Hollywood Shuts Down Another 'Family Friendly' DVD Editing Operation

from the can't-have-family-friendly-entertainment dept

For years, Hollywood has been quite upset about a few operations that seek to take Hollywood movies and edit them in a way that makes them more "family friendly." Personally, I see no need for such a service, but some folks apparently like to self-censor their own viewing habits. I still haven't quite figured out why the studios are so upset about this, as it does introduce their films (if in edited form) to a wider audience, and opens up a new market to them. A few years back, they were able to shut down Cleanflix, who would buy legal copies of movies, edit them and pass them along. Effectively, this ruling said you couldn't even edit content you legally purchased for your own viewing. They've also tried to shut down systems that automatically cut out "non-family friendly" content from movies, but haven't had as much success.

So I guess it's no surprise that when a new operation popped up that appeared to do something similar to Cleanflicks, Hollywood quickly sued, and that company, Family Edited DVDs, has been shut down after agreeing to pay $274,000 to the studios. Once again, while this may be technically infringing, it seems pretty shortsighted to go after these companies who are simply expanding the market for your works.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Feb 24th, 2011 @ 7:09pm

    Personally, I see no need for such a service, but some folks apparently like to self-censor their own viewing habits.

    I agree. By the time you remove the all swearing, violence and sex, about all that is left is the credits and the FBI warnings.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 24th, 2011 @ 7:19pm

    Make war, not love!

    What's wrong with violence? It's an all-American value?


    Of course the naught sex has to go, though.

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 24th, 2011 @ 7:28pm

    It is technically infringing, which is the best kind of infringing.

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    DOlz (profile), Feb 24th, 2011 @ 7:45pm

    Protecting the Film Makers Vision

    Hollywood has always fought to protect the film makers vision. That is why they won't sell the rights to TV unless they agree to show the film intact ... ah no wait a minute. That's why they show the same version worldwide ... no that's not quite right. That's why they don't require changes based on test showings ... I've got nothing, this makes even less sense than their piracy fetish.

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 24th, 2011 @ 7:48pm

    They aren't expanding the market, they are just picky ass people who can't live without the content, but what to be prudes about it. Do you honestly think these people are paying "Hollywood" for a license? Nope. They are just pirates in nice suits.

    If they don't what the violence, they don't want this, they don't want that, they are welcome to make their own movies.

    Life ain't hard.

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 24th, 2011 @ 8:30pm

    Re:

    Not to totally disagree with you but I don't watch my movies with my 3 year old around. I can't even play certain video games, some don't even have language filters. By the way I hate headsets, there's a reason I have surround sound and I'm gonna use it damn it.

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 24th, 2011 @ 8:57pm

    Re:

    I have this image in my head of an Exocet hitting a boat called HMS MPAA.
    The hull is gone baby. It is just gone.

    ps: I was just reading and watching(Youtube) videos about the HMS Sheffield (D80)

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 24th, 2011 @ 8:59pm

    Re: Re:

    HMS MPAA California Class Vessel LoL

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    GeneralEmergency (profile), Feb 24th, 2011 @ 9:03pm

    The solution here is to sell a service...

    Just write a PC based player that can read an editing script that provides the jumps and block/obfuscation data. You might even be able to work Windows Media player like a puppeteer to do this. Maybe a transparent window layer in Windows7 could be used for zone obfuscation.

    Then you sell a subscription service of access to the edit scripts.

    The studios will have no standing in court as you are not even touching their media. It would be like the NFL suing people who sold rose colored glasses cause the NFL did not want you to see the game with funny colors.

     

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

  10.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), Feb 24th, 2011 @ 9:47pm

    Score one for government

    The libertarian in me screams hurray!
    George carlin on Child worship

    In Utah we had video stores devoted to edited films... to me its just a highly evolved version of child abuse. When we restrict what people choose an the arbitrariness of age ya got problems. And yes, given a chance to vote to repeal the Supreme Courts decision on 7 dirty words I will.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 24th, 2011 @ 10:37pm

    Re: The solution here is to sell a service...

    No selective obfuscation, but jump lists are already available in MPlayer via the EDL (Edit Decision List) functionality.

