Statistically speaking, based on IQ tests and standardized test scores, it's VERY unlikely that you are my intellectual equal
Ignoring the fact that my sarcasm whooshed over
your head, I'll simply ask, is this where we
measure? Pointless don't you think, since it's
simply each person's word? I can make the
same statement, but I'll merely point out that
I'm not the bonehead who missed the point and
instead went into an explanation
about how indentation works. If you're going to
try to convince someone you're smart, try really
hard not to look dumb first. It makes your
argument so much more convincing, don't you think?
And if you go any slower, I'll fall asleep
As evidenced by the fact that you took the time to write a 600+ word reply.
MyCleanFlicks is a Co-operative rental club. All subscribers to our service become members of the Co-op.
Do tell, Einstein.
>This is a very basic point. Every day people press the mute or FF buttons on movies. They must do so manually, and the effect is crude. All this company has done is make that process more efficient.
Untrue. When someone manually fast forwards or mutes dialog, they are aware of it. When Clean Flicks does it, they often are not. The viewer often has no way to know what he/she was missing or even that material was deleted.
But THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO ENTRUST THAT DECISION to
someone else. That is within their power. You just don't seem to catching on
to that. They choose to get an unedited movie,
or one which has been edited. They're not having the edited version crammed down they're throats. But you would have even the power to make that choice taken from them.
>Oh, so now, in addition to telling me what I should and shouldn't see, you're telling me what I have and haven't seen... ?
Still playing games, I see. Why don't you just admit that your comments were based on the incorrect belief that Clean Flicks only rented out DVDs?
We talk about trickery and misleading, but this was the most
straightforward comment. I talked about what
I had seen in news stories. You then proceeded
to tell me that I thought what I had seen was
comprehensive no doubt, because that what you
would have believed. Wouldn't it be shrewd to conclude that one hasn't learned everything about a subject after seeing a couple news segments? Wouldn't
only the less mentally adept presume they know
everything about a subject after such little exposure. Apparently, you not only fall into the latter category, but are unwilling to credit other people with the circumspection to do otherwise. Apparently, you just can't believe there are people around smarter than you. Well, that's what you said:
it's VERY unlikely that you are my intellectual equal, much less superior.
You cross the line at the point where you pay someone to do the edit for you. Actually, you don't cross the line, per se, the poor schmuck
you've convinced to do your editing has.
Why? If it's legal for me to do the editing, then
it's legal for me to pay someone to do it for me, so long as the copies and original remain in my possession. This is the basis of the fair use clauses in both traditional copyright law and the DMCA.
copyright law prevents you from making derivative works without their consent
Actually, it prevents you from publishing derivative works without their consent. If I own
a copy of a movie, I can do whatever I like
with it, so long as I don't publish my
derivative work.
MyCleanFlicks is a Co-operative rental club. All
subscribers to our service become members of the
Co-op. The Co-op collectively purchases original,
unedited DVD movies
Side note: MyCleanFlicks is the rental side, while
CleanFlicks is the sales side.
This is the slippery slope that I see when you allow private firms
And as I said, the point becomes moot when you consider that it's a co-op. Everyone owns the entire rental archive.
As for the sales side, as I asked already, what
does happen to your argument once DVD players become sophisticated enough to run complex programs and people start writing one that
recognize DVD's and skip over and mute particular
scenes on the fly. The program gets sold without
any of the actual movie content at all. This
is essentially what these guys sell: edits.
>If I own a copy of a movie, can't I edit it myself?
Yes. That falls under fair use.
So now, what if he and I own the title together?
Can we agree on a set of edits between the two of us?
Then what if we go in with a couple more friends
and buy more titles, and edit them, all for our
own use?
Well that's what cleanflicks does. Go read their
site. They're a co-op.
Now, I answered all of your questions honestly and fully. I would like you to answer mine:
Fair enough.
1. Do you believe that it is legal for Clean Flicks to edit out scenes and dialog based on consumer demand?
Yes.
2. Do you believe that it is legal for a firm to record sex scenes, scenes of violence, and profane language and edit same into movies that did not have them? For example, could the hypothetical firm edit the Disney movie Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, inserting a new animated scene in which Snow White is gang-banged by the dwarfs, and offer it for rent?
No.
I contend that both uses are analogous.
