[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
- From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:51:11 -0800
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcLCmG3XgV16HyGLQnCM/CbKlsNn/gF7frEQ
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> On 22 Jan 2003 at 14:34, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> notion that copyright controls ALL derivative works is the
> problem. It only
> should control COMMERCIAL derivative works and by commercial
> I would contend
> that applies ONLY to lost revenues that are demonstratable
> (e.g., 1000 copies
> of bootleg ). In the case of the clean Flicks, I can't see
> that they have lost
> ANY commercial revenue even with the copies of the tape.
At one time, one of these services did the job by
purchasing a new tape and editing it for each customer.
The studio lost -zero- sales. This may no longer
be practical as the # of "clean-seekers" grows, so
the service may keep a master edited copy and dup
it for each customer ... but as long as a commercial
copy is bought and paid for for each edited one
sold (perhaps they could put the dup right over
the commercial original) then the studios have
lost nothing. If "commercial loss" is a requirement
they could be stopped short right there.
Unfortunately I do not believe that this is a
requirement for establishing copyright infringement.
> the case of the DVD
> re-edits- that's incredibly laughable in view of the dozens
> of different
> versions they already release.
No ... it's laughable becuause YOU CAN'T APPLY THE EDITS
UNLESS YOU OWN THE ORIGINAL. This is actually a different
case than the VHS scenario. I MUST own the original DVD
and put it in the player. Then _separate_ software shows
it's _own_ movie which happens to be overlayed on the
original. Ok, who would want a movie that is essentially
2 hours of blank and a few minutes of a corset somewhere
in the middle? Well ... nobody said that art had to be
The _side effect_ of playing both "movies" simultaneously
is that Kate Winslet appears to be dressed in a corset.
But nobody altered the original movie, did they? Not
even commercially. Worse case, somebody sold me a _tool_
by which _I_ could _personally_ alter my _own_ viewing
experience. No commercial distribution of the resulting
derivative work is ever committed.
We had a pretty good discussion on these possibilities
way back when one of these companies first started advertising
that they were planning on coming out w/ a playlist editor.
There were some good discussions about the theoretical
underpinnings of this approach and how it differed than
actual editing -- perhaps it's time to review those discussions
and see if we can get a brief prepared?
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!