[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights



A few points:
1) This is a very small operation.
2) What is going on here would probably fall under the "first sale"
doctrine.  The guy is not making copies, he is chopping up existing physical
copies.
3) For this reason, they will remain small. Chopping up existing physical
copies does not scale.
4) Suing would only give the guy publicity.  Sometimes the studios can be
smart.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:54 AM
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights


> Here we go ... a Salon.com article on Ray Lines and
> his "CleanFlicks" business
>
> http://www.salon.com/sex/world/2001/01/11/mormon/
>
> <blockquote>
> Lines' attorney asserts that his client is not doing anything wrong. Each
> video is purchased and edited individually. The filmmakers are getting
paid
> for each video, because no copies are made
> </blockquote>
>
> Although the movie industry was "looking into" the legality
> as of a year ago, http://www.cleanflicks.com/ is still up and
> doing business as of this morning.
>
> I believe this situation would be exactly analogous to
> the one proposed whereby japanese vids are subtitled
> individually.  Perhaps the legality is still subject
> to question, but I think if the industry thought that
> it had a good case against Lines it would've pursued
> it by now.
>
> --
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
>
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Hartman [mailto:hartman@onetouch.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:41 AM
> > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
> > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Slightly OT - Japanese copyrights
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jim Bauer [mailto:jfbauer@comcast.net]
> > ...
> > >
> > > Noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >It might be a violation of copyright to take something and
> > > sub-title it
> > > >and re-release it (I would think it would be!).
> > >
> > > Would it be a violation to sell a sub-titled version if you
> > > bought and destroyed an original for every sub-titled copy
> > > you distributed?
> > >
> >
> > If you have license to a copy, and the right to do what
> > you wish with your own copy, then that plan should work.
> >
> > It is similar to a plan executed by someone who was fed
> > up w/ all the (unnecessary) sex in movies.  He offered
> > a service whereby he edited a movie to make a clean version.
> > IIRC either the customer had to send in their copy of
> > the tape to be edited, or they bought a copy from him
> > (as they would from any other reseller) that he had already
> > edited.  He did not _make_ copies, he edited existing
> > ones.
> >
> >
> > --
> > -Richard M. Hartman
> > hartman@onetouch.com
> >
> > 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> >