Posted on 07/10/2006 8:14:23 AM PDT by steve-b
Deleting swearing, sex and violence from films on DVD or VHS violates copyright laws, a U.S. judge has ruled in a decision that could end controversial sanitizing done for some video-rental chains, cable services and the internet.
The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought by 16 U.S. directors — including Steven Spielberg, Robert Redford and Martin Scorsese — against three Utah-based companies that "scrub" films.
Judge Richard P. Matsch decreed on Thursday in Denver, Colo., that sanitizing movies to delete content that may offend some people is an "illegitimate business."
The judge also praised the motives of the Hollywood studios and directors behind the suit, ordering the companies that provide the service to hand over their inventories....
(Excerpt) Read more at cbc.ca ...
JUST FYI (exerpting is not always bad)
(b) EXEMPTION FROM TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT.--Section 32
of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1114) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3)(A) Any person who engages in the conduct described in
paragraph (11) of section 110 of title 17, United States Code, and
who complies with the requirements set forth in that paragraph
S. 167--7
is not liable on account of such conduct for a violation of any
right under this Act. This subparagraph does not preclude liability,
nor shall it be construed to restrict the defenses or limitations
on rights granted under this Act, of a person for conduct not
described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of title 17, United States
Code, even if that person also engages in conduct described in
paragraph (11) of section 110 of such title.
``(B) A manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that
enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content
of a motion picture imperceptible as described in subparagraph
(A) is not liable on account of such manufacture or license for
a violation of any right under this Act, if such manufacturer,
licensee, or licensor ensures that the technology provides a clear
and conspicuous notice at the beginning of each performance that
the performance of the motion picture is altered from the perform-
ance intended by the director or copyright holder of the motion
picture. The limitations on liability in subparagraph (A) and this
subparagraph shall not apply to a manufacturer, licensee, or
licensor of technology that fails to comply with this paragraph.
``(C) The requirement under subparagraph (B) to provide notice
shall apply only with respect to technology manufactured after
the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the enact-
ment of the Family Movie Act of 2005.
Ha! Bravo.
If you bought a designer suit and hired a tailor to hem the slacks for you, should Armani have a case to sue?
Once you pay for the item, it's yours to change any way you wish, IMO. As long as your hypothetical designer clothing alteration business didn't attempt to pass the clothes off as original, unaltered work, I see absolutely no problem with that at all.
These businesses clearly and openly altered the content of individual copies of movies. They didn't try to deceive customers into thinking they were selling the original work of the studios. Every copy sold came from a separate, legal copy.
In addition, these same studios regularly do the very same thing to their own movies in order to show them on network television. If the practice is so patently offensive to them on an artistic level, why regularly eviscerate their own work?
I don't see a violation.
Mine only lasted for 17 seconds.
B I N G O! The remaining question would be, who did the cleaning. Hopefully the lawyers for the defense are as smart as you on this one. Precedence has meaning.
From a legal standpoint, that's precisely what these businesses do. Every copy they sell has a legal, original copy either behind it, or sold with it. (Don't know which for sure.)
There's another thread on this topic, with a huge # of posts, and it was dismaying to see people so willing to blow off the law, as long as it was something THEY thought was okay. Copyright law applies whether you like the people who produced the content or not. A nuisance, I know, but there it is.
ghost monkey wrote "Liberaltarian", not "libertarian". I suspect he/she meant there to be a difference between the two words.
What, exactly, is your point? Is this just free-form insult and mockery time, or do you have something meaningful to say?
What if, instead of editing the movie, the company offered a digital sequence that would be input (somehow) into your DVR that told the DVR what timeslices to skip and where to insert "bleeps" or other editing techniques? A person would buy the un-edited version of the movie and play it "using" the on-the-fly editing technique. It would be somewhat like using a DVR to skip commercials.
Apparently I don't understand it. I thought once I bought a legal copy of a movie, I was free to play and edit it as I wish. It seems I am not.
"Remix" audiotapes have existed for decades.
Too late to claim it is criminal now.
The musicians will even slip some exclusive cuts (in violation of their own contracts) to hip producers/DJs.
You are, certainly, with your individual copy. What these companies did was to alter content without the permission of the copyright holder, for resale purposes. Paying for a copy of the original doesn't cover the businesses in this case, since permission was never obtained.
The obligatory "roll in the hay" scene in almost every movie is a big pet peeve of mine. They seldom do anything whatsoever to advance the plot. They are so interchangeable you could generally intercut one from a different movie and nobody would notice.
I wonder if the case went to court as a means to test the law? Most of these companies, if not all, require the customer to purchase the video, then they "clean" it up for the customer. As for rentals, same deal. The company buys the video, then "cleans" it up. The companies can make the case that it is simply providing a service for it's customers. I don't know if that was the argument being made, but whatever it was, this judge didn't buy it.
A solution is for the companies to pay the copyright holders. There is money to be made, why not?
These guys are nuts. Don't they realize they'll sell fewer movies if they refuse to allow the 'scrubbing'?
When states had official censor boards (and Baltimore had one that DID cut films into the 1980s and England STILL cuts films although their bans seem to be lifting), did they "violate copyright"?
The copyright violation would appear to be ANYTIME you rent a DVD to someone else. Read the opening screen. How many stores get "authorization" to rent titles?
"We're disappointed," said Ray Lines, the head of CleanFlicks. "This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight."
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.