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 ...
So if I mail my own copy of a DVD to these edit companies and they edit it for me (since I don't have the equipment at home) is that "distributing" it?
If I underline and strike out passages in a book I own can I sell it to a used-book store? Can they sell it to someone else? Is that "distribution"?
I didn't write that I am a professional DVD author. I wrote that I have authored a number of DVDs. There's a difference.
You entirely avoid the legal discussion by simply labelling each activity "illegal". I want to know why something should be illegal for one video format that is legal for another? I'm not denying that DVD copying may be illegal, but asking the larger question of why. If making a backup copy of a DVD is illegal simply because the industry created copy protection technology and said "No!", then I would argue that this is extremely bad law. It segregates the rights of artists based on the format of their product. Authors of the printed word are not similarly protected from having their work copied. Heck, they have copy machines right there in the library. But an artist who produces DVDs gets enhanced legal benefits that generate additional sales, since the technology itself creates an additional right for him.
If that's really the legal situation, then that's one screwed up set of laws.
I don't think monetary damage is required, actually. Copyright also includes protection of the work as it is. Alterations are violations of the copyright.
For it to rise to the level of a violation, however, there must be distribution, and that's at the crux of this case and others. I believe in this case, the videos were rented out, which is a different thing.
If memory serves me correctly, and it usually does, there are cases of visual artists who have prevailed in cases where their art has been altered in some way by a gallery or museum that had purchased the artwork.
The courts have held that such alterations are a violation of copyright law and that the distribution is the public display of the artist's work.
Copyright law is very different from patent law. The intent in copyright law is to preserve the work of its author or artist from modification and duplication. Painting a fig leaf over a nude painting, then displaying that painting is a violation of copyright, since it is no longer the artist's work that is being displayed. Case law shows this to hold up.
A movie might well be treated in the same way...as a work of art, complete only if unmodified. Again, while the individual might escape notice, and might even rightfully alter the work, a third party cannot, especially if they are doing it for money.
I used to make my living as a writer for magazines. When I sold an article, it was under a contract that laid out my compensation and which rights had been purchased. The typical contract also allowed certain uses by other parties, but I would be compensated under the terms of my contract with the magazine publisher.
The publishers followed these terms, for the most part. However, on one occasion, I discovered that most of an article I had written appeared in a book by another author. I was not credited. It was pure plagiarism. I collected a tidy portion of the book's royalties. The funny thing was that the magazine publisher collected even more of the book's royalties, due to the revenue sharing terms of my contract with the magazine.
Copyright law is complex and very, very nit-picky.
"If I underline and strike out passages in a book I own can I sell it to a used-book store? Can they sell it to someone else? Is that "distribution"?"
It is the same copy of the book, you see. The book is not copied onto new paper. That said, you'll find that underlines and strike-outs will pretty much guarantee that the used book store will not buy it in the first place.
Hollywood is responsible for pizza with un-natural toppings. Hollywood is evil and must be punished.
"I should be able to buy the DVD with that service already added to it (end result is that I get a DVD that I purchased that is sanitized)."
Yes, you should, as long as that service has worked with the content owner and gotten the correct permissions. THAT is the pesky little detail that is missing here. You don't seem to think it should matter, but it does.
"If I underline and strike out passages in a book I own can I sell it to a used-book store? Can they sell it to someone else? Is that "distribution"?"
The local library branch in my old town had a problem with a guy who would check out books, black out stuff he didn't like, then return them. It took a while before they were able to pin it on him. He had done it to hundreds of books over a period of time.
He got to spend six months in the county slammer, and got to buy new copies of every defaced book.
I guess he was trying to protect the other patrons from whatever it was he didn't like.
Funny!
I think I know that guy! Our church had a big used book sale, and a guy was wandering around, marking books like that and then not buying them. Well, he did end up buying them once we nabbed him. ;)
Every video I see prohibits public exhibition and leasing/ renting of videos.
WHO grants these licenses to "rent" dvds?
There is no such license. Not every video manufacturer is a member of the MPAA, RIAA, etc. Yet they all have the same warning.
There is no universal agent representing all filmmakers.
And in the case of Baltimore, the films were cut for exhibition there (John Waters had to deal with the censorship board cutting his films before their hometown premiere). The film played in the uncensored form in other markets.
By the way, my bet is that if there is technology that will sanitize DVDs (i.e., on the DVD player), Hollywood would lobby congress to block it even though a buyer of a DVD has the right to alter the DVD for his or her own use.
Probably not because it increase their market and adds value to their product.
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.