I don't get it. What's being "stolen" here? After I buy a book, DVD, or other copyrighted work, it's mine to deface as I see fit is it not?
Posted on 07/08/2006 9:24:52 PM PDT by BenLurkin
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Sanitizing movies on DVD or VHS tape violates federal copyright laws, and several companies that scrub films must turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios, an appeals judge ruled.
Editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an "illegitimate business" that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights, said U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch in a decision released Thursday in Denver.
"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection."
Matsch ordered the companies named in the suit, including CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms, to stop "producing, manufacturing, creating" and renting edited movies. The businesses also must turn over their inventory to the movie studios within five days of the ruling.
"We're disappointed," CleanFlicks chief executive Ray Lines said. "This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight."
CleanFlicks produces and distributes sanitized copies of Hollywood films on DVD by burning edited versions of movies onto blank discs. The scrubbed films are sold over the Internet and to video stores.
As many as 90 video stores nationwide -- about half of them in Utah -- purchase movies from CleanFlicks, Lines said. It's unclear how the ruling may effect those stores.
The controversy began in 1998 when the owners of Sunrise Family Video began deleting scenes from "Titanic" that showed a naked Kate Winselt.
The scrubbing caused an uproar in Hollywood, resulting in several lawsuits and countersuits.
Directors can feel vindicated by the ruling, said Michael Apted, president of the Director's Guild of America.
"Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor," he said.
It doesn't matter, they are altering a copyrighted work and selling and distributing it.
You can do whatever you wish to a college text book or to a hillary book. What you cannot do is alter or change the materials such that it would affect the copyright and sell or distribute the altered version. Its theft of intellectual property.
No one is forcing you to force your kids to watch that "perverse dreck". If you're paying to watch that "perverse dreck", that's your fault and not Hollyweird's.
Can I pay someone to make the alterations for me in a book I've already purchased?
It didn't stop the Big 3 from taking Preston Tuckers ideas.
OK, I will. I did show design work for Disney and Universal in the early 90's and learned the hard way that they make their own rules through the power of puppet governments.
That is not what you said.
Technically if you get a toyota and alter the trademarks and logos to make it be a Honda, then you are breaking the law, but I doubt the company would take action.
Ever see the famous Disney Orgy drawing? The guy who published that lost his case.
Hollywood is Hollywood. It's always made moral movies and immoral movies. It's always been a grab bag. Theater was the same way, but Hollywood is an easy target because of the actors' behavior and perceived financial excess. In reality, actors have always been a bit screwy and Hollywood is mostly a middleclass business.
Ah, I see.
So, let’s say I purchase a run-down house and pay the owner fair market value. After closing, I decide to renovate the house. However, the old owner doesn’t like my taste in architecture, so gets to veto my renovation.
Sounds like you are advocating harsh restrictions on a property owners right to make alterations to their property. Am I mistaken?
The article does not explain it well, but I think what this outfit does is buy a DVD, then re-sell it as a sanitized version, so there is no net royalty loss for the hollywood freaks.
There is a movie somewhat along that vein, it's called Jesus Christ Superstar.
Try answering back when you have young children.
OK, I will. I did show design work for Disney and Universal in the early 90's...
You have my sympathies for having worked for Mousewitz. Like they used to say, If you don't show up early on Saturday morning, don't even bother coming in Sunday.
For air. Not for sale. Their call, whether you agree with it or not.
Architects don't copyright their houses or disallow buyers to make modifications.
Apples and oranges.
If you create a "widget" that specifically fits Harley motorcycles and market the product as a Harley part, Harley will come down on you like a ton of bricks and eat your first born.
But if you state the 'widget' "FITS" Harley motorcycles you can stay fat and happy. :-)
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html
WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?
Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:
literary works;
musical works, including any accompanying words
dramatic works, including any accompanying music
pantomimes and choreographic works
pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
motion pictures and other audiovisual works
sound recordings
architectural works
These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."
The debate, at this point, is not about intellectual property. The debate centers on what rights you have when you purchase a DVD. Are you buying a license or are you buying a material item? If you are only buying a license, you are correct. If on the other hand, you are buying a material item, in this case a single physical version of the item in question, then you are wrong.
If in fact you are buying a license, when is this license agreed to? Did I sign a license agreement when I purchased it? Was there some sort of "By opening this CD you agree to these terms of use" sticker on it? No. If it is simply a material item, it is no different than modifying a car.
I don't get it. What's being "stolen" here? After I buy a book, DVD, or other copyrighted work, it's mine to deface as I see fit is it not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.