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 ...
This was apparently what this case involved. Copyright holders routinely grant permission (for a fee) to abridge their works but get madder than a wet hen about those doing it sans permission (or fee).
The TV stations are given permission to edit it from the studio.
"This goes beyond politics. Legislating little nooks and crannies paves the way for doing away with copyright altogether."
I highly doubt that. I keep hearing the same lame arguments why it should not be allowed, but when you transfer those arguments to other products (buying a car and modifying it), the arguments fall flat on their face because it is bad logic.
Actualy finger painting sound intriguing...LOL
Probably, it would depend on how they present and advertise the service. If they present it as "let us clean up your movies for you" they'd be OK, but if they presented it as "get cleaned up movies here" there could still be troubles. When navigating through legal loopholes it's important to respect the stuff around the loophole.
To quote Animal House, "Forget it.... he's rollin'....!"
Well, you have to have SOME standards!
It's not rocket science. It's also NOT the law you said should be passed.
That's because the car example is the same as "your personal copy for fair use". If you start modifying all the cars you can, that's a problem. Your own is fair game.
Right. E-mail Mr. Rove with that idea, and let us know what he says. We'll wait here. ;-D
With a car the difference is that the person modifying it isn't making a copy of it.
That is exactly what Clear Play machines do. They are wonderful. I use the full set of filters when my children are watching, and just a few when I watch.
The entire concept of copyright is that it is easier and cheaper to duplicate a work than it is to come up with the work in the first place, and thus to encourage innovation, the original innovator's investment is protected from mass production of their works wherein they are not compensated. Buying and editing a work, where the originator is compensated for their product, and the editor compensated for their work, is entirely in keeping with the concept of copyright.
"It's not rocket science. It's also NOT the law you said should be passed."
I am in favor of passing a law to allow it. However, if one really wanted to stay within the current law (which is that I can buy a car and take it to someone to alter it), then I say just have places where people can buy a DVD and have it altered on the spot. You were the one who pointed out that the law only allows the buyer to alter it AFTER they buy it. That is when I came back with it is not rocket science to simply buy it and have it altered on the spot.
Down at the XXX video rental a lot, huh?
"With a car the difference is that the person modifying it isn't making a copy of it."
Well, then don't make a copy of it. Simple as that.
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.