    It's one of the big names in Linux players and the SMPlayer GUI for it is also available for Windows. I hear there are also GUIs for it for OSX.

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 12:27am

    Re: Make war, not love!

    Frankly, no 'family-oriented' video is going to have sex in it. Maybe PG13 and above rated, with PG13 having MINOR things like kissing between teenagers/children or something similar.

    There is simply no need for these places, and this is one time where I think that the MPAA and the studios are doing the right thing by keeping these idiots from MURDERING their products.

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 12:28am

    Re: Re:

    Hate to tell you this, but your son had probably ALREADY heard all the 'foul language' in other places. We simply cannot 'protect' (i.e. keep ignorant) children of sex and profanity anymore, nor should we try to do that.

     

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

  14.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 12:40am

    Re: Re: Make war, not love!

    You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but look at it from a different view. They aren't forcing these edits on you, they're filling a need in the marketplace and helping the studios reach a larger audience. If they want to shoot themselves in the foot over a lousy quarter mill, let them. Could be making more money if they let the operation continue.

     

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

  15.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 12:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Whether or not they've heard it isn't the point. Putting it into proper context, and making sure they know you do not approve of such things until they are old enough to actually understand the content is. This isn't a 'for the children' message, this is parents wanting to be responsible. Or, less likely but still a possibility, prudes who want everything white washed. Either way, it's an extra buck for the studios, so why do you care?

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    jon day, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 1:57am

    if i made a tire iron a company sells it as a weapon then i can sue them right. if anyone does anything i don't want with a product i sell i should be able to sue them right? man if i know this years ago I'd be rich.

     

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

  17.  
    identicon
    Jason Foster, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 2:10am

    It's my film (mostly) I want control

    While "Hollywood" isn't exactly like a one person show, and there are many, many people involved, I look at in the way as if it was my own movie and I controlled 100% of the rights.

    The first problem-->The didn't request prior permission.

    The second problem-->These outfits often interfere with potential profits and current distribution

    The third problem-->They could potentially completely alter the story when the original writers and editors could 'sanitize' the film in a way that is for broader audience but yet retains the concept of the film.

    The fourth and final problem-->It is simply against the law and wastes everyone's time and money to pursue legal actions. It's not productive time and films/movies take long enough to make.

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 2:22am

    Artist Rights

    From what I remember the Directors Guild pushed very hard for the MPAA to crack down on these. The DGA has always had a hard line on keeping an authoritative version of a movie (as well as the director as the author of the film etc). For the DGA it's not about the cash or markets or anything like that. It's about the power of controlling your art.

    While in general my position on copyright reform tends abolitionist... I have to admit that I'm really sympathetic to the impulse here. Back at the time when if first came up I totally agreed with what the DGA and MPAA were doing. It damages me if someone watches a butchered version of a film I have made. If they're going to be offended, then I'd rather they didn't watch it.

    I dont' care about the money or the lost sale or the audience. Its not about that at all. Watch it the way I want you to see it or don't watch it. Hell, I wish I could control every screening that ever happens - I spent years making it for specific effects on the audience, in certain ways, at certain times... I hate to have it not work because of something outside of my control. I want every screening at a movie theatre with perfect sound and a projectionist who checks the focus properly. I want the seats to be comfortable. I don't want no damned latecomers allowed in. And I'd make sure no-one talks too! I'd stalk the theatre to throw them out!

    That of course is ridiculous. And the people providing money to make make movies agree. But it doesn't make me want to do it any less.

    So if I HAVE to allow the home experience - of course I want to control that too. Again. Sit down, focus and no talking. But if you do think about it for a bit, it become increasingly ridiculous when people consume art however and wherever they want and always have done. Only movie geeks and filmmakers watch movies the way I want people to watch movies. And yes, movies get chopped and edited for TV all the time (something else the DGA rightly complains about - but we live with it).

    So in truth what difference is there between these edits and a remix or some other derivative work which I would be all for allowing? Apart from the fact that I don't approve of their politics (I'm vehemently anti-censorship too) I think it lies in the audience understanding of authorship.

