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 ...
The Londoners back then had more than their share of real violence. Public executions were still a big attraction. A couple of uncensored diaries from the period relay fond memories of renting rooms facing the execution at high prices for the purposes of having sex while watching some guy die.
Bear-bating was big. I think -- though not sure -- that ratting was also a big deal during that time.
Generally, nobody would brag about this in church.
London was a mess during that period. The water was bad, so people drank alcohol like crazy. Folks would empty urine rfom second story windows. Prostitution was out of control.
Seen much Shakespeare?
**
Yes, I have. I guess I did not make myself clear. My point is that there does not have to be a graphic display of violence. For example, I have never seen a performance of "Hamlet" in which the deaths in the final scene featured blood squirting everywhere. We know that there are deaths, but we are spared the realistic portrayal of guts and gore.
Words cannot be copyrighted. Facts cannot be copyrighted. That heirs can reap the rewards of copyrighted works is another issue, that Congress has warped copyright from its original intent.
I guess my high school AP English teacher was committing a crime then, when he showed us "Clan of the Cave Bear" and kept fast-forwarding through the sex scenes.
the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology.''
Some might try to argue that the words "provided that no fixed copy..." apply to this whole paragraph, but those words clearly apply only to the "creation or provision of a computer program or other technology..." The first part of the paragraph stands on its own. This law grants someone the right to take an "authorized copy" of a movie and, either personally or by directing someone else to do so, to make limited portions of the film imperceptible.
The only argument here is what is meant by "authorized copy of the motion picture". I think that as long as CleanFlicks and others are purchasing a legitimate copy of the motion picture from a retailer or other source, they satisfy that requirement.
Corman gave Spielberg quite a bit of advice in the late 60s.
You can't lose copyright and patent in general since they have specific times of protection. But they are affected by the doctrine of laches. It's an equity (fairness) doctrine that says neglect to pursue a claim for a long time prejudices the person when he finally brings the claim. Waiting too long doesn't automatically preclude defending the coyright, but it can get one specific infringement case thrown out of court.
That's fast-forwarding, not creating a new work. Besides, there are special allowances in copyright law for educational use.
Viacom's Blockbuster maybe. None of the Mom and Pop shops have the finances to participate in this.
You'd be OK with that? By all extents and purposes, we'd be doing EXACTLY what you're defending.
YES! YES! YES!
I'm more than OK with that, I think its absolutely a right to do that!
I'm not altering "the movie", which the copyright owner does control, but only my copy of "the movie", which I bought and paid for. I'm free to do with my copy of the movie whatever I darn well please, including changing the plot, the characters, or whatever else suits me. I can do likewise with each and every book I own, and no publisher could care less!
I could pay my local literature professor to rewrite the end of The Da Vinci Code to better suit my tastes, tear out the pages from my copy of the book and replace them with the improved version, and nobody, nobody would give a flying flip that I had done so.
The individual alteration of a legal copy of a copyrighted work should be perfectly OK with everybody! Again, you're tying up the technology with the issue. The only reason ripping a DVD is involved at all is because the technology requires it to do the same thing as my book example above. Your only objection can be with the technology involved, not the action of altering my personal, legal copy of the work.
The sole act of ripping a DVD is only illegal because the studios want it to be. The sole act of breaking the copy protection is illegal only because the studios want it to be. There is no basis in historical copyright law to support the philosophy that those two things should be against the law.
The presumption behind those laws is that ripping and breaking copy protection are in preparation for illegal copying, duplication and piracy. But what if they aren't? What if I'm making a backup copy or ripping it to my laptop so I don't have to carry the discs with me, or trying to edit out all the unskippable commercials at the beginning of the disc? Every one of those activities are perfectly legal with any other medium.
See, the movie industry made exactly the same arguments as we have here when VCRs were invented. The fact that a VCR even had the capability to record was scary and offensive to them. The only possible use for video recording, in their estimation, was to run an illegal movie copying operation. The courts and congress didn't buy that foolishness at the time, and allowed the manufacture and sale of VCRs that could record. It appears that the industry lobbiests are more powerful and organized this time around.
IMO, any activity that does not deprive the copyright holder of sales they would have and should have realized should be entirely legal and beyond the control of the copyright holder. If I copy the work and sell, rent or give it away, sue me. If I show, read or perform the work publicly without permission, sue me. But if I want to edit, alter, rewrite, rearrange, shred, fold, spindle or mutilate my personal copy of a work, or pay someone else to do any of those things for me, I should be completely free to do so.
What this case is based on is old-time copyright that nobody can really refute -- an author has control over derivative works.
What you're talking about is the current corruption of our copyright laws by a powerful entertainment lobby. Through the DMCA (no circumvention) and CTEA ("Mickey Mouse copyright protection act"), the copyright cartel's lapdogs in Congress have granted rights and terms to the copyright holders far beyond the intent of the Constitution that set the basis for copyright. It is bad law.
Why do you assume the judge is liberal? Regardless of ideology, the decision in this case is the correct one.
Copyright infringement brings two kinds of damages. Actual (compensatory) of course applies if the author lost money due to the infringement. But an owner of a registered copyright can request, and the judge can grant, statutory damages of up to IIRC $150,000 even if he suffered no actual damages.
Copyright ends a certain length of time after the death of the author. Noah Webster is wayyyy over that line.
Tom Bowdler certainly thought it all needed to be "sanitized".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bowdler
Rance. Rance Howard, not Chance. A longtime character actor, seen most recently in "Cinderella Man" as one of the fight referees.
"The water was bad, so people drank alcohol like crazy. Folks would empty urine rfom second story windows."
Reminds me of my college days....
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.