' Naughty Bits' Decision Not So Nice 459
While some comments evaluated the decision as a victory for filmmakers as artists rather than merely as copyright holders, some readers aren't so sure that directors' and studios' interests have much to do artistic integrity, and suggest that it's primarily their commercial rather than aesthetic interests being served here. TheFlyingGoat makes a case for this view:
"I understand where the movie companies are coming from in terms of copyright... they don't want people taking a DVD, adding additional clips/features/menus/etc, and selling that for a profit. ...As for the directors and producers that claim their artistic vision was impeded upon, they sure don't have an issue with those movies being modified in the exact same way for broadcast on network tv. All they care about is the large amount of money the networks give them.
So, what this really comes down to is the movie studios wanting complete control over their works, which I'm surprised to see much of the Slashdot crowd backing up. Seems it's better to hate "the red states" than to hate the MPAA."
Whether even the financial interest of the studios is being served by nixing the Cleanflix service, though, is a point that the same reader finds ambiguous, too. [the studios are] "getting just as much money from each DVD sale, so it's not like they're losing any business. In fact, they're probably gaining business from those people who wouldn't normally buy a certain movie due to violent/sexual/etc content, but will if they get an edited version of the movie."
MarcoAtWork says he doesn't swallow the "artistic integrity" argument either, and notes the bizarre script deviations which licensed showings on broadcast or cable television sometimes end up with: "Something tells me that the director's 'artistic vision' for example didn't include Bruce Willis saying 'Yippee-ki-yay Mister Falcon.' in Die Hard, or 'This is what happens whey you find a stranger in the Alps!' in the Big Lebowski."
Anticipating a "kneejerk reaction," reader Brian_Ellenberger has a more aggressive reaction of his own, writing
"Don't approve of this action just because you think it only hurts a bunch of 'right-wing Christian zealots.' Remember fair use! There was a one-to-one copy sold with each of these DVDs---the original and the edited. The filmmakers did not lose one dime, and in fact made money with each copy sold. ... So if we are to argue that, if you bought something you have the legal right to do whatever you want to it (Fast Forward through commercials, play on a Linux box, rip to a hard drive), then you cannot allow Hollywood to start acquiring new rights for their so-called 'artistic vision.' Otherwise, you will find yourself unable to fast forward through scenes (or commercials) because that would violate the 'artistic vision' of Hollywood."
More concise is reader Raul654's capsule description of the result: "If I own a DVD, I cannot pay someone to make a copy of that movie for me sans parts I might find offensive. It's not censorship, because I'm the one asking him to do it for me."
There are plenty of mixed feelings about motives and results in this discussion, though: reader m874t232 says he doesn't like people who "scrub" movies, but he still doesn't like the outcome because of the short-sightedness he perceives in it, writing "For millennia, art has progressed and evolved by taking some prior artist's work and modifying it, often in ways that the original artist didn't agree with. Except for possibly receiving financial compensation for a limited time for each copy created, artists should not have the power to control what happens to their creations after they have released them to the public."
Reader zakezuke took issue with that viewpoint, arguing instead that"Fair use would be you making a backup copy, putting 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 offensive, 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."
Reader spencer1 offers some insight into why people might want to watch movies in other than their all-killing, all-cursing original versions:
"As others have already stated, this has absolutely nothing to do with Walmart. This applies to services such as CleanFlix, which are very popular in Utah and Idaho. I am a Mormon, and I frequent Cleanflix often. Some movies are very enjoyable, but contain bits that I don't wish to see. If the mainstream want to see those bits, fine, go ahead; these services are not for them. If I don't want to see it, how does it affect you? Cleanflix allows me to rent movies that I would not otherwise rent, they are now turning away a potential customer. This does not hurt the copyright holder, they still receive the full purchase price for all the movies that Cleanflix uses. Their revenue is not altered in any way by this editing."
For anyone who has reason to desire a version other than the theatrical release of a film, the decision against Cleanflix doesn't mean the end of expurgation; reader jambarama points out a technical solution which seems much less legally fragile (and which seems to meet zakezuke's objection above), in the form of another service with a similar practical result, but without the messiness of reproducing a derivative work, writing:
"A good alternative for those who don't want their young children to see 'bad' stuff is Clearplay. We've had it for a while, here is how it works:
- Buy a normal DVD with all the "naughty bits"
- Get the filter from the clearplay website for that DVD
- Transfer the filter via USB or CD to the clearplay DVD player
- Watch your DVD - the filter tells the DVD player where to skip the naughty bits - no editing, just timecodes to be skipped."
