Posted on 07/08/2006 9:24:52 PM PDT by BenLurkin
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Sanitizing movies on DVD or VHS tape violates federal copyright laws, and several companies that scrub films must turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios, an appeals judge ruled.
Editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an "illegitimate business" that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights, said U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch in a decision released Thursday in Denver.
"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection."
Matsch ordered the companies named in the suit, including CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms, to stop "producing, manufacturing, creating" and renting edited movies. The businesses also must turn over their inventory to the movie studios within five days of the ruling.
"We're disappointed," CleanFlicks chief executive Ray Lines said. "This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight."
CleanFlicks produces and distributes sanitized copies of Hollywood films on DVD by burning edited versions of movies onto blank discs. The scrubbed films are sold over the Internet and to video stores.
As many as 90 video stores nationwide -- about half of them in Utah -- purchase movies from CleanFlicks, Lines said. It's unclear how the ruling may effect those stores.
The controversy began in 1998 when the owners of Sunrise Family Video began deleting scenes from "Titanic" that showed a naked Kate Winselt.
The scrubbing caused an uproar in Hollywood, resulting in several lawsuits and countersuits.
Directors can feel vindicated by the ruling, said Michael Apted, president of the Director's Guild of America.
"Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor," he said.
LOL! I worked for an outside contract firm. Small engineering and design shop. Disney did give us mostly unrealistic deadlines that we somehow always met. Universal wasn't as nasty.
But the copyright to the soundtrack was still in force and the studio reasserted their right to the soundtrack. You can now play the movie royalty-free only if you play it with no sound.
No one is disallowed from making modifications to their own copies of books either. Otherwise they would not truly own that copy of the book.
Let me ask you this: If the service were to specifically be one where I buy a copy of the book then I pay company X to mess it up for me, would you find that acceptable? If not, why not? If it truly is my copy of the book and I can mess it up anyway I please, then why can't I hire out the job of messing up my copy of the book? If your answer to the initial question is yes, then please explain to me why it wouldn't be OK for the steps to be merged together and a company to go ahead and provide the altered versions? (Let's say for sake of argument that this hypothetical company only bought a book and altered it once an order had been placed.)
I had friends who worked for Disney. Eighty hour weeks were not unusual.
Was that the basis of the decision?
You can modify a book all you want, that is fair use, but if you alter it such that it breaks the copyright and try to profit from that, without permission, you break the law.
Brush up on copyright law, you don't understand much of it.
But the copyright to the soundtrack was still in force and the studio reasserted their right to the soundtrack. You can now play the movie royalty-free only if you play it with no sound.
Only after it became a Christmas tradition. But for long time there, it would play seven or eight times during Christmas.
When you buy a DVD and watch it, you will see the copyright notice which states who owns the rights. Same with a book. Its all there, its legal lawyer stuff.
I agree with the decision, because I don't want some Joe Schmoe in Utah to tell me what's clean and what's not. Shades of Communism.
Central, you really find yourself intelligent, but alas you result to circulus in probando. I was asking for logical reasons and answers to my hypotheticals, not a restatement of rules. Alas, I asked too much from you.
They do copyright the drawings, but when you buy a house that's already built you may or not be buying the drawings. If you want a copy of the drawings the arch can charge you for a copy, but cannot in anyway prevent you from altering the already constructed and paid for home.
Check here for copyright reference specific to this statement www.coolhouseplans.com.
Only the copyright holder has the right to create a derivative work and redistribute it. The right of first sale gives you the right to alter a work for yourself or turn around and sell it unaltered, but not to create a derivative work and sell it.
If you mean censoring for content,
as I see it, yes.
See my 173. So reselling my autographed baseball cards is now illegal?
If you do it on your own, that falls under fair use, but you can't go and make changes to copyrighted materials and distribute or sell them. Its a property rights issue.
That's right. It's my property. I bought it. I can make any cuts to it I want. I can even ask someone to help me make those cuts. I can ask someone to make the cuts for me. Rather than purchasing it and sending it to someone to make those cuts for men, I can ask someone to purchase it on my behalf and make the cuts I request then send it to me. I set up a standing order for them to make certain cuts to new movies (the same ones as in the TV and airline versions that the directors and studios have already approved). I can ask for them to stock these in advance. I can tell other friends of mine that they too can partake of this service. There we are.
I grabbed a DVD off the shelf, and here is what it says:
All rights reserved. Licensed for distribution only in the United States and Canada. Distributed by MGM Home Entertainment. WARNING Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion picture videotapes, laser discs and DVDs. Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and may constitute a felony with a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine. Licensed for private home exhibition only. Any public performance, copying or other use is strictly prohibited. All Rights Reserved.
You buy the DVD, you have agreed to those conditions, that is why they are there.
Last fall, I was looking for something to watch, saw that Matrix Reloaded was on TBS at 3:00a.m. ET. As I hadn't seen it, I thought I'd watch it. It happend to be the unedited version, with commercials. Comedy Central has been doing that for quite some time. Saw Trading Places on Comedy Central last week. Also unedited.
Can you point me to "author's intent" anywhere in copyright law?
Re: baseball cards, not sure, I haven't read the copyright agreement on that. I assume that it is in the interest of the card companies to allow it, but I don't know their agreements.
Read the copyright agreements on your DVD's, you can't do this without authorization from the copyright holders, plain and simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.