RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:41 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing
> 
> 
> On 23 Sep 2002 at 11:21, Richard Hartman wrote:
> 
> From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
> To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
> discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing
> Date sent:      	Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:21:04 -0700
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > It would certainly be harder to edit in material 
> > that is not on the DVD than it would be to create
> > an alternate playlist ignoring material that actaully
> > is there.
> > 
> > The only thing I can think of that might fall into
> > this category is the DVDs that come with "deleted
> > scenes".  As long as those are on the same DVD as
> > the movie itself (instead of on a second, "bonus
> > material" DVD) then you could create a playlist that
> > re-inserted those scenes into the movie.
> > 
> > Beyond that, there isn't much you could do w/o 
> > actually burning NEW DVDs w/ your material-to-be-included
> > and that would clearly be a violation of copyright since 
> > you would have to burn the base movie on it as well.
> > 
> > I _suppose_ you could come up w/ work-arounds such
> > as storing your material on a second disc and creating
> > a special movie player that worked with a playlist that
> > read from two DVD/CD drives ... if that approach was taken I 
> > do not see that they could get you for violating anything
> > since the original DVD would be a) required; and b) unaltered.
> 
> WHich also violates the sanctity of the artist's moral right over the 
> exhibition of his works in some countries...personally I wish 
> people, lawmakers 
> included, would understand the difference between legal and 
> moral. While legal, 
> and it should remain legal, I would not consider it moral 
> since it alters the 
> work beyond anything that the creator envisioned. Yet once in 
> the public domain 
> the work is grist for anyone's mill and should be. The battle 
> against that sort 
> of misuse should be fought by the critics in writing and the 
> public by ignoring 
> it.
> 

I am not so sure that the artist's work _is_ altered.  After
all, there is the original DVD -- paid for (I hope) by the 
viewer -- and it remains unaltered by the process I described.

After First Sale, the viewer has the right to view the material
in whatever way they see fit.

We're on the infamous "slippery slope".  Where would _you_ draw
the line as to the user's rights after first sale?

Can he view the movie :

	on a licensed dedicated DVD player

	on a computer, Windows OS, using licensed CSS decoding software

	on a computer, Linux OS, using unlicensed DeCSS software

	on a computer, with a custom playlist to skip the "naughty bits"

	on a computer, with a custom playlist to re-insert the 
		deleted scenes that reside on the same disc

	on a computer with custom software to re-insert the deleted 
		scenes when they reside on the second disc of a set

	on a computer with custom software to insert new material 
		that resides on a second, separately produced disc



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

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