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

RE: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights

On 30 Jan 2003 at 9:51, Richard Hartman wrote:

Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
Date sent:      	Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:51:11 -0800
From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> ...
> > On 22 Jan 2003 at 14:34, johnzu@ia.nsc.com wrote:
> ...
> > The 
> > notion that copyright controls ALL derivative works is the 
> > problem. It only 
> > should  control COMMERCIAL derivative works and by commercial 
> > I would contend 
> > that applies ONLY to lost revenues that are demonstratable 
> > (e.g., 1000 copies 
> > of bootleg ). In the case of the clean Flicks, I can't see 
> > that they have lost 
> > ANY commercial revenue even with the copies of the tape. 
> At one time, one of these services did the job by 
> purchasing a new tape and editing it for each customer.
> The studio lost -zero- sales.  This may no longer
> be practical as the # of "clean-seekers" grows, so
> the service may keep a master edited copy and dup
> it for each customer ... but as long as a commercial
> copy is bought and paid for for each edited one
> sold (perhaps they could put the dup right over
> the commercial original) then the studios have
> lost nothing.  If "commercial loss" is a requirement
> they could be stopped short right there.
> Unfortunately I do not believe that this is a
> requirement for establishing copyright infringement.

Certainly there is the issue of DAMAGES. I know that the copyright fascists 
would like to have ANY copyright infringement be criminal (e.g., so they don't 
have to pay court costs and society pays for incarceration) and any copy causes 
damages so large that they are in fat city if they ever could collect. But 
there is nothing Mystical about "intellectual property" or should be (I'm sorry 
JackAss Valenti but I've created more intellectual property than you so bugger 
off). But in this instance...does the edit cause any DAMAGES that can be 
objectively assessed? I don't think so (The solution is to just say "copyright 
infringement = $1M per copy" regardless of how many actually got sold..)
But what are damages? in this case? WIth no economically demonstratable 
damages, how can one objectively assess copyright infringement except by some 
totalitarian scale?

> >IN 
> > the case of the DVD 
> > re-edits- that's incredibly laughable in view of the dozens 
> > of different 
> > versions they already release. 
> No ... it's laughable becuause YOU CAN'T APPLY THE EDITS
> UNLESS YOU OWN THE ORIGINAL.  This is actually a different
> case than the VHS scenario.  I MUST own the original DVD
> and put it in the player.  Then _separate_ software shows
> it's _own_ movie which happens to be overlayed on the 
> original.  Ok, who would want a movie that is essentially
> 2 hours of blank and a few minutes of a corset somewhere
> in the middle?  Well ... nobody said that art had to be
> comprehensible.

Oh but you can't do with your own personal property in the privacy of your own 
home after purchasing or maybe not a list of skip and tranparent view graphs to 
put over your screen at the right times...Oh...it's done electronically...well 
that's progress the user doesn't have to be as quick about it....

As for derivative rights.....this is more "after market add-ons"....the bottom 
line is that intellectual property rights do not extend to what is made of the 
physical copy AFTER first sale so all of the arguments regarding "moral rights' 
are total BS...and quite frankly considering the amount of drug use and whoring 
that goes on in Hollywierd and the intellectual whoredom they fund their 
arguments are hypocritical and laughable...

> The _side effect_ of playing both "movies" simultaneously
> is that Kate Winslet appears to be dressed in a corset.  
> But nobody altered the original movie, did they?  Not
> even commercially.  Worse case, somebody sold me a _tool_ 
> by which _I_ could _personally_ alter my _own_ viewing
> experience.  No commercial distribution of the resulting
> derivative work is ever committed.

AFAIK, I don't know why Kate Winslet in or out of a corset should be of any 
interest....I assume that most people are not in their clothes when they 
conceive their children so they have seen it..as for The Titanic...Kate Winslet 
nude is something for adults. For teens, that's something for their parents.

> We had a pretty good discussion on these possibilities
> way back when one of these companies first started advertising
> that they were planning on coming out w/ a playlist editor.
> There were some good discussions about the theoretical 
> underpinnings of this approach and how it differed than
> actual editing -- perhaps it's time to review those discussions
> and see if we can get a brief prepared?
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!