    Perhaps it's not copyright but trademark law that is important here. (Or whatever law puts those nutritional labels on the side of food, ha ha ha!) It should just be made very clear that the nominal "author" of the film does not approve or endorse the changes. That the work is a derivative work. The audience should know they're buying a Diet Pepsi not full a fat Coke.

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 3:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Missing the point 101.

     

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

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 3:53am

    Re: Artist Rights

    Is this a sarcastic post?

     

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

  21.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 4:09am

    Re: Artist Rights

    Ironically the diet candys now have phenylalanine if used in aspartame on the labels.

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    Andrew (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 4:14am

    Re: Artist Rights

    I have some sympathy for your point of view ("It's my baby!"), but ultimately I don't think it should be within your purview to restrict how people use your work if they have bought a copy of it. Similar to First Sale - Apple may not like it if I draw a smiley face or write something rude about them on my iPod and sell it, but I can do it if I want. And regardless of my artistry, most people will continue to see an original, unmolested iPod, not my modified version - it won't replace the original in the public's consciousness.

    I think you're talking about moral rights, and specifically the "right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation," something that was covered on Techdirt recently. Moral rights are actually quite troubling: even though you've sold me your painting, you can potentially stop me from defacing it or even throwing it away.

    (Though this point is somewhat moot - I don't believe moral rights apply here because >200 copies of each DVD have been made.)

     

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

  23.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 4:52am

    Re: Re: Make war, not love!

    "no 'family-oriented' video is going to have sex in it."

    But gratuitous violence is A-Ok because .....

     

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

  24.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 5:07am

    I'll never understand the mentality of people who want to take movies they consider unsuitable and remake them until they fit their vision of acceptable. If there's stuff in the movie you don't want to see or don't want your kids to see, then don't watch it!

     

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

  25.  
    icon
    Vincent Clement (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 6:44am

    Re:

    The good old FBI and Interpol warnings. Not a "Thank you for buying a product". Instead a "Don't you dare make us mad at you" warning.

     

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

  26.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 6:45am

    Re: It's my film (mostly) I want control

    "The first problem-->The didn't request prior permission. "

    That's only a problem if you assume the other points are valid.

    "The second problem-->These outfits often interfere with potential profits and current distribution"

    They're buying legal copies and selling them on. How does that interfere with potential profits and current distribution?

    "The third problem-->They could potentially completely alter the story when the original writers and editors could 'sanitize' the film in a way that is for broader audience but yet retains the concept of the film. "

    Why is that a problem? If the original writers and editors would provide a sanitised version then others might not feel the need to provide their own.

    "The fourth and final problem-->It is simply against the law and wastes everyone's time and money to pursue legal actions. It's not productive time and films/movies take long enough to make."

    'It is simply against the law' is a contender for the most insidious phrase I have seen on this site. It's a textbook argument to authority, 'I'm right because I'm siding with the people with the guns'. Perhaps if the studios didn't sue everyone for doing stuff they aren't even trying to compete with anyway, then no one's time and money would be wasted.

     

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

  27.  
    icon
    Cdaragorn (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 6:47am

    Child abuse???

    Wow, I was going to respond to some individual posts, but then I saw just how many clueless idiots claiming, in one way or another, how morally wrong it somehow was to want censored content either for yourself or your children, that it just makes more sense to put up my own....

    Economics 101: if the service wasn't wanted, it wouldn't exist.

    Fact is, there are a LOT of movies out there with great stories, but where some idiot decided the main actor had to swear every third word or a director thought they had to throw in a sex scene somewhere just to broaden the audience, and removing the swearing or that sex scene does absolutely nothing to the story of the film itself. Just look up Titanic, as an example.

    As far as movies where removing the sex removes the film, obviously it would be pointless for such a service to try to edit them. Trying to pretend that all movies that have some sex in them fit that scenario is just ridiculous.

    And then there are all those pretending that my desire to filter what comes into my home for my children is somehow deluding myself into thinking they'll NEVER see that kind of stuff. Of course they'll encounter it, you think I'm an idiot? If I want to teach them that it's the sleazy filth that it is, that in no way pretends that they'll never see it. Obviously they will grow up to make their own choices as to what they watch, my sharing with them the values I feel are important in no way removes their freedom to choose for themselves when they grow up.

