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

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

But what if you just sold mustaches with post-it adhesive
on them and told people to open the Great Coffeetable Book 
of Classic Art to page 43 and stick the mustache under the
nose of the face on the page ... ?

You are not selling a derivitave work, you are instructing
individuals on how to produce their own derivative work.

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

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 11:41 AM
> 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
>