Posted on 07/10/2006 8:14:23 AM PDT by steve-b
Deleting swearing, sex and violence from films on DVD or VHS violates copyright laws, a U.S. judge has ruled in a decision that could end controversial sanitizing done for some video-rental chains, cable services and the internet.
The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought by 16 U.S. directors — including Steven Spielberg, Robert Redford and Martin Scorsese — against three Utah-based companies that "scrub" films.
Judge Richard P. Matsch decreed on Thursday in Denver, Colo., that sanitizing movies to delete content that may offend some people is an "illegitimate business."
The judge also praised the motives of the Hollywood studios and directors behind the suit, ordering the companies that provide the service to hand over their inventories....
(Excerpt) Read more at cbc.ca ...
I am very curious to know who appointed this liberal to the bench.
In the vast majority of Hollyweird products, sex, violence, and fowl language serves no purpose in plot.
Isn't Matsch the Timothy McVeigh judge?
I bought the sanitized version of Deadwood....../s
I don't know how they even thought it could be legal, since by cutting bits you are creating a derivative work, which is still covered by copyright and thus distribution is controlled by the copyright holder.
Very good decision.
If you're offended by said content, don't watch!
I don't go to the movies for precisely this reason.
So a movie can be edited and cleaned up for broadcast on network TV, but not for sale as a DVD or tape?
Heh. How long was each episode, 10 minutes?
Nothing "liberal" about the ruling. Resellers are subject to whatever terms are imposed by the owner of the work, so if the owner says "no cuts" then the reseller is in breach of contract. Nobody's forcing anybody to resell the item so if they know the conditions going in then they have nothing to complain about.
I bought a sanitized Fight Club, all three minutes of it. :)
That would be Ford, I guess.
You don't have the right to not be offended. You do have the right to supervise what your kids (and yourself) do and do not watch on TV.
Personally I've always disliked the post-editing of movies. It's stupid.
If the copyright holder consents, of course. These people did it without permission.
The edited 'Glengarry Glen Ross' is a hoot!
Money talks. Generally the TV networks offer more $ for broadcast rights so they can get better terms.
Nixon didn't resign till later in the year.
Because the network pays the movie distributor with necessary editing explicitly called out in the contract. You can't modify and re-distribute somebody else's stuff without their permission, that's the most basic concept of copyright.
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.