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

[Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>]

IF anything, I would think the subtitling is "more" legal
("less" illegal?) because you aren't really altering the movie in any way,
you are adding to it for practical purposes, and it is obvious what you
added.

Again, he could just supply patches for VCD DAT files or the DVD data
files for digital media.  Then _he_ is the copyright owner for those
patches, and there is no derivitive work mess, at least not until the
consumer applies the patch.  Maybe the movie studeos would even pay him
for the patches if they want to use them after he has done all of the
editing work.  I personally don't mind the sex too much though ;)

 -- noah silva

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Richard Hartman wrote:

> 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!
> > 
>