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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Chris, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 1:36am

    similar issue

    Just submitted my take on this article to TechDirt as well, if it doesn't get posted will post it here. In Short, DVD scrubbers are able to "host" illegal copies for a client to obtain just as Kazaa can for mp3s. However, if you download these mp3's you can possibly be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, so renting the movie should be equally illegal, and the same fines should be imposed. Otherwise, DVD scrubbers and FileSharing programs should be the ones at fault, and not we the people for using the services they've been legally allowed to create. Funny media sharing is the only legal issue that seems to be dealt with on a case by case issue, and different rulings can be imposed. It's all the same thing, and should dealt with thusly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Cough, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 2:18am

    *cough*

    They *published* their own version and SOLD it. They weren't editing it. It's just plain wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Ben Robinson, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 2:31am

    Copyright is not just about protecting a market it is about protecting the rights of the creater of that work, one of which is the right to control the creation of deriviative works. In short a rightsholder may well prefer that the consumer does not purchase the creative work at all rather than purchase version that has been "edited" by a third party and no longer represents an acurate portrayel of the rights holders creative vision.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Jul 10th, 2006 @ 2:35am

    Re:

    Copyright is not just about protecting a market it is about protecting the rights of the creater of that work, one of which is the right to control the creation of deriviative works.

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    claire rand, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 2:46am

    Re: Re:

    the trouble isn't selling a chair you have bought, the trouble is buying a chair, altering it, making copies of the now altered chair and selling them. typically without telling people you have altered it - but thats another issue. you are essentially making copies, something the MPAA may object to (unless they are getting a cut of course).

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    PopeRatzo, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 3:34am

    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?

    If it's a copywritten chair,yes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    PopeRatzo, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 3:36am

    Here's an example: I can't go up to Knoll International, buy a Mies van der Rohe Barcelona chair, cover it in plaid fabric, paint the steel yellow and sell it as a Mies van der Rohe Barcelona chair.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Peet McKimmie (profile), Jul 10th, 2006 @ 3:36am

    Re: Re: Re: (Is there an echo in here?)

    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.


    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Hypermagic2, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 3:47am

    You're missing the point

    You're missing the point of what these specific companies did, whether you think they are right or wrong, whether you agree or disagree. They take a commercially available movie and remove objectionable content and foul language so that if a church group or highly religious individual, say, wanted to view the movie but not in it's pure original format because of certain content that doesn't go along with their views or doesn't meet their religious criteria for being "clean", then they could go buy an edited copy of the movie, similar how if you go buy a CD there's usually a "radio edit" and one with an "explicit lyrics" sticker. Only in this case, the "radio edit" is being created by a third party company rather than the studio who released the movie in the first place. I know this for a fact because I live smack in the middle of the bible belt in the United States and this is a common practice among churches around here, for them to purchase A"clean" copies of movies to show at youth events and stuff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Brent, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 3:48am

    Movie Club.

    The one vendor that I'm aware of, CleanFlicks operates as a club. You join the club, the club purchases X copies of a movie, and then members can purchase X copies of the edited movie. If 25 members want a specific movie, then 25 uncut movies are purchased, so that they actually aren't pirating anything. They cost more than the uncut movies, because they have to purchase each movie before doing the editing.

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    yeah but, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 3:49am

    Re: Re: Re:

    in this case they're selling the altered copy bundled with the original DVD... so there's no case of "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."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Joe, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 4:05am

    Why edit?

    If the movie has objectional content, why edit the movie at all? If there is questionable content that is against your ways, should you really be watching it? If I was a film maker, I'd be pissed if someone butchered my movie, too. And those CDs that have radio edits are usually done by the artists, alot of the time they have both the "clean" and "dirty" versions on their albums (Prime example: Creep by Radiohead, both versions are on the cd).

