Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Axing Sex, Swearing From Films Violates Copyright: Court
CBC ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: copyright; copyrightabuse; hollywood; lawsuit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 461-478 next last
To: FreedomCalls
So if instead of me purchasing the DVD and sending it to them would it still be legal if I called them and had them purchase it on my behalf so I could save the upfront shipping charges and then they made the edits I requested and sent it to me?

Good one. I wish I knew more about copyright law. I can see where this could go - the next question would be, as long as they were making edits I requested, why can't I allow them to make the decisions for what I want edited on my own dvd. And if that's the case, why can't the company buy a bunch of dvds and make edits like they are doing. I have to admit, I'm not sure at what point it becomes problematic/illegal - I have a lawyer friend I'm going to ping to this thread - will let you know if she has any pertinent comments...
341 posted on 07/10/2006 12:47:47 PM PDT by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: durasell
Probably not because it increase their market and adds value to their product.

You are wrong in that assumption.

Hollywood riled up over ClearPlay

...

Studios and filmmakers are stunned that someone not involved in the creative process could technologically chip away at their work — and make money at it. So lawsuits aiming to get the processes deemed illegal are underway.

It no longer matters anyway as Congress passed a law legalizing ClearPlay's technology. But the studio's were opposed to it (and still are), market share be damned).
342 posted on 07/10/2006 12:49:13 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Ha Ha! I knew I was right.


343 posted on 07/10/2006 12:51:22 PM PDT by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

This is the key paragraph:

But those editing decisions are made by the movie studios, if not by the directors themselves. Not by a handful of people in Utah..


The copyright holder want to retain control of the material. This is the most basic aspect of business sense. If you own something, you don't let control of it slip away.


344 posted on 07/10/2006 12:53:09 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: kimoajax
Technologists someday will enable a plug-in controller solution that will allow users to have their dvd viewers automatically skip over items they do not wish to view and bleep out offensive words.

Already done. My understanding is that they're not impacted by this ruling, because the "editing" occurs entirely on the customer's DVD player.

345 posted on 07/10/2006 12:53:15 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

I have to admit that if I were a movie producer and spent a lot of time and energy to make a movie just the way I envisioned it, it would bother me to see others making money off of an edited, "sanitized" version of my movie. I don't know if there is any legal recourse, but I can certainly understand why a producer would have a problem with it.


346 posted on 07/10/2006 12:53:16 PM PDT by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Yes, yes...it was a side story. Hulloa!

I know it was a side story, but it was pointless because it has nothing to do with the issue at hand other than attempting to obscure the debate.

347 posted on 07/10/2006 12:55:01 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain
As long as you get paid the full amount for the DVD, why should you care? In fact, if it enables you to sell more DVDs, then you should welcome it. The bottom line is that this technology does not cheat the producer out of a dime. So if we are talking about a business decision, Hollywood should welcome it. It is not about profit.
348 posted on 07/10/2006 12:56:43 PM PDT by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

"I know it was a side story, but it was pointless because it has nothing to do with the issue at hand other than attempting to obscure the debate."

Not really. Someone mentioned the thing about defacing a book, and wondered if that would be a copyright violation. I explained why it would not, then offered a humorous account of a situation where defacing books would be a violation of some law.

This thread is long, and is primarily talking about situations that have nothing to do with the particular court case in the original posting. It's about to end. A humorous, related story seemed to be apropos. Your opinion may differ, but that's what makes discussions fun.


349 posted on 07/10/2006 12:57:52 PM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

It's hard to say that it violates copyright, though, since it does not change content, only the way content is viewed. I can watch any movie with the sound completely off and music playing in the background, if I want to - it does not change what's on the DVD.


350 posted on 07/10/2006 12:57:53 PM PDT by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003
I love it: use meaningless legal distinctions to win the argument. If it does not alter the DVD, there is no violation even though the same result would occur if the DVD were altered (i.e., the machine is altering what you see--not the DVD itself).
351 posted on 07/10/2006 1:01:53 PM PDT by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix

I'm not arguing with you, so I'm not using anything to "win an argument". I didn't write the laws, just trying to help explain them.


352 posted on 07/10/2006 1:03:12 PM PDT by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix
So if we are talking about a business decision, Hollywood should welcome it. It is not about profit.

It actually is about profit, they're just thinking long term. Hollywood and others are trying to redefine copyright from a limited right to copy and redistribute into an unlimited right to control usage. Anything that offers customer choice interferes with this, and must be opposed so that they can achieve their utopia of pay-per-view everything, unavoidable ads, and no customer ownership of anything.

