Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control?

[BVS]

It was done often in the early days of home video and before. Brand new footage of nudity or violence was shot and inserted into the film by the company then owning the rights to give it a more modern look or to appeal to a different audience. Jess Franco's 99 WOMEN being a good example. In addition, many movies made for drive-in double features often had additional footage (shot up to a year later) added to them solely to pad out their running time when sold to TV. Monte Hellman got his start doing this. All perfectly legal and all done without the permission of the original director.

Offered for those of you interested in putting this topic in historical perspective.

You're missing the point, this was all done with permission.

 

[BVS]

Given the prevalence of downloading unlicensed material, why is this "breaking of the law" unacceptable while downloading does not meet the same scrutiny?

Who's downloading music, changing it then selling it?

 

[BVS]

You think it's unethical, but that doesn't necessarily make it unethical. I see nothing unethical about paying someone to edit out offensive material from a movie I legally bought the original unedited version of, as long as I don't show the movie in publicor give or sell it to someone else.

You don't find changing someone's art without permission unethical?

I'm sorry.

Illegal, I'm not even sure about. I would need to read more about the law and what Clean Films is actually doing.

THEY DON'T HAVE PERMISSION. If they did, no one would be going after them. It's illegal.

 

[Muggsy]

No it's not like that. Clean films bought 1 copy of the original for each edited copy that they sell. How is that like a stolen car? There is no theft involved whatsoever.



What expense is it costing the original film makers? They aren't out any money at all. As I said above, Clean Films bought 1 copy of the original for each edited copy that they sell. In fact, the studio will lose some potential money by shutting down Clean Films. Many people who buy from Clean Films will not buy if it's not edited.

who said I was talking about money?... profits are the consequence of an unauthorized alteration of someone's work. I'm talking from a perspective of someone who valorates their own work and wouldn't like to see it altered by someone, "customized" and sold without any autorization.

Buying and original copy for each one they are editing is just a trick to avoid legal problems. The point that I'm trying to make is that is just wrong to take one's art and modify it (again, without authorization) just because someone said that it doesn't fit.

 

[INDY500]

movies are also a vastly different business than they were 30 years ago. once movies started making hundreds of millions of dollars, thanks first to "Godfather" and followed by "Jaws" and "Star Wars," the lawyers got far more aggressive in protecting the product.

So is this an issue of lawyers protecting proprietary rights or artists protecting intellectual property? Two separate issues.

 

[Irvine511]

So is this an issue of lawyers protecting proprietary rights or artists protecting intellectual property? Two separate issues.

when speaking about the film itself, as product, then it is the former.

 

[INDY500]

You're missing the point, this was all done with permission.

Legal permission or artistic permission? Again, two issues and I'm not sure which we are discussing. Are we talking as lawyers or movie fans because I'm only the latter.

 

[A_Wanderer]

My question was "is this the deciding factor"? Many artists do not retain such a degree of control that they could object to the specific edits that occur for television or airlines. Yet, if you follow the contracts, technically "permission" has been granted. The artistic integrity is degraded as contracts begin to water down the bundle of rights originally held by the artist.

Right, but by the same token if I intercut hardcore pornography into a Disney video and then resell it with a copy of the original then it would be the same sort of violation.

 

[Muggsy]

Right, but by the same token if I intercut hardcore pornography into a Disney video and then resell it with a copy of the original then it would be the same sort of violation.

 

[INDY500]

if I intercut hardcore pornography into a Disney video and then resell it

Chitty Chitty Gang Bang. I think I saw that one.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Actually it would be worse because I would be stealing from the pornographers.

 

[melon]

I'm honestly surprised how much of an angry thread this has become. I personally have no opinion over the product in question, but the laws regarding it are clear.

1) What "Clean Films" is doing is blatantly illegal. Copyright law is very explicit in that they need permission from the movie studios to do what they are doing. Copyright law also states that the copyright holder has every right, no matter how Draconian it may seem, to say "NO" for any reason. They don't have to explain their reasoning either.

2) "Fair use" is a concept derived for non-copy protected media. The 1998 DMCA overrides any "fair use" laws regarding digital media with copy protection. Since "Clean Films" is most certainly circumventing DVD copy protection to get their source materials to edit, they are, essentially, breaking two laws in their business. Even if you ignore the issue of copy protection and the DMCA, "fair use" *ONLY* covers non-profit personal use. "Clean Films," as a business that sells and distributes to individuals, would not be, under any interpretation, covered under "fair use."

That aside, I will agree that media companies have been abusing their power, and copy protection has, essentially, eroded "fair use" without having to actually repeal the law. In time, they will want you to buy a movie or album several times over: once on DVD, once again for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, once again for your iPod, again for your cell phone, and again for your PSP. You do have recourse, though, and that's refusing to buy it in the first place.

But, like I said, ending copy protection and repealing the DMCA will still not change the fact that what "Clean Films" is doing is blatantly illegal, even under the oldest and most liberal copyright laws. And with all of our lawmakers being technologically stupid, expect even more laws to erode your rights when media companies kick up paranoia.

(And, BTW, when TV networks have films that are "edited for time and content," they would have paid and received permission from the movie studios to do that.)

Melon

 

[Muggsy]

Right, but by the same token if I intercut hardcore pornography into a Disney video and then resell it with a copy of the original then it would be the same sort of violation.

*an anecdote little bit out of topic*

When I was like 8 years old, my mom rented Disney's little mermaid from a cheap videostore. the movie was normal until the scene when the poor siren was coming out of the water... in that exciting point appeared an scene of "the exorcist" and I was like but It was so scary (and fascinating) that I didn't say nothing and keep watching ... when my mom came back she was like "whhhhaaattt!! "

 

[melon]

Originally posted by nbcrusader
My question was "is this the deciding factor"? Many artists do not retain such a degree of control that they could object to the specific edits that occur for television or airlines. Yet, if you follow the contracts, technically "permission" has been granted. The artistic integrity is degraded as contracts begin to water down the bundle of rights originally held by the artist.

The "artist" is, essentially, a marketing ploy. The "copyright holder" is all that matters legally. Even if U2 stated that they were okay with everyone downloading their albums for free, their opinion has no legal weight if their record label, Interscope, has the opposite opinion.

You're right, though. "Artistic integrity" is in pretty sorry shape, but corporations are not in the business of art or integrity.

Melon

 

[BVS]

Legal permission or artistic permission? Again, two issues and I'm not sure which we are discussing. Are we talking as lawyers or movie fans because I'm only the latter.

Legal, the issues of artistic fall within the legal umbrella, and that's up to the artist to determine how much the control or don't control.

 

[nbcrusader]

Who's downloading music, changing it then selling it?

Downloading is unlicensed material is also a copyright violation.

Lies made the statement that both forms of copyright violation were wrong.

Not only do we not criticize one of the illegal activites, most here engage in or benefit by the illegal activity.

 

[nbcrusader]

Right, but by the same token if I intercut hardcore pornography into a Disney video and then resell it with a copy of the original then it would be the same sort of violation.

As a bundled product? One for the kids and one for the parents?

 

[80sU2isBest]

who said I was talking about money?...

the word "expense" is usually associated with money.

 

[Muggsy]

the word "expense" is usually associated with money.

because they are taking benefits from their Talent and their work... I don't know if this is a language problem ( I don't speak english and certainly i've noticed you edited your post) but when I say "expenses" I didnt mean money (like I said before, profit is one of the consequences of that company's abuse), so If you didn't understand I apologize.

Honestly... I'm getting tired of this because you are refusing to understand what I'm trying to say .

 

[melon]

Downloading is unlicensed material is also a copyright violation.

Lies made the statement that both forms of copyright violation were wrong.

Not only do we not criticize one of the illegal activites, most here engage in or benefit by the illegal activity.

I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

It is difficult and perhaps bad business to pursue every individual who violates copyright. That may be why media companies have generally stuck to corporate copyright violators like the owners of file sharing networks, rather than going after individual downloaders. Copyright law states that it is up to the copyright holder to enforce their copyright, and, as such, it is within their legal right to pick and choose who they want to sue for violating their copyright.

I want to now reemphasize the notion of "corporate copyright violators." "Clean Films" is making a business out of copyright violation. They are a sitting duck for a lawsuit, and that's exactly what happened. They are no more immune than Kazaa or the original iteration of Napster.

Melon

 

[BVS]

Downloading is unlicensed material is also a copyright violation.

Lies made the statement that both forms of copyright violation were wrong.

Not only do we not criticize one of the illegal activites, most here engage in or benefit by the illegal activity.

I don't download copyrighted material, and criticize those actions as well.

But I will be a little more outspoken about someone making a profit off that copyrighted material.

 

[Justin24]

You don't download from itunes??