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Phil, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 4:07am

    Chair analogy

    The actual chair analogy is: Can I go out and buy 100 chairs, chop three inches of the legs and then sell them all as "special short chairs"? As long as the seller is transparent in the fact that the chairs have been altered from the original design, I don't see where copyright comes into it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Hollywood's Burdon, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 4:16am

    They'll be modified eventually

    Ever see a movie on an airline? Or maybe Sex in the City on TBS? Of course there's also the inevitable release of any hit movie to network television after it's been on DVD a while.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    claire rand, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 4:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: (Is there an echo in here?)

    frankly as long as:

    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. :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Just Me, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 4:29am

    Artists should decide

    I agree that protecting the original work and the work of artists should be respected and that their concent should be seeked before any alterations are made to their work.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    ramon casha, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 4:46am

    Chair analogy misleading

    The chair analogy is misleading because it's rather unusual to copyright a chair. Compare it with, say, a piece of music. Imagine that some singer took a song out of the latest album by Madonna, added some sound effects and his/her own voice, and issued it as a remix without getting the author's (or owner's) permission. Or, taking a play like Chicago, changing the costumes and a few dances and taking it on a tour of US cities. They'd be sued to smithereens.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Opinionated, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 4:51am

    Movie about editing anothers design

    Put it in a nutshell. Go watch an old (but fitting) movie called "The Fountainhead"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 4:53am

    How frigging stupid are half of you morons posting here? They have to buy a copy of the movie to edit it in the first place. There is a copy being purchased for every copy being sold. If they were duplicating there would and should be an issue but they aren't. Get a fucking clue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Sean, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 5:18am

    Stupidity

    This is another example of how friggin stupid the MPAA/RIAA is. They are so far away from what the consumer wants or they are so far behind the curve it is ridiculous.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    ScottieB, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 5:30am

    What about TV?

    If I'm not mistaken, TBS routinely edits movies for content, replaces the edited words with dub overs, deletes scenes not intended for younger viewers but that's okay.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 5:31am

    So can the public use this rule against the directors for changing their own movies? For ex. George Lucas and his every freaking rendition of the original Star Wars from 1977.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    ScottieB, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 5:40am

    Re: Why edit?

    That's nutz as well.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Wolfger, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 5:44am

    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?

    If it's a copywritten chair,yes.

    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...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 5:45am

    Misleading title

    The judge ruled concerning redistributing altered movies.

    I don't see how that prevents individuals from doing whatever they want with their own copies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Ucidalin, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 5:56am

    Re: You're missing the point

    Even viewing a store bought movie by more than 1 person or family is a violation of the copyrights. If you want to do a viewing of a movie to a group you have to buy a special license. Remember the case where Disney tried suing all the daycares for this? By purchasing these products, people often agree to stipulations they often know nothing about. I would assume you would need to buy the rights to edit the film in the same way. Buying a copy of a movie or music does not give a person any rights other than to personally listen or watch the content, weither you or I like it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anon, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 6:02am

    Copyright Protection

    I actually agree with this service, but even if the judge hadn't declared the service illegal, it already would have been - circumventing the copy protection on a DVD now breaks copyright (in the USA and now due to the RIAA, in every major country trading with America).

    I hate that rule, almost as much as I hate this new ruling!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 6:12am

    So let's see..

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Informed Observer, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 6:16am

    TV/Airline Edits

    In regards to the comments by a number of posters about edited versions for TV and airline use, you should be aware that those edits are made with the approval of the copyrightholder. And yes, in anticipation of the next line of argument, often directors and screenwriters are unhappy about those changes, but they rarely hold the copyright to a finished film -- it's the studios that normally do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Jamie, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 6:16am

    This has nothing to do with copyrights

    This is really about control. The MPAA has been telling us for years that when you buy a DVD you don't actually own it. Somehow they think that if they say it often enough, it will become true. Sadly more and more people are beginning to fall for it.
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    That Guy, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 6:21am

    You're Missing the Point...

