Axing Sex, Swearing From Films Violates Copyright: Court

CBC ^

[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....

[discostu]

That's AFTER they buy the product. That's not the same thing. Sure when you own a licensed copyright to a CD you can modify it, but stores selling CDs don't own a licensed copyright to it, the license transfers straight from the primary copyright holder to the end buyer, those are the only two people that can modify it. Once you open the door to any seller or distributor being able to modify things without the primary holder's permission or even awareness you've just ended any useful concept of copyright.

[dfwgator]

So a movie can be edited and cleaned up for broadcast on network TV, but not for sale as a DVD or tape?

They get permission to do so from the copyright holders.

[TChris]

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.

I think this response makes the most sense of anything I've read so far. Thanks for hanging in there with me. :-)

So, it would seem that the same store could, in theory, have a video sales department selling unmodified copies of movies, and an editing department where new owners of those movies could submit them for an editing service, and avoid legal issues.

[bigdcaldavis]

You don't have the right to not be offended.

Tell that to the ADL. I guarantee you would be labeled a Nazi.

You do have the right to supervise what your kids (and yourself) do and do not watch on TV.

Tell THAT to communist/socialist groups who think banning kids from buying booze and porn is "unconstitutional age discrimination". Again, you would be label a Nazi.

[Hendrix]

The more the republicans paint the democrats as anti-family, the more the republicans win. Legislation that allows parents to buy cleaned up videos is a winner. If you don't see that then you don't know much.

[MineralMan]

"How do you figure? A person doesn't have the right to censor their own, legal copy of a movie?

That's all these businesses do. You buy a legal copy of the movie and they perform the service of removing the offensive content for you. Just how, praytell, does that violate copyright law by any stretch of the law or imagination?"

---

Actually, that's not what they do. They make a copy of the film, after editing it. Yes, they paid for the original copy.

However, copyright means exactly right. The owner of a copyright in an original work gets to control how the work is copied. That's where the copy part comes in, you see.

These guys are bowdlerizing someones work. If you don't know what that means, look up bowdlerize in Google. That is a violation of copyright.

The creator of a work, or his assigns, have the legal right to control the reproduction of that work. Period. No question about it. You have the right to purchase that work, if you wish, but you do not have the right to change it, copy it, then sell it again.

[lepton]

The court ruled that you cannot appropriate copyright intellectual property, make changes to suit your personal tastes without the copyright owner's permission, and resell it for money.

So...those guys who custom redo cars are committing the same violation?

[discostu]

It depends on how they were doing it. If there was a on-for-one on copies they bought and distributed they would have been OK, if not they were in violation.

[MineralMan]

"Because they are charging fees for it and therefore profit from the original work. If they did it for free then the studios would not have a case."

---

Not so. See my message just above.

[A. Goodwin]

That's one of my Cardinal rules: never paint clothes on a nude!

One exception: unless you're using edible body paint...

[colorado tanker]

I am very curious to know who appointed this liberal to the bench.

From the Rocky Mountain News article's quotation from the opinion:

"The accused parties make much of their public policy argument and have submitted many communications from viewers expressing their appreciation for the opportunity to view movies in the setting of the family home without concern for any harmful effects on their children," Matsch wrote.

"This argument is inconsequential to copyright law and is addressed in the wrong forum. This court is not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works.

"What is protected are the creator's rights to protect its creation in the form in which it was created."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4830375,00.html

Matsch is a highly respected judge. His politics are largely unknown, because he keeps them out of the courtroom. This opinion is an example of judicial restraint. What he is saying, is my opinion about whether what you are doing is right or wrong is irrelevant. If you want to change the copyright laws, don't ask this court to do it, get the legislature to change the law. I wish we had more judges like him.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No.

No.

No.

Yes.

If it is reintroduced into the Market it would be a violation. Your personal use is protected.

[Hendrix]

"That's AFTER they buy the product. That's not the same thing. Sure when you own a licensed copyright to a CD you can modify it, but stores selling CDs don't own a licensed copyright to it, the license transfers straight from the primary copyright holder to the end buyer, those are the only two people that can modify it. Once you open the door to any seller or distributor being able to modify things without the primary holder's permission or even awareness you've just ended any useful concept of copyright."

It is not rocket science to have places that will modify your purchased DVD after you have bought it. In other words, I go into a shop buy the DVD and immediately hand it back to them for sanitation.

[SerpentDove]

I'm sure HH's language was salty,

But the way the word "G-D-" was used over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, in a way I have never heard in real life (and I have been on this planet quite a while) struck me as gratuitous a Hollyweird attack on "religion."

Disagree if you like. I maintain my opinion.

[bigdcaldavis]

The edited 'Glengarry Glen Ross' is a hoot!

Not as big a hoot as the edited "Porky's".

Original version

Balbricker : That penis had a mole on it.

Edited version

Balbricker : That tongue had a mole on it.

[Borges]

This goes beyond politics. Legislating little nooks and crannies paves the way for doing away with copyright altogether. You can't just make an exception for movies.

[TChris]

If it is reintroduced into the Market it would be a violation. Your personal use is protected.

This makes sense.

I just love the educational power of FR. :-)

[linda_22003]

I'm aware of that, but the Republicans are not going to do battle with the whole body of copyright law just to appear pro-family.

[bigdcaldavis]

"Flip you, melonfarmer!"

Farm you, melonflipper! :)

[MineralMan]

"Oh wait they are "the big networks" not some "religious" group this dosen't apply to them.
"

Uh, the networks get permission from the copyright holder to edit those films. In fact, the copyright holder generally does it for them. Money changes hands, and the copyright holder gives permission.