"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.
The Bowdlerized "Passion" if done like these firms did, would not contain any English or sex scenes, twit.
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.