    All the edits done for television, they're done by or with the permission of the copyright holder. Are the directors/producers involved? No, but they signed away those rights to the studios, who are the ones doing or allowing the edits. These people do not have the permission edit the movies, but are doing it anyway.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Bowsprit, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 6:35am

    Re: Re: You're missing the point

    "Even viewing a store bought movie by more than 1 person or family is a violation of the copyrights."

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Charlie (Colorado), Jul 10th, 2006 @ 6:53am

    MIsstates the decision

    No, what the judge said was that you can't buy a copy of the movie, edit it, and resell it. Copyright entitles the creator to control what's being passed on as "their" work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 6:55am

    Ni--ger

    That's right I'm white and almost spelled the N word. If you don't like it, don't read Tom Sawyer. If you want to read the classic book and the very word, even in context offends you, tough. You don't get to republish the work with editing, it's just plain heathen. I also don't want to find a copy of Grimm's Fairy Tales with happy endings, or a version of the Da Vinci Code that's acceptable to the Vatican. You don't have to like it all, in fact you don't have to pick it up at all, but you really can't change the work to suit you if it isn't your work, and it's a VERY slipery slope.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Billy, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:08am

    Ok so let me get this straight.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:09am

    Re: What about TV?

    "If I'm not mistaken, TBS routinely edits movies for content WITH THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS PERMISSION, replaces the edited words with dub overs, deletes scenes not intended for younger viewers but that's okay."

    There, I corrected that for you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Stupidity, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:14am

    Surrounded

    Some people can't see beyond their nose.

    If you're in denial, stop asking questions who's answers you'll deny.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Riddelin, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:18am

    I can't believe no one mentioned Wal Mart and how they force musical artists to release "clean" versions of their albums (if so needed) It's not like the artists have much of a choice, if they intend to sell CD's. So the judge is right, you shouldn't be able to edit someone's creation, but I guess you can flex your big business muscle to have them do it for you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Christine, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:21am

    Copyright violation?

    Ok, you can look at this from 2 perspectives:

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    claire rand, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:21am

    and that was the 'W' i was refering to... however essentially not relevent here (as was pointed out already) if the copyright holder is ok with it there is no problem.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    craig, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:25am

    Re: Chair analogy

    "The actual chair analogy is: Can I go out and buy 100 chairs, chop three inches of the legs and then sell them all as "special short chairs"? As long as the seller is transparent in the fact that the chairs have been altered from the original design, I don't see where copyright comes into it."

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Christopher Mercer, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:32am

    Can I now sue TBS?

    Can I now sue TBS for cutting up, and dubbing over the movies they air?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    PseudoDragon (profile), Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:33am

    Re: *cough*

    Take this angle into your thought. Lets say you wrote, legally published, and legally copyrighted your book. Then some religious group bought a copy of your book and removed parts that they found questionable and dispicable. Then they republished you book selling it to a specfic group, with you getting none of the profits from any of the sales, let alone none of the royalites. Now I want you to tell me you wouldn't get extremly mad about that???

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Dam, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:35am

    Simple Solution

    As with the airline and TV edits, these organizations that make changes to delete objectionable scenes and language should obtain a license to do so. Directors rarely own full control of the movies they direct, so it's up to the studios to decide and studios being profit oriented, should be willing to allow cuts.

    If they don't then who's the loser?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Boogie, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:55am

    I Edit

    PFFFFFT!!!

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Binsky, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:56am

    Why?

    I'd just like to chime in on this... I think it's so very very wrong to allow the editing in the first place! It reeks of changing history, and in effect could change the way a movie/book/etc. feels. Stop all this overprotecting bullshit, and learn to not be offended by bad words! :D

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:57am

    Re: Can I now sue TBS?

    Yipeee-ki-yay Mr Falcon!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:59am

    Re: This has nothing to do with copyrights

    "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."

