Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films

AP ^ | Saturday July 8, 9:52 pm

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Let the consumer decide what's appropriate in films, instead of busybodies like you...

[BenLurkin]

What did I do?

[BenLurkin]

"these companies are violating copyright"

In general terms I understand that copyright law prevents persons from expropriating the products of others to claim as their own, but what is it about copyright law that precludes a vendor from removing offensive content so long as the producer is paid the same as for unedited content?

[RightWingAtheist]

During the 50s through the seventies, it was routine for exploitation producers to buy foreign films which would normally go straight to art houses, and "spice" them up with added scenes of sex and/or violence, without consent of the original filmmakers. They even did this to at least one Ingmar Bergman film

[GatorGirl]

They are altering the content of a copyrighted work and selling it.

That would be like Michael Moore taking Ann Coulter's book, removing what he didn't like, possibly adding what he does like (I realize these companies don't add, but altering is adding or subtracting) and selling it under the same cover.

We can't be for altering a copyrighted work in a way we would like but against it if we don't like it. I agree these companies are providing a fine service to consumers and it's unfortunate that Hollywood doesn't embrace it, but I don't see that they will win on appeal.

The only way around this for families is for individuals to procure the same editing software, purchase the unredacted movie and edit it themselves, for private use. This would be akin to Michael Moore reading Ann's book with a Sharpie in hand and removing offensive content. So long as he doesn't sell it, he can edit it however he wishes. He, and the editing companies, simply can't sell someone else's work in an altered state.

[Defiant]

Thanks. I started back in to reading this morning, and am now to post 381, and it is quite discouraging and at times amusing to read this thread.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Read the fine print, its covered, "or other use" is the blanket clause that would preclude you from editing it, as well as "all rights reserved"

You don't get it, its not your property to edit and sell, that is the gist of the copyright law. You don't own the right to change a film and distribute it, it doesn't matter a whit if you buy 10,000 copies and only sell 5,000 edited ones. Its not your property to take from the copyright owners.

I could explain it 20 more times, but I don't think you will get it.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Some things are just the law, plain and simple. Yes, there are many liberals in Hollywood, so it's easy to point the finger. But my gosh, it is written in the law!

So, are you saying you are ok with breaking the law because you don't like hollywood liberals? Or is the rule of law only good for you when you politically agree with its ends. This is not a liberal/conservative issue, as much as you would like to make it be. Its about copyright law and ownership of a product. The people editing the movies didn't have the ownership rights to do what they did, cut and dried. If a liberal group took a tape of a Limbaugh performance that was copyrighted and edited it the way they wanted and sold it, it would be just as wrong.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Art is in the eye of the beholder, you might think that "hee haw" is the zenith of comedy, I might disagree. What you feel about a piece of art is irrelevant, its still the director's vision and creation.

You can't go making and breaking laws based on your personal feelings about a movie. Neither you nor I speak for every viewer.

[jeremiah]

If I buy the Mona Lisa, change the picture slightly, then sell copies of my portrait, do the former owners have legal recourse? The problem is, those that make movies want to control the path of their art forever. It is what makes them rich, but it is a system that is both wrong, and archaic. They made their money when they sold the rights to movie houses, DVD makers and to me. If I want to alter and re-sell, why should they get to say anything?

[Defiant]

This is about the 200th inapt hypothetical on this thread. We have gone in circles on this issue so many times we are generating our own centrifugal forces. If, if, if, if. You want to talk about what the law should be, fine, that's ok. In that context, people can all have opinions, and they would be valid for the most part. Hollywood should provide this service, we probably would all agree on that. But they don't, and someone else does, and they sell, for a profit, copies of a movie that someone else owns, and which they have altered.

But what seems to be happening is that an argument over what the law actually is keeps degenerating into an attempt by people who know what it is to explain it to people who refuse to accept it. The posters say--"what's wrong with this business", and then someone tells them it's illegal, and then they respond "why, there's no damage" and someone responds "because copyright law gives the owner the right to control the content" and then people who are familiar with VHS tapes, cars, houses and books start in with hypotheticals that for the most part are not relevant to the issue, and then we argue about blacking out books, and then someone wants a cite to copyright law, and they get the cite but they refuse to read it and they sure don't understand it, and then the name calling starts. Then, we get someone fresh to the debate, and the whole thing starts all over again.

I think this is the 4th time around, but I may have missed a couple.

[Defiant]

Jeremiah, I don't mean to be crabby at you in particular, but I think that if you read through the thread, you will see that the answer to your hypothetical has been thoroughly discussed.

[Jotmo]

I think this is the 4th time around, but I may have missed a couple.

LOL

You did!

[BenLurkin]

Here's a secondary source that explains your point.This is the kind of detail I was looking for.

The Exclusive Rights
A copyright owner has five exclusive rights in the copyrighted work:

Reproduction Right. The reproduction right is the right to copy, duplicate, transcribe, or imitate the work in fixed form.

Modification Right. The modification right (also known as the derivative works right) is the right to modify the work to create a new work. A new work that is based on a preexisting work is known as a "derivative work."

Distribution Right. The distribution right is the right to distribute copies of the work to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending.

Public Performance Right. The public performance right is the right to recite, play, dance, act, or show the work at public place or to transmit it to the public. In the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, showing the work's images in sequence is considered "performance."

Public Display Right. The public display right is the right to show a copy of the work directly or by means of a film, slide, or television image at a public place or to transmit it to the public. In the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, showing the work's images out of sequence is considered "display."

Infringement

Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner is an infringer.
Example: Developer scanned Photographer's copyrighted photograph, altered the image by using digital editing software, and included the altered version of the photograph in a multimedia work that Developer sold to consumers. If Developer used Photographer's photograph without permission, Developer infringed Photographer's copyright by violating the reproduction right (scanning the photograph), the modification right (altering the photograph), and the distribution right (selling the altered photograph as part of the multimedia work).


http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html

Note that it all boils down to use "without permission". I'd like to see the language in the agreements between the producers and the vendors. There may be a colorable argument that permission had been granted.

[Larry Lucido]

Have you seen Cinema Paradiso?

I did, when it came out. I remember liking it but can't remember anything about it now except it was about a kid in Sicily and a movie theater. Guess I need to rent it again.

[durasell]

But we all know, this is NOT about the money. Never has been.





It's always been about the money. That's why movies are so bad.

[linda_22003]

"So, are you saying you are ok with breaking the law because you don't like hollywood liberals? Or is the rule of law only good for you when you politically agree with its ends."

That's exactly what a number of people here are saying.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Yep, thinking inconsistently, hypocritically and with their hearts instead of their heads.

[linda_22003]

Yes, but... they're probably doing the best they can. :)

[durasell]

Movies simply don't seem like a business enterprise to them. They wouldn't hold the same views if the product was something substantial, like pancakes or computers or widgets.

Movies probably also seem like a rich person's industry. They don't realize the vast majority of those in the industry are middleclass, blue collar and not bazillionaires.