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

It is difficult and perhaps bad business to pursue every individual who violates copyright. That may be why media companies have generally stuck to corporate copyright violators like the owners of file sharing networks, rather than going after individual downloaders. Copyright law states that it is up to the copyright holder to enforce their copyright, and, as such, it is within their legal right to pick and choose who they want to sue for violating their copyright.

I want to now reemphasize the notion of "corporate copyright violators." "Clean Films" is making a business out of copyright violation. They are a sitting duck for a lawsuit, and that's exactly what happened. They are no more immune than Kazaa or the original iteration of Napster.

Melon

Yes, Clean Films is the easier target for enforcement.

I guess I was thinking of the doctrine of unclean hands. The standing to cry ILLEGAL behavior is diminished if one is engaged in similar behavior. A glass house situation.

 

[nbcrusader]

You don't download from itunes??

You pay for iTunes. We are talking about material that is not paid for or not licensed from the owner.

That includes bootlegs too.

 

[melon]

I guess I was thinking of the doctrine of unclean hands. The standing to cry ILLEGAL behavior is diminished if one is engaged in similar behavior. A glass house situation.

Well, I'm not interested in passing judgment here. I'm merely stating what the laws are and how they have been consistently interpreted by the courts.

And you're right. Bootlegs do fall under copyright, and people who have tried to sell them on eBay have generally found a rude awakening. However, since most people do not buy bootlegs and most sites don't charge for them, media companies may be contented to let it happen. But lyrics archives also fall under copyright and have been enforced, which is why the one here no longer exists.

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

I've been reading the legal documents and it's not just Clean Films and other video-editing companies that are being targeted. The studios also named in the suit a company that doesn't edit videos - they make dvd players that are programmed to skip over objectionable content - without editing or harming the DVD at all.

Surely you will all agree that is neither illegal or unethical to control what parts of the movie you yourself watch on your own TV, especially if no edits are made to the DVD? What the studios are doing here is a perfect example of what I said previously - reaching for an unprecedented level of control.

I think that in all of this, the studios are the unethical party. They want you to have as little control as you can over how you watch their movies. It is their overflowing sense of self-importance and their egotism that drives this.

 

[80sU2isBest]

You don't find changing someone's art without permission unethical?

I'm sorry.

I certainly don't, if I bought it legally and don't display it publicly, give it away or sell it. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would find it unethical.

But you don't have to be sorry for me, so feel free to save your condescending remarks for someone else.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I've been reading the legal documents and it's not just Clean Films and other video-editing companies that are being targeted. The studios also named in the suit a company that doesn't edit videos - they make dvd players that are programmed to skip over objectionable content - without editing or harming the DVD at all.

Surely you will all agree that is neither illegal or unethical to control what parts of the movie you yourself watch on your own TV, especially if no edits are made to the DVD? What the studios are doing here is a perfect example of what I said previously - reaching for an unprecedented level of control.

I think that in all of this, the studios are the unethical party. They want you to have as little control as you can over how you watch their movies. It is their overflowing sense of self-importance and their egotism that drives this.

Question: What is driving the Studios, what is driving Clean Films and are they the same thing?

 

[Muggsy]

I certainly don't

wow this really hits me because I wouldnt like to see my own art abused in that way... I can't help to take this a little bit personal because my way of life depends on those rights, and seeing that someone doesn't respect them because of their conveniences doesnt feel very comfortable.

 

[U2DMfan]

What's illegal is illegal. But with money, you can buy a certain amount of 'liscence'.

What is prosecuted is different, because there has to be an element of common sense about prosecuting copyright issues, you cannot absolutely control your own copyrights once they hit the market place, therefore, you go after those who look to capitalize on your materials.

Does anyone think this business isn't making money off doing this?

It would be different if they paid wholesale $10.00 for a DVD, then resold it at $10.00, there would be no inclination to prosectute them. It would still be illegal, but there is a certain amount of liscence given to copyright infringement simply because you cannot control all the aspects of it.

It's like an artist covering a band's song on a disc w/o permission, usually there is an exhange of legalities and royalties after the fact. Why? Because both sides make money.

Technically if you do so, w/o permission before the fact, it is in fact illegal. So, there has to be a common sense about it.
The issue here is that the movie studios are losing profits, they can claim artistic reasons because they own those rights, they could claim ANYTHING, it's their legal property. The reason they want to shut it down is because they don't want others to profit where they can do just the same. That is, they want to sell their own edited versions. They have the legal right to do so.