. That is, to serve the public interest with regard to general knowledge. If authors happen to have the ability to get more compensation than otherwise, that's nice, but it is not the objective. It might be part of the method of serving the public, but it's not the point. It's similar to how a town setting up a cable tv monopoly is not intended to benefit the cable tv company, but is instead intended to get cable tv infrastructure built so that it can eventually be opened up to competition.
It is not illegal to make a derivative work
It is if the original work is copyrighted, and you don't have permission or an applicable exception. See 17 USC 501 and 106(3).
It is not illegal to aid someone in doing so
Yes it is. There are three different ways that it can be. It can be contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, or inducement to infringe. Depending on the facts involved, more than one might apply for the same act.
What is illegal is the redistribution of the derivative work.
That's also illegal, but it's far from the only thing that's illegal.
Nobody is arguing that it is a violation of copyright to have some gadget that automatically producees derivative works.
It could be, and people have argued over less. It would depend on just what the gadget was, what it did, and how it worked.
The law specifically allows for me to make a copy of a movie, song, etc.
No it doesn't.
And it specifically says that if I then sell the original I must destroy or transfer the copy along with the original.
No it doesn't.
You might be thinking of 17 USC 117, but that only applies to software, and then only if you own a lawfully made copy of it, which it is argued that most people don't. There's nothing of the kind with regard to anything else. Fair use could allow such things, but there's no guarantee. Every fair use case has to be looked at on its own merits; there are no blanket fair uses.
That's bullshit. First, a copyrighted work isn't something that can be bought and sold. If works were able to be treated like that, we wouldn't really need copyright. Second, copyrights are distinct from the works to which they pertain. Also there really are more things you can do with copies than just use them privately and selling them.