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 ...
Who, exactly, is the market for "scrubbed" filth? You can scrub a t#rd all you want. It's still a t#rd.
Hmmm.. so if I buy a book, and then give it to someone else to black out words from it for me and pay them to do it... I've broken some law??????
Interesting interpretation there jackass.
I can see if they are reselling modified versions, but to tell someone you can't change or pay someone to change the content of something you own is idiotic.
Rental places that do this definately have issues with copyright.. but the folks who scrub original versions for people who own the original version is not an illegal or illegitimate business model.
I also have a right to take something I own and modify it.. by this guys logic, if I pay someone to black out a word in a book I own, I've broken some law.
The rental establishments definately have issues with copyright, and anyone who sells the original movie pre-scrubbed... but to say someone can't charge money to scrub a movie for the original owners personal use is not in touch with reality.
You can legally pay someone to change something you OWN.. there is no violation of copyright law for paying or being paid to edit an original work that you own... you violate copyright law when you try to sell or resell.. not for charging for a service provided.
This judge is a bafoon.
Rental places definately have copyright issues.. but to say someone who edits a DVD of their own and for their own personal private use is violating copyright law is idiocy.
Corman gave Spielberg quite a bit of advice in the late 60s.
Too bad he didn't take it.
Michael J. Pollard....
"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."
Chris, I know where you're going with this, but the bottom line is regardless of all of it, the law says you can't do it legally.
Much of what you said could easily be applied to other issues, with equal furvor.
"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."
Actually, that statement alone says you agree with the decision, because, as I've said repeatedly, that is exactly what the crux of the case being discussed, and this thread are about.
Take a look at Cleanflicks.com. They are doing EXACTLY what you just described.
I dare say they shouldn't just be sued, but at the level they are operating, I think Jail time for them, above and beyond the 250,000.00 per violation (and it appears they'd be paying into the next millenium)
Well I certainly don't want to know who got it in the end...
:) Well, to be fair, had the Bard the ability at the time, I'm certain he might have been inclined to use some of that caro syrup and red food coloring, versus the red silk scarves....
"You can legally pay someone to change something you OWN.. there is no violation of copyright law for paying or being paid to edit an original work that you own... you violate copyright law when you try to sell or resell.. not for charging for a service provided.
This judge is a bafoon.
Rental places definately have copyright issues.. but to say someone who edits a DVD of their own and for their own personal private use is violating copyright law is idiocy."
Ah HJ, take a peek at www.cleanflicks.com.
"I bought a sanitized Fight Club, all three minutes of it. :)"
I still that film was an alligory on Bill Clinton's Presidency....with Pitt playing the jackass in chief. :)
First, it's amusing that you presume that my FR user name has anything at all to do with my real name. Shall I refer to you as "Lord" or "Baltar"? :-)
Second, I am quite aware that the law currently says that breaking the copy protection on a DVD is illegal. My previous posts made that clear, or so I thought.
The point I was trying to make is that it shouldn't be illegal.
The same philosophy, applied to other issues, would result in all sorts of bizarre laws.
You should review my postings to others on this thread. That subject has been well addressed. The conclusion seemed to be that the only problem arises when the business edits the movies before selling them.
If they offered the editing service to those who already own a legal copy of the movie, then destroyed the original copy so that only one exists, which the customer paid for, I don't see any theoretical copyright violation. One copy was paid for; one (edited) copy exists. It's only for the personal use of that customer, and not being made available for sale or use to anyone else.
I believe that would be a defensible business.
As far as I'm concerned no American filmmaker has had a better decade. three artful and accomplished if flawed SF films and two artful and accomplished if flawed non-SF films. And one glaring misstep called The Terminal.
I said, those that RENT them definately have copyright issues... but those that take a DVD you own, and then create an edited version of it for you and charge you for the editing have not violated copyright law.
The fact you paid them to make an edited copy for your own use is not remotely a violation of copyright.
The rental places, yea, they definately have issues with copyright violation.. but companies who say SEND US YOUR PURCHASED DVD and we'll send it back to you with an edited version for $10 or $20 have not violated copyright law.
Judge made the right call regarding rentals.... but to say that all companies that "clean" movies are illegal is idiotic.
"Judge made the right call regarding rentals.... but to say that all companies that "clean" movies are illegal is idiotic."
If the companies are doing it "Free of Charge" as one time, personal-use-back-ups, there might be some logic to to that.
However, we both know that if these companies are altering the movies, for a fee, without advice or consent of the filmmakers, then what they are doing is illegal
"First, it's amusing that you presume that my FR user name has anything at all to do with my real name. Shall I refer to you as "Lord" or "Baltar"? :-)"
Well, since you hadn't mentioned your real name, I opted for what seemed logical. "Hey You" seemed a bit informal.
As for me, Lord will suffice.... :)
"If they offered the editing service to those who already own a legal copy of the movie, then destroyed the original copy so that only one exists, which the customer paid for, I don't see any theoretical copyright violation. One copy was paid for; one (edited) copy exists. It's only for the personal use of that customer, and not being made available for sale or use to anyone else.
I believe that would be a defensible business"
Again, as I said to HJ, IF these "companies" are doing this as a "Free of Charge" service, for personal-use-back-up, I might be inclined to agree. However we both know that these companies are charging a fee, for services without the advice and consent of the filmmakers, and in the process, violating copyrights protections that the filmmakers rightfully enjoy.
Now, if these companies want to approach the filmmakers for consent, and that consent is given, wonderful. In fact, there should be some agreement like that in place regardless.
Unless of course, these companies realize that the filmmakers will tell them to go pound sand, in which case, the companies shouldn't be editing/altering/or screwing around with the DVD in the first place.
No, again you are missing the point.
There is NOTHING illegal with paying someone to edit content you own for your own personal use... or making an edited copy for your own personal use.
If you own the original, you can pay someone to make an edited copy all day long.. for your use.
IE I buy the white albumn.. ANd then pay to have it cut down to just the songs I like and burned to a CD or even pressed into an Albumn for my collection. I have violated ZERO copyright laws doing so. Paying someone to do the actual editing is NOT illegal so long as I own the original.
What would be illegal is for me to take a copy, edit it, and then sell or rent that edited copy out for a fee.
You don't need the filmmaker or songwriters consent to edit copies you own, or to pay someone to do it.
You are confusing "software licensing" with "copyright". Licensing is an entirely different issue.. in licensing, you don't really own the software, you have paid for a license to use it, and agree to use it as the owner of the software allows you to do.. so modification of it is indeed a violation of the licensing agreement you agreed to.
Copyright is not this.. you can pay someone to copy, make an edited copy or whatever you want of content you have purchased for your own personal use to your hearts content. It is not illegal at all. Paying a video editing company to take a disk you own, and edit it how you see fit and give it back to you is NOT a violation of any copyright law.
You don't need a filmmakers consent to modify an owned copy of a movie for the owner and be paid for that work.. that isn't copyright infringement. If I own a movie, I can take it up to a video editing place tommorrow, tell them to edit it however I want and pay them for that work.. they have not violated ANY copyright law.
My philosphy on such things -- films/writing -- is that if you're not a genius, then tell the story simply. Hitchcock was a genius. So was Welles.
What I find discouraging in film is that many of the directors of "film heads" who just reference other movies to a distracting degree. I'd put Spielberg in that category. Though I could be wrong on this, I used to put Martin Scorsese in there as well and he blew me away with The Aviator.
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.