Something similar could probably be put together fairly quickly using programs like Avidemux or VirtualDub for those who don't mind distributing the work of classifying and sharing the necessary edit-decision lists. Reader OYAHHH outlines how such a system might be implemented for those unlikely to apply hand-edited EDLs:
"What somebody needs to do is to devise a DVD player that can read a file delineating where the objectionable parts are on the particular DVD. Once the bad parts are known to the player the player simply skips them.
People who want to view the unedited version are happy and those that don't desire to see whatever content can be happy as well.
The original content on the original DVD is not altered in any manner. Copyright is protected.
Religious groups could then produce the "files" to correspond to their own needs and distribute these files via the Internet. The files are uploaded to the special DVD player."
Thanks to all the readers who contributed to this discussion, especially those quoted above.
Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright (Score:3, Informative)
Actually copyright (and patents) is explicitly mentioned in the constitution as something the Federal Government is responsible for. I'm not sure legislation at the state level is even constitional, not without an act of Congress anyway.
And, for what it's worth, protecting the integrity of artistic works strikes me as a worthy use of copyright. Nor is it necessary to be a giant cartel to win, as Gilliam vs ABC (one of the first "moral rights" cases) proves.
Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright (Score:2, Informative)
Vote Libertarian [lp.org].
-Peter
Other Censoring Technology is Okay (Score:2, Informative)
What part of... (Score:5, Informative)
don't you understand? I mean, it's right there in the terms of service [ostg.com] at the bottom of every page, just below the "owners" text you quoted.
howto: AviSynth (Score:2, Informative)
This is really simple to implement using AviSynth [avisynth.org], if anyone wants to try it. Just install that, an MPEG-2 (DVD) codec, and AnyDVD or DVD43 to decrypt the DVD on-the-fly. Then create a text file called myscript.avs with this code:
You can then open that in any DirectShow or VfW compatible player, such as WMP. Or distribute the *.avs files to others.
Re:A helpful demonstration by Slashdot (Score:2, Informative)
I agree with you -- it should be clearer that Slashdot may display a reader's comment in more than one context. I've requested this, too, but it's one of those things which timewise so far hasn't been high-priority. I'm sure not (yet) a lawyer, but I do think that implied license when posting to a public forum is plentifully sufficient, *really*, but making it more explicit is a good idea. I'll lend you some patience, if you lend me some right back
timothy
Re:editing for profit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Collages, et cetera (Score:4, Informative)
Have you ever seen an artist make a collage? You know, cut up portions of photographs, text, whatever and incorporate them into a new creation (assuming that they purchased them in the first place, that is)? Well, this ruling takes a big step towards forbidding that in the future.
Exactly how is taking a movie and editing out a few minutes of it while keeping the rest anything like a collage? A collage uses multiple sources and bears little resemblence to any single one of the works used in the collage. If you want a valid analogy, look no further than the music sampling world. Fair use means you can take short parts of the song without violating copyright. It doesn't mean huge portions that resemble the original work. There were multiple lawsuits over this in the 80s/90s. See Negativeland being sued by U2 for an example of a derivative work. Negativland lost (settled out of court) and copies of the album were destroyed. The song was largely similar to the original U2 song. On the other side there's all kinds of music that has samples in it that are small enough to not be a deriviate work, so no one ever bothers suing. There's a gray area in-between, and that's where you'd see court rulings that would effect what's fair use and what's a derivative work. This lawsuit is nowhere near that gray area.
What's happening here is nothing at all like a collage. It's quite obvious it's a derivative work, and distributing it therefore violates copyright law.
After all, if he's allowed to forbid you from editing it (after purchasing a copy), isn't he also allowed to forbid you from "editing out the sound"
Why are there so many people that make this out to be a limit on what you can edit and view yourself in the privacy of your own home? These companies were DISTRIBUTING this content. That has nothing to do with making your own version of Star Wars and taking out the sound.
