Replies

"Maybe to you it's a big difference. But that's a subjective matter. The fact in both cases is that someone is altering a copyrighted work, then reselling it, without the permission of the person who owns the copyright."

It's done all the time in many other industries. It's a relationship known as an "OEM"; although, far more accurately, a "value-added reseller", or VAR. EXACTLY the same thing.

"The difference is the involvement and approval of the copyright holder. You can't seriously stand here and say that it's okay for someone to do one sort of alteration that you approve of to a copyrighted work, but it's not okay to do a different alteration that you don't like to the same work, or to another work."

I didn't say that. You said that. You also, conveniently, managed to ignore my example. It's a dead-on example, and you and I know it. Still, you chose to ignore it. Try again.....and address the real argument; the reality of this little non-issue.

Stop cloaking this in pseudo high-minded language. We're talking about removing swear words and women's boobs......or sexual acts. Big deal. It's done all the time, you admit it, but if the director removes a "s**t" or a "go**amn", it's ok. A third party does it, oh my gosh, it's the end of artistic freedom and society as we know it.

Puh-leeze...........give me just one, big, honkin' break.

It's done all the time, you admit it, but if the director removes a "s**t" or a "go**amn", it's ok. A third party does it, oh my gosh, it's the end of artistic freedom and society as we know it.

Regardless, it is against the law for CleanFlicks to do it without the consent of the owners of the media rights. It may not seem right, and it may not even be intuitive, but it is currently the law.

It's done all the time, you admit it, but if the director removes a "s**t" or a "go**amn", it's ok. A third party does it, oh my gosh, it's the end of artistic freedom and society as we know it.

I never said it was the end of artistic freedom and society as we know it. I said that it was a violation of intellectual property laws. And intellectual property is a different thing than an OEM situation as a matter of law. There's no copyright on a car. And the fact remains: do it with the approval of the copyright holder and it's not a problem. Do it yourself at home and it's not a problem. Do it without the approval, or do it and sell the product and it is a problem. You're still selling a new DVD with a derivative work on it.

And as to the appropriateness of the Coulter example, you're the one who refuses to see that there's any parallel with you cutting out something that you find offensive "for the children", and someone else cutting out something that they don't like "for the children."