Cutting out the Naughty Bits Ruled Illegal 1329
An anonymous reader writes "Some of you may recall the lawsuit brought by several Hollywood directors against companies which edit movies for sex, language, and violence. The companies would trade consumers an off-the-shelf DVD for an edited one. Well, the CBC is reporting that Judge Richard P. Matsch has found that this practice violates U.S. copyright law, and '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.'''
Re:Ok.. businesses are one thing, what about paren (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Selling damaged books illegal now? (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite. You own the physical book. You can do what you want with it... including tearing out pages, burning it, or blacking out all instances of the word "the" if you choose. What you can't do is type the contents of the book into a word processor, remove certain sections of it, reprint the modified book, and then sell that bound inside the original cover. That's the difference.
Re:Selling damaged books illegal now? (Score:3, Informative)
It's like dodging copy protection (violating the DMCA) in order to make a backup copy of a game for yourself. As long as you don't start selling, or otherwise distributing, the backup nobody will ever know or care that you violated the DMCA.
This is why I only torture pets and then incinerate them in the privacy of my own basement...
Re:Selling damaged books illegal now? (Score:3, Informative)
This particular case was something of a grey area (in part because they weren't costing the movie-makers money - ie they weren't like people selling bootleg DVDs), but it's the act of copying and redistribution that got them. Legally, they're in the same boat - slightly better off for not profiting at the MPAAs expense like the aforementioned bootleg DVD seller, but slightly worse off for having made alterations to their copied versions without the original author's consent.
Think about it. If the law says that the MPAA can sue filesharers, who aren't altering the movies they distribute, and aren't charging money for their unauthorized copies, then what is protecting the defendants here who are both altering and charging money?
Now, if you disagree with the idea that the MPAA should be able to sue over stuff like this, then that's another matter altogether. I don't like their lawyers and lawsuits either. But my point here is about what the law is, not what it should be.
Re:in which I support the prudes... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where's the harm? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting Hypocrisy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Selling damaged books illegal now? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:An Alternative (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, yeah, http://www.clearplay.com/ [clearplay.com]
Re:Selling damaged books illegal now? (Score:3, Informative)
It may seem that the two cases are the same, but they aren't. If the third party was able to remove content from the orginal disk somehow, but never made a copy of it, then it would be equivalent to tearing out pages of a book. Copyright is violated by making a copy even if the copyright holder doesn't lose money on the practice.
Re:Awesome (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Legalized by the Family Movie Act of 2005 (Score:3, Informative)
Also, the Family Movie Act just legalizes the use of software in the player to edit in real-time an unedited copy you already own. It does not legalize the creation of derivative works and the sale thereof.
Re:Selling damaged books illegal now? (Score:4, Informative)
F(*#$@ NO! They are *NOT* buying a license. They are buying a copyrighted work. You don't have to sign a EULA when you buy a DVD. You are, however, correct about derivative works (excepting works of parody) not being allowed under copyright.
A little clarification (Score:4, Informative)
Cleanflix, not Walmart (Score:5, Informative)
Editing on-the-fly not affected (Score:1, Informative)
And:
Re:A little clarification (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Selling damaged books illegal now? (Score:5, Informative)
A condensation, especially one made along definite editorial lines that differ from the original creator's, is certainly a derivative work [wikipedia.org], by 17 U.S.C. 101:
Back to OP: It certainly does. Newspapers pay for the license to create derivative works as well as redistribute. As part of that license, they are required to not edit it in such a way that will distort the "essential meaning" of the piece.
Re:Ok.. businesses are one thing, what about paren (Score:3, Informative)
[Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:]
[...]
(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology.; and
Re:Before the kneejerk reaction from the Slashdott (Score:3, Informative)
Fair use would be you making a backup copy, puting the one you bought into storage, and using the backup. This is fair use. Heck, even taking a film that you own, making a copy and cutting out scenes you don't like... that is also fair use.
What's not fair use is making a copy, cutting scenes, and selling it as a new version without any consent. This is not a one to one copy as there are scenes cut. Money is beside the point... a copyright holder has every right to choose how a work is distributed. This would include not wanting some bozo cutting scenes on a work that took time to create. Any flaws, mistakes, anything which affects the overall presentation can damage the reputation of the respective studio and artists that created the work. It's like taking spray paint to a piece of fine art and going over the bits one finds offencive, this affects the quality of the piece and the viewer might assume the artist is sloppy dolt or doesn't have the technical skill or is too reserved to make a winkle.
