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 ...
I used to work for a company that did video duplication. The way it was explained to me was; if the material was copyrighted, we could not duplicate it without authorization from the copyright holder. Even if you make a copy and then hire someone to edit it, they would still be duplicating copyrighted material.
Have you ever heard the stories of how Howard Hughes spoke? He was no Sunday School teacher.
So, legally speaking, everything would be A-OK if the customer first bought a copy of the unedited movie, then stepped over into a different line in the same store to submit that copy to the editing department, to be picked up in a few hours? That way, the legal owner of the movie would be asking for the service.
If that's the case, what a screwed up system. The actions are all exactly the same, performed by the same actors, just shifted in time a bit.
And that's why we're a republic and not a democracy, sometimes the majority misses the larger issues, in this case copyright ownership. Once you open the door to anybody making an edit of a movie to remove what they consider to be offensive you've just destroyed the entire concept of copyright, no artist really owns anything they do anymore because it's all open to editing by anybody.
If there's a market for sanitized movies then let the copyright owners edit it and distribute that, along with their other special editions. It shouldn't be open to any seller.
* chuckle *
Amusing, but misses the point.
But the public doesn't own the property......the studio/director/producer/whoever does. It is private property, until such time as someone purchases it, then and only then, are they free to do with it as they wish....which does not include renting or reselling it for a profit, as this ruling rightly shows.
Good explanation, and a good reason that Karl Rove will definitely NOT be listening or acting on this as a "family" issue.
The judge made the right decision. It is clearly a copyright violation to edit a movie and sell the edited movie without the permission of that movie's copyright owner. If you don't want you or your kids to see such content, just don't allow it in the home at all. Parents who rely on such things just give credence to the nanny state's argument of "We know what's best for your kids better than you do".
Copyrighted materials are protected from unauthorized changes and use. Simple stuff.
I watched a network broadcase of BS once, (think it was NBC). They got to the part where one guy tells Cleavon Little, "Everybody thought you was hung", and he says "And they was RIGHT!". I still don't know how that got past the censors.
I once bought a sanitized Eddie murphy video.
it was 3 minutes long. . .
/grin
Preceisely.
A tape like that would indeed consist mostly of Eddie grinning.
It's not just a matter of shifting time, it's a matter of who owns what when. Ownership is and always will be 9/10 of the law, you're not allowed to modify that which you do not own, and within the distribution structure of copyrighted material the store doesn't own it while they're trying to sell it (they own the physical copy, but not the copyrighted material on it). It's not screwed up, it's just complicated.
Not really so simple, if you read the other discussions we have ongoing.
Is it a violation of copyright law for me to tear pages out of the paperback I just bought?
Is it a violation for me to pay someone else to tear pages out of the same book?
Is it a violation for me to pay the book store to tear pages out of the book at the time I purchase it?
If hundreds of customers regularly want the same book with the same pages torn out of it, is it a violation of copyright law for the book store to simply keep copies of the book available for sale with the pages already torn out?
Well, TV changes movie content all the time, for viewing on the networks. You will never see certain films in their entirety on commercial TV. That said, in theory it is wrong to tinker with the content of a film, just as it would be a book. I hate siding with Hollywood liberals...
You can't second-hand DVDs? There are numerous places here that buy and sell used DVDs. How is that a copyright violation? Are used book stores in the same category?
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.