Two problems with your contention. Of course,
the second really makes the first irrelevant
anyway, but I'll point it out anyway:
"substantially different" is a subjective term that I think you would have a hard time applying successfully to an edit designed specifically to maintain the essence of a work. Even if you disagreed that that was their objective, it would certainly be easier to convince judge and jury that a movie edited for cleanliness by say, broadcast TV standards, maintains that essence, than it would be to convince them that the adding of content as you describe does.
The "rental" service these guys offer really isn't that at all. It's a co-op. Everyone owns all the movies. They pay for co-op membership and they check-out movies from the archive.
In the long run, I can see a clear path that
even if defeated, technology will make cleanflicks basic operation possible. Just like I can sell
an overlay mask to cover up certain parts of a
picture without ever including any part of the
picture itself in what I sell, it would be
fairly trivial to create an editing chip or card
that will recognize a movie in the DVD player
and FF over scene #XYZ, and mute the volume at
time index 1:03:05 for.4 seconds, etc. That
program would not need to have ANY of the original
work stored within it. One could argue very easily (more easily than arguing that your contention that subtractive and additive editing are equivalent) that this is essentially what cleanflicks does now.
Apparently that you are the ultimate authority on the DMCA.
NO!!!! The DoJ is!!! (i.e. You are not either.) Get it?!?!?
Sheesh!
I don't know why you are so certain that you understand the DMCA better than I do.
--only that the DoJ does. I wonder why it is that every time an issue like this crops up, armchair lawyers like you come out of the woodwork and
tell the people who have devoted 30+ years to
interpreting and enforcing these statutes how to
do their jobs. Then, when confronted, they look
around and see others doing the same, and use
this as defense of their actions. It's the old, "everybody's doing it" defense. Brilliant.
Barring some fantastical event, our society will never become entirely elitist OR populist. There will always be elements of both, meaning that the
US will never devolve into a monarchy, and that
we will never have criminal prosecutions or brain surgery done by committee. We teach, train,
educate, and create an elite in whom we place
a degree of trust.
The point here isn't whether or not I know it better than you, it's whether you know better than the legion of legal advisors at the DoJ's disposal.
It's like reading one or two magazine articles,
then busting into an OR during a surgery to
correct the surgeon, using a handful of magazine
articles as your evidence.
My point is the simple fact that if I, a non-lawyer, can read the law and pick out a half-dozen rather substantial hurdles to be overcome in the prosecution you suggest, how many
more will a seasoned defense attorney with 30 years under his belt find? Now how about a team of a dozen or so of these guys?
It's JUST NOT THAT SIMPLE. In truth, almost
nothing ever discussed in forums like this are
ever that simple. And that's fine-- it doesn't
mean a discussion is pointless-- but the fools
are the ones that fail to appreciate that, and
that approach the discussion from the "this is
all there is to it; it's just that simple"
perspective. This demonstrates a fundamental lack of appreciation of the complexities inherent on our system.
And if all laws were interpreted as "rough paraphrase[s]", then you'd be on the Supreme Court.
You obviously have the text handy, read it
for yourself. That's why I pointed out that
I was paraphrasing. The text I cut out was
length, wordy, and not directly applicable.
You're obviously running out of things to pick on.
You did not cross the line. But the person who took the copyrighted film and edited it for profit,
When? Did he cross the line when I paid him
to sit in the corner and press the FF and mute
buttons at his discretion? Did he cross the
line when he automated the process of FF'ing
and muting with a computer program? Or did he
only cross it when he REPLACED my legally purchased
(and owned by me) copy of the movie?
Don't dodge the question this time.
If I own a copy of a movie, can't I edit it myself?
If so, then can't I pay someone else to edit it
for me?
Wow, you're right. I did miss that. Thanks. What page was that on?
Blockquotes are indented. My comments are not. That's how Slashdot works.
Apparently I was not explicit enough for you. Sarcasm can be like that sometimes. It's how smart folks condescend (that means, talk down) to people like you, but it sure can leave you
spinning if you don't keep your eye on it. Please try to keep up. I'll go slower. You quoted, then you summarized. The problem was that your summary was unsupported by the quote, hence my selectively edited quote pointing this out. Now go reread MY comments and do explain how your
bible-thumpers comment is a supportable derivation of their warning.
I never disputed that you have a right to choose what you see. But before you twist that around...
But that's just it, and I'm glad you agree. And
that is exactly the service this company is
selling. I choose what I want to see and not see.
That choice is placed in trust in this company's
services.
But before you twist that around, it does not mean that a company can
legally alter copyrighted videos as a for-profit venture
But you are intentionally blurring the line between an modified edition and a derivative work.
One is primarily characterized by deletions made
specifically in such a manner as to preserve the
essence of the work, the other additions made
specifically to alter that essence. But even THAT is not an issue, since these would be OUR collective works (if I joined). The company is a CO-OP. Everyone owns all the titles, and they all agree to have them edited.
You claimed that kids were the reason for the "no R-rated movies" rule in your house and then when I address that, suddenly the kids are not the reason.
Interesting, so then, it's my fault for tricking
you into making a wrongful assumption then...
Where did I say that?
I have no kids. The scendario was a hypothetical one designed to match a broad spectrum (i.e. I figure a fair chunk of their audience is
composed of families with children). We do
not watch rated R movies in our household (but I
figure that puts me in a minority with which
you could not identify).
If you are... then I suggest....
Oh don't worry, your suggestions will go high
on my to-do list.
They rent out VHS tapes, too, and those don't have unedited versions that the user can choose.
So then, if you rent the VHS tape from them, could someone get it NOT KNOWING they're getting an edited version? Are they actively concealing what they do?
The point here is not the mechanism behind their implementation (though the
company came into being with the advent of the
flxibility of the DVD format), but the very very
simple fact that the end user is making a choice
to receive an edited title.
This is a very basic point. Every day people
press the mute or FF buttons on movies. They
must do so manually, and the effect is crude.
All this company has done is make that process
more efficient.
Instead of pretending you were talking about a mouse button, just be a grown-up and admit that you were wrong when you wrote:
>>all the movies features in the stories I've seen were DVD's,
Oh, so now, in addition to telling me what I
should and shouldn't see, you're telling me what I have and
haven't seen... ?
Yes, they did. From a ZDNet article on the DeCSS decision:
I stand corrected, they should monitor/., you, and ZDNet. What was I thinking?
The actual wording of the DMCA Section 1201 is:
(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not
apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in
a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be
in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such
prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular
class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph
(C).
(C) (rough paraphrase) 'the Librarian of Congress shall set forth rules upon examining:'
(i) the availability for use of copyrighted works ...
(iv) the effect of circumvention of technological measures
on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and
(v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.
Note that a successful prosecution would have to
prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that this is
a non-infringing use (remember, they're not making
more copies than they buy). Of course, all this is presuming that the defense would simply lie down
and play dead on the issue that 1201(A)(1)(A)
applies to controls that facilitate a limitation
of individual access vs those created specifically to prevent otherwise permissable duplication as per the previously cited Congressional summary.
But I'm sure the DoJ, not having your keen legal intellect at their disposal, neglected to willfully ignore the laundry-list of exceptions
to 1201(A).
If only all laws were 5 lines long... then you
would make perfect sense.
I never accused them of anything.
I expressed my belief (as in "I bet") and did not state it as fact.
You said:
I bet that the DVD they write does not include region coding,
meaning that they have violated the DMCA twice!
per se:
I bet XXX, meaning XXX.
e.g. The fact that I bet means they have violated.
That's what your statement says. What you intended is irrelevant. You've put it in writing in a public forum.
What you think you said was: I bet that the DVD they write does not include region coding, which would mean that they would have violated the DMCA twice!
General Reminder: You do not have a God-gven right to entertainment, free, "clean," or otherwise. If you
deem viewing the latest Arnold flick as part of the cultural literacy of your generation, so be it, but there's
only one version of it. Watch it, or don't. THAT is your choice.
So tell me, what AM I doing when I press the mute or FF button? Surely, you're not saying I don't
have the right to do that, are you?
Now let's say I paid someone to sit in the corner and do it for me. What then?
Now let's say I decide to copy my own movie.
I remind you copying my own movie, so long as
I don't redistribute it, falls under fair use.
But while doing so, I edit it, so that I and
my kids don't have to press the FF or mute
buttons while watching it.
So lastly, instead of doing the latter myself,
I pay someone to do it for me.
So Clean Flicks takes a copyrighted DVD, runs DeCSS (or its equivalent) on it to circumvent the
encryption, and then edits the DVD. I bet that the DVD they write does not include region coding, meaning
that they have violated the DMCA twice!
Wow, the DoJ obviously blew it on this one. They oughta monitor/.-- or at least you.
From the Congressional summary of DMCA section
103, adding section 1201 to title 17 of the U.S.
code:
Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that
prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent
unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work.... As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision
prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the
second.
Or perhaps, they can read.
... is your bet admissable as evidence? If not, be careful. Because if you're wrong, you've just accused them of criminal misconduct without a shred of evidence. That's simple libel.
No, and it's kind of scary that you do since you can't seem to understand the following from the CleanFlicks web site:
These edits are for bible thumpers that want to pretend that they are part of mainstream society when everyone at work is discussing movies.
Wow, you're right. I did miss that. Thanks.
What page was that on?
What credentials do you have to decide what scenes and language are "irrelevent."
Simple. I'm the customer. That gives me total,
unbridled control over what I see. Please set
me straight. I'm begging you. Tell me what
to watch. I need direction. Oh wait, lookey
here. I can decide for myself. How nice.
Odd isn't it. You're preaching that everyone
should be able to watch what they want, yet
you're telling me that I MUST WATCH an unedited
movie? Something isn't right here.
I'm not editing a movie for you, I'm DECIDING what edited version
I wish to watch. Isn't that the base argument being made by BOTH sides here?
Everyone watches what they want. This is exactly what this service does. If you want the unedited
version, then press the button for it when you
watch the movie (hence the warning)-- or better yet, just go to Blockbuster. The DVD
you get includes the ENTIRE movie with AND without edits. It's up to the viewer to select the version to be presented to them.
If you can't control your children well enough to allow you to watch a movie in private, then you should have used birth control.
So you presume that I want to see the nudity and hear the foul language too then? Me thinks your recommendation would have been better if someome made it to your parents some time ago.
So how do you just press a button on a VHS deck to choose the version you want to see?
Umm... does your mouse have a button (or have you found it yet)? Let me know if you don't get that.
I can explain it for you more slowly later.
The multi-version DVD is their main product. For tapes, you pick one (with your mouse, get it?).
Oh.
But then, if you wanted an unedited product, you
probably wouldn't be looking at a place that sells movies at 50% over the average price to pay for edits, now would you?
Oh, but then, no one is trying to force you to either.
I've seen news stories on this. I don't know if this is exclusively so, but all the movies features in the stories I've seen were DVD's, so
basically, when you play the DVD, you select the
version you want to see: unedited, PG-13'ized,
PG'ized, G'ized, etc.
In all cases, it's the END USER's choice what
he does and does not want to see.
Do you have kids?
There are a lot of good movies out there that you
just can't show them and the reason you can't
isn't because of the plot, but irrelevant nudity,
language, etc.
No R-rated movies come into our house, but I've
sure been wantin' to see that latest Arnold flick.
Would be nice, since it is MY choice after all, eh?
Then I think that I should be allowed to edit your posts prior to them appearing on Slashdot.
That's just flat stupid. That's not at ALL what
these folks are doing. Why don't you go find
out what's going before making a fool out of
yourself in public? It's more like, "Here's
a movie, press this button for the unedited version,
and this for the one that we edited for your 16 year old,
and this for the one that we edited for your 12 year old..."
The analogy would be more like
people keeping you in a killfile. The unique
point is that they didn't need to manually
build the killfile themselves, but BOUGHT it
from someone else. Plus the seller offered
a selection of killfiles from those that would
cut out various levels of content according to
some preset standard. Imagine that. And all
at the end user's discretion.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignoring the fact that my sarcasm whooshed over your head, I'll simply ask, is this where we measure? Pointless don't you think, since it's simply each person's word? I can make the same statement, but I'll merely point out that I'm not the bonehead who missed the point and instead went into an explanation about how indentation works. If you're going to try to convince someone you're smart, try really hard not to look dumb first. It makes your argument so much more convincing, don't you think?
And if you go any slower, I'll fall asleep
As evidenced by the fact that you took the time to write a 600+ word reply.
>The company is a CO-OP.
No, they are not
http://www.mycleanflicks.com/viewfaq.phtml?7:
Do tell, Einstein.
>This is a very basic point. Every day people press the mute or FF buttons on movies. They must do so manually, and the effect is crude. All this company has done is make that process more efficient.
Untrue. When someone manually fast forwards or mutes dialog, they are aware of it. When Clean Flicks does it, they often are not. The viewer often has no way to know what he/she was missing or even that material was deleted.
But THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO ENTRUST THAT DECISION to someone else. That is within their power. You just don't seem to catching on to that. They choose to get an unedited movie, or one which has been edited. They're not having the edited version crammed down they're throats. But you would have even the power to make that choice taken from them.
>Oh, so now, in addition to telling me what I should and shouldn't see, you're telling me what I have and haven't seen... ?
Still playing games, I see. Why don't you just admit that your comments were based on the incorrect belief that Clean Flicks only rented out DVDs?
We talk about trickery and misleading, but this was the most straightforward comment. I talked about what I had seen in news stories. You then proceeded to tell me that I thought what I had seen was comprehensive no doubt, because that what you would have believed. Wouldn't it be shrewd to conclude that one hasn't learned everything about a subject after seeing a couple news segments? Wouldn't only the less mentally adept presume they know everything about a subject after such little exposure. Apparently, you not only fall into the latter category, but are unwilling to credit other people with the circumspection to do otherwise. Apparently, you just can't believe there are people around smarter than you. Well, that's what you said:
it's VERY unlikely that you are my intellectual equal, much less superior.
-Cengiz
Why? If it's legal for me to do the editing, then it's legal for me to pay someone to do it for me, so long as the copies and original remain in my possession. This is the basis of the fair use clauses in both traditional copyright law and the DMCA.
-Cengiz
Actually, it prevents you from publishing derivative works without their consent. If I own a copy of a movie, I can do whatever I like with it, so long as I don't publish my derivative work.
-Cengiz
I have read their site fairly thoroughly. I see no evidence that they are a co-op
http://www.mycleanflicks.com/viewfaq.phtml?7 reads:
Side note: MyCleanFlicks is the rental side, while CleanFlicks is the sales side.
This is the slippery slope that I see when you allow private firms
And as I said, the point becomes moot when you consider that it's a co-op. Everyone owns the entire rental archive.
As for the sales side, as I asked already, what does happen to your argument once DVD players become sophisticated enough to run complex programs and people start writing one that recognize DVD's and skip over and mute particular scenes on the fly. The program gets sold without any of the actual movie content at all. This is essentially what these guys sell: edits.
-Cengiz
Yes. That falls under fair use.
So now, what if he and I own the title together? Can we agree on a set of edits between the two of us?
Then what if we go in with a couple more friends and buy more titles, and edit them, all for our own use?
Well that's what cleanflicks does. Go read their site. They're a co-op.
Now, I answered all of your questions honestly and fully. I would like you to answer mine:
Fair enough.
1. Do you believe that it is legal for Clean Flicks to edit out scenes and dialog based on consumer demand?
Yes.
2. Do you believe that it is legal for a firm to record sex scenes, scenes of violence, and profane language and edit same into movies that did not have them? For example, could the hypothetical firm edit the Disney movie Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, inserting a new animated scene in which Snow White is gang-banged by the dwarfs, and offer it for rent?
No.
I contend that both uses are analogous.
Two problems with your contention. Of course, the second really makes the first irrelevant anyway, but I'll point it out anyway:
In the long run, I can see a clear path that even if defeated, technology will make cleanflicks basic operation possible. Just like I can sell an overlay mask to cover up certain parts of a picture without ever including any part of the picture itself in what I sell, it would be fairly trivial to create an editing chip or card that will recognize a movie in the DVD player and FF over scene #XYZ, and mute the volume at time index 1:03:05 for .4 seconds, etc. That
program would not need to have ANY of the original
work stored within it. One could argue very easily (more easily than arguing that your contention that subtractive and additive editing are equivalent) that this is essentially what cleanflicks does now.
-Cengiz
NO!!!! The DoJ is!!! (i.e. You are not either.) Get it?!?!?
Sheesh!
I don't know why you are so certain that you understand the DMCA better than I do.
--only that the DoJ does. I wonder why it is that every time an issue like this crops up, armchair lawyers like you come out of the woodwork and tell the people who have devoted 30+ years to interpreting and enforcing these statutes how to do their jobs. Then, when confronted, they look around and see others doing the same, and use this as defense of their actions. It's the old, "everybody's doing it" defense. Brilliant.
Barring some fantastical event, our society will never become entirely elitist OR populist. There will always be elements of both, meaning that the US will never devolve into a monarchy, and that we will never have criminal prosecutions or brain surgery done by committee. We teach, train, educate, and create an elite in whom we place a degree of trust.
The point here isn't whether or not I know it better than you, it's whether you know better than the legion of legal advisors at the DoJ's disposal.