Re:A little clarification (Score:4, Informative)
Has this changed in recent years? I ask because when I worked there (in sporting goods, aka, guns) four or five years ago, gun sales normally didn't take more than an hour, much less weeks. The process went something like this:
1. Customer fills out a form - typical name / address / SSN / "I'm not a criminal" stuff.
2. I take their license and confirm the info that I can.
3. I call the FBI or the state police (depending on whether you wanted to buy a shotgun or rifle - I forget which was which, though). "Joe Somebody wants to buy a so-and-so model gun, their info is blah blah blah."
4. They run a background check and call back with the results (almost always before the customer had enough time to walk out of eyesight; I can only think of one or two cases out of hundreds where this was not the case).
4a. If your sale is confirmed, you pay, I call the manager, they walk you out, end of sale.
4b. If it's denied, I prepare for the usual "But I don't have a criminal record!" speech.
4c. If it's delayed (they need to do additional research or whatever before giving me an answer), I take the customer's phone number and call them back when I get a reply (usually took an hour or two, a day at most).
Again, I haven't worked there in four or five years, and this is quite offtopic anyway... but that was my experience with gun sales.
Re:Selling damaged books illegal now? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:in which I support the prudes... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, this precedent has been up and running for 30 years in the US, and was set by a 1976 case [uconn.edu] brought by the Monty Python team, fed up with US networks butchering the early series. Cited in the Slate article on this case [slate.com]. See also VARA [nyartsalive.com].
Re:Cleanflix, not Walmart (Score:3, Informative)
I can give you a perfect example of this. I told a friend "The best part of the Family Guy movie was the beginning where Lois stumbles out and you actually get to hear her say 'Fuck yea'" They looked at me like I was stupid and explained to me there was no cussing in the movie. Oops they bought the Walmart cleaned version and didn't know there was an unedited version that didn't censor the cussing. As much as I hate the MPAA and friends...I'm sorta glad they won this one...
Re:Cleanflix, not Walmart (Score:4, Informative)
Not to sound inflammatory but I think you're dealing with a very limited sample of "jack" Mormons. The Church is very enthusiastic about missionary work, and in places where there is a large Mormon population it is a very common sight to see the two-man missionary teams bicycling around to go door-to-door and preach. In fact I would say LDS is one of the most aggressive denominations in terms of evangelism. They even have commercials advertising free copies of the Book of Mormon - I've never seen anything similar from another denomination or religion, even Scientology (which strikes me as the most inclined to do such a thing).
I do concede that it might be that most of my experience dealing with Mormons has been in the suburbs, where the vast majority of adult Mormons have children and a more conservative mindset than those in other types of area, but I actually find that Mormons are generally the most hard-line conservative in their attitudes among Christian denominations unless they're jack Mormons, in which case they're much more liberal-minded.
Re:Cleanflix, not Walmart (Score:3, Informative)
Because it's offered by a third party; who is publishing and distributing a new edition of the work, in defiance of copyright
Actually, in this case, it's not an "automated service" at all but an entirely new disc; an illegal derivative work is certainly being created and sold. And I wonder how, if at all, they verify that custonmers actually own an "original production DVD". It all sounds very much like Napster and such (back in the day) saying their files were "backups" of the CDs you supposedly owned.Re:Imagine that done to porn movies (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cleanflix, not Walmart (Score:5, Informative)
They're in love. They're gay. They're penguins. [columbia.edu]
Re:Selling damaged books illegal now? (Score:3, Informative)
You are buying a copy.
Not the original, nor are you buying any rights.
Now this is the reason why the copyright rule breaks down: in theory, the company should be able to manipulate their own copy, as long as they don't make copies of it. If they want to backen out certain words or scenes, fine. As long as they're manipulating the original copy, no problem. In reality, what they are selling is technically a copy, because manipulation of the purchased media is unfeasable. Thus a copy is made (hard disk), edited and then a copy of the revised copy is made (the finished DVD). Now the end result is the same as if (for example) a VHS cassette was spliced, the spirit of the law is upheld. But since two copies were made, the letter of the law was broken even if the end result is still only one existing copy.
Re:How about a "clean DVD player" (Score:2, Informative)
Like this?2 18216 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/09/1
http://www.clearplay.com/ [clearplay.com]
Re:Cleanflix, not Walmart (Score:2, Informative)
Where? In my state, thrid trimester abortions are illegal except in cases which threaten the life or health of the mother.
No one is getting worked up over the deaths of zygotes. Those of us who oppose abortion on demand want to see the deaths of viable human beings come to an end.
If that were the case, the pro-life movement would have nothing to do in my state. But oddly enough, they are working on a total abortion ban and tossing around the idea of going after birth control. What is the opposition to "the morning after pill" based on if not the death of zygotes? How about embryonic stem cell research? Zygotes again!