    The only one of these commenters I would agree with is that it's ridiculous to filter content based solely upon a persons age. The idea that viewing something is ok for an adult but somehow not appropriate for a child is stupid. The only thing is, I flip the intent of that comment on it's head. Pornography is not appropriate for anyone, IMHO, regardless of age. That is, of course, my OPINION, so I have every right to it.

    And child abuse for teaching my children right vs wrong??? Seriously???

    As surely as we do not call you stupid or idiotic names for choosing the values you do, do not do so to us.

    And a final note for all those who question the legality of these services:
    Copyright 101: once someone has purchased a legitimate copy of something, they can modify it and EVEN SELL THE MODIFIED COPY as long as they include the original. Look up First Sale Doctrine if you don't believe that. I think that's the only failure most of these services made, they failed to provide the original along with the modified copy.

     

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

  28.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 7:19am

    Re:

    Do you honestly think these people are paying "Hollywood" for a license? Nope. They are just pirates in nice suits.

    Err, according to TFA, for every "edited" copy they make, they buy a legal copy first. Do you have information to the contrary?

     

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

  29.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 7:22am

    Re: Score one for government

    The libertarian in me screams hurray!

    How is this, in any way, good from a libertarian perspective? I'm pretty sure having the government step in to tell people what they can and can't watch is the antithesis of libertarianism . . .

     

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

  30.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 7:26am

    Re: It's my film (mostly) I want control

    It is simply against the law and wastes everyone's time and money to pursue legal actions.

    Yes, and I bet you sue people for injuring your fist when you punch them in the face with it. Here's an idea: If it's a waste of money to pursue legal action, don't pursue legal action.

    (It seems we've literally gotten to the point in society that people have forgotten that there's any other way to exist than to shovel money at lawyers, even when it's not in their best interest. Color me surprised.)

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 7:31am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You think I don't know that. I'm sure he heard me swear when I get cut off when I'm driving. But I still have to watch what I say to teach him when foul language is allowable. Would you hire an applicant when he drps the f-bomb every other word? Depending on the job maybe, but I highly doubt it. It is my job to show teach him to watch what he says. It is foolish to think I can shelter him until he's 18 then turn him loose on society thinking he's ready to survive. Not only that but it'd be a disservice to him for us to shelter him

     

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

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 7:34am

    Re: Child abuse???

    Copyright 101: once someone has purchased a legitimate copy of something, they can modify it and EVEN SELL THE MODIFIED COPY as long as they include the original.

    The point is, they are not doing it. They are buying 1 copy, modifying it, and selling copies of the modified versions WITHOUT ANY ORIGINALS.

    Further, modified may not apply to re-edits or content that is changed, as it isn't what was originally licensed. They don't have a license for the modified version.

    Sorry, it's a fail.

     

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

  33.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 8:33am

    Re: Re: Re:

    HMS MPAA California Class Vessel LoL

    Since the MPAA is in the US, I believe that would be the "USS MPAA", HMS (Her Majesty's Ship) is British.

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    JEDIDIAH, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 8:57am

    Gotta love that worldview of yours...

    > Do you honestly think these people are paying "Hollywood" for a license?

    Why should we expect otherwise? These are religious prudes. They should be more likely to follow the rules and do their best to accomodate civil law as much as their beliefs allow.

    What they are doing doesn't need to be an act of "piracy".

     

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

  35.  
    identicon
    JEDIDIAH, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 9:01am

    Re: Re: Artist Rights

    I would be more sympathetic to the idea of "artistic purity" if not for the fact that alternate versions of movies are really quite common. You also have various "edits" that are prepared for cable and broadcast television. Do the directors get their panties in a bunch over those edits too?

    Why complain about these?

    If the studios published the "TV edits" on DVD, themselves they would probably undercut most of the demand for this sort of thing.

     

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

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 9:48am

    Re:

    I was reading a book to my kids the other night and I used smaller, easier to understand words in place of some the more difficult phrases the author really used.

    What a censor I am. Perhaps I shouldn't have even read the book to them if I wasn't prepared to read every word as is. I completely trampled on the artistry of the book. Shame on me.