It's like reading one or two magazine articles, then busting into an OR during a surgery to correct the surgeon, using a handful of magazine articles as your evidence.
My point is the simple fact that if I, a non-lawyer, can read the law and pick out a half-dozen rather substantial hurdles to be overcome in the prosecution you suggest, how many more will a seasoned defense attorney with 30 years under his belt find? Now how about a team of a dozen or so of these guys?
It's JUST NOT THAT SIMPLE. In truth, almost nothing ever discussed in forums like this are ever that simple. And that's fine-- it doesn't mean a discussion is pointless-- but the fools are the ones that fail to appreciate that, and that approach the discussion from the "this is all there is to it; it's just that simple" perspective. This demonstrates a fundamental lack of appreciation of the complexities inherent on our system.
And if all laws were interpreted as "rough paraphrase[s]", then you'd be on the Supreme Court.
You obviously have the text handy, read it for yourself. That's why I pointed out that I was paraphrasing. The text I cut out was length, wordy, and not directly applicable. You're obviously running out of things to pick on.
-Cengiz
When? Did he cross the line when I paid him to sit in the corner and press the FF and mute buttons at his discretion? Did he cross the line when he automated the process of FF'ing and muting with a computer program? Or did he only cross it when he REPLACED my legally purchased (and owned by me) copy of the movie?
Don't dodge the question this time.
If I own a copy of a movie, can't I edit it myself?
If so, then can't I pay someone else to edit it for me?
-Cengiz
Blockquotes are indented. My comments are not. That's how Slashdot works.
Apparently I was not explicit enough for you. Sarcasm can be like that sometimes. It's how smart folks condescend (that means, talk down) to people like you, but it sure can leave you spinning if you don't keep your eye on it. Please try to keep up. I'll go slower. You quoted, then you summarized. The problem was that your summary was unsupported by the quote, hence my selectively edited quote pointing this out. Now go reread MY comments and do explain how your bible-thumpers comment is a supportable derivation of their warning.
I never disputed that you have a right to choose what you see. But before you twist that around...
But that's just it, and I'm glad you agree. And that is exactly the service this company is selling. I choose what I want to see and not see. That choice is placed in trust in this company's services.
But before you twist that around, it does not mean that a company can legally alter copyrighted videos as a for-profit venture
But you are intentionally blurring the line between an modified edition and a derivative work. One is primarily characterized by deletions made specifically in such a manner as to preserve the essence of the work, the other additions made specifically to alter that essence. But even THAT is not an issue, since these would be OUR collective works (if I joined). The company is a CO-OP. Everyone owns all the titles, and they all agree to have them edited.
You claimed that kids were the reason for the "no R-rated movies" rule in your house and then when I address that, suddenly the kids are not the reason.
Interesting, so then, it's my fault for tricking you into making a wrongful assumption then...
Where did I say that?
I have no kids. The scendario was a hypothetical one designed to match a broad spectrum (i.e. I figure a fair chunk of their audience is composed of families with children). We do not watch rated R movies in our household (but I figure that puts me in a minority with which you could not identify).
If you are ... then I suggest ....
Oh don't worry, your suggestions will go high on my to-do list.
They rent out VHS tapes, too, and those don't have unedited versions that the user can choose.
So then, if you rent the VHS tape from them, could someone get it NOT KNOWING they're getting an edited version? Are they actively concealing what they do?
The point here is not the mechanism behind their implementation (though the company came into being with the advent of the flxibility of the DVD format), but the very very simple fact that the end user is making a choice to receive an edited title.
This is a very basic point. Every day people press the mute or FF buttons on movies. They must do so manually, and the effect is crude. All this company has done is make that process more efficient.
Instead of pretending you were talking about a mouse button, just be a grown-up and admit that you were wrong when you wrote:
>>all the movies features in the stories I've seen were DVD's,
Oh, so now, in addition to telling me what I should and shouldn't see, you're telling me what I have and haven't seen... ?
-Cengiz
Yes, they did. From a ZDNet article on the DeCSS decision:
I stand corrected, they should monitor /., you, and ZDNet. What was I thinking?
The actual wording of the DMCA Section 1201 is:
(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).
(C) (rough paraphrase) 'the Librarian of Congress shall set forth rules upon examining:'
(i) the availability for use of copyrighted works
(v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.
