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 ...
Modification of copyrighted material already gets used to not pay people for it. Just earlier this year some CD (I forget which one, some band I don't like) was re-issued for an anniversary edition, inbetween when the album first came out and this anniversary edition the original drummer had left the band and angered the other members so for the re-issue they deleted his drum tracks and had someone else redo them all, end result is he doesn't get any royalties for the re-issue CD because he doesn't appear on it. Once you allow anybody to modify copyrighted material before the sale then the question of who gets paid becomes wide open.
That's reasonable. It's up to the people who make the movies to decide. If they allow cleaner versions to be adapted, they broaden their potential audience. If they are satisfied whith less market, that should be their choice.
As long as all temporary copies are deleted so there's no element of redistribution then there's no problem. Once you own a legal copyright to the material what you do with it, as long as it's not unlicensed distribution, is your business.
"But it's a red herring argument because that's different than what you're trying to support with it."
What is a red herring argument? You use the word "it's". What are you referring to?
Er, no. If I'm running a video store in Badtasteville with a rental license for two dozen copies of Leonard: Part 6 and Joe Blow just can't bear to part with his copy and fails to return it, I still have the license, and can bring my count back up to twenty-four by acquiring another copy without any new license payment. If I bill Joe Blow a premium over and above the purchase price, that's a separate issue (and had better be in the rental agreement).
"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.
"
While you are technically correct, the likelihood of Congress passing such a law is miniscule, at best. The Constitution intended that the work of artists and inventors be protected from unauthorized copying.
That's the bottom line. Yes, the Congress might have the authority to set the limits to that protection, and they have done so, many times. Most recently, it was to extend that protection far beyond the lifetime of the original artist, in the case of copyright.
I'm quite certain that there is no will in Congress to dilute copyright law to the degree being discussed. As I pointed out, if a third party can remove or edit some parts of a work, then redistribute it, that editing could also be to add something to the work. Perhaps a scene of a buck rutting with Bambi's Mom would be something that could be inserted. Since the film is animated, a good animation studio could do the job, copying the style of that Disney film. Then, they could edit the scene in and make new copies of the film.
Or, perhaps, someone could edit "The Passion of Christ," substituting English dialog into it. That dialog could pretty much say whatever the editor wished, even blasphemous dialog.
That's why we have copyright laws...to prevent such abuses against works of art and literature.
If you allow editing and redistribution of others' works, it can work both the way you want it to and in ways you would dislike.
That's why, in practical terms, such changes will not be made by Congress, nor signed by any President, even if it is technically possible.
If they charge someone money to do it, they are breaking the law.
You seem to be the only one here who believes this. The rest of us seem to agree that altering one's own, legal copy is legal.
Courts have held in many cases that anything may be copied for personal use (backup, etc.) without violation. The DVD's with copy protection seem to be, legally speaking, a new beast. No other material has been protectable in this way before, so the subject hadn't come up. It seems to me that the legal principle still applies: that anything done to copy a work strictly for the personal use of its owner and no other should be OK.
The end user paying someone to modify a DVD, that really has no bearing on the law you want passed. One is currently legal levels of modification, the other is a massive change to the very core concept of what a copyright is.
"As long as all temporary copies are deleted so there's no element of redistribution then there's no problem. Once you own a legal copyright to the material what you do with it, as long as it's not unlicensed distribution, is your business.
"
Actually, as a consumer, you own the right to the COPY of the work you purchased. That has been extended to allow you to make a copy for your personal use.
In the case before this court, the defendant WAS redistributing COPIES of the work, not the original work, or even a faithful COPY of that work. By redistributing COPIES of the work, they were in violation of the copyright laws. It's that simple.
So what will they show on Airlines?
"So what will they show on Airlines?
"
Read the rest of the thread. Your question is answered several times.
If Congress doesn't revisit the law, it will be because the law cited earlier in the thread already protects another method of getting the same result (special DVD player hardware and software that reads the unaltered original DVD and automagically skips the "naughty parts" based on a database listing). If that option didn't exist, I don't think the studios would have a chance of warding off a law that explicitly permits the creation of roll-your-own edited copies.
Right but the idea put forth was you send your legal copy of a DVD to someone else to modify for you. Since they don't own that legal copy they would have to take steps to ensure they do not maintain a copy of the DVD. Basically the company would have to make it as if you were making it yourself, ie all copies of the original would either have to be destroyed or given back to you.
They permanently changed Airplane on the DVD release. In the original (and on my VHS copy) Barbara Billigsly says "N*gga don' wan' no he'p, N*gga don' get no he'p." In the DVD they changed it to "Sucka don'..."
It ticked me off big time. I feel I should have the right to sue someone for changing the content that I paid for! What if they did that to "Blazing Saddles?"
But that was not the case before this court, was it?
Sorry Chris, whether you and others believe it or not is, with all due respect, irrelevant. The laws are clear on all this.
Let me ask you, what do you know about the DVD Authoring process? Seriously.
Do you honestly think what these people are doing is are just simply editing? Do you really understand what all needs to happen to do this "simple editing"?
Again, people doing this are nothing more than Hackers.
Here, why don't you try and obtain a copy of DVD X Copy (Platinum, Silver, or Gold).
Oooops, you can't.
Why?
Because the Courts found that such software (used to make those "personal back-ups" circumvents the Copy Protections to make the copies.
BTW, did you know that DVD distributors pay BIG money for that Macrovision copy protection?
Sorry Chris, bottom line here, aside from the fact that this case had NOTHING to do with "personal back-ups", which renders that whole argument moot, what it DID cover was companies illegally copying, illegally remanufacturing, and then selling illegal copies of copyrighted material.
Do you REALLY defend that?
If I read every thread before posting I would never get a post in. But sometimes I do read the articles... ;)
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.