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    An Artist, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 8:06am

    Point of View

    Does anyone recall of something called the Counter-Reformation group who went on a fig-leaf campaign? Or how about a pope who went chopping of genitalia from artist's statues because it was obscene? Now, I know this is an issue with copyrights and such, but from an artist's point of view censoring a work because it goes against moral beliefs (which pointed out above is most likely a just ruse to fill some people's pockets with money) is wrong. If you don't like nudity being portrayed then don't go to see Michelangelo's David, but most importantly don't chop off his little guy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 8:14am

    Re: Copyright violation?

    Your legal analysis is WAY off. Mustangs are not copyrighted. Movies are. Mustangs can be modified and sold. Copyrighted works cannot. The law says so. This ruling affirms that. When you purchase a Mustang, you own the Mustang and the right to do with it whatever you like. When you purchase a DVD you own a plastic disk and the right to watch the content of that disk whenever you chose. That's about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 8:16am

    Re: Can I now sue TBS?

    If the copyright holder didn't give *consent* to the edit and you *are* the copyright holder so you have standing, have at it. Sue away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Jamie, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 8:16am

    Re: Re: This has nothing to do with copyrights

    This is why this ruling is wrong. I OWN THE DVD. I paid for it. I physically own the piece of plastic and should have the right to do whatever I want with that piece of plastic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Wizard Prang, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 8:19am

    That's not a copyright issue...

    ... it's a TRADEMARK 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 :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 8:27am

    Confused

    It seems that people have no problem stealing music, movies or whatever, but altering the content seems "wrong". Obviously this is another example of where copyright holders and copyright laws are stifiling creativity instead of enhancing it. True there are some movies that are so objectionable that even a cleaned movie seems hypocritical. But what about PG movies that have language that some fine offensive. Is it a terrible thing to have a copy with those words blotted out (which used to happen on TV all the time)? Again, I think Copyright law no longer helps encourage diversity and creativity but instead is built to protect the rich and leave everyone else out to dry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    An Artist, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 8:37am

    Re: Confused

    You're missing the point entirely. How is it creative when you take someone elses work that they spent so much time creating and alter it to fit your ideals? Would you consider photocopying the Mona Lisa and adding a mustache in to be creative? I hope not! 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Division by Zero, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 8:45am

    Buy the Rights

    I have nothing against a third party doing anything they like with copyrighted material as long as they buy the rights to do so. If you buy 25 copies of my book then take a black marker to every page to remove the naughty bits, then turn around and sell the copies as "Zero's book" I would object as an artist. If you come to me and ask if you may buy the rights to produce clean versions of my work and prominently label them as modified versions, I'd be inclined to let you buy those rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Chris, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 8:46am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Confused, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 9:00am

    Re: What I wanted to say...

    I thought it was currently illegal to bypass copyright protection schemes on dvds to make a copy for yourself. Also, people who upload mp3s are more likely to get charged than people who just download them, the "poor kid who got charged $300,000 for downloading 15,000 songs" was, more than likely (even if unknowingly) sharing thsoe 15,000 songs they downloaded. Another thing, time and time again we learn that programs themselves aren't illegal, it's the use of these programs. Programs that "crack" other programs aren't illegal themselves but once you run the program and actually crack the program to remove limitations, restrictions, gain full access to, etc... then it's illegal. So it only follows that Kazaa can't be illegal but using it in a manner that is illegal is. Remember, anyone can program the most malicious virus ever and not get in any trouble for it, but to release the virus... well... you get the idea.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    j37hr0, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 9:02am

    Where are all the Free (as in freedom) Software defenders? Do I have the right to take your code, improve it, and pass it on? Isn't that all the 3rd party editors are doing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    DaveP, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 9:03am

    One use of these versions

    Our hospital prior to installing DirectTV in all of the rooms offered in-room movies 4 times a day. They were edited versions provided by a service that catered to hospitals. These versions were family friendly, so as not to offend any patient or visitor. This allowed the patient entertainment without offending anyone including a roommate. (In our new building we have mostly private rooms, so there is less issue with the roommate issue now.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    anonymous coward, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 9:18am

    paying the royalties for the use of a copywritten item does not convey they right to substantially alter the copywritten item.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Justin, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 9:42am