Note that a successful prosecution would have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that this is a non-infringing use (remember, they're not making more copies than they buy). Of course, all this is presuming that the defense would simply lie down and play dead on the issue that 1201(A)(1)(A) applies to controls that facilitate a limitation of individual access vs those created specifically to prevent otherwise permissable duplication as per the previously cited Congressional summary.
But I'm sure the DoJ, not having your keen legal intellect at their disposal, neglected to willfully ignore the laundry-list of exceptions to 1201(A).
If only all laws were 5 lines long... then you would make perfect sense.
I never accused them of anything. I expressed my belief (as in "I bet") and did not state it as fact.
You said: I bet that the DVD they write does not include region coding, meaning that they have violated the DMCA twice!
per se: I bet XXX, meaning XXX. e.g. The fact that I bet means they have violated.
That's what your statement says. What you intended is irrelevant. You've put it in writing in a public forum.
What you think you said was:
I bet that the DVD they write does not include region coding, which would mean that they would have violated the DMCA twice!
-Cengiz
So tell me, what AM I doing when I press the mute or FF button? Surely, you're not saying I don't have the right to do that, are you?
Now let's say I paid someone to sit in the corner and do it for me. What then?
Now let's say I decide to copy my own movie. I remind you copying my own movie, so long as I don't redistribute it, falls under fair use. But while doing so, I edit it, so that I and my kids don't have to press the FF or mute buttons while watching it.
So lastly, instead of doing the latter myself, I pay someone to do it for me.
So where did I cross the line?
-Cengiz
Wow, the DoJ obviously blew it on this one. They oughta monitor /.-- or at least you.
From the Congressional summary of DMCA section 103, adding section 1201 to title 17 of the U.S. code:
Or perhaps, they can read.
-Cengiz
Wow, you're right. I did miss that. Thanks. What page was that on?
What credentials do you have to decide what scenes and language are "irrelevent."
Simple. I'm the customer. That gives me total, unbridled control over what I see. Please set me straight. I'm begging you. Tell me what to watch. I need direction. Oh wait, lookey here. I can decide for myself. How nice.
Odd isn't it. You're preaching that everyone should be able to watch what they want, yet you're telling me that I MUST WATCH an unedited movie? Something isn't right here.
I'm not editing a movie for you, I'm DECIDING what edited version I wish to watch. Isn't that the base argument being made by BOTH sides here?
Everyone watches what they want. This is exactly what this service does. If you want the unedited version, then press the button for it when you watch the movie (hence the warning)-- or better yet, just go to Blockbuster. The DVD you get includes the ENTIRE movie with AND without edits. It's up to the viewer to select the version to be presented to them.
If you can't control your children well enough to allow you to watch a movie in private, then you should have used birth control.
So you presume that I want to see the nudity and hear the foul language too then? Me thinks your recommendation would have been better if someome made it to your parents some time ago.
So how do you just press a button on a VHS deck to choose the version you want to see? Umm... does your mouse have a button (or have you found it yet)? Let me know if you don't get that. I can explain it for you more slowly later.
The multi-version DVD is their main product. For tapes, you pick one (with your mouse, get it?).
Oh.
But then, if you wanted an unedited product, you probably wouldn't be looking at a place that sells movies at 50% over the average price to pay for edits, now would you?
Oh, but then, no one is trying to force you to either.
-Cengiz
In all cases, it's the END USER's choice what he does and does not want to see.
Do you have kids?
There are a lot of good movies out there that you just can't show them and the reason you can't isn't because of the plot, but irrelevant nudity, language, etc.
No R-rated movies come into our house, but I've sure been wantin' to see that latest Arnold flick. Would be nice, since it is MY choice after all, eh?
Then I think that I should be allowed to edit your posts prior to them appearing on Slashdot.
That's just flat stupid. That's not at ALL what these folks are doing. Why don't you go find out what's going before making a fool out of yourself in public? It's more like, "Here's a movie, press this button for the unedited version, and this for the one that we edited for your 16 year old, and this for the one that we edited for your 12 year old..."
The analogy would be more like people keeping you in a killfile. The unique point is that they didn't need to manually build the killfile themselves, but BOUGHT it from someone else. Plus the seller offered a selection of killfiles from those that would cut out various levels of content according to some preset standard. Imagine that. And all at the end user's discretion.
-Cengiz
#!/bin/sh /dev/hda??
fsck -y
Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc. - Expert webhosting since 1994
http://netmar.com/