FYI, AMC's schedule now indicates that the show will be run again on
June 5 at 11:30 AM EST. (I assume that's really EDT, right?)
Richard A. Schafer
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
1111 Louisiana Street
44th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002-5200
Direct phone: 713.220.8184
Direct fax: 713.220.2384
Cell: 832.283.6564
-----Original Message-----
From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
[mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of Agenbroad, James
(Civ,ARL/CISD)
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 3:55 PM
To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: "Bleep: Censoring Hollywood"
I suspect that there would be broad, general agreement with you on this list. My common sense, non-lawyer analysis comes up with the same answer. There are other rights granted by title 17, but central to them is copying. It is easy to find a bright line distinction between the two models.
OTOH,the anti ClearPlay people would say that the set of instructions to the player was a derivitive work based on the original movie. At some level, I'm not sure that there is a bright line between their instructions to the machine to turn off the sound for these, particular seconds and to skip those particular frame is different than me telling friends of mine to stop watching the movie Barry Lindon halfway through, because the second half sucks.
IANAL, YMMV, all the other disclaimers apply.
-----Original Message-----
From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
[mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of John T. Mitchell
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:25 PM
To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: "Bleep: Censoring Hollywood"
I would certainly be interested in seeing it if it airs again. One thing your message does not make clear (and perhaps the show did not either), is that there is a huge difference between "producing edited copies of the DVDs" (the CleanFlix model) and movies that are unedited but are played back with filtering software to give an edited viewing experience (the ClearPlay model). The former involves making an infringing reproduction and derivative work. The latter is like having a trained professional help you cover your kids' eyes or ears to prevent them from experiencing certain sounds or images. The former is, in my view, infringing. The latter is just as legal as skipping a page or two in a book you are reading. The new law only protects the latter, and probably wasn't necessary.
John
On 5/4/05 6:20 PM, "Terry Carroll" <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> My TiVo fortuitously recorded an interesting documentary a few nights
> ago:
> "Bleep: Censoring Hollywood." It was a 45-minute show, aired on AMC,
> about companies like ClearPlay, CleanFlix, and the like, which
"sanitize"
> DVDs for bluenoses, I mean, discerning parents, who want to watch
movies
> that may have adult themes or situations, with the parts likely to be
> objectionable edited out.
>
> The show struck me as pretty well-balanced, showing the points of
> views of both the sanitizers and the movie directors. It covered the
> Family Movie Act, which at that time had been passed by both houses of
> Congress, but not yet signed into law. It looks like it's not
> scheduled for re-airing anytime soon,[1] but some copyright geeks like
> some of us (me, anyway) would find it worth watching if it re-airs.
>
> What surprised me is how many companies there were out there producing
> edited copies of the DVDs (the CleanFlix business model). I was aware
> of ClearPlay and CleanFlix, but the others were news to me.
>
> (For my part, I'm not sure how I come down on this, legislation aside.
> I don't see works of authorship as purely the author's work: I see it
> as a collaboration between the author and the consumer.
>
> The Beatles, for example, may have intended the "Sergeant Pepper"
> album to be taken as a whole, but if I want to listen to only "Lucy In
> the Sky With Diamonds," and take what I get from that experience,
> that's up to me. Hey, one of my favorite CDs is Fayray's "Genuine,"
> but the last track is a just too-horrible remake of Blondie's
> "Rapture," and I just cannot hit that skip button fast enough.
>
> I can understand a filmmaker wanting to show his work the way he
> intends it to be seen. The balance of "Saving Private Ryan" arguably
> simply doesn't work unless you see the scenes depicting all the
> horrors of war presented in the first half hour; but if a viewer wants
> to see the balance without those scenes, why shouldn't he be able to?
> And why shouldn't he be able to delegate that editing to someone whose
> judgment he trusts, so that he can see the film without the gore, and
> without the trouble of doing all the editing himself (which of course,
> would require him to see the gore anyway)?
>
> And, finally, one objection the filmmakers had was that, now that
> films are in a digital format and amenable to editing, it's not just
> the sanitization-style editing that's possible. Why, people could
> take the film and decide what parts to include, and maybe add some
> stuff. They could, for example, make a comic film out of a film that
> was intended to be serious by the filmmaker. Quite frankly, I think
> that's actually a pretty exciting possibility, of creating, not merely
> an edited work, but a truly new and different work.
>
> I never watch movies on TV, other than films that are sufficiently old
> that I can be pretty sure are not being cut up, because I want to see
> the whole thing; but I can see where others might have a different
> point of view. I will probably never take advantage of products like
> ClearPlay, but I don't see any reason not to allow others to. (And, I
> should probably never say never. My only child is just seven weeks
> old.[2] When she grows older and we watch movies together, say, maybe
> 10-12 years from now, I might really want something like this.))
>
> [1] According to http://www.amctv.com/show/detail?CID=63457-1-EST>, it
> was scheduled to air only 4/26, 4/27, and 5/1; As I said, I only
> happened to catch it because my TiVo fortuitously snagged it for me.
>
> [2] I can't help it, I'm a proud papa: pictures at
> <http://www.tjc.com/Maddy>.
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
> <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
#############################################################This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
#############################################################This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. Received on Sat May 07 2005 - 01:10:45 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:55 GMT