    More on the chair

    Copyright doesn't come into it, because you can't copyright a freaking 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Jul 10th, 2006 @ 9:54am

    Re: Chair analogy misleading

    Compare it with, say, a piece of music. Imagine that some singer took a song out of the latest album by Madonna, added some sound effects and his/her own voice, and issued it as a remix without getting the author's (or owner's) permission. Or, taking a play like Chicago, changing the costumes and a few dances and taking it on a tour of US cities. They'd be sued to smithereens.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Jul 10th, 2006 @ 9:54am

    Re: Re: *cough*

    Take this angle into your thought. Lets say you wrote, legally published, and legally copyrighted your book. Then some religious group bought a copy of your book and removed parts that they found questionable and dispicable. Then they republished you book selling it to a specfic group, with you getting none of the profits from any of the sales, let alone none of the royalites. Now I want you to tell me you wouldn't get extremly mad about that???

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Mark, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 9:58am

    Re: Re:

    The "chair" is a false analogy. If you have a copyrighted design for a chair that someone modifies and sells it as your design, you would probably have a problem with that. This is what is at stake here. The creator has the right to control derivative works.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Jul 10th, 2006 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re: Confused

    You're missing the point entirely. How is it creative when you take someone elses work that they spent so much time creating and alter it to fit your ideals? Would you consider photocopying the Mona Lisa and adding a mustache in to be creative? I hope not!

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    first time poster, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 10:15am

    What the artist is losing in a case like this is integrity of his/her vision. You may disagree with it, you may not like it, you may find it the most offensive thing to ever hit the media, but it is not yours to tamper with. Isn't that what copyrighting is for? Only the holder of the copyright can legally make changes for distribution under that name.
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Alan Goodrich, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 10:31am

    Protected by Copyright, Restricted by Copyright

    “Copyright is not just about protecting a market it is about protecting the rights of the creater of that work, one of which is the right to control the creation of deriviative works.”

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Mr. X, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 10:39am

    Not Just Religious Issue

    First of all, just to make things clear, since some people still don't get it:

    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.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    chris (profile), Jul 10th, 2006 @ 10:53am

    Re: j37hro

    that's the difference between the GPL and everything else. that's also why it's called a copyleft instead of a copyright.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    dhibbit, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 10:57am

    Damn those stealing zealouts.

    Copyright law is designed to prevent someone from undercutting the market for the content -- which clearly isn't the case here.
    Sure it is, rather than buying the studio release, then just 'skipping' throught the naughty parts, the buyer will spend their money on the 'sanitized' version. Thereby increasing the profit towards someone other than the studio. I could see these establishments working out an arrangement with the studio, but you can't just edit material and re-sell it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Movie Guy, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 11:08am

    opinion... Like a$@holes, everyone has one

    Remember, when you buy a DVD, what you are purchasing is the license to VIEW the feature. you don't own the movie or whatever. you own the right to "view" the movie. that's why the whole "but i BOUGHT the dvd" line is flawed.

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 11:17am

    This is ridiculous

    The way I'm understanding this, the company includes a legitimate copy of the original, uncut movie along with each edited version. You are STILL buying an original copy along with the cleaned-up version. And as it has been said, this would prompt people to watch many movies that they would never otherwise see because of the trash that Hollywood insists on putting in all the movies nowadays. If they could get it through their thick heads that clean movies sell big because they don't offend a lot of would-be customers, they could stand to make a lot more money. The same goes with this. They should be glad for services like these because they're selling more units. This is called biting the hand that feeds you. I hope the appeal goes in favor of the editing companies. It would certainly serve as an attention-getter to Hollywood.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Mr. X, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 12:34pm

    re: This is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward

    If it was as big a business as you seem to think it is, don't you think Hollywood would be doing it themselves? Or don't you think Hollywood is greedy?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    An Artist, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 1:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Confused ... to Mike

