[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] MovieMask - I'm sure the lawsuit is on itsway
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] MovieMask - I'm sure the lawsuit is on itsway
- From: "Dean Sanchez" <DSanchez(at)fcci-group.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:59:05 -0500
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-Index: AcFt8qAx84PHUUq3SYS+wotbZb/InAAAS7aQ
- Thread-Topic: [dvd-discuss] MovieMask - I'm sure the lawsuit is on itsway
This may actually come under a different category. I'm not sure if it
is a state (FL) or federal item, but artists have gotten either a law or
regulation passed that essentially states that the work must be display
as they created it. This was a issue in my city because the city had
commissioned some artwork for a park. It's been a couple of years, but
I think it was a memory walk. Because it was in a high traffic area, it
required constant maintenance. The city wanted to move it, but the
artist successfully sued preventing the move and forcing the city to
continue the maintenance.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 11:24 AM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] MovieMask - I'm sure the lawsuit is on itsway
Bryan Taylor wrote:
>
> This is a fantastic example of the kind of fair use that requires
circumvention
> tools. Who can argue that you should not be allowed to strip the
profanity out
> of
> an R rated movie so that little Johnie can watch it.
Hear, hear... now THIS is something both moral conservatives like Orin
Hatch and "pro-family-leave" social liberals can agree on What's great
about this is seeing JackBoots squirmly try to defend the fundamental
right of Hollywood to preserve the artistic integrity of gratuitous,
sex, violence, and profanity. Sure adults should be able to watch what
they want, but they should also be allowed (they are in fact morally
required) to make "age appropriate" judgement on the material they
provide to their children.
Beautiful case in point. Having seen bits of "Spaceballs" on TV... we
rented it... mistake (our youngest is 9). Mel Brook's is (IMHO) a comic
genius, but including "f*ck" in the middle of a moving with a
10-year-old comic sensibilities and appeal makes no sense (and since
this was in the pre PG13 days where one use of "f*ck" moves the rating
from PG to PG-13 (as does any frontal nudity up to 15? secs (30?) --
c.f. Doc. Hollywood) ) came without warning to us. The kids themselves
were unconfortable and I was quite unhappy. No when we see a Mel Brooks
film on broadcast TV, I pay a lot more attention to (and more often
reject) home rental.
Hmmm, if this were about market expansion and satisfy customers
*instead* of attempting total control, the MPA should be in favor of
this. Adding "for the purpose copyright infringment" to the "primarily
designed" language should fix all this. It would also achieve Schniers
suggest balance... "virus kits" for script kiddies -- not okay
"demonstration exploits" -- okay. AEPBR -- okay -- cracking B&N
eCommerce payment and download system NOT okay. Cracking DivX, not okay
-- cracking DeCSS okay. Making a backup of software -- OKAY, stealling
the software or posting it on a WAREZ site... NOT okay.
Just five little words to add to "circumvention" -- "circumvention ...
for purpose of copyright infringment" would fix it all
.005 (in honor of my 5 words)
>
> --- Ernest Miller <ernest.miller@yale.edu> wrote:
> > www.moviemask.com
> >
> > Here is software that allows people to create metadata additions to
DVDs.
> > You download a config file, and the movie plays from that, not the
file on
> > the DVD. You can effectively create your own version of a movie on
DVD,
> > editing out the naughty bits - make your own PG-13 movie from an
R-Rated
> > DVD. Of course, there are more interesting uses - I wonder how long
until
> > there is a phantom edit of the Star Wars Episode I DVD out.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this violates all sorts of DVDCCA licenses. Their
moviemask
> > FAQ says that the movie studios are aware of what moviemask is doing
- but
> > seems to imply that they don't have official approval.
> >
> > Slashdot article
> > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/14/1325246
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
> http://personals.yahoo.com