     

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

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 10:29am

    Re: Re: Artist Rights

    Just to clarify my previous post: I agree with you totally.

    However, I wasn't thinking about enforcing moral rights, I was talking more about a Nina Paley artist style seal of approval kind of thing. And that would apply to directors cuts and studio cuts and stuff in theatres too. The studios do plenty of the censoring themselves.

    But I don't think moral rights should exist, nor, in point of fact do I think copyright should exist (and I'm not being sarcastic).

    As much as you instinctively want to control something - once you put it out in the world - it ain't yours anymore - it's everyones. If you want control, don't put it out there. Go and read all the Objectivist analysis of this. Ha ha ha. Ooops. You can't. Objectivists don't publish much so they can keep control of their creations. And so nobody cares. They keep themselves out of the conversation. Sharing, changing and developing is what makes ideas influential.

    I guess my point is this: if you want to contribute to the cultural conversation by making movies, then you have to be happy that's it's a game of chinese whispers. Reinterpretations are sometimes better (Star Wars re-edits) sometimes they get worse (moralistic re-editing). And actually, whether it's better or worse is just opinion anyway. And lots of people get false credit or blame in every field.

    In movies, politically the DGA is powerful and has always fought for the controlling rights of the director as author - because so much of movie making is a fight to get your own way, this is natural. The DGA's position is that the directors vision is right exclusively, by definition; they are the sole author. Obviously that's nonsense if you've ever been near a movie set. But the DGA's position is to fight for directors so you start out as strong a bargaining position as you can. That's why they exist. They're a union.

    I may not agree on principle, but the problem is that I like that they put up the fight. My head says: of course, it absolutely should be allowed. But my heart says, screw 'em. If they want to live in a bubble I wouldn't want my work butchered either.

    Despite what @cdaragorn said, there usually are reasons for sex, violence and language in stories other than base commercialism. Take even extreme exploitation flicks like Argento and DePalma used to make - the sex and violence is part of the gag, like song and dance is in The Sound of Music. A specific audience understands those gags, even if it is sure to offend people who doesn't understand the history and conventions of the conversation.

    Moreover, if a movie is full of sex and violence - the chances are it has _themes_and_attitudes_ that are unsuitable or specifically not aimed at children too. Pans Labyrinth is a good example of this. And the comment on Titanic? It's about 1500 people dying and class warfare as well as romance. If you're not old enough to hear a swear word, see some violence or mild nudity then why are you watching it in the first place? Or is nudity per se the problem? I always thought taking more offence at nudity rather than violence a bizarre and disturbing thing.

    Note that more than 1500 people die (some gruesomely) in Titanic and it's a brief bit of nipple that's causes outrage here (Don't go to the Met!!! Don't look at paintings!!! Don't look in the mirror!!!). No mention of the violence.

    I don't quite understand the benefit of showing kids something like The Godfather with the nasty bits taken out. Why not just wait till kids are mature enough to understand?

    And for adults that want "clean" versions. Why can't they just avoid the films and admit to themselves, that they don't want to be properly engaged in the cultural conversation?

    But all that is my own frustration talking. If you believe in free speech, and I do, I figure you just have to grow up and take it: that's the marketplace of ideas. Hopefully yours win out. People _should_ be able to do what they want, that's how it works. It doesn't make it any more fun to let them.

     

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

  38.  
    icon
    Cdaragorn (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Child abuse???

    And if you'd bothered to read the second half of the same paragraph you quoted, you would have seen this little tidbit:

    "I think that's the only failure most of these services made, they failed to provide the original along with the modified copy."

    As for not having "permission" to modify, or edit, the content, that's where we get into laws contradicting each other (again see first sale doctrine) and ppl pretending they can just sell a "license", but not bothering to include all the normal benefits to the consumer that a license provides (if something I license wears out from normal use, you have to replace it for me, etc.).

    Pretending that first sale somehow doesn't apply in these so called special cases is what fails, and is one of many reasons that copyright no longer protects the consumer and creator equally, the way it was originally intended to.

     

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

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 1:16pm

    Re:

    It is just their way of saying "I do not like what you did in the exercise of your First Amendment right".