    My comment I was making was about creativity... preventing the copying someone's work and removing of objectionable materials does not in any way stifle creativity. Had you read the post above mine, maybe you wouldn't sound like a jackass in your response to my comment. If you did read the post, then you're a moron. It's not creative to copy someone's work but leave out a few parts. And yes, I despise Disney, I'm amazed you didn't hear me scream about it from where I was when I did. I find it amusing you think you know my opinion about things. I will say that the people who do design and the actual artwork for disney movies are creative. I hope you see the difference, though, between the creativity in Disney's animators (story writers are a different story) and people "cleaning up" DVDs. If you don't then all hope for you is lost.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Bowsprit, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Simple Solution

    "As with the airline and TV edits, these organizations that make changes to delete objectionable scenes and language should obtain a license to do so. Directors rarely own full control of the movies they direct, so it's up to the studios to decide and studios being profit oriented, should be willing to allow cuts.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    That Guy, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 7:14pm

    Honestly...

    You can't honestly think when you purchase a $20 or $30 DVD that you are purchasing the editing and redistribution rights too do you? That's part of the problem with some, they think they should get everything for free. No, if you want to edit and redistribute it, pay for the right to do so. Don't want to? Go make a better movie!

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Jeff, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 10:43pm

    Here's one company that's a "cleaner"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    everysandwich, Jul 10th, 2006 @ 11:34pm

    copyright law

    Here we read" copyright law is designed to prevent someone from undercutting the market for the content ..." But in the post about the LA times taking its surprising stand we get: "Congress shouldn't pass laws that clearly go beyond the basic intent of copyright law: to encourage the creation of new art. " I would definitely flunk the copyright multiple choice quiz.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Dave, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 5:19am

    Re:

    I think many of you are confused. They buy one copy per one they sell and they give you 1 clean and the regular verion together. So they buy one and sell 2. Seems pretty cut and dry. Plus these clean versions no longer have the dvd copy protection. That is very illegal to strip that. Imagine if my business was just removing the copy protection from movies as a service. How long would I last.

    If these organizations want clean version they have to do it themselves with their fair use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    Dave, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 5:48am

    And all of you people with the silly chair arguement. They aren't reselling a version that has altered. They are making a copy. Simple as that. If I buy a dvd and write on the dvd, then resell it, that is fine. If I printed instructions regarding where to hit the fast forward button to skip the bad material or if I actully scratched the physical dvd to prevent a dvd player from playing the objectionable content that might fly under the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 6:08am

    Re: Re: Re: This has nothing to do with copyrights

    Correct, you do own the DVD. You just don't own the copyright of the movie on the DVD. You can make a hat out of the disk. You can color on it and make pretty windchimes if you'd like. But what you can't do is copy the movie to a different disk, add or subtract your own material, and then republish it for your own profit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    Warren Taylor, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 6:39am

    Re: copywritten

    copyrighted

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    Scott, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 11:49am

    Re: 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!)? "

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Scott, Jul 11th, 2006 @ 11:57am

    Re:

    This company buys the movie, edits it, reburns it and sells it along with the original.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Carrie Carpenter, Jul 17th, 2006 @ 7:47am

    Fight, CleanFilms, Fight!

    Hollywood should be taking notice that their movies are being edited because the market to cut out the "trash" in otherwise good movies is HUGE! They're already profiting from the purchased movies, so, I agree, the copyright argument, isn't exactly the case here. Let's be realistic; there are great movies out there that contain unnecessary and inappropriate material. Laws are for protection, and many people want the option/freedom to choose to enjoy these movies with their friends and family without harmful and/or embarrassing content. It is close-minded to have an "all or nothing" view that a person shouldn't watch a movie at all if they object to any of the content in it. Life is about BALANCE and so are companies like CleanFilms and CleanFlicks. For example, a friend showed me the movie "Amelie", and I adored the story and "overall" message. I want to own it and tell people about it, BUT I WON"T because I don't want to promote all those orgasm and porn store scenes when they add nothing to the story itself! I'm kicking myself now for not having purchased "Amelie" from CleanFilms sooner! There is another company that sells filtering disks you can place in a special DVD player, but that's quite a bit to keep up with and like purchasing a movie twice. There's got to be a way to appeal this unfortunate ruling. The demand is too high. Maybe Hollywood wants the idea for themselves? Nah... Financial profit seems to have brainwashed too many executives and film makers. We need people with the know-how and ability to stand up for moral integrity in our society and continue to fight for the public's demand to enjoy great movies void of inappropriate and harmful material. I will be supporting, watching, and waiting for the ressurection of these worthwhile and appreciated editing companies with my pocketbook ready.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    identicon
    Carrie Carpenter, Jul 17th, 2006 @ 7:50am

    Fight, CleanFilms, Fight!

    Hollywood should be taking notice that their movies are being edited because the market to cut out the "trash" in otherwise good movies is HUGE! They're already profiting from the purchased movies, so, I agree, the copyright argument, isn't exactly the case here. Let's be realistic; there are great movies out there that contain unnecessary and inappropriate material. Laws are for protection, and many people want the option/freedom to choose to enjoy these movies with their friends and family without harmful and/or embarrassing content. It is close-minded to have an "all or nothing" view that a person shouldn't watch a movie at all if they object to any of the content in it. Life is about BALANCE and so are companies like CleanFilms and CleanFlicks. For example, a friend showed me the movie "Amelie", and I adored the story and "overall" message. I want to own it and tell people about it, BUT I WON"T because I don't want to promote all those orgasm and porn store scenes when they add nothing to the story itself! I'm kicking myself now for not having purchased "Amelie" from CleanFlicks sooner! There is another company that sells filtering disks you can place in a special DVD player, but that's quite a bit to keep up with and like purchasing a movie twice. There's got to be a way to appeal this unfortunate ruling. The demand is too high. Maybe Hollywood wants the idea for themselves? Nah... Financial profit seems to have brainwashed too many executives and film makers. We need people with the know-how and ability to stand up for moral integrity in our society and continue to fight for the public's demand to enjoy great movies void of inappropriate and harmful material. I will be supporting, watching, and waiting for the ressurection of these worthwhile and appreciated editing companies with my pocketbook ready.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    identicon
    Carrie, Jul 17th, 2006 @ 8:49am

    Addendum

    I had to re-submit the previous comment to correct that only CleanFlicks has "Amelie".

    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 :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    Bill, Jul 22nd, 2006 @ 7:55am

    Re: Re: Copyright violation?

    Hi:
    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    identicon
    Bill, Jul 22nd, 2006 @ 7:57am

    Re: Re: Copyright violation?

    Hi:
    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    identicon
    noyb, Jul 22nd, 2006 @ 12:11pm

    Right on Cleanflick, Carrie and Anonymous Coward!

    I love what I'm hearing from Carrie and Anonymous Coward. You guys obviously understand the higher issues here, not just getting caught up in the copyright debate and the so-called "integral vision" of the so-called artists.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    noyb, Jul 22nd, 2006 @ 12:14pm

    Right on Cleanflick, Carrie and Anonymous Coward!

    I love what I'm hearing from Carrie and Anonymous Coward. You guys obviously understand the higher issues here, not just getting caught up in the copyright debate and the so-called "integral vision" of the so-called artists.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    identicon
    Random Non Moron, Oct 2nd, 2006 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: This has nothing to do with copyrights

    "This is why this ruling is wrong. I OWN THE DVD. I paid for it. I physically own the piece of plastic and should have the right to do whatever I want with that piece of plastic."

