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

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

On 31 Jan 2003 at 10:32, Steve Hosgood wrote:

Date sent:      	Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:32:32 GMT
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights 
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
From:           	"Steve Hosgood" <steve@caederus.com>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> > > >> 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.
> > >
> And surely that's the purpose of copyright? To ensure that the author(s) get
> their recompense for ever copy sold? If they do, then the requirements of
> copyright are met, and there is no case.
> > > The Monty Python case demonstrated that the Lanham Act was inapplicable 
> > 
> > My impression of the Monty Python case was that is involved breach of contract
> > between the BBC and NBC(?). Monty Python sold episodes to the BBC with certain
> > contractual arrangments. BBC sold them to NBC who did not honor those
> > agreements...maybe memory is wrong...
> >
> Yeah, but the episodes were *broadcast* weren't they? So it wasn't quite the
> same issues at stake. In the cleanflicks case, individual copies are bought and
> paid for.

THen the LEGAL issue is the difference between a commercial LICENSE and a 
private sale. THe episodes were licensed to ABC by Time-Life from the BBC which 
had a contract with MontyPython. CleanFlicks isn't dealing with licenses but 
the sale and use of personal property-the DVDs or VHS tapes. In the case of the 
DVDs it becomes even more interesting....I don't see how a private contract for 
a sale of information that one believes is useful and can be electronically 
implemented is a violation of copyright. The notion of derivative works really 
does not apply. Derivative works apply to the commercial world and not the 
private one. 

OK consider this set of instructions.

Synchronize timer at 00:00

00:00-05:00 view picture
05:00-06:34 blue screen (unless you want to see 6 decapitations)
25:32-28:56 blue screen (unless you want to see a depiction of sex)
67:52-78:23 blue screen (unless you want to see 345 murders during an orgy)

Is there really any difference between a written program and an electronic one 
other than the blue screen gets skipped?

> I suppose the one way the two cases *are* similar is to do with "attribution of
> authorship" which is also part of the copyright laws. In both cases something is
> being distributed in a form the author did not intend, but still claims to be by
> that author.

ONly if there is no disclaimer. And the buyers of CleanFlicks are surely not 
being defrauded.

> The movie industry uses "Alan Smithee" as director name to cope with cases
> where a director does not want to be associated with a given finished product.
> (As seen on the original studio release of "Dune" directed by David Lynch.)

I guess Imissed that...my favorite part was when the guild spaceman was 
"folding space" a friend of mine from JrHS and fellow reader of Dune at that 
time commented as we watched "hey..who would have thought that intersteller 
travel was as easy as puking and farting"...I can't watch that movie without 
breaking up at that point even now...

> --
> Steve Hosgood                               |
> steve@caederus.com                          | "A good plan today is better
> Phone: +44 1792 203707 + ask for Steve      |   than a perfect plan tomorrow"
> Fax:   +44 70922 70944                      |              - Conrad Brean
> --------------------------------------------+
>         http://tallyho.bc.nu/~steve         |  ( from the film "Wag the Dog" )