Re:Redistributing work of others without permissio (Score:5, Informative)
We should allow content altered DVDs if it is clearly marked, the original credits are given, and who did the editing. - we should allow what with content altered DVDs? Should we allow distribution of content altered DVDs without permission from copyright holders? I don't think so. Whether you changing your DVD content and using it yourself falls under fair use or not, I am not sure, but I am certain that noone can legally take a DVD, modify its content and redistribute it without permission.
This case is not about someone modifying their own DVD and using it, it is about a firm that redistributing modified content for profit without permission.
Re:Should be legal, but still stupid. (Score:4, Informative)
My kids love the movie "Twister", but I wish it had a few less "goddamns". Am I really "religious frek" and a "moron" because I'd prefer not to hear gratuitous bad language?
No, but you can't redact the dvd and resell it. That's what this is all about.
Sex vs Violence (Score:2, Informative)
The violence in movies is not, in fact, real violence. Anyone beyond a certain age knows this. However, the nudity in movies is actual nudity. And despite claims, pornography can, and does, ruin some lives.
PS: Cleanflicks does remove violence as well as nudity and language.
Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright (Score:5, Informative)
The FAA Is a failure [mises.org] PDF WARNING
The Government's Highway System [mises.org]
The FCC [mises.org] and telephone [mises.org] tragedies of government
NSF [mises.org] irresponsibility
NAS [mises.org] PDF WARNING
The Trouble with NASA [mises.org]
PTO [mises.org]
USGS failures [mises.org]
NOAA [mises.org]
National Park Service [mises.org] - more [mises.org]
NEA [mises.org]
and as for education, let's look at No Child Left Behind [mises.org] and the Department of Education PDF WARNING. [mises.org]
That enough?
Reading the case (Score:3, Informative)
A summary:
Personally, I think if you compare this with software licenses, it makes perfect sense.
Re:netweork tv does it but I cant? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who cares about their original intent? (Score:3, Informative)
But you can't take a toyota, copy it, and sell it as a toyota.
True, but you can most certainly take a Toyota, alter it, and sell the result as a Toyota, in much the way that you should morally be able to buy a copy of a string of bits, media-shift it, chop parts out, and sell the resulting string of bits.
Again, this falls under the catagory of property rights, perhaps even trademark rights. I would "imagine" looking at your analogy that one would have to disclose the fact that the Toyota in question is not stock, and the fact that it's a used car not sold by Toyota. Toyotas reputation would not be affected by some joker who decided to drop a v8 hemi into a Tercel, not unless it wasn't disclosed that it was an afermarket modification. Usually the fact that it looks like a hotwheels car is a dead giveaway, and though I think it stupid and a waste of time to make a car look like a big arse hotwheels car, it's phsyical property with physical ownership, you can do with it what you like. You can call me stupid for painting my wheels blue, but it helps me find my car in parking lots.
Morality is beside the point, you don't have the right to copy a string of bits created by someone else that is still protected under copyright without their express permission and sell it. The moment you do this and it leaves your posession, you created a bootleg, an unauthorized derivative work. It doesn't matter what you think of the creative work, it doesn't matter whether you think they will make more money, or wish to edit something you and others you know find as moraly objectionable. You simply have no right to do so, not without express permission. I'm not saying it's wrong... I'm not saying don't enjoy a good bootleg or unauthorized subtitling of a foreign work, only you have no rights to do so.
The arangement was in exchange for complete control over your creative work you in turn agree to give up that work to the public domain after a set period of time. This would include the copyrights on much of the GNU and BSD licensed software which tends to be popular around here. Some Joe might think the people who release software under these these licenses are stupid, moronic, and a bunch of idealistic hippies out to change the world. But they have every right to be stupid, moronic, and the God given right to be a bunch of idealistic hippies seeking to change the world.
For example... Bruce Springsteins "Born in the USA" was a song I first noticed doing the Reagan election year IIRC (note my brain is fuzzy between Reagan and Bush), and I thought to my self what a terrible thing, stupid pro-war song. It was only later in life I learned that Bruce didn't license his work to be used as a political adverts and fought tooth and nail to get it removed, and it was intended as an anti-war song. This use, which i'm sure helped the song's popularity and helped make Bruce a ton of money with free advertising, did cause him irrevocable harm by giving some of the youth the impression this man was pro war, when clearly he wasn't. Bruce had every right to tell Mr. Reagan not to use his work, and legaly he was correct, morally he was even more so.