353 posted on 07/10/2006 1:03:15 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain
I can see where this could go - the next question would be, as long as they were making edits I requested, why can't I allow them to make the decisions for what I want edited on my own dvd.

Yes, you got it.

And if that's the case, why can't the company buy a bunch of dvds and make edits like they are doing.

Precisely. Why can't the make the exact same edits the TV versions have already made (in accordance with the "artistic vision" of the director and studio and meeting their approval) and make those edits in advance for me to purchase?

The problem I have is that I might see a movie on TV, like it, and deem it appropriate for inclusion in my home video library. Then when I get it, it is an entirely different movie that is unsuitable for viewing by my family -- it's not the one I saw on TV. It's a sort of "bait and switch" tactic where they have lured me into purchasing a product that I thought was acceptable then switched it with another wholly unsuitable version.

354 posted on 07/10/2006 1:04:05 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix

The DVD is being altered by the coding, which the user doesn't see.

The problem with this for the movie studios is that, if legal, there's nothing to keep an airline or television station or foreign market from buying the device and then purchasing the lower cost rights to show the full movie.


355 posted on 07/10/2006 1:04:27 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix

It's still about profit. One of the primary concerns with the studio heads is the concept of ownership (the concept of ownership is the key to all studio profits, they can't make any money on anything if people don't think they own it), they want as much of that to lie with them as possible, anything that could possibly by any application of thought weaken the concept of ownership they're against. Some people on this thread have already used the existence of that technology and the law that protected that technology to criticize this court decision. Get enough SCOTUS justices who agree with that line of thinking (which I believe is in error, but we all have SCOTUS decisions we think were patently stupid) and this decision gets reversed, which would severely weaken their ownership, and thus negatively impact their profits.

Then, of course, there are the non-studio heads, who think of themselves as "artists" and get their panties in a bunch whenever anybody tries to change anything about their "masterpiece".


356 posted on 07/10/2006 1:05:11 PM PDT by discostu (you must be joking son, where did you get those shoes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: TChris

Chris, you're argument is resting on the idea that it is somehow "Legal" to copy a VHS tape, and therefore, under your argument it should be OK to do the same to a DVD.

First, that argument is bad. Copying either is against the law. Just because it's easier to do it with a VHS, doesn't mitigate that.

You are not allowed to sell the services of backing up, ripping, editing, and then re-authoring, which is what this thread is about. Because let's be honest here, the "companies" that are doing this aren't just making a "personal backup" are they?

As someone in this Industry, I can tell you, there's a whole lot more that goes into creating a Pro Release DVD title than simply using some off the shelf "Authoring" software, and doing some Drag and Drop DVD assembly. It can take huge ammount of time and effort to create an A-Title release. DVD Authors, Graphics artists, Motion Graphics artists, Compressionists, Technical managers, and Quality Control people put a lot of work into creating the DVD.

What the "companies" in question were doing undoes all that work, and the result is substandard, badly compressed, poorly edited, and woefully re-authored, regurgitated crap. Someone would be just as well to wait the extra couple of months and watch the moving Pan and Scanned on Netowrk TV, if they are that anxious to see the movie in a form that doesn't offend them.

There is a process for doing "sanitised" Parental Controls, but the results are marginal at best, and most Producers won't use it because of those poor results, and substancial costs involved in adding that "feature".

However, that being said, it needs to be done at the time of the original authoring, and NOT by some hack, working out of his home computer, using ripped material, with substandard equipment and software, for it to be legal.



357 posted on 07/10/2006 1:05:39 PM PDT by Lord_Baltar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

I understand. I was just saying that this case seems to be based on meaningless legal distinctions, and the solution (this machine) then turns the legal distinction on its head. That is exactly what happens when you have laws that are not logical--they can be beat with loopholes. The IRS Code is full of them.


358 posted on 07/10/2006 1:06:58 PM PDT by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: durasell
The copyright holder want to retain control of the material. This is the most basic aspect of business sense. If you own something, you don't let control of it slip away.

Then they should not allow sales of their DVDs and only rent them like Xerox used to do with their copiers. No sales allowed.

359 posted on 07/10/2006 1:07:15 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: discostu

What is amusing about these discussions is the fact that those who would argue to the death for the concept of ownership for a piece of real estate don't accord the same rights to a piece of intellectual property.


360 posted on 07/10/2006 1:07:22 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 461-478 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson