Judge Says You Can't Edit Movies You've Bought
from the copyright-conundrum dept
There have been arguments over this issue going back almost five years, but we now have a ruling in a case concerning companies that take DVDs and edit them to take out scenes or dialog they find "objectionable." These businesses tended to do quite a lot of business in highly religious areas, "sanitizing" movies for those who wanted to see them. However, a judge has now found the practice to be a violation of copyright. This is slightly different than the companies that built automated DVD players to do the same thing, which were separately protected by Congress. Instead, this is a case where the company took a DVD, circumvented the copy protection, and then made a "cleaned" copy, which they sold alongside the original. It definitely can be seen as a case where the judge may be right on the legal issues, but it doesn't make much sense once you look at the larger picture. Copyright law is designed to prevent someone from undercutting the market for the content -- which clearly isn't the case here. The people buying these movies are unlikely to have bought the movies otherwise. In other words, this expands the market, as each purchase involves purchasing the actual movie as well. Either way, it seems likely that this case will be appealed, so there will be more to come on this.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
similar issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*cough*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *cough*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *cough*
Except, in this case, the original studios ARE getting the royalties and profits. As the article clearly states, the company still bought a legal copy for every edited copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: *cough*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh is it? If I buy anything else, don't I have the right to make changes to it and resell it? If I buy a chair, what if I paint it and resell it? Should the original carpenter be able to stop me from doing so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
naturally i'll bet the places flogging these crippleware copies of films are somewhat reluctant to exchange them for a full version once people find out.
and yes the carpenter *should* be able to stop you flogging an obvious derivative of his/her copyright.
what else are you suggesting?
note you *can* sell the actual item you bought, no matter what you have done to it (as long as its not misrepresented in any way), you just can't clone it then sell it on. otherwise all these naughty people violating copyright with DVDs could get away with changing one frame then selling them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: (Is there an echo in here?)
Er... The whole point is that they're advertising them as cut-down copies, and charging more for removing the "objectionable" content (sex, violence, Jim Carrey) before your family is exposed to it. It's not a case of "finding out" later. That's their business model!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: (Is there an echo in here?)
1, its clear what your buying
2, they copyright holder is happy with whatever arrangement has been made with them.
this is a non-issue.
I didn't realise you got the edit & the origional version, Last time I heard about this sort of thing it was a major chain (starting with a 'W') flogging edited copies without warning then refusing to refund/exchange them. hence my concern.
to my mind if you buy it, as long as you don't distribute it you can do *anything* you want with your copy.
its the misrepresentation and/or copyright violations that are the problem. if they go away there is no problem.
here it looks like my mistake. for which i humbly appoligise. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it's a copywritten chair,yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copywritten
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not a copyright issue...
You are free to sell the chair as you please; it is the act of selling it as a Miles Van Da Wossname - whether altered or not - is what is going to upset people, and rightly so.
Patents are for Inventions
Copyright is for Artworks
Trademarks are for reputations.
Don't mix 'em up :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're missing the point
No, that's wrong. The warning at the beginning of the movie may give that idea, but it's not true at all.
The problem occurs when money changes hands in connection with the movie.
I'll bet the defense will run somewhere along the lines of this: a person is alowed to edit a copyrighted piece for his own use. An agent could also legally do this for a person, and get paid for it. So, the group doing the editing is within their rights.
But this may well break down, because the people selling the editied movies are not axting as agents, but as distributors, since the editing and distributing isn't being done on a one-on-one basis, or even as a group, but rather the editied copies are sold on the open market. That's explicitly illegal.
Now, if a group of people (say, the membership of a certain church) wanted to hire an editor, buy copies of the movie, then have that editor edit the movie to their liking, and keep everything within that group (church membership), it might be legal. But what's being done does not fit that description at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movie Club.
I guess I don't see the problem that Hollywood has with this. Are they offended if my family doesn't see the sex or hear the swearing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why edit?
What those companies are doing is wrong. They're taking someone's work and butchering it. I mean, they had the permission of the filmmaker, then go right ahead. But they're doing this and profitting from it. Even if they weren't making anything from it it'd still be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why edit?
Is the film maker pissed when TBS cuts/chops/edits and mames their film to be placed on TV for millions to see (for free!)?
When you purchase the movie and pay someone to chop it you've purchased a good (the DVD) and a service (the chop). What's the problem with that? Everyone get's their fair share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why edit?
Actually they are not placed on TV for free, broadcasters pay for the rights to broadcast. Also if I remember correctly the rights holder does get to negotiate what will and will not be removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why edit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chair analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chair analogy
Copyright doesn't come into it, because you can't copyright a freaking chair.
Here's a better example.
You write the great american novel. Some people don't like some elements of it, so they edit your novel, editing out parts that they don't like, stuff that you consider important.
They then republish the book. They have a printer or publisher print up new copies of your book, same cover art, etc... with maybe the words "better version" on the front, and they sell those newly published copies.
Then, to try to claim its legal, they buy one copy of YOUR book for every one of THIERS that they sell. Or so they say, anyway.
I hate IP law, but you have to get straight what people are doing. Forming an opinion is bad when you form it based on an unclear understanding of what's happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They'll be modified eventually
I see this message "This movie has been modified from it's original version for content and to fit in the time allocated"
Since production has already ceased on the movie, the edit for TV or airline usage might be done by a 3rd party. Let's assume that since this practice is decades old, that there is a mechanism to secure permission to make such adjusted versions.
Finally, ever watch an old TV series on DVD? In the 60's there were 28 minutes of TV per half hour - now it's 26.5, every time I Love Lucy is re-aired on Nick at Night, someone edited. I bet Nick at Night bought the show before they edited it for commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artists should decide
However, there are cases where it may not be possible for a group of poeple to view the artist's work due to their religious beliefs...and in some cases, due to political agendas. Take the case of the new film released in Egypt. There is a huge debate going on there about whether it is approperiate for the Egyptan public to see the film or not.
Another example is The Exorcist. In the UK, some parts of the movie were removed, due to references made (I am going to go into details here) about the cross.
At the end of day, I belive that the rights of the artist(s) or the creators of a given work (even if they were mechanics) should be respected. If the arist chooses not alter their work, so that a group of people would be able to see it, then that is their choice and it should be respected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chair analogy misleading
It's not necessarily a matter of direct income. The author has every right to insist that all copies be sold unaltered. The copyright owner has the right to determine who may perform the work, how much to charge for it, etc. Owners of stage plays often deny companies the right to perform a production just to keep people going to the main venues on West End or Broadway. Music owners will generally deny remixes and derivations as long as the original is anywhere within sight of the charts. Some of them may have struck exclusivity deals with some distributor - deals which may be jeopardised if the owner doesn't act to protect their works.
If the biblicals want sanitised versions of popular movies, they should form a lobby group to convince the owners of such films to produce a version specially for them. If they form a sufficiently large group and stick to their guns they will get what they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chair analogy misleading
Oh really? You know the famous story of the fan adding a bassline to a White Stripes album? He wasn't sued to smithereens....
The author has every right to insist that all copies be sold unaltered. The copyright owner has the right to determine who may perform the work, how much to charge for it, etc.
That seems to go against the right of first sale doctrine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movie about editing anothers design
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If these organizations want clean version they have to do it themselves with their fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupidity
Do the film makers care about their "art" being edited for television?
Just watch when this case is finally decided by the supreme court and the MPAA wins, they will then start releasing their own edited versions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about TV?
But if I want someone to clean up a movie for me, that I'll pay the copyright holder for, that's not allowed? That's nutz!
I just don't see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about TV?
There, I corrected that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does anyone remember "Grease" in the theater when the cheerleaders at the pep rally spelled out Danny’s name? That’s been cut when TBS runs it every other month. Does anyone know if it’s on the DVD?
Can J.K Rowling use the same Judge’s ruling against Time Warner for chopping her Goblet of Fire book to a single 2 hour movie? They didn’t go with what the author or the Harry Potter fanatics wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last things first: It's "copyrighted", not "copywritten". Copyrighting is the legal thing that protects your works, copywriting is a low-paying job.
