[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] MovieMask - I'm sure the lawsuit is on itsway

In the case of the artist who prevented the movement of their work because 
of maintainance costs...maybe they might feel differently if the city 
decided to stop maintaining it and decided that going back to nature was 
also "performance" art. 

BTW - getting a law passed that says that an artist has the right to 
dicated how a work is displayed AFTER sale violated first sale principles 
as much as a hitech TPM does. Whether they like it or not, one is as evil 
as the other whatever the motivation.

"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/15/01 11:41 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] MovieMask - I'm sure the lawsuit is on itsway

That may be true for public or singular works, but I've never seen
anything like this about post-first-sale uses of a published work.  If
fact the parody cases (which I don't have off the top of my head) seem
to indicate that while I can't draw a mustache on the orginal of the
Mona Lisa, I can certainly do so on my copy from an art book, even if it
were copyrighted.  What I probably couldn't do would be to publically
display or perform the reedited work as it would require performance of
the original.  However, the parody case would seem to grant fairly large
leeway even there.

Dean Sanchez wrote:
> 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