I got Madonna's big sound comin' outta my left ear, and Toby the chap... I don't know what comin' outta my right
July 11, 2006 2:04 PM   Subscribe

Remember cleanflicks the outfit that digitally sanitized films? The Directors Guild of America recently won their lawsuit against them and companies like them for copyright violation. Prev
posted by Smedleyman (62 comments total)
 
Good for the DGA.
posted by NationalKato at 2:12 PM on July 11, 2006


Oh, and wait: 'Like A Virgin' is just a metaphor for 'big sound?' Whodathunk?
posted by NationalKato at 2:19 PM on July 11, 2006


I just saw they offer a clean version of 'The Libertine'. I wonder what the movie will look like - just the intro and end title. How can you make a clean edit of a great movie about a brilliant poet and pornokrat?
posted by homodigitalis at 2:34 PM on July 11, 2006


hard to find the opinion anywhere online, so i culled it from PACER. you can dowload it from here.

the court held that cleanflicks infringed on hollywood's exclusive rights, and fair use didn't apply; the 'non-transformative' nature of the movies was a factor weighing heavily against them on the fair use issue. (very simplified)
posted by karson at 2:43 PM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite]


/thanks karson, that was drivin' me nuts.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:46 PM on July 11, 2006


Copyright includes the right of (re)distribution, and the right to control derivative works. It seems as though these people were really caught between a rock and a hard place, given those two prongs of copyright law.

As for fair use...it'd be an uphill battle in any court to seriously claim that editing out "naughty" words and scenes is a substantial addition of independent creativity.
posted by Law Talkin' Guy at 2:46 PM on July 11, 2006


Wow, that website looks familiar. I wondered what Netflix looked like in yellow.

Methinks Netflix ought to sue them for copyright infraction...
posted by noble_rot at 2:58 PM on July 11, 2006


'Like A Virgin' is just a metaphor for 'big sound?'

I once saw a sanitized Get Shorty on a plane, I almost pissed my pants laughing. I dream of a sanitized 'Deadwood'.
posted by matteo at 2:58 PM on July 11, 2006


I had no idea this even existed. What a bunch of screaming fuckwits.
posted by docpops at 3:03 PM on July 11, 2006


I read about this ruling over on ArsTechnica. I have to say, the response from that crowd was quite amazing. It seemed overwhelmingly negative toward the ruling, on the grounds that this went against fair-use and that whole "we should be able to do whatever we want with technology" argument. Like a bunch of whining pirates.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:10 PM on July 11, 2006


From the Cleanflicks.com "press" page:

CleanFlicks in the Press

Welcome to our CleanFlicks in the Press. Here you can read articles about CleanFlicks in the news.

Sorry, we currently have no articles listed.


Apparently those naughty bits have been removed as well?
posted by jca at 3:10 PM on July 11, 2006


The cleanflicks rentable DVDs were always kinda dodgy, but their DVD players that auto-censor the words and scenes was definitely something they should be able to do, in every EFF-esque, freedom-of-doing-what-you-want-in-your-own-home sort of way.
posted by mathowie at 3:13 PM on July 11, 2006


Methinks Netflix ought to sue them for copyright infraction...

copyright only protects the expression, so if clean flicks copied netflix's site word-for-word then they could be liable under copyright. however, there could be an action for "unfair competition" under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act -- an action reserved for unregistered trademarks, or other items that cannot be shoe-horned into a specific area of IP protection (i.e. copyright, trademark, patent).

BTW, the exclusive rights at issue were the right to copy, distribute, and to create derivative works. the right to copy and distribute are separate rights.
posted by karson at 3:19 PM on July 11, 2006


Can they ban 'pan & scan' next?
posted by ODiV at 3:25 PM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite]


Like a bunch of whining pirates.

Is your 'moral outrage' really over the copyright infringement, or because you disagree with the motives of the customers of the company?

If a mom wants to watch Titanic with her kid and doesn't want to have to sit uncomfortably through the nude scenes, what part of you saying "the human body is just natural!" and banging the family over the head with your own moral views is a good idea?

Fuck this. You should be allowed to do whatever the hell you want in the privacy of your own home. You should be able to watch whatever the hell you want. You should be able to modify anything you've bought in any manner you wish.
posted by Firas at 3:29 PM on July 11, 2006


It's the profiting over editing movies that probably causes the most ire from Hollywood, not the editing itself.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 3:37 PM on July 11, 2006


CleanFlicks - Edited DVD's - It's About Choice!

So they're pro-choice? Somehow I'm skeptical.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:40 PM on July 11, 2006


matteo: I once saw a sanitized Get Shorty on a plane, I almost pissed my pants laughing.

I saw that, too. Whenever they refered to the plane crash, they overdubbed the word train on it.
posted by StickyCarpet at 3:45 PM on July 11, 2006


How does copyright restrict redistribution? The right of first sale doctrine limits copyright (in the US) to the first sale of a material item. After that, the owner can re-sell it as often as they want to, and I was under the impression they could modify it.

The problem here is that in order to 'modify' a DVD you basically need to duplicate it, which they're not allowed to do really.

They should be allowed to sell boxes that auto-censor movies, regardless of how annoying it is to directors.
posted by delmoi at 3:50 PM on July 11, 2006


Now my dreams of seeing a five-minute version of Scarface are dashed!
posted by luriete at 3:59 PM on July 11, 2006


I think this is an interesting decision. It appears that not many people know how Cleanflicks actually works. If you buy a movie from them they send you the original copy of the movie in the box along with the "edited" copy. I thought they were claiming that they were providing a service (ie taking the original DVD you paid for, editing it, and giving both back to you) rather than just selling edited versions of copyrighted works. This seems like it should be legal to me. The original rental system also seems legal b/c when you joined, you were joining a "co-op" that jointly owned all of the movies and then you were just borrowing from the group. So it should be legal for a group of people to joingtly buy a bunch of movies, edit them how they want, and then trade them around with each other.
posted by bove at 4:04 PM on July 11, 2006


I'd pay for a service called soilyflix that digitally splices porno sequences into your favourite movies. The Wizard of Oz needs more enemas.
posted by rhymer at 4:07 PM on July 11, 2006


how to do you make something like this "clean"?
posted by jne1813 at 4:07 PM on July 11, 2006


bove, I support what cleanflicks wants to do even though I wouldn't ever use their services myself, but I thought it was clear that both approaches they took were clever attempts to circumvent copyright law and this decision by the court is saying those attempts to dodge the outer limits of the law aren't acceptable and you can't profit off the (edited) work of others.
posted by mathowie at 4:09 PM on July 11, 2006


I'd pay for a service called soilyflix

Reminds me of the NWA "Straight Outta Compton - Explicit Content Only" edit [prev]. That always gets my parents friends chuckling.
posted by yeti at 4:21 PM on July 11, 2006


The Wizard of Oz needs more enemas.

Oh, there's no place like home! There's no place like home!
posted by loquacious at 4:29 PM on July 11, 2006


Tin Man -- ouch!
posted by matteo at 4:32 PM on July 11, 2006 [1 favorite]


"If you edit art, you don't deserve to have it."

Without flaming the hell out of me, is that too heavy-handed for this situation? Is it even applicable?
posted by Mikey-San at 4:36 PM on July 11, 2006


I dream of a sanitized 'Deadwood'.

MADtv did something similar with their The Sopranos on PAX TV parody.
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:42 PM on July 11, 2006


How does copyright restrict redistribution? The right of first sale doctrine limits copyright (in the US) to the first sale of a material item. After that, the owner can re-sell it as often as they want to, and I was under the impression they could modify it.

The exclusive rights for copyright holders are in 17 U.S.C. §106, including the rights:

"(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
..."

The first sale doctrine is codifed in the exceptions to those exclusive rights in § 109(a):
"the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."


You're right to a certain extent about the first sale doctrine, however, ClearFlicks was not only distributing the purchased copy, but the edited copy as well. In addition, there's the wrinkle of whether the edited copy was made lawfully in the first place; regardless of DMCA issues, ClearFlicks does not have the right to make an additional copy, as this is one of the exclusive rights retained by the studios.
posted by karson at 4:55 PM on July 11, 2006


mathowie and karson: I agree that what they were doing was on the very fringes of the law. It seems to me that it would be legal if they really followed the proper order. For instance if I actually bought a copy of the movie first and then brought it to them to edit or transform and paid them a fee.

I guess I will also be the only person on Metafilter who will say that I like edited versions of movies, both on TV, and from Cleanflicks. I wish the studios would sell the edited versions that they produce for foreign markets or TV. I am someone who chooses not view explicit sex, nudity, profanity, and excessive violence. Therefore I don't go to movies that contain this content. When I have the option of viewing movies where this content has been removed, I often choose to see them. I realize that there are many movies that I am choosing not to see but that is my choice.
posted by bove at 5:25 PM on July 11, 2006


"If you edit art, you don't deserve to have it."

Without flaming the hell out of me, is that too heavy-handed for this situation? Is it even applicable?


Oh dear god. I now have a phrase stuck in my head and it is in the Soup Nazi's voice. Can you guess what it is?
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 6:04 PM on July 11, 2006


. . . No kissing in my line?
posted by Mikey-San at 6:10 PM on July 11, 2006


This is an interesting case. I wonder what the outcome would have been if they were buying books, blacking out the objectionable parts, and then reselling the book. I'm guessing they'd be in the clear because they wouldn't have been making a copy.

Now what happens if you do the same to an e-book?

I wonder if instead of an editted disk clean flicks just distributed a disk with edit instructions and a dual drive player. Insert the movie you bought from walmart in tray one and the diff disk in tray two and the player automagically performs the edits in real time. Would that be legal under this ruling?
posted by Mitheral at 6:13 PM on July 11, 2006


So I guess my dreams of a DirtyFlicks company where I take G rated movies and add profanity and nudity to them would not be protected by 'fair use' either, eh? Darn shame. Good thing I didn't invest millions of dollars into that inevitable failure.

Bleeping George Carlin is as offensive as fig leaves on Michealangelos. Is nothing profane?
posted by ZachsMind at 6:22 PM on July 11, 2006


I love how cleanflicks infringes the Netflix patent.

And there's no fair use defense to patent infringement.
posted by Pastabagel at 6:25 PM on July 11, 2006


I'd pay for a service called soilyflix

FilthyFlicks

I love how cleanflicks infringes the Netflix patent.

The idea that there's anything patentable in the Netflix process is quite possibly more offensive than anything I've ever seen in a film*. Even assuming the idea of rental-by-post is somehow sufficiently novel, interlibrary lending predates Netflix by decades or more.

*But, then again, I've rented and bought edited movies

"If you edit art, you don't deserve to have it."

I don't know if I can get on board with the idea that derivative or reinterprative works are bad, and I think many people would find that too limiting and damaging to art itself.
posted by weston at 7:02 PM on July 11, 2006


What is the (moral, not legal) principle that distinguishes between sampling and editing?

Any bits in my possession should be mine to do with as I please.

If I want to edit the left hand off of everyone in a movie I own, that should be fine.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:09 PM on July 11, 2006


weston:

I was speaking in terms of "censoring" specifically, sorry. :)
posted by Mikey-San at 7:13 PM on July 11, 2006


man, this sucks.

I was just about to unveil my own Classical Works of Art censoring service where you'll never have to worry about seeing a stray frontispiece or other booblie nawty bits.

Michelangelo meet Nevernude™

(thanx - arrested development)
posted by isopraxis at 8:04 PM on July 11, 2006


I would like to see a version of VLC that could be scripted to play remixes of any video, making de-jar-jar-ification easier, for example.
posted by mecran01 at 8:05 PM on July 11, 2006


I'm with mathowie, whose position doesn't surprise me -- cleanflicks seems very much like the kind of service that Creative Commons licensing would make possible if it were widely followed.

One reason I think it makes sense as a service is that there are quite a few movies that insert gratuitous -- yes --- sex and violence, just to earn the PG-13 or R rating that will attract an audience other than teenage boys. I think it's nuts, for instance, that the 98% of Titanic that's a PG family movie is bollixed up by one silly hand-on-window sex scene. I don't see why I shouldn't, as a customer, be able to demand from distributors that a fully PG version of Titanic be available so a family can watch the movie ... with the whole family in the family room. I rarely think such gratuitous scenes do more than cheapen a movie.

I think it's all part and parcel of the same freedom of choice that allows me to rent movies with sex and violence and such. Secretary, 9 Songs, Scarface, etc. should all exist and I will rent them, and certainly the idea of a cleanflicks version of *those* is preposterous.

Not to say that the ruling wasn't right, by the law, but then I've never been a fan of copyright law as constituted so I don't feel inconsistent in saying that the law ought to be more like Creative Commons in principle, spirit, and letter.
posted by dhartung at 9:27 PM on July 11, 2006


Pursuant to the MadTV Sopranos link, Pallies.
posted by Eideteker at 10:42 PM on July 11, 2006


I can't blame the artists for being against this sort of editing. If something can be edited and redistributed, how can the artists prevent it from being so mangled that they no longer want any part of it? In changing the content, you can change the message without changing the speaker it is attributed to. You end up with something that has the creators' names plastered all over it, but is something they never approved.

Sure, sanitizing things is less likely to offend people than other alterations, but it's still possible. You can imagine someone like, say, Quentin Tarantino being pissed off that someone took out violence that was integral to the plot or message he intended. And when you consider other alterations, for example, putting in extra nude scenes with actress impersonators or dubbing in swearing instead of taking it out, it becomes obvious why this is not allowed.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:43 PM on July 11, 2006


I suppose you should be able to on-the-fly edit anything you're watching in your house, but the whole thing still seems like something you shouldn't do. You should be able to, but you shouldn't do it. You should respect the artistic integrity of the film, such as it is, and choose to either see it or not.

If a mom wants to watch Titanic with her kid and doesn't want to have to sit uncomfortably through the nude scenes

...then there are many other films to watch. Titanic features Kate Winslet with her clothes off. If you don't want to see that, watch something else.

Likewise, your solution to Jar-Jar is to watch a better film.

I don't see why I shouldn't, as a customer, be able to demand from distributors that a fully PG version of Titanic be available so a family can watch the movie

You can demand it all you want. The company that owns the film might issue such a version, though I think they should not, or they might tell you to get bent. In this case, they've told you to get bent.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:22 PM on July 11, 2006


When I was in college, the school had a screening of Schindler's List. . .from which they had removed the nudity and profanity. No one seemed to understand why I thought this was idiotic.
posted by EarBucket at 3:32 AM on July 12, 2006


When I have the option of viewing movies where this content has been removed, I often choose to see them.

Bove: do you tear certain pages out of books before you read them as well?

If so, how do you determine which you plan on tearing out before you actually read the book?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:48 AM on July 12, 2006


I think it's nuts, for instance, that the 98% of Titanic that's a PG family movie is bollixed up by one silly hand-on-window sex scene.

Don't forget the breasts.
posted by NationalKato at 7:12 AM on July 12, 2006


Re: Titanic: The exploitation of the deaths of hundreds in order to sell a fictional love story is suitable for family viewing in what way, exactly?

People find things offensive apart from sex and violence, you know.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:17 AM on July 12, 2006


PeterMcDermott: Yes, I know I am a total prude. Unlike you, I don't experience video and text exactly the same. However, if I am reading a book and there is a graphic sex scene, I exercise my discretion and skip over it. I use my own judgement to consume entertainment in the way that I choose.

Once again, I have heard a lot of people express in this thread that if a person doesn't want to see every single second of a movie, or every single aspect of a piece of art, then he she should not see any of it. However, I think that extreme position is kind of ridiculous with movies, especially given how every movie is edited for TV. Have all of you never watched a movie on TV? Did your family never decide that you couldn't see a movie because it contained inappropriate things (whatever your standards are) and then when it came on TV and had been edited, your parents chose to let you see it? Also, a bunch of people in this thread have mentioned how ridiculous it would be to watch edited Sopranos. Well guess what, coming later this year the Sopranos is going to run on A&E edited for basic cable. What is amazing is that most of the changes aren't regular edits at all. Instead when filming each episode the producers filmed two versions, the ones with explicit nudity and profanity, and then they refilmed them with no nudity and no profanity because they knew they wanted to sell the series into syndication evenutally.

I know that the people who run Cleanflicks (and others) have tried for years to get studios in Hollywood to release the TV and international versions of movies that the studios have already edited. They were unsuccessful so they tried an alternate way and obviously failed due to legal issues. To me I have always been surprised that Hollywood doesn't acquiesce and fill this small but very present niche.
posted by bove at 7:54 AM on July 12, 2006


Matt and others, the DVDs that auto-censor a customers' own copy of the movie (using an online database created by the company that sells the DVD player) are not effected by this ruling and remain perfectly legal. The company that makes that technology is called Clearplay and it's apparently sufficiently good business that Clearplay was able to hire lobbyists and have a special "Clearplay Exception" written into the copyright laws to make sure they don't get sued (again). President Bush signed the Clearplay exception last year and it's now a part of the copyright law. It's called the Family Movie Act of 2005.

In general, since it empowers consumers to make choices about what they watch, I'm inclined to think this technology (and the legalization of it) are good things, but I'm certainly aware of the artists' "moral rights" issues and I find them compelling too, so it's a close call for me. An argument can certainly be made that the artist should have some control over the work that has his or her name on it. I've written about these cases for the New York Law Journal and will post a (self) link if there is interest.
posted by The Bellman at 8:14 AM on July 12, 2006


So my DIFF DVD is legal then, that is good. I'd be interested in the artist arguments against this as I don't see how a director/actor/producer/whatever should be able to control how I edit their product (or tell other how I edited it) anymore than an architect should be able to control what colour I paint my house or an author should be able to control if I use his book as a Sears Roebuck substitute.
posted by Mitheral at 8:31 AM on July 12, 2006


...then there are many other films to watch. Titanic features Kate Winslet with her clothes off. If you don't want to see that, watch something else.

The author's right to not be pissed off doesn't beat my right to not have the feds knock down my door for the "author's rights".

You can't apply the force of law to something just because it offends you personally. You're trampling on somebody else's wishes, and you better have a hell of a compelling reason to explain to me why the government should tell me what I can watch in my home.
posted by Firas at 9:19 AM on July 12, 2006


Law is inevitably a force for locking down human behavior. Law shouldn't segue into areas just because there's an "aesthetic problem" with what's going on.

Copyright in America is an economic issue. I disagree with the whole European "moral rights of author" thing when it comes to enforcing it via police and courts. No! The moral rights of the viewer trump the author's desire to force-feed the viewer.
posted by Firas at 9:22 AM on July 12, 2006


This whole fractal of hypocrisy seriously pisses me off. You guys are smugly supporting dumb copyright laws because it fits your version of what should be done with a movie. This same copyright law prevents anyone from subtitling textual commentary to a movie -- eg. cynical subtitles to The Passion of the Christ or Why Jesus Wants You To Stop Masturbating and sharing that edit.

/end rant
posted by Firas at 9:26 AM on July 12, 2006


I know that the people who run Cleanflicks (and others) have tried for years to get studios in Hollywood to release the TV and international versions of movies that the studios have already edited.

You know this how? Source?
posted by jca at 10:14 AM on July 12, 2006


For the record, Hollywood has tired this in the past. R-Rated movies such as M*A*S*H and Saturday Night Fever received PG edited re-releases, but that was in theaters and pre-home video. There have also been attempts at "Family Friendly" pay movie channels, where objectionable content was edited out, but they were unsuccessful.

I'm surprised that Hollywood hasn't found a way to take YOUR money as well by offering you an edited version of their films, rather than letting CleanFlicks do it instead. This seems to be a pattern with them.
posted by jca at 10:21 AM on July 12, 2006


Matt and others, the DVDs that auto-censor a customers' own copy of the movie (using an online database created by the company that sells the DVD player) are not effected by this ruling and remain perfectly legal. The company that makes that technology is called Clearplay and it's apparently sufficiently good business that Clearplay was able to hire lobbyists and have a special "Clearplay Exception"

That's interesting. I was certain that enough of congress was bought through and through by the entertainment industry that even family values couldn't move something.

However.... I also understand there is still a court challenge against consumer use of software and hardware to skip scenes of sex and violence and to mute profanity on DVDs of films they have purchased. The date of activity referenced on that page seems more recent than the date the act mentioned became law.

An argument can certainly be made that the artist should have some control over the work that has his or her name on it.

I think if the work isn't properly represented as altered and/or if individuals aren't allowed to choose whether to watch the original or an altered version, then this is compelling. I find it much less so if there is both choice and proper representation, and tend to think the artist's rights have to stop at how someone chooses to experience their work. From both a practical and ethical standpoint, you simply can't stop people from closing their eyes, leaving the room, or otherwise skipping a portion of the work. You also can't stop people from mentally inserting themselves into the steamy sex scene of their choice. You can't stop people from reinterpreting "the text," and telling others their interpretations. Restricting whether people can use technology to help them do this doesn't change that, it just means that people can't make those kinds of choices more conveniently.

And actually, I'm not sure that convenience is the only casualty. To accept that people don't have rights to use technology to change their viewing experience seems to scede some fairly important ground rights, ones that I doubt are trumped by most artistic considerations.

But as I pointed out above, there really are artistic considerations to be made when it comes to the idea that derivative works are verboten. No sampling, no scrambled hackz , no Toy Story 2: Requiem... and if you take it farther, though our law has exceptions against this very purpose, no cover tunes, no arrangements, no retellings, etc. We fortunately have laws that protect some of these things because we recognize artists' rights aren't the beginning and end of the story here.

Also, the fact that Hollywood is complaining about stepping on artistic sensibilities seems like the height of hypocrisy to me. How many movies or television pieces have you seen not merely altered but destroyed literary works they were based on? Wizard of Earthsea anyone? I'll bet Victor Hugo was super pleased with Disney's Hunchback, too.

...then there are many other films to watch. Titanic features Kate Winslet with her clothes off. If you don't want to see that, watch something else.

This is a terrible argument. It's nonsense to assume that just because you don't want to experience one portion of a work that there's nothing to be had out of experiencing the rest of it. And to make it all or nothing by law is to essentially say that an artist's right to have their works experienced *exactly as concieved* trumps an individual's right to control their experience with a work. I don't think that's safe for a society that values individual liberties.
posted by weston at 10:23 AM on July 12, 2006


The problem, it seems to me, isn't so much that they were making a re-edit of the films. It is that they were *profiting* off that re-edit and *re-distributing* that re-edit. If, in the privacy of your own home, you want to rip the disc (violating the DMCA, by the way, because you have to circumvent the CSS copy protection on the disc), and re-edit it for your own use at home, I don't think that anyone's going to come knocking down your door.

On the other hand, having a business model based around re-distributing a modified version of copies of something someone else owns is illegal on multiple fronts.

Keep in mind that when you buy a piece of software - a computer program, a movie, music - you buy the media that the software is on, but you are only receiving a license to use that software. You don't, in any way, buy the underlying intellectual property. That ownership stays with the original creator (or whoever owns the rights now). That's why musicians have to pay rights to sample other people's music. Owning the CD doesn't give you a right to use someone else's property.

As a film maker myself, I'd be pissed if I saw someone else profiting off selling re-distributed vandalized copies of my work. From my perspective, this is vandalism.

Again, no one really cares if you fast forward at home past the parts you don't like. But doing it for someone else and profiting off it is something else entirely, IMHO.
posted by MythMaker at 12:37 PM on July 12, 2006


"you better have a hell of a compelling reason to explain to me why the government should tell me what I can watch in my home." - posted by Firas
Child pornography. You cannot watch that in your home. It's illegal to possess it in any form. But you can posess pornography involving two adults. The crux of that is because there is harm done (obvs. to children). In the same way, by altering and redistributing an artist's work, harm - albeit not as egregious - is being done. There is no harm in you personally editing out the scenes you don't want your kids to see. The harm lies in reselling a product that you have altered because you are making money from work you yourself have not created. You have the right to control what you see, you do not have the right to rebrand another's work and the artist has the right not to sell it to you in an altered form if they don't want to. Doesn't mean you can't change it for your own consumption, doesn't mean you can't watch it how you want, it just means you can't sell it that way simply because the owner(s) of it don't want to.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:00 PM on July 12, 2006


And to make it all or nothing by law is to essentially say that an artist's right to have their works experienced *exactly as concieved* trumps an individual's right to control their experience with a work. I don't think that's safe for a society that values individual liberties.

You should have the ability to do so. If you actually exercise that choice, I'll think you're a bit of a cretin is all.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:54 PM on July 12, 2006


IMO, the decision was correct: the intermediate party was creating derivative works, under the law.

Now, does this mean that I think it ought to be illegal in any fashion to promulgate timecode markers which identify the naughty bits, or boxes which use those numbers to skip parts of a DVD? Certainly not: the action there is not "making a derivative work" in any reasonable sense, but "skipping parts of a movie on playback", regardless that you authorize some supplier to act as your agent to decide what parts to skip.

Why bitch about it when you can still make a llving off it and everyone can be happy?

(Can anyone advance a reasonable argument why *this* approach is illegal or immoral? (Or Fattening?))
posted by baylink at 8:42 PM on July 13, 2006


« Older Packard Jennings wants you to do bad things to...   |   The Plame Game Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments