Replies

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.

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.

Since you have to load bullets in your gun if you're going to murder someone with it, loading bullets in a gun should be illegal.
Because most bank robbers wear a jacket during the holdup, the wearing of jackets in banks should be banned.
In order to shoplift an item in a store, you first have to remove it from the shelf. Clearly, picking up merchandise with the hands should be against the law.

Take a look at Cleanflicks.com. They are doing EXACTLY what you just described.

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.

"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.