Your position is completely supported by current U.S. law. Given that, you probably identify yourself as "pro-choice", and choose not to ally yourself with those radicals out to protect the rights of zygotes?
Re:A little clarification (Score:4, Informative)
Walmart doesn't censor DVDs (at least not yet). They won't sell DVDs which they deem inappropriate for Walmart to sell. Walmart as of yet, hasn't taken to requesting sanitized versions of movies as they do music. Probably because it is harder to get sanitized versions of movies (sanitized versions of songs already exist for the radio), and because sanitized versions of movies basically means cutting out scenes that the directors felt necessary for their movies to begin with. It's one thing to substitute one short four letter word for another without destroying the general meaning of the song, its another to cut out whole scenes in a movie.
Walmart doesn't sell sanitized CDs for their own protection. The Walton family (which owns the majority of stock) is quite religious and conservative and feels they are doing a public service keeping inappropriate songs away from the public. Walmart does not sell other popular magazines or DVDs that they feel are inappropriate due to this same reason.
No one questions Walmart's right to do this. The problem is the power that Walmart has in this market where they control up to 40% of the sales. You don't have to sell to Walmart. Then again, you don't have to afford rent or food either. The choice is yours because it's a free country.
The decision is logical (Score:3, Informative)
The GPL is an example of a license that permits derivate works to be created. This same interpretation and outcome is what gives power to the part of the GPL requiring derivative works to also be licensed under the GPL. Any different outcome for this case would have had very wide implications indeed.
Re:Premortal sex? (Score:5, Informative)
To pro-lifers, abortion isn't about how it effects them -- they honestly believe that a child in a womb is a child non-the-less, and that this child has a right to live. They believe that having an abortion is taking a child's life.
Is it your business if one man kills another? Why are there laws against it? This is simply the view of the pro-life crowd. It's not that complicated.
Re:Premortal sex? (Score:1, Informative)
Now personally I wouldn't understand a woman who decided to do a partial birth abortion either, if I were stupid enough to believe that women just go for this sort of procedure for the laugh, but, well:
My sister and I are alive today because, when my mother's first pregnancy went disastrously wrong (eclampsia), leaving her comatose in hospital, my father discussed the options with a doctor and made a choice. If he'd made the other choice, the result would have been one surviving brain-damaged infant, no mother and no siblings. He was able to make that choice because 'partial birth abortions' were an option. But it was not a nice choice, nor was it a fun choice to make, nor was it a choice made by some random woman because she felt like killing a baby.
I have no idea why people seem to feel that talking bullshit about abortions is a useful occupation. It seems to me that most of the opinionated little sods out there basically need to butt out of other peoples' lives.
Re:Cleanflix, not Walmart (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Informative)
1. Buy a normal DVD with all the "naughty bits"
2. Get the filter from the clearplay website for that DVD
3. Transfer the filter via USB or CD to the clearplay DVD player
4. Watch your DVD - the filter tells the DVD player where to skip the naughty bits - no editing, just timecodes to be skipped.
I thought it'd be jumpy but it really isn't. Most of the time I can't even figure out what has been skipped. Plus you can set the level of each "naughty bit" - violence, profanity and sex - from low to high. Pretty neat stuff I'd say.
Re:Cleanflix, not Walmart (Score:3, Informative)
I think you're misunderstanding him, though I may be reading more into it than he meant. He's saying that "marriage" is a religious institution, versus civil union which is (or should be) a governmentally recognized union, but I think it really could be extended beyond religion even, but I'm not sure who would be interested in such a thing. Basically, marriage is a ceremony performed by someone not representative of the government, and is not legally recognized. A civil union is granted by the government and is legally recognized. So it doesn't really matter whether a marriage is religious or not.
Re:Cleanflix, not Walmart (Score:3, Informative)
This is an obvious strawman [wikipedia.org]. The OP never said anything of the kind. He clearly said "some people" and further specified that this includes "many in the church I attend". He never said he, himself, felt this way. Even if he did, stating a preference for 2-parent heterosexual couples does not necessarily imply a preference for the abusive ones. That he would prefer abuse from a heterosexual couple to a caring homosexual one was entirely your invention. This would be like saying: "Since you are an atheist, you're obviously saying that Pol Pot [wikipedia.org]'s extermination of Buddhist monks, westerners, and people wearing glasses was the best thing since sliced bread."
Re:Cleanflix, not Walmart (Score:1, Informative)
The proper word here is moot.
RTFD (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.joegratz.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/0
Thanks to blogger Joe Gratz. I would be worried about overwhelming his server, but I don't think many Slashdotters are actually willing to do that much work.