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

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

... and would any of those four points be any
different for the hypothetical sub-titling service?

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ernest Miller [mailto:ernest.miller@aya.yale.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:00 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: 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!
> > >
>