Now back to the original point: You are confusing the concepts of intellectual property and physical property, much like the RIAA and MPAA do every time they refer to copyright infringement as "stealing". It simply isn't. If you buy a chair, you are allowed to alter that chair and resell it. If you buy a DVD, you are likewise allowed to physically alter that DVD and resell it. You are not, however, allowed to create a derivative work from the contents of that DVD and resell it.
That being said, I'm not sure the lawsuit makes any sense, because the movie studio was making its money because of these people... Now if they were selling the edited version without the original, that should be a lawsuit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misleading title
I don't see how that prevents individuals from doing whatever they want with their own copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Protection
I hate that rule, almost as much as I hate this new ruling!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You "buy" it, and still can't do what you want with it?
Easy way to fix that problem, one I've been excercising quite frequently, if not all the time with media anymore...
DON'T BUY IT!
Of course... redistributing is going past the line, IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is not the original owner, or the final owner doing this work, therein lies the difference.
Also Martin Scorsese was one of the main opponents of this with the DVD Player that selected what to cut out. He felt that it was adding an editor to his movie that he had no negotiating power with, which he does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV/Airline Edits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has nothing to do with copyrights
So far everyone on this board has been in agreement that the consumer (me and you) can edit the DVD all they want to. Most of you are saying that the seller (cleanflicks) cannot. Why is that? if I buy a DVD and modify it, I can resell that DVD as long as I don't try to pretend it is unmodified. So why can't cleanflicks? Cleanflicks bought the DVD. They own it, they can modify it. They aren't misrepresenting the content.
Personally, I wouldn't buy a movie from cleanflicks. I would rather see it as originally filmed, and the violence, language, and nudity don't bother me. But I'm open minded enough to realize that it does bother others, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to view/buy an edited version if they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This has nothing to do with copyrights
That's where you're wrong and it's exactly what this ruling says. You cannot buy a copyright protected work (DVD in this case), alter it (edit the movie) and resell it (noting the edit or not) without the express consent of the copyright holder. It's that clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This has nothing to do with copyrights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This has nothing to do with copyrights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This has nothing to do with copyrights
Should is fine. And irrelevant. The fact is, you don't have the right to do whatever you want. You don't have the right to break it in half and use the sharp edge to slit someone's throat. Any idiot knows this. Why? Because your right to do something is always limited by whether that infringes on someone else's rights. Such as, for instance, and I'm just using a crazy example here, a copyright.
For all of you who think this is wrong, fine, write your Congressman. But the ruling was correct. You just don't like that this is the law. So be it. I don't like income taxes, but I still have to pay them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're Missing the Point...
Look, I'm not a copyright evangelist, and I hate the MPAA/RIAA and the way they are using Nazi tactics, but in this particular case, I think they're right. Forget the chair analogy, let's say you record a song, and it gets to be a mega-hit on the radio. Then some kid using a computer takes out some of your lyrics, changes some others, and releases the new song. Now he buys one copy of your song for every copy he sells, but you HATE the new edit. It changes the meaning of your song from a sexy party song to a sappy love song. You wrote it, you recorded it, and you own the rights to it, don't you have the right to tell that kid to stop selling the bastardized version of your song? That's what's going on here. It's not about the money, it's about the owner of the content having the right to say how that content is distributed.
I agree with the fact that, if this is a big enough business and there is demand for it, then those who purchase these "edited" versions should lobby the movie studios. If there's a buck to be made from this, the studios will listen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIsstates the decision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ni--ger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The movies are being edited because they contain morally objectionable content.
In buying and selling an original copy (which is exactly how ClearPlay operated) wouldn't they be fully supporting the production of more objectionable content?
If they truely had a moral stand against such objectionable content, then they wouldn't even sell the movie in the first place.
So really this is just about trying to make a buck. Morallity is just the angle being used.
Nothing like an angel with a tilted halo eh?
It really didn't help that this was a Mormon company either. Although I guess any group ends up being stereotyped because of the behavior of it's members in the public eye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surrounded
If you're in denial, stop asking questions who's answers you'll deny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright violation?
Morally: If the movie in it's original content is too vulgar, suggestive or just against your religious convictions in it's original form, you have no business watching it...even if it is edited!
Legally: Let's use an analogy. If I buy a new mustang, I cannot modify that car and attempt to resell it as a new mustang. However, If I buy a mustang and want it modified, I can take it to an individual who will modify it for me for a fee. This is not a violation of copyright. I have paid the original producer of a product for his creation and then modified it to suit my needs.
If the film company/companies who are marketing this product are advertising this as a modified product, are purchasing the original at Hollywood's cost and are charging a fee for their services as the item is edited...how is this wrong? They are meeting a market demand. If Hollywood won't do it, then someone else will. In all actuality, what will happen on appeal of this product is that the company will be forced to reclassify themselves or adjust business practices, but they'll still be in business. Supply and demand baby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright violation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright violation?
I have assembled 5 dvds, each 2hours, which contain virtually every scene from every movie in which a Mustang appears. They are for my own personal use. However, if I wanted to duplicate the dvds to give, say, to every Mustang Club in North America for their members to enjoy on club nights am I in contravention of the copyright law OR have I already breached it just by purchasing/renting the hundreds of vhs videos and dvds and putting all the Mustang clips in them onto my dvds?
Also, with the 45th anniversary of the Mustang coming up in 2009/2010 I think an edited version of my collection would make a fabulous customer premium for Ford to give away at the time of purchase to commemorate this upcoming Mustang milestone. Agree or disagree?
And how does one get permission to use the clips given the myriad of films and studios? Maybe Ford has a better idea?
Thanks,
Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright violation?
I have assembled 5 dvds, each 2hours, which contain virtually every scene from every movie in which a Mustang appears. They are for my own personal use. However, if I wanted to duplicate the dvds to give, say, to every Mustang Club in North America for their members to enjoy on club nights am I in contravention of the copyright law OR have I already breached it just by purchasing/renting the hundreds of vhs videos and dvds and putting all the Mustang clips in them onto my dvds?
Also, with the 45th anniversary of the Mustang coming up in 2009/2010 I think an edited version of my collection would make a fabulous customer premium for Ford to give away at the time of purchase to commemorate this upcoming Mustang milestone. Agree or disagree?
And how does one get permission to use the clips given the myriad of films and studios? Maybe Ford has a better idea?
Thanks,
Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i don't think its 'criminal' but 'civil' so unless the copyright holder makes a complaint it should go nowhere.
and as for 'goblet of fire', frankly if the auther didn't like it, well when the contract for the next one is drawn up i dare say a few extra clauses will be added.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I now sue TBS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can I now sue TBS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can I now sue TBS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Solution
If they don't then who's the loser?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple Solution
If they don't then who's the loser?"
You should read those end credits. There's a line in there that states who is the owner of the film for legal purposes.
And, for those who wonder, the airlines and TV stations/networks *do* get a license to show and edit the movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Edit
I edit my movies all the time. I take music I never paid for and use it as sound clips for small videos I make, then upload to sites like YouTube. I cut funny clips from movies then upload those to the web.
In other words.... BITE ME.
I will continue to do whatever the hell I please with movies, music and software.
And that's just me, someone who hasn't paid. Try and stop someone from doing what they want when they actually own the content.
P.S.
Screw the MPAA and the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
As many people above already stated, if something offends you so much that it hurts, why not prevent the hurt and not watch it? Why feel the need to change it into something more acceptible? Wouldn't it be easier to allow yourself to accept that sometimes people will make things that you disagree with? Who knows, it might even teach you some acceptance?
If this continues, we'll end up with just one style of storytelling, and I'm pretty sure that everything remotely interesting will be removed in time, as there is something offensive for anyone! It just seems endless to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Point of View
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Confused
The thing about art is everyone has a different definition of it. Who are you to say what is and is not art?
Copyrighting exists partly for the idea that someone's work, that they spent time creating on doesn't become bastardized. Changing things in a work of art to mold it into someone else's views destroys the integrity of the artist's intent. Read my 'Point of View by An Artist' post above.
Ah. Then why don't you complain about every single Disney bastardization of original art? How many times did Disney remake a classic story into their own view? Why aren't you screaming about how unfair that is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buy the Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I wanted to say...
