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 ...
You may be right. Good point.
When you buy a DVD you do not own or share in the the ownership of copyrighted material. You merely acquire the rights to watch the DVD under limited circunstances. For instance, you cannot charge other people to watch the DVD.
One of the basic problems of liberalism, they think all property is a crime... except their property. These are the same people that move money offshore into tax shelters then complain about how few taxes people like them pay, they don't have to make sense because they care so much ;)
Which they keep trying to find ways to do, luckily consumers hated DiVX.
Hollywood isn't particularly liberal on the business side. It's a straight up business. No different than any other business.
Well, they're fundamentally different. Real property is scarce; intellectual property isn't.
Business decision makers tend to be rather conservative, at least while they're on the clock, because all money discussions involve their money and a good business decision maker wants as little of that to be outbound as possible.
"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."
I don't think the ownership is given up or altered in this case. It is well established that a buyer can alter intellectual property for his or her own use, so editing out offensive material in a DVD for the buyer's own use in a legal manner (a machine or by edit after purchase) does not alter ownership.
Well, they're fundamentally different. Real property is scarce; intellectual property isn't.
Profitable intellectual property is very scarce. When Steve Ross bought Warner Bros. in 1969 for a bargain basement price, he saw the company's value wasn't in the personnel or offices or real estate. He saw an amazing film library. The right intellectual property has huge value. Even banks see it as an asset that can be leveraged for loans.
Business decision makers tend to be rather conservative, at least while they're on the clock, because all money discussions involve their money and a good business decision maker wants as little of that to be outbound as possible.
Some of the most conservative people I've ever met work in Hollywood. Lawyers, insurance people, money managers. I would wager that some of them are on FR.
Which is probably why so much of the "talent" spends so much time complaining about those nasty people that run the studio.
Ain't that the fust thing whatchoo does wit a ho?
Is it?
;-)
That's because our laws don't allow for the "ownership" of IP like we do real estate, only for a limited-time right to contol the copying of it.
Which is probably why so much of the "talent" spends so much time complaining about those nasty people that run the studio.
Hollywood is a weird beast. There's the studios -- basically four or five companies -- Disney, Sony, Universal, Viacom -- and then there are hundreds of smaller companies that provide everything from accounting services to insurance to catering and trailers. And then there are tens of thousands of freelancers who do everything from make-up and set design to garbage detail and location scouting.
The popular and false image of Hollywood is of a bunch of fat cats sitting poolside. Mostly it's middleclass and blue collar guys hustling work in a very competitive business.
Anyone that needs more laws to create "a freedom" at the expense of that of another is the one with the poor logic........not those opposing any more un-needed statutes on the books.
That's simply not true. Copies for personal use have been permitted under Fair Use all along. It's only been with copy protection technology that the conundrum has arisen: Copying for personal use is legal, but breaking the copy-protection technology is not.
There is a solution in the works though. (See DVD Backup May Become Legal) This seems to address that little perversion of reason.
Because let's be honest here, the "companies" that are doing this aren't just making a "personal backup" are they?
They're making an edited copy of a legally purchased movie for the sole use of the movie owner, which is no different, IMO. Again, you need to get past the technology issues of DVDs and look at the pure copyright issue. That's why I keep switching to books as examples instead. That makes it easier to avoid the distractions of the particular media format and focus on the actual copyright issues.
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.
As someone in the industry, I believe your view of the whole situation is tainted by your personal investment in the issue. You can't see the forest for the trees. Copyright law should be the same for any content, regardless of media, IMO. For every other media format, Fair Use has allowed the owner to make personal copies. DVD copy protection software denies that long-standing fair use with the goal of generating more sales.
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.
What's your point? The quality of the copy is completely irrelevant to the legal questions. This is just more evidence that you're wrapping up a lot more into this discussion than just the legalities of Fair Use copying. The customer is perfectly free to not buy the "crappy", edited one so they can have the superior quality.
If they buy a legal copy of the movie, why shouldn't consumers have the choice of watching it how they want, edited or not? The studio has been paid for that copy. You have been paid your share of that copy. What skin is it off your nose if that consumer edits his copy (or has a business do it for him) for content?
If he paid for it, why do you care what he does with it?
"They're making an edited copy of a legally purchased movie for the sole use of the movie owner, which is no different, IMO. Again, you need to get past the technology issues of DVDs and look at the pure copyright issue. That's why I keep switching to books as examples instead. That makes it easier to avoid the distractions of the particular media format and focus on the actual copyright issues."
OK, So how exactly isn't that breaking the law? Are they editing your DVD (same disk) and simply returning your original disk, edited, but the same disk? You and I both know that isn't possible.
They are, for a FEE, ripping the disk YOU purchased (which, BTW, blasts that whole "personal back-up" argument totally out of the water) editing/altering/recompressing/and reburning the movie into a disk that in no way, quality wise, OR content wise (which again, blasts the entire "personal use/fair use/personal back-up" argument out of the water) resembles the original, and then shipping your old disk, and new NEW disk to you.
Am I missing something?
"As someone in the industry, I believe your view of the whole situation is tainted by your personal investment in the issue. You can't see the forest for the trees. Copyright law should be the same for any content, regardless of media, IMO. For every other media format, Fair Use has allowed the owner to make personal copies. DVD copy protection software denies that long-standing fair use with the goal of generating more sales."
AGAIN, What we're talking about here has absolutely NOTHING to do with PERSONAL BACK-UPS, Fair use, etc. We're talking about "Company X" taking a copyrighted DVD, Ripping it, Editing it, Re-Packaging it, and Selling you the Service.
Sorry Chris, but no matter how harmless you try to spin this, the bottom line is EXACTLY the same, what is being done is illegal. It's Theft. It's not Fair Use, or whatever gooey "Happy Speak" you want to apply to it to salve your conscience. It's repackaging som eone elses product. It's Not a "Personal Back-up" of the disk you bought and paid for, is it?
I saw someone here use this example. Let's say a friend goes out and buys a Copy of "Passion of the Christ", He then sends it to me. I rip it, and then throw on an English track which basically makes Jesus out to be the villan of the piece, or add clips from a porno, and then burn him a new disk?
You'd be OK with that? By all extents and purposes, we'd be doing EXACTLY what you're defending.
"If they buy a legal copy of the movie, why shouldn't consumers have the choice of watching it how they want, edited or not? The studio has been paid for that copy. You have been paid your share of that copy. What skin is it off your nose if that consumer edits his copy (or has a business do it for him) for content?
If he paid for it, why do you care what he does with it?"
You own the rights to the disk you bought, not the movie inside it. You have a right to use that disk as a frisbee, or a nifty table coaster, or even better, as a container for the movie you bought. If the movie you bought isn't the movie you wanted, take it back, or deal with it.
I don't know.
My Pimp Professor says that first you gots to smack a ho.
The field techs who come in to sub say you gots to axe a ho.
I'm developing a "smack wit axe" theory.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I prefer the good old days -- 1950s and early 1960s -- when it comes to terms of public decency.
I have never seen (or even heard of) the Hitchcock movie that you rerfer to. In "Streetcar", I did not have to witness the rape scene in order to understand that it occurred. I fail to see how the story line would have been enhanced by a graphic depiction.
BTW, some guy named William Shakespeare wrote some plays with rather violent content, but his writing was such that one did not have to actually witness the violence in order to understand it or imagine it.
So where's your tupence in the mail for the heirs and assigns of Noah Webster you spelling thief! Stop your illegal and immoral derivative use of his work immediately!
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.