     

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

  40.  
    identicon
    matt, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 1:32pm

    don't they do this in Saudi Arabia?

    I definitely remember reading that there are teams of Islamic "moral police" who take CDs and DVDs and then use sharpies to censor bare legs, cleavage, bare arms etc.

    I wonder if these "family friendly" groups like being compared to Wahhabist Islamic extremists... I bet they don't!

     

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

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 3:17pm

    Tell you what, Matt -- I'll pay you for an article you wrote, delete the words from it I don't think anyone should read, and repost it on the net. Don't worry, it'll have YOUR name on it. I'm sure you'll have no objections, and the number of people reading my repost won't decrease the number of people reading your original at all. (Hey, maybe the gas companies would pay me for coming up with this idea, and they can use it with Gasland.)

    Seriously, I don't hold the studios to blame for opposition to censorship in any form, evne if they normally favor censorship.

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 3:19pm

    (Oops, I read "matt" most recently and used it by mistake -- I meant to say Mike, addressing my comment to the author of the original article, sorry.)

     

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

  43.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 4:05pm

    Re: Re: Score one for government

    Well you miss the /sarc in the definition of libertarian if we need the government to do anything in the field of choice. The point was it was two private entities that resolved the child worship here.

     

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

  44.  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 4:23pm

    Re: Child abuse???

    And child abuse for teaching my children right vs wrong??? Seriously???

    You can do that without child worship editing as well. OH what value(s) does that fall under?

    Thanks I'll spare my children the frustration of not seeing a complete work, I rather them be content with the full experience. I understand a derivative work when it adds something but don't tell me taking away based on child worship is somehow productive for any work let alone culture. Its like asking my child not to watch Alice in wonderland, Aristocats or Oz because there great videos for LCD.

     

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

  45.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 5:41pm

    Re: Re:

    I was reading a book to my kids the other night and I used smaller, easier to understand words in place of some the more difficult phrases the author really used.

    What a censor I am. Perhaps I shouldn't have even read the book to them if I wasn't prepared to read every word as is. I completely trampled on the artistry of the book. Shame on me.


    Did you omit entire scenes from the book as you were reading it to them? Would you choose to read them an adult novel and censor all the naughty parts?

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 25th, 2011 @ 8:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Child abuse???

    You miss the point: If they were modifiying them one off, and selling a full copy with each, they would have less issue. Instead, they buy a single copy and modify it, and distribute only the modified copy.

    First sale would apply, but only if they sold an original full version with each. Even then, it is likely that the modified version would become illegal anyway, because it is modified and different, not a backup.

     

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

  47.  
    icon
    Any Mouse (profile), Feb 25th, 2011 @ 9:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yes, I believe you have. One-liners that don't explain anything don't do much good, do they?

     

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

  48.  
    icon
    Cdaragorn (profile), Feb 26th, 2011 @ 7:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Child abuse???

    I appreciate what you're saying, but please read my comment more carefully. This is the second time you've told me I missed the point, and then repeated exactly what I said in your attempt to correct me.

    As far as the copy being modified and therefore not a backup, it doesn't matter. First sale doesn't care why you're making a copy, it deals specifically with a buyer's right to make modifications to the original. In simple summarized form, it says that once the seller has sold a legitimate copy to someone, they no longer have any say over what the buyer chooses to do with it. While they still hold copyright over the item, that specific copy no longer belongs to them in the least bit. It even gives the buyer the right to make copies for their own use, as long as they don't distribute anything without handing everything over, including the original.

    From there we enter into the debate over whether or not the seller can get away with pretending they only sold a license and not a physical copy, but that debate is beyond what's being discussed here and is still being debated in legal circles as it is.

     

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

  49.  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Feb 28th, 2011 @ 6:48am

    Re:

    "I'll pay you for an article you wrote, delete the words from it I don't think anyone should read, and repost it on the net. Don't worry, it'll have YOUR name on it. I'm sure you'll have no objections, and the number of people reading my repost won't decrease the number of people reading your original at all."

    That analogy is flawed. Your example lacks the copycat site informing people that it's made changes.

     

    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