Before reading this "article" please keep in mind this is not a report by an unbiased professional journalist, the link however is.
According to an article , a Judge in Colorado has found editing movies, to remove what might be viewed as offensive, illegal. From what I can conclude from the article this case was decided on copyright infringement. What strikes me as odd is why the companies who are providing this "product" aren't labeled in the same fashion as anyone else who happens to make a copy of a movie. Considering the current attention of p2p file sharing programs, torrents, and anything else that involves sharing copied media, and the heat the prosecuted in relation receive, why aren't these companies being viewed in the same regard?
Apparently it's been perfectly fine (up until now) for someone to make an illegal copy of a DVD, edit it, and then MARKET it so long as it's done so with a business license. I can only imagine that the edited DVDs are actual purchased movies. However it would require someone to rip a DVD, then burn it to another DVD to take out all offensive content. This in itself is legal, a person can purchase a media item, and duplicate it for their own uses. So if you want to buy The Big Lebowski and take out all the expletives and nudity so your kids can watch this wholesome family flick then you're more than welcome too. Say you want to upload this file to a server, so if you take a family vacation and forget to bring the hard copy, you can just access the file remotely. Yet again something an individual is able to do. However if you let your friend access this copy it's then illegal (File sharing).
To me this raises two questions, first why was CleanFlicks allowed to sell their copies? And second, why haven't they been compared to any other file sharing infringement? Only answer here, to me, seems to be the fact they had a business license and the government got to tax such activities. Until someone sued these people, went through the bureaucratic loop holes, and got a certified judge to say "NO" it was all fine and dandy (even though preexisting legislation prohibits such activities, and the new found ruling is just affirming current copyright laws). CleanFlicks (individual) legally purchased a movie, and then made a copy of this movie (legal). They then took this copy and rented (shared) it to an individual (illegal). For the sake of argument we'll consider the movie cost $25. Then CleanFlicks rented this movie to an individual for $5. If the single copy was rented more than 5 times CleanFlicks has now made a profit from illegal activities. The only heat they catch for this is they're no longer able to operate their business by turning a profit form illegal activities. However if Joe Schmo (individual) legally purchases a movie, then they make a copy of this movie (legal), and uploads it to a server it would appear any authoritative force out there wants to label this individual as a criminal. Regardless of whether or not this uploaded file was used in any other fashion then what it was legally intended for, the pure action of having created a legal duplicate seems to be viewed as illegal in the eyes of said authorities. But if Joe got a business license, and started to market his copies to individuals and make a business out of it it would be fine, right? NOOOOOOOO. So why has been it been fine for CleanFlicks to do so, and why aren't they receiving harsher punishments for doing the same thing thousands of individuals are getting fined for by the RIAA or MPAA?
The only difference in the comparison between CleanFlicks and Joe is that CleanFlicks was making money from selling illegal copies while Joe just let someone have something. If you care to make the argument that CleanFlicks just rented illegal content as opposed to Joe having given away illegal content, then you make the move to say that illegal content is perfectly fine to manufacture and turn a profit from, so long as your customers' can't own your product. Current laws, however, don't agree with this methodology. They specifically state that media can only be copied for use by an individual, and any form or sharing this duplicate is illegal without consent from the originating owner of said media (i.e. Comedy Central airing HBO footage). It would seem that in order for justice to truly be served in this case, an immediate cease and desist and hefty fine would need to be imposed unto CleanFlicks.
However, I guess it's the case that the people who uploaded files (such as mp3's) aren't charged, but the end-user who receives the file gets the charges. So to the poor kid who got charged $300,000 for downloading 15,000 songs it would only be justly fair to impose a hefty fine on anyone who happened to rent a movie from CleanFlicks. Consider the kid didn't know it was wrong of him to download the file through a 3rd-party agent such as Kazaa, ignorance doesn't get him off. So to anyone who rented a movie from CleanFlicks ignorance shouldn't protect them either. IF you disagree, that it should be CleanFlicks that should receive the fines and not their customers, then anyone using a file sharing program shouldn't receive a fine either, but instead the actual file sharing program creator. This isn't the case however, and hasn't ever been otherwise. So in order for this case of media sharing infringements to coincide with all the previous cases before it, fine CleanFlick customers, because they're the ones at fault according to all previous rulings regarding the matter of sharing illegal media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I wanted to say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: j37hro
you can do whatever you want with the code in most open source licenses. with the GPL, specifically in the case of improvements, you HAVE to give the changes back to the originator. that is a real sticking point for many commercial vendors.
open source types call the right to take a project in another direction "the right to fork". funny how that seems to apply to "sanitized" versions of a movie, where traditional copyright actively discourages and punishes forks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One use of these versions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it would be like having someone, without your permission, make a Muzak version of your hit song, play it in elevators, but still pay all the royalties on it.
yes, the copyright holder isn't losing anything because the royalties are paid, but that doesn't give the royalyy payor the right to alter the song without the artist's express permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More on the chair
Yes you can: The designer will copyright the design of the chair. If the chair is innovative he may even patent the chair. If the chair represents his business as a logo or advertising slogan he might trademark the chair.
No matter how you try and slice it, buying my chair, slapping a coat of paint on it, and shortiening one leg then selling it as your own is infringing on my rights as the designer/builder. If you get my permission then the altered chair is fair game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say it went the other way. I find a lot of programming insulting and banal. If, instead of just refusing to watch it I took that content and altered it to suit my taste, made it less PC, threw in some language that might offend others, et cetera, and then distributed that, even as a "modified" version of the same product, wouldn't the original artist's vision have been changed in an unacceptable way?
As for ownership of a DVD, yes, you own that plastic disc if you have purchased it. You can modify it in any way you choose. You can write your name on it with a Sharpie or melt it or whatever...but the content does not belong to you.
One last thing: Disney's bastardizations were from stories in the public domain, so though they may have greatly changed the very meaning of the story, there was no copyright protecting the authors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protected by Copyright, Restricted by Copyright
When you go after people who distribute or sell verbatim copies of your work, you’re protecting your profits. When you go after those who make derivative works of them, you’re robbing mankind of its culture, of its pool of potential creativity. You’re stealing, you’re a thief.
Prohibition of verbatim copying is copyright protection. Prohibition of derivative works is copyright restriction. Both are enshrined in law, but the one is moral, the other is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Just Religious Issue
The edited versions you see on TV or airlines, or hospitals, etc. have been done with the PERMISSION of the copyright holders. Usually they are done BY the copyright holders, or at the very least are APPROVED by the copyright holders. None of that was the case with what CleanFlix was doing.
And whether or not Hollywood should make "clean" versions available to the public is besided the point-- that's not what the issue is here. (Plus, one person's "clean version" is another person's "dirty version," so there'd be no way to make everyone happy.)
Now, here's another way of looking at this issue that might help people understand why it an important victory for artists/copyright holders. It also illustrates why it's a fair, reasonable and good decision:
Let's say your child was killed by another child who was playing with a gun that that kid's father had. You're so upset that you make a movie that is very anti-gun. But someone buys a copy of your film on DVD and-- without your permission-- re-edits it, cutting out the death scene, removing gun-related death statistics, and making other changes (perhaps even adding new stuff) so now it glorifies guns and violence. They now make this version available to consumers.
Even if you get your royalty check, and even if it says "Special Gun Lovers' Version," do you think this is a fair and acceptable thing to do? I sure don't think it is.
What if you were a devout atheist and CleanFlix "cleaned up" your anti-religion movie to make it look pro-Mormon?
So don't get stuck into thinking that what CleanFlix was doing was harmless because they were just cleaning up films. If this door hadn't been closed, it would have allowed any company to do *anything* to the films.
It's funny, though perhaps not shocking, that a religious-based company was doing something that was morally wrong. (Just to clarify, the last time I checked, it was wrong to do something without permission, and this company was explcitly told that they did not have permission.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn those stealing zealouts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
opinion... Like a$@holes, everyone has one
and this whole sue the TV stations for editing movies, that's bull, because they work with the studio to purchase editing rights.
also, a friend of mine used to work at a blockbuster. she said each video they "purchased" was round 200 to 500 bucks. that's because blockbuster buys the right to "resell" the movie, i.e. charge people to view it. so.....yeah..it sucks and all, but what can ya do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: This is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward
And again, whether there's a need for this type of thing or not has NOTHING TO DO WITH whether what they're doing is legal. NOTHING. They are doing something illegal, period. And there are avenues open to them to do it legally but THEY CHOSE NOT TO.
And whether Hollywood is only turning out trash now is also completely irrelevant. That's a childish rationalization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Confused ... to Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly...
If a church wants to purchase the movie, edit it and show it, fine. These guys were buying a movie, editing it, then reselling it at a higher price, thereby turning a profit on someone else's creativity without the owner's permission. The law specifically prohibits this. You can rationalize all day long how it's stiffling creativity, blah blah blah, but the bottom line is it's illegal and it's wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's one company that's a "cleaner"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight, CleanFilms, Fight!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight, CleanFilms, Fight!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Addendum
It's not wrong to make a recipe with margarine if the receipe calls for real butter; however, if the receipe has a copyright, there are obviously laws to consider if you're going to sell the finished product. What are the legal issues regarding a lemonade stand if the child is selling County Time lemonade? The "art" argument is weak; it's about money.
I would want and expect a company to be law-abiding. Circumventing the copy protection is wrong, but LET'S MAKE A DEAL with Hollywood to appease the film makers, copyright laws, creators and whomever else has a problem with the selling of edited movies.
If I want the option to buy an edited movie, and I'll pay what's necessary if I want it bad enough. Surely even Hollywood can appreciate and take advantage of that angle.
There's NOTHING wrong with wanting to enjoy a movie for its good and beneficial qualities. If I watch "Schindler's List", of course I expect violence. The problem for me lies mainly with "family films" that just aren't "family friendly". There are other instances like "Amelie" where I'd love to watch it with my French-speaking aunt; is it SO surprising that I don't want to sit through embarrassing scenes with a sweet lady in her 70's? Why should I have to either "suck it up" or go without watching it with her?
Let's give viewers OPTIONS vs. a "take it or leave it" attitude :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right on Cleanflick, Carrie and Anonymous Coward!
I am not religious. You DO NOT have to be religious to see that movies, music, and the media in general have gotten more offensive, inhumane and just plain disgusting in the last decade. They are fast becoming a disgrace.
Don't try and tell me that this is about free speech. This is about a bunch of morally bankrupt or morally ignorant wannabe artists jumping on a bandwagon because a certain formula has shown that it can make money, and using free speech as the poor scapegoat to get their pathetic creations out there.
I heard a guy on tv once say that the so-called artists and movie makers should plainly be telling their BS to a therapist, instead of marketing it and selling it to the public.
They don't often stop to create very much of anything constructive that can contribute to uplifting the human condition or consciousness...they only parrot what they've seen done before...they basically take the same overused plotlines, throw a different cast and environment around it and resell it. If there was a lawsuit every time that happened, there would be no Hollywood.
Hollywood is a factory, just like any other kind of factory.
The media has changed. It is now filled to overflowing, because of new accessible technology, with inexperienced, immature, and quite frankly – untalented - people, with heads filled with self-absorbed dreams of fame and fortune…and not constructive ideas to the improvement of the human consciousness, nor any thoughts of responsibility to the movie going public.
They are concerned with being cool, rich and famous. Unfortunately, the Hollywood mongers, themselves filled with their own importance, know this, and know that those kinds of people are easy to manipulate.
No different from ages past, but the technology unfortunately makes it much much easier for them to create and market their crap.
One often wonders what the world would be like, if for all these decades, the majority of filmmakers, musicians and the like focused on positive creations, instead of the endless hate, violence and inhuman behaviours that they endlessly go on about. They only care about what sells, and unfortunately, a bloodthirsty movie going public, either too young to understand or for too long fed on a diet of the ugly side of human nature, only seems to support them. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
I am fully aware that there are those who do try to create positive media, and I applaud them, but they are sadly not the majority.
Is it any wonder, like Carrie said, that the reason companies like Cleanflick are popping up, is because people are sick and tired of the endless BS that the factory is pumping out? It wasn't great in ages past, but it was never as bad as it is now.
The new technology has of course improved things on one hand, but on the other, thanks to this same technology, the entertainment landscape is littered with unmemorable, pointless and offensive material.
Why do you think the lawsuit happened? Because it's reached a point where the filmmakers can't ignore it anymore, it's become a threat to their complacent filmmaking. They are actually going to have to be more responsible for the content and quality of their productions (yeah, right). They are going to have to look beyond their own egos, and remember that their continued success depends on the public, and not just the teenagers who'll watch almost anything. Boo hoo for them.
There is a great leveling going on in the world right now. Monopolistic narrow-thinking industries are being taken to task. Those who are growing upwards in consciousness won't stand for it any more.
We've seen it happen in music already. It has to reach a peak before it gets better, but thank god for companies like Cleanflicks who are standing up. Thank God.
I happen to be a writer and musician, so I know what I'm talking about. I hope to God this leveling is now happening in the film industry, and all I can say is, it's about time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right on Cleanflick, Carrie and Anonymous Coward!
I am not religious. You DO NOT have to be religious to see that movies, music, and the media in general have gotten more offensive, inhumane and just plain disgusting in the last decade. They are fast becoming a disgrace.
Don't try and tell me that this is about free speech. This is about a bunch of morally bankrupt or morally ignorant wannabe artists jumping on a bandwagon because a certain formula has shown that it can make money, and using free speech as the poor scapegoat to get their pathetic creations out there.
I heard a guy on tv once say that the so-called artists and movie makers should plainly be telling their BS to a therapist, instead of marketing it and selling it to the public.
They don't often stop to create very much of anything constructive that can contribute to uplifting the human condition or consciousness...they only parrot what they've seen done before...they basically take the same overused plotlines, throw a different cast and environment around it and resell it. If there was a lawsuit every time that happened, there would be no Hollywood.
Hollywood is a factory, just like any other kind of factory.
The media has changed. It is now filled to overflowing, because of new accessible technology, with inexperienced, immature, and quite frankly – untalented - people, with heads filled with self-absorbed dreams of fame and fortune…and not constructive ideas to the improvement of the human consciousness, nor any thoughts of responsibility to the movie going public.
They are concerned with being cool, rich and famous. Unfortunately, the Hollywood mongers, themselves filled with their own importance, know this, and know that those kinds of people are easy to manipulate.
No different from ages past, but the technology unfortunately makes it much much easier for them to create and market their crap.
One often wonders what the world would be like, if for all these decades, the majority of filmmakers, musicians and the like focused on positive creations, instead of the endless hate, violence and inhuman behaviours that they endlessly go on about. They only care about what sells, and unfortunately, a bloodthirsty movie going public, either too young to understand or for too long fed on a diet of the ugly side of human nature, only seems to support them. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
I am fully aware that there are those who do try to create positive media, and I applaud them, but they are sadly not the majority.
Is it any wonder, like Carrie said, that the reason companies like Cleanflick are popping up, is because people are sick and tired of the endless BS that the factory is pumping out? It wasn't great in ages past, but it was never as bad as it is now.
The new technology has of course improved things on one hand, but on the other, thanks to this same technology, the entertainment landscape is littered with unmemorable, pointless and offensive material.
Why do you think the lawsuit happened? Because it's reached a point where the filmmakers can't ignore it anymore, it's become a threat to their complacent filmmaking. They are actually going to have to be more responsible for the content and quality of their productions (yeah, right). They are going to have to look beyond their own egos, and remember that their continued success depends on the public, and not just the teenagers who'll watch almost anything. Boo hoo for them.
There is a great leveling going on in the world right now. Monopolistic narrow-thinking industries are being taken to task. Those who are growing upwards in consciousness won't stand for it any more.
We've seen it happen in music already. It has to reach a peak before it gets better, but thank god for companies like Cleanflicks who are standing up. Thank God.
I happen to be a writer and musician, so I know what I'm talking about. I hope to God this leveling is now happening in the film industry, and all I can say is, it's about time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Editing books?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
expanding the market - dead on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its legal if you buy it but if you take it out of the owners hands and steal it before it hits market yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]