Moviemakers win legal battle with DVD sanitizers

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by Frank, Jul 12, 2006.

  1. Frank

    Frank Guest

    I'm usually not one to post links to news articles very often, but
    since this topic has come up in this newsgroup in the past...

    Title: Moviemakers win legal battle with DVD sanitizers

    Source: ZDNet News via Reuters

    Dateline: July 10, 2006, 5:26 AM PT

    Summary: A federal judge in Colorado has handed the entertainment
    industry a big win in its protracted legal battle against a handful of
    small companies that offer sanitized versions of theatrical releases
    on DVD.


    Page 1 -

    Page 2 -

    P.S. I like the judge's comment that "The right to control the content
    of the copyrighted the essence of the law of copyright." I'm
    sure that "PTravel" would agree with this.
    Frank, Jul 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Frank

    PTravel Guest

    Yep. I haven't read the decision but if it's as reported, I'm pleased with
    the result.
    PTravel, Jul 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. So will they start printing books and magazines with titanium pages so
    you can't tear out pages? Will they have to remove the fast forward
    buttons from VCRs and DVD players? Will they require us to keep
    our eyelids open with toothpicks and handcuff us so we can't cover
    our ears when we go the the movies? Will they remove all the chapter
    points in DVDs so we can't go to our favorite part? This is absurd.
    I can't wait for it to get to the Supremes.
    Richard Crowley, Jul 12, 2006
  4. Frank

    PTravel Guest

    The ruling addressed the preparation of unauthorized derivative works, i.e.
    copies that included substantial parts of the original, without the
    authorization of the copyright owner. None of the examples you provided are
    related to the suit, which involved companies that made unauthorized, edited
    _copies_ of commercial DVDs without permission.
    PTravel, Jul 12, 2006
  5. Reeks like a disguised ok for censorship to me.

    Martin Heffels, Jul 12, 2006
  6. Frank

    PTravel Guest

    Hunh? How is finding production of bowdlerized CDs copyright infringement a
    disguised ok for censorship? What, exactly, do you think is being censored?
    PTravel, Jul 12, 2006
  7. Frank

    Larry in AZ Guest

    Waiving the right to remain silent, "Richard Crowley"
    The ruling has nothing to do with the watching of said material. It
    addresses the CHANGING of it for re-distribution.
    Larry in AZ, Jul 12, 2006
  8. Frank

    Larry in AZ Guest

    Waiving the right to remain silent, Martin Heffels
    Larry in AZ, Jul 12, 2006
  9. That quote from the judge's ruling is a bit too loose to understand
    properly for somebody for whom English is a second language :)

    I don't understand the fuzz. The mentioned Cleanflicks buys a legal
    uncensored version, and packs this together with the censored version. It
    looks like a popular thing the sale of family-safe edits.

    Now because of this ruling, people won't start buying the uncensored
    version, because they have no choice anymore of buying a censored version.
    No, they won't buy these movies at all. So that means a loss in sales for
    the studios. Didn't anyone consider that?

    Maybe the studios should offer the censored versions themselves then. I
    think it would be easy to set bits for a scene which tell whether there is
    violent, nudity, drugs, whatever, and via parental-control you can set
    which things you allow your children to watch, and automatically those
    scenes are censored, based on the parental settings.
    If this technique is introduced, remeber, I am the inventor of it :-D


    Martin Heffels, Jul 12, 2006
  10. My understanding was that the service didn't actually create new
    (edited) copies of the original work, but merely software which
    would cause playback of the original unaltered DVD to skip the
    offensive bits (audio and/or video). Like selling sheets of paper
    with holes cut out to read the PG parts when overlayed onto the
    Playboy magazine. :)
    Richard Crowley, Jul 12, 2006
  11. What about selective playback of the unchanged original?
    No different in nature than what happens today with some
    R-rated movies on TV today. Do the satellite channels and
    local stations get approval from the producer every time they
    show a movie that "has been editied to fit the time" along with
    all the commercials in a neat 1:58:30 timeslot? Or "modified
    to fit your screen"?
    Richard Crowley, Jul 12, 2006
  12. "Martin Heffels" wrote ...
    Huh? Maybe you should read it again.
    It sounds like the opposite to me.
    Richard Crowley, Jul 12, 2006
  13. Frank

    PTravel Guest

    The censored version is an unauthorized derivative work, in violation of the
    U.S. Copyright Act. Ownership of an authorized copy of a protected work
    does not convey the right to create a new copy consisting of your own
    Which is exactly right. The copyright owner has complete control over the
    distibution of his expression. If he doesn't want a bowdlerized version
    distributed, it is his right, pursuant to U.S. copyright law, to preclude
    Obviously, the studios, since they, along with the DGA, were plaintiffs.
    They do, to this extent. Studio films are edited with a target rating in
    mind, and that frequently entails snipping the dirty bits. However, if they
    wanted to release a G-rated version of a film, they would. Clearly, they do
    Look up a company called, I think, CleanPlay. They have software that does
    just that.
    PTravel, Jul 12, 2006
  14. Frank

    davesvideo Guest

    Well, in a twisted sort of way, you could say that it is censoring the
    right to censor.

    davesvideo, Jul 12, 2006
  15. Frank

    Larry in AZ Guest

    Waiving the right to remain silent, "Richard Crowley"
    That's a good question, and one that I can't answer...
    Larry in AZ, Jul 12, 2006
  16. Yes, I understand that. So companies like Cineflicks could do their work by
    paying a fee to the copyright-holder to be allowed to make an edit, and all
    would be good.
    Sure. But that means loss of sale.
    Most movies can easily do without the dirty bits, because they don't really
    offer anything to the story. They are only put in to make the product
    attractive enough for the young male target audience (the major target
    audience that is). In my humble opinion there is nothing lost in cutting
    them out, and releasing a clean version, so that a movie can be distributed
    to a wider audience.
    I read that. They have it slightly different from what I had in mind, but


    Martin Heffels, Jul 12, 2006
  17. I already did :) It was after reading the article
    that the quote made more sense to me.

    Martin Heffels, Jul 12, 2006
  18. And what about the airlines? Do they loose the right as well? Does that
    mean no more movies on a trans-atlantic flight? :-((

    Martin Heffels, Jul 12, 2006
  19. Frank

    PTravel Guest

    Yes, if the copyright owner was willing to license the film for that
    Yes, it does.
    Oh, please. I'll go with the artistic vision of the director and writer,
    thank you.
    Tell you what. You don't have to have dirty bits in your films when they
    have studio release.
    PTravel, Jul 12, 2006
  20. Frank

    PTravel Guest

    Airlines only show films pursuant to license. Public performance is another
    right reserved to the copyright owner.
    PTravel, Jul 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.