Posted on 07/10/2006 8:14:23 AM PDT by steve-b
Liberal or not, it appears to be the right decision. To me, the sanitizing service is an obvious violation of copyright laws.
Regardless, the copyright owners are shooting—or, at least grazing—themselves in the foot, as there are some people who absolutely will not buy the non-sanitized versions of their films.
So be it.
As did Airlines.
No, Nixon.
heh.. i remember the first time i saw Top Gun it was "scrubbed". i didn't even understand the movie because nobody ever seemed to finish a sentance.
This is another liberal decision from the bench at the insistence of leftist producers that is conveniently devoid of both legal reasoning and legal precedent.
The funniest one I saw was the sanitized version of Repo Man on A&E. I was in stitches when Emilio Estevez said, "Flip you, melonfarmer!"
I wonder how this ruling with effect Glantz and company and their push to remove all traces of smoking from the old classics?
See Post 11.
He was appointed to the Federal bench by Nixon. But what's so "liberal" about upholding copyright laws?
Yes, and that's precisely why I enjoy recording the edited-for-TV versions for my family's video library. ;O)
If Hollywood was smart, they'd follow what the record companies have been doing for years --releasing "clean" and "unedited" CDs. Incidentally, Larry Flynt does the same thing --releasing "softcore" versions of his hardcore films for certain markets. He's been able to sell his "soft" films on Amazon.com and I'm sure his wallet is a little thicker as a result.
That's about as long as my edited version of Scarface.
How do you figure? A person doesn't have the right to censor their own, legal copy of a movie?
That's all these businesses do. You buy a legal copy of the movie and they perform the service of removing the offensive content for you. Just how, praytell, does that violate copyright law by any stretch of the law or imagination?
A few years ago, Letterman or Leno would have a sequence where they'd show a porn movie, but cut out all the porn. It was pretty funny: each clip would be about 5 seconds long.
It's not quite so obvious to me. The "first sale doctrine" protects the right to sell your personal copy of a copyrighted work (provided that you don't retain another copy for yourself, of course) -- this ruling would imply that the first sale doctrine is somehow negated if you (for example) removed unwanted pages from a book.
Presumably the difference here is that the defendants are removing specific portions determined in advance as a commercial service.
Darn. I guess this means I won't be getting that cleaned-up version of Basic Instinct 2. Now I'll never know who gets it in the end.
That's another issue that clouds the matter -- that sort of editing is clearly "review and commentary" (in this case, commenting on the use of a threadbare "plot" upon which to hang porn scenes), which is a form of protected fair use.
From the University of Denver web page: "In 1965, he was appointed Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Colorado. He served on that bench from 1965 to 1974. He was appointed United States District Court Judge for the District of Colorado in March of 1974, and presided as Chief Judge of the District from 1994 to 2000. At present, he sits as a Senior Judge on that bench."
It appears that this brilliant legal mind was appointed to the District Court bench by Richard Nixon, the man who also blessed us with John Paul Stevens.
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.