Skip to comments.
Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films
AP ^
| Saturday July 8, 9:52 pm
Posted on 07/08/2006 9:24:52 PM PDT by BenLurkin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 701-712 next last
To: Republican Wildcat
NO! It is not legal for you to produce and distribute altered versions of copyrighted works. Circle, circle, circle... So cite the law that says I can't sell to a third person a book in which I have marked certain words out.
341
posted on
07/09/2006 2:08:21 AM PDT
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: BigSkyFreeper
What your talking about is "personal use". If you have no intent on selling, then you're not breaking any laws. There is no difference. For example, part of my company involves rescue equipment. For some specialized products, we buy an original item, it is modified, and then resold. We are not violating any laws since we are not creating a protected item from scratch and are not depriving the original manufacturer of profit. There is no difference between this and motion pictures.
342
posted on
07/09/2006 2:08:52 AM PDT
by
killjoy
(Dirka dirka mohammed jihad! Sherpa sherpa bakalah!)
To: FreedomCalls
It is a violation of copyright law. And yes, copyright law does, in fact, exist.
I guess you could try to pass it off as being "damaged" - a la a used college textbook that has highlighting and notations in it - although that was not your intent, as you admitted here.
To: Republican Wildcat; killjoy
You got it. Of course, he has yet to cite any such law, just his opinion. Opinions and $4.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
344
posted on
07/09/2006 2:10:16 AM PDT
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: killjoy
Upgrading equipment and altering a movie aren't the same thing. If you presented yourself as the original developer of the item, however, and put it into production violating any patents, you probably would be in trouble, but again, that is an entirely different issue.
To: BigSkyFreeper
You purchased a right to view the movie, you didn't purchase the right to alter someone else's work without their permission. Wow. So in the privacy of my own home, I cannot mark in a book I bought. I cannot splice a VHS tape that broke lest a millisecond of material drop out without the studio's permission. I cannot deface any IP that is not my own.
The truth is, none of that is true. For you have never heard of "fair use."
346
posted on
07/09/2006 2:14:47 AM PDT
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: killjoy
For example, part of my company involves rescue equipment.Irrelevant. That falls under patent protection.
347
posted on
07/09/2006 2:15:01 AM PDT
by
BigSkyFreeper
(There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
To: FreedomCalls
Of course, he has yet to cite any such law, just his opinion. Opinions and $4.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Law is not opinion, and we have cited copyright an enormous amount of times here. If I'm misinterpreting the application of copyrights, then state how I am doing so. So far you won't even admit copyrights even exist. You are simply making things up as you go along.
To: FreedomCalls
Wow. So in the privacy of my own home, I cannot mark in a book I bought. I cannot splice a VHS tape that broke lest a millisecond of material drop out without the studio's permission. I cannot deface any IP that is not my own.I already told you you can do whatever the hell you want with it, you can't sell it. Stick with the topic at hand. Copyright laws. IP addresses are not copyrighted, nor are they there for you to do whatever you want with them if you aren't the owner.
349
posted on
07/09/2006 2:17:04 AM PDT
by
BigSkyFreeper
(There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
To: FreedomCalls
You are now diliberately chaning the context of the discussion and refuting a point that was not made. I thought this was supposed to be a serious discussion, but it is becoming increasingly apparent you are just playing games..."let's see how much I can confuse them and get a kick out of how they respond." Are you 12, or is that high balling it? Find something better to do with your time.
To: FreedomCalls
The truth is, none of that is true. For you have never heard of "fair use."Fair use is an entirely different kettle of fish, and has NOTHING to do with the subject matter you initially brought up.
You're either deliberately obtuse or ignorant of Copyright Laws.
351
posted on
07/09/2006 2:21:00 AM PDT
by
BigSkyFreeper
(There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
To: Republican Wildcat
Upgrading equipment and altering a movie aren't the same thing. If you presented yourself as the original developer of the item, however, and put it into production violating any patents, you probably would be in trouble, but again, that is an entirely different issue. Please explain how it is different.
352
posted on
07/09/2006 2:23:42 AM PDT
by
killjoy
(Dirka dirka mohammed jihad! Sherpa sherpa bakalah!)
To: killjoy
The reason for copyright law is to ensure the copyright holder of being able to profit from their work.No. The purpose of copyright and patent law, as laid out in the US Constitution, is to reserve exclusive rights for a limited time so as to encourage the useful arts. Profit is one of the reasons for that protection, but not the only one. If an artist can retain control over his creation, more artists will have more incentive to create. That serves the public good.
If no loss of money occurs, no laws are broken.
Um, because you made that up? If I steal your car and leave a check for its market value, was there no crime? I'm flabbergasted that you can make this argument with (as far as ASCII can tell) a straight face.
To: killjoy
As I said, it isn't a matter of copyrights, but one of patents. Two entirely different issues.
To: Strategerist
"This is such an obviously correct ruling it's hard to wrap my mind around the mindset of someone that thinks it isn't.
"
Oh really?
A hot rod car manufacturer buys a 2006 Chevy Suburban 2500 3/4 ton 4x4 painted red.
He replaces the Frame with a square aluminum magnesium custom job, The body is replaced with a Polycarbonate and Graphite substitute. He puts in a 527 cubic in supercharged GM Big Block, 1 Ton Rear End with 3.93 gears, Air Locker in the front and rear, 35 inch Baja Mudders, Aluminum rims, B&M Hi-Performance Automatic Transmission. Extra fuel cells, then he sends to Texas and has a Threat level III Armor kit installed. And I have it painted Sea Foam..Custom Leather Interior, add on a gen set and auxillary air conditioning unit, Basically, Just they way I like it, a virtually completly replaced vehicle.
Using you logic if Iunderstand you right. The Hot rodder should be forced to turn over the Suburban to the Manufacturer because it was modified from his original design and presentation.
Silly idea isn't it....
The Video Hot Rodder sees a pornographic piece of trash and buys the CD so he has purchased a legitimate license to possess. He now soups it up, cleaning up the trashy lines and re-manufactures the product to my specs.
Now for those who are really idiots and say well you still have a Suburban in the first instance he could even integrate some physical properties from the original disk by applying powdered residue from the original disk onto the label area of the new one.
W
355
posted on
07/09/2006 2:28:35 AM PDT
by
WLR
("fugit impius nemine persequente iustus autem quasi leo confidens absque terrore erit")
To: ReignOfError
No. The purpose of copyright and patent law, as laid out in the US Constitution, is to reserve exclusive rights for a limited time so as to encourage the useful arts. Profit is one of the reasons for that protection, but not the only one. If an artist can retain control over his creation, more artists will have more incentive to create. That serves the public good. Of course. Nobody is arguing that they should be deprived of exclusive rights. The argument is if it is legal to modify an item after it is legally purchased.
Um, because you made that up? If I steal your car and leave a check for its market value, was there no crime? I'm flabbergasted that you can make this argument with (as far as ASCII can tell) a straight face.
Incredibly bad example of a strawman argument.
356
posted on
07/09/2006 2:28:50 AM PDT
by
killjoy
(Dirka dirka mohammed jihad! Sherpa sherpa bakalah!)
To: killjoy
Please explain how it is different.That was explained upthread. If I created a gadget for use on a motorcycle and sold that gadget to Harley-Davidson for them to add to their line of motorcycles, that's perfectly legal, because that's a business to business sale, and my patent and copyright is not being infringed upon. If I altered their logo, or they altered mine that's not legal. They own that logo, and I own mine. That's why, when you look in my parents car, the car radio has a BOSE logo on it, becaus BOSE made that radio and sold it to Cadillac to install in their cars.
357
posted on
07/09/2006 2:33:35 AM PDT
by
BigSkyFreeper
(There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
To: BenLurkin
When I was in Vietnam, all of our movies were edited to remove sex scenes and anti-religious scenes. Rosemary's Baby only lasted 45 minutes.
358
posted on
07/09/2006 2:34:06 AM PDT
by
JoeGar
To: BenLurkin
But all airline films are cut so not to offend.
Some television movies are too.
This isn't about property rights, this is about shoving their values down our throats.
359
posted on
07/09/2006 2:50:39 AM PDT
by
Chickensoup
(The water in the pot is getting warmer, froggies.The water in the pot is getting warmer, froggies.)
To: killjoy
Of course. Nobody is arguing that they should be deprived of exclusive rights. The argument is if it is legal to modify an item after it is legally purchased.The question is what has been legally purchased. Intellectual property is not an instinctively easy concept. If I buy a DVD, I can treat that disc in any way I see fit. I can toss it in the microwave, throw it as a Frisbee in the park, glue cork to the bottom and use it as a coaster, or load it into a skeet launcher and fire a 12-gauge at it.
No one is arguing that it should be illegal to skip scenes or mute dirty words on a DVD. I have every right, as the buyer of a book, to skip over page 212.
But if you sell or distribute the movie without those scenes, if you sell your version of the book with page 212 ripped out, you are selling something that does not belong to you. You are stealing the fruits of someone else's labor and twisting someone else's efforts to your ends.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 701-712 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson