Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films

AP ^ | Saturday July 8, 9:52 pm

[FreedomCalls]

I remember liking it but can't remember anything about it now except it was about a kid in Sicily and a movie theater.

The old projectionist saves all the scenes the priest who owns the theater made him cut out. He splices all them together for the little boy as a present to be given to him after his death. Priceless.

By the way, the "director's cut" edition is inferior to the original. The extra scenes destroy the story line that caused us to fall in love with the movie the first time. Both versions are on the DVD, but my advice is to only watch the shorter one.

[rockrr]

BS.

Arrogance is arrogance.

I would submit that Strategorist (sic) may have a point, but that point is lost in that presentation.

And, with the advent of digital media, copyright is an area that is very much in flux.

When all we had was print media I would be perfectly content to purchase a copy of someone's work, modify that copy and resell it without fear of recourse. Say, for example, that I happen to be a celebrity and autograph or annotate the volume. I could likely resell the volume for more than the original purchase price. As long as I do not purport to take credit for the original author's work it is entirely legal.

It is more of a gray area in digital rights law. And I would say that it is by no means settled yet.

[durasell]

Figure a movie like Chicago that has a rather graphic sex scene at the beginning or a movie like Titanic in which breasts are revealed briefly. In both cases the offending material could be deleted without seriously compromising the movie.

The other issue, which is rarely discussed, is that not all movies are for kids. Should we have just movies that are suitable for children? That would eliminate a helluva lot of good movies.

[DesScorp]

"This issue has nothing to do with your distaste for Hollywood or liberals, its about the rule of law... Remember the rule of law? Everyone here was all for it during the Clinton impeachment, but when its their ox being gored, they want to ignore it. "

Let's see, against Clinton's impeachment, pro-Hollywood...what are you doing here?

I never questioned Hollywood's copyrights. If you'd have actually read my post, you'd fail to find any such assertion. Hollywood are filled with idiots because they threw a business opportunity away. Instead of serving a growing audience by embracing what these chains were doing (they could have easily licensed them), they spat in the face of that audience. They put the "vision" of filmmakers ahead of their audience. Fine, they've chosen, now they'll lose money from these people as they turn to other entertainment.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Yep, they all bitched and moaned about liberals not following the law during the Clinton impeachment, but as soon as one of their pet peeves gets to be the subject, they do exactly what they accused others of.

Its lazy thinking. Its thinking with your heart and emotionally rather than logically. And unfortunatly this place is getting clogged with that kind of non-thinking.

You can't interpret law through the lens of your personal bias. The law is the law, laws are not created to be bent everytime someone wants it to be so it fits their bias.

[Central Scrutiniser]

I am here and have been here since 1998. This issue isn't about conservative versus liberal, its about copyright laws and what can and can't be done. Without regards to whether you agree with the politics or not.

Laws exist for a reason.

As far as it being a business opportunity, that is not germane to the argument, the copyright holders don't want to have their works altered or modified, its their call. All the other side arguments are moot.

[rcocean]

Its the law - until the 9th court of appeals and the SCOTUS say different.

Or Congress passes a new law.

I wonder if Hollywood will be able to bribe enough congressmen to rule their way if the the 9th circuit overturns the district judge?

Do I abide by the rule of law? If I'm a corporation I have no choice.
Unless, I decide to hire some illegal aliens, who can violate the law, with the approval of the POTUS.

As an individual, I have more freedom. I will bitch and moan to my congressman and take the action I think most appropriate.

[Yaelle]

I always liked watching old American movies on TV in France, dubbed into French. I remember the strings of expletives they would put into John Wayne's mouth, feeling that his "Darnit"s were a little too tame for such a macho cowboy.

[MikefromOhio]

Sorry.

We have copyright laws for a reason.

These people editing someone else's property without their permission is absolutely 100% wrong.

I have to agree with this ruling.

[puroresu]

I don't think "simply trying to cater to a global market" could explain an abomination like V FOR VENDETTA. There is an element in Hollywood that's arrogant, hostile to Judeo-Christian values, and insensitive to the beliefs and desires of ordinary Americans.

That having been said, I have to agree with you on the issue at hand in this thread. Intellectual property is intellectual property. It can't be tampered with without the copyright owner's permission.

[Central Scrutiniser]

"until", "if", "or", "if"

All a waste of words. The law isn't made of up that. Copyright rules are not gonna change, its cut and dried.

All the other stuff you are throwing into your post (SCOTUS, 9th court, illegal aliens) is just spin, its not germane to the argument. Focus in on what this is about, its not about your feelings, its not about "if", "maybe", and "perhaps", its not about emotions, its not about liberal vs conservative.

That you can't see that is a scary thing.

[durasell]

It's the nature of the business. You give a "normal" person $100 million and they're not going to say, Let's engage in a unionized business that's nearly entirely dependent on the talent of highly unstable artists in which there's no quantifiable way to judge the final product, which happens to be a very, very long strip of plastic.

Give any normal person $100 million and they're going to say, "Shopping mall in Phoenix!"

[FreedomCalls]

Ultimately, everyone answered your questions as posed.

Nope, no one has yet to cite any law that states what they purport to claim -- that selling an altered work is illegal. All I have gotten is people claiming "it's illegal" with no reference to the law that makes that claim. You can claim "it's illegal" 'till you are blue in the face, but without a legal cite it is simply your opinion.

The quote you have there is true. No city in Utah has a copyright law. Copyright is not addressed in municipal statutes in Utah. Go ahead, please prove me wrong if you can. In spite of me providing all the source law on the subject, no cite has been forthcoming.

But you rejected all of them and asked the same question again

Because what I'm rejecting is simply someone stating "it's illegal" without a cite. Saying it don't make it so.

[durasell]

Apparently V for Vendetta was a highly successful comic book at some point. The movie, as I understand it, didn't do well. When you see these giant budget, action movies bomb you can usually trace it back to a property that did well in another format or copying the success of another movie. You can kind of hear the pitch meeting for V for Vendetta -- "Yeah, like Spiderman only edgy. Comics are hot and have a built in audience. Spiderman, Batman, all did major numbers."

[GatorGirl]

Movies are not abstract, they are concrete. The same as books. The ideas might be abstract, ephemeral, whatever, but the product--book, movie, screenplay, painting, whatever, is concrete.

That is where intellectual property rights come from. You could think, word for word, the content of a book, but you don't own the copyright unless you write those words down.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Jeeez, you want reference to the law? Read the article!

The judge found it to be against the law, how is that for you?

[FreedomCalls]

You seem to indicate that if the first link the chain of progression may technically not be illegal that means everything else that follows in the chain of progression is also legal. No!

So is it legal or is it not legal for me to edit out a few seconds for my own use from a VHS tape that I own that I purchased at Walmart? Can I take that tape to a friend's house who has a tape splicer since I don't own one or do I have to borrow his and do it in my house?

[Seamoth]

I agree with this ruling, but I'd also like to see them enforce it against Michael Moore who does the same thing to his sham "interviews".

[GatorGirl]

Absolutely, "permission" is the key. Those songs which contain elements of another song, for example, the practice of "sampling" is fine--the new artist secures permission of the owner of the copyright of the previous work to use elements of the older song. That's fine.

You wrote: 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.

That's true but I'm sure the argument would have been made in this case. And if there was an actual agreement, the film industry would have no case!

[durasell]

The copyright doesn't relate to the concrete or actual strip of film, it relates to the concept. It protects an abstract piece of property. When you buy a DVD, you don't own the concept, you only own the piece of plastic.