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 ...
Admittedly that was a pretty stupid line. However I don't think it would have been rated G regardless because of the traumatic elements.
"I wonder if those places that sell pre-Customed vehicles have liscencing arrangements. I've also never heard of a problem with reselling an altered vehicle as long as it passes state safety requirements and is noted as being altered.
"
Automobiles are not protected under the copyright laws. That's the bottom line. Check your car's warranty. Modifications you make to the car may void your warranty. Customizing a car is not a violation of copyright laws because cars are not protected under those laws.
"Cars are not copyright protected."
They have intellectual property rights and are in fact protected. Again, a failed argument.
So you would be OK with these companies' original business model where a customer purchases a movie, mails it in, asks for specific cuts, and gets it back cut the way he/she wants?
Are you sure? They are certainly patented out the wazoo.
" It is a winner and the vast majority of families in this country will be for it.
"
No, it is not a winner. The basis for the copyright and patent laws are in the Constitution. You can't just "pass a law."
Besides, pass that law, and I promise that someone will turn Bambi into a porn film, and there will be no protection for Bambi or it's owners. Copyright laws have reason behind them. If you don't like a film or book, don't see the film or read the book.
No it is not a winner. More laws are not needed to tell parents how to raise their children...in fact more laws are the LAST thing on earth we need.
Copyright Laws actually predate The Constitution going back to English Common Law.
"Are you sure? They are certainly patented out the wazoo."
Yup. There's no copyright on a car. You'll find a copyright notice in the owner's manual, though, but it only covers the manual.
Check it out.
In the vast majority of movies out today, the only redeaming features are the sex and violence!
In a related note, I just saw a movie that's absolutely terrific, although it's for adults, and deals with adult topics. "Must Love Dogs" was a terrific "couples" movie. OK, John Cusak has some stinky political views, but I've had a serious crush on Diane Lane since... Forever!
Plus, a costar is a Newfie!
Mark
"Copyright Laws actually predate The Constitution going back to English Common Law.
"
Indeed they do, but they're reiterated in the Constitution.
Matsch, Richard Paul
Born 1930 in Burlington, IA
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Colorado
Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on January 31, 1974, to a seat vacated by Olin H. Chilson; Confirmed by the Senate on March 1, 1974, and received commission on March 8, 1974. Served as chief judge, 1994-2000. Assumed senior status on July 1, 2003.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, District of Colorado, 1973-1974
Education:
University of Michigan, A.B., 1951
University of Michigan Law School, J.D., 1953
Professional Career:
U.S. Army, 1953-1955
Private practice, Denver, Colorado, 1956-1959
Assistant U.S. attorney, District of Colorado, 1959-1961
Deputy city attorney, City and County of Denver, Colorado, 1961-1963
Private practice, Denver, Colorado, 1963-1965
Referee in bankruptcy, District of Colorado, 1965-1973
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
No, it is not a winner. The basis for the copyright and patent laws are in the Constitution. You can't just "pass a law."
You don't know beans about copyright law if you think it would be unconstitutional to pass a law concerning copyrights. And your certainly don't know anything about politics if you think this is not a winning issue for republicans.
Yes, if there was no provision in the law allowing them to do it, unless their "cutting" was telling the copyright holder what he had to do to his own film before it could be released.
The copyright violation would appear to be ANYTIME you rent a DVD to someone else.
Nope. Rental outlets have a license to rent the movies (the movies, not unauthorized edits of them).
How many stores get "authorization" to rent titles?
All of them, unless they're operating illegally. They pay a high per-copy price for that privilege. That's why replacement costs for lost movies are higher than what you'd pay to purchase a movie at the local store.
But it's a red herring argument because that's different than what you're trying to support with it.
If a person rips a DVD, edits it, then re-authors the DVD they are breaking the law.
If they charge someone money to do it, they are breaking the law.
Bottom line, what's being done is NOT simple editing. The companies (AKA Hackers) that are doing this are going out of their way to bypass copy protections built into the DVD (a violation of the law), duplicating the original DVD (another violation) converting the MPEG streams into a form they can edit (another violation) altering those streams (another violation) re-authoring the DVD, using some original elements (graphics for menus, etc) re-encoding (most likely doing a piss poor job of it with some cheap-cheesy software only encoder) then reburning the DVD, most likely with NO copy protections, or region codes, and then selling the resulting DVDs to their clients (another violation)
IMHO, the ONLY difference between people who do this, and the schmucks that sneak video cameras into a movie theater so they can sell bootleg copies of movies, is the holier than thou speeches about "Doing it for the Children".
Good Ruling! Now prosecute!
No (at least realistically, not the overly restrictive licensing the studios want). But it does protect from that end user redistributing the derivative work.
Sure you can. Under the Constitution, copyrights and patents are, ultimately, a gift given by the good grace of the Congress (which is given the power to grant such monopolies, but is not required to do so), not a matter of right.
Whether or not it's good public policy to expressly add such a loophole to the exclusivity granted to copyright holders is an ordinary political question, not a Constitutional-law question.
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.