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    identicon
    claudia, Nov 6th, 2006 @ 9:43am

    i do have to say that yes i will not buy a movie if it has objectional material in it. and if there is a company who can make it so i dont have to worry about certain things and make it possible for me to enjoy a movie i otherwise will never see. then im all for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    identicon
    claudia, Nov 6th, 2006 @ 9:48am

    Re: You're missing the point

    i will not buy movies unless they are clean. this means that companies will lose money because i know im not the only one who does this. there are plenty of movies i wish i could see but i refuse to subject myself to such filth. so an edited version which makes it possible for me to see is awsome. i have a huge list of movies that i will never see becuase of nudity and such things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    identicon
    claudia, Nov 6th, 2006 @ 9:51am

    Re: Why edit?

    why edit? just because you dont have values doesnt mean that other people dont. you say that if it has objectional material why watch it at all? well take titanic for instance. other than a couple nudity shots the movie is a very good movie. so you are saying that i shouldnt want the nudity taken out so my whole family can enjoy that movie? that is really niave and immature of you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    identicon
    Darin, Jan 14th, 2008 @ 7:43pm

    Editing books?

    Does that mean it's illegal to tear a page out of a book?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    identicon
    Darin, Jan 14th, 2008 @ 7:46pm

    Re: Re:

    Sir, you are correct. But, if the judge is correct, then it must also be illegal to fast forward, or hit the next button therefore editing the movie in real time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    MikeyB, Mar 18th, 2008 @ 2:41pm

    Re: Re:

    Dude, ur an idiot. "What if I paint it and resell it?" Cmon moron, that IS a violation of copyright or whatever protection is on it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    identicon
    MikeyB, Mar 18th, 2008 @ 2:51pm

    Re: Re: You're missing the point

    Oh get ur panties out of a bunch. A lot of things u consider bad wood have been perfectly normal a couple hundred years ago to religious nuts and their is nothing wrong with seeing a naked body. So what, its blood and flesh, no biggie ignore it and pay attention to the rest of the m,ovie or if its a sex scene skip to the next scene. quit your blabbing and watch the stupid movie. I agree, many movies try to sell themselves by using tons of gore, sex, and Will Ferrell to make money. Avoid them, but dont avoid a movie such as "Saving Private Ryan" or "Star Wars" because of blood and violence. Star Wars is entertaining. Saving Private Ryan is incredible in its directing, music, and storyline. Dont miss out just because u dont think its religiously or ethically moral to see a man screaming with pain, HE'S AN ACTOR. It wood be sick to watch that for entetainment if it were real, its not sick to watch a dramatic retelling of that event.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    identicon
    Sean Kubin, Jun 30th, 2008 @ 8:22pm

    expanding the market - dead on.

    My wife flipped out on me for watching a scene in an R rated movie so I cancelled netflix and tried out cleanflicks- thinking that they movies were sanitized. Well as it turns out your right- they can't edit the movies so all your paying for is a pg collection. so I just cancelled my subscription all together, I guess the movie industry can do without my money until the judges learn how naive it is to consider the copyright on a per instance of existence. Protecting the 'bits' is just inexcusably naive. I mean come on.. what if I had a mirror in the room - I have instantly duplicated the streaming data off the tv and onto another 'player' (the mirrored image of the Tv). And for that matter the very act of playing a dvd creates another instance of the data- if your watching a scene leave the actual dvd, gets played out on tv and then returns back! no- the dvd is read ahead, stored in cache for several seconds and then played on the tv. It's retarded to say that there is no way to edit a dvd without violating the copyright because there is no way to even play it when using the same standards. ok.. here's how I would defeat this case. I'd have a special dvd burner, a regular dvd player and some editing controls. The dvd burner would be special because it has to write data to a copyrighted dvd. The idea is that you play it up on one dvd, and burn it down on the other. At no point is the data copied-it was there to begin with-therefore there is no defeating of the anti-copy and no grounds for a copyright suit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    icon
    Falindraun (profile), Sep 22nd, 2009 @ 5:48am

    Re: Re: Re: *cough*

    I guess what I was asking was if the studios are getting profits and royalties from the sale of the edited copy (as I know they are from the origional)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This