I completely agree. There's a difference between a marketplace decision (can't see why they wouldn't want to sell more copies) and some kind of fuzzy appeal to 'free speech'. The idea of a 'master copy' and subsequent 'clean' copies sounds to me like run of the mill commercial piracy. Articles about commercial pirates don't sell papers, though; alarmist general statements about free speech probably fare somewhat better.
Terry raised a really interesting point about the DMCA, but I think it would probably depend on whether or not the editing software is built into a licensed player, and when it actually does its thing.
Cheers
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org [mailto:owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org]
On Behalf Of Keith Tabor
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 11:38 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: "Bowdlerizing for Columbine" piece
I know that the studios think they have to fight this trend, but it may be better to join them.
It seems that a studio could sell a DVD in which the viewer could select a rating for the movie. it wouldn't require much memory on the DVD to skip over certain scenes and remove some language. I would pay a few dollars more for this feature so that I could watch Happy Gilmore without worrying about my daughter overhearing some of the language (this begs the point of would that make Happy Gilmore a silent movie, but that is a different issue.)
I know that Pulp Fiction was a very short movie in its TV-version, but that may appeal to some customers who don't want to see an R-rated movie.
I guess question is "why aren't the studios preempting this by providing the service themselves?"
Thanks for any comments.
keith
--- "Vance R. Koven" <vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what strikes Terry as contradictory.
> Clean Flicks *does* copy
> the DVD (I presume they would say for purposes of
> reverse-engineering or
> fair use only), but the others do not. Plainly, the
> risk of infringement is
> higher in the former than the latter.
>
> As to the DMCA question, I don't see how putting a
> software overlay on an
> otherwise unmodified DVD has anything to do with
> defeating access
> protection. If the software intercepts the
> images/instructions to display
> images and simply moves forward, it's doing no more
> than automating the
> thumb on the fast-forward.
>
> Or am *I* missing something?
>
> Vance
>
> At 09:38 AM 1/22/03 -0800, Terry Carroll wrote:
> >There's something here that appears to be a
> contradition:
> >
> > The Clean Flicks folks say they respect those
> copyrights by only making
> > a single edited copy for each original video or
> DVD they purchase.
> >
> >So this is saying that Clean Flicks *does* make a
> copy of the movie
> >(which would be prima facie copyright
> infringement).
> >
> > Because ClearPlay and Trilogy Studios do
> nothing to physically copy or
> > alter DVDs, they are not vulnerable to charges
> of copyright or
> > trademark infringement.
> >
> >This says the opposite.
> >
> >It also seems to me that, apart from the copying
> issue of copying the DVD,
> >Clean Flicks, by altering the software (or
> providing new software) that
> >determines the sequence or appearance of the images
> to be displayed, is
> >circumventing a technical measure that controls
> access to the work,
> >violating section 1201.
>
> Vance R. Koven, Senior Attorney
> Comverse, Inc.
> 100 Quannapowitt Parkway
> Wakefield, MA 01880 USA
> +1 781-224-8523 (vox humana)
> +1 781-224-8144 (fax mechanica)
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:47 GMT