Cleaned up versions on tape & DVD.. Is this legal? (1 Viewer)

[JeremySt]

this ad was in my local paper a few weeks ago.

EDITED "R" AND "PG-13" MOVIES!!!
Now you can watch all these great movies
without PROFANITY, SEX, NUDITY, OR VIOLENCE

CLEANFLICKS
"The movies are safe for families again."

 

[Thomas Newton]

The 9th Circuit's recognition of a fair use right to "space shift" (which has only applied to music as of yet) may be able to extend to videos, but even so, it would still only apply to those states within the 9th Circuit.

The Supreme Court's holding that non-commercial use is presumed to be legal Fair Use applies to all 50 states (and to all US territories and possessions).

 

[Damin J Toell]

From the opposite perspective, the mere fact that a given use is of a 'nonprofit educational' purpose does not necessarily require a finding of fair use. A charity's reproduction of a work belonging to its rival furnishes an example: 'Religious, educational and other public interest institutions would suffer if their publications invested with an institution's reputation and goodwill could be freely appropriated by anyone.' Nonetheless, given the real-world difficulties of proof and enforcement, activity that is wholly noncommercial to the extent that it takes place within the home is, as a practical matter, typically beyond the reach of copyright holders. One court has given official recognition to this phenomenon, suggesting that Sony's validation of home taping implies a presumption that noncommercial and nonprofit activity undertaken at home for private enjoyment is presumptively fair, absent the plaintiff's proof of direct injury.

-4-13 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.05(A)(1)(c) (2002, citations omitted).

Only one court has given anything even close to the significance of Sony's presumption that you appear to argue for. As Nimmer goes on to say, the Supreme Court has "emphasized that...fair use analysis cannot be short-circuited via bright-line rules,...that that one sentence from Sony means that commerciality merely inclines against fair use, without giving rise to presumptive significance. Moreover, warned the Court, 'even the force of that tendency will vary with the ... context.'" 4-13 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.05(A)(1)(c) (2002, citations omitted).

Unlike such a limted-use rebuttable presumption, however, space-shifting is, for the 9th Circuit (although they've not given much of a justification that I've seen beyond citing erroneously to Sony v. Universal), a fully-fleshed argument unto itself for a defendant. It has, to their satisfaction, already been deemed to pass the test in and of itself; instead of an inclination, it is a whole argument waitings to have its blanks filled by a given defendant. Therefore, while personal use space-shifting is pretty much a sure-fire defense as the law now stands in the 9th Circuit, it is not so certain in, say, the 2d Circuit, even with the Supreme Court's presumption in favor of non-commercial uses.

I therefore stand behind what I've previously said about the relevance of AHRA and the 9th Circuit's approval of space-shifting to the topic at hand. Suffice it to repeat that the law remains unclear concerning the legality of space-shifting videos for personal use.

DJ

 

[Thomas Newton]

From the RIAA's Link Removed Web site (emphasis mine):

...
neither [multipurpose] devices [computers, CD-Rs, etc.] nor the consumers who use them receive immunity from suit for copyright infringement.

Looks like somebody cares about the difference between non-infringing, infringing but non-actionable, and actionable.
This is an interesting paragraph. It contains not a word about the home recording rights that you retain due to First Sale and Fair Use, rights that extend even to computers and CD-RW drives. Its title also groups two disparate activities: making legal copies of one of your own purchased CDs, and downloading illegal copies of songs from total strangers.
Read it without independent knowledge of copyright law and you might think that home recording on a cassette deck was unlawful but non-actionable, or that making a CD-R compilation from your CDs on a PC was unlawful.
The people who run the SoundByting site really need to get better writers. Then they could avoid accidentally leaving wrong impressions. Don't you agree?

 

[Damin J Toell]

The people who run the SoundByting site really need to get better writers. Then they could avoid accidentally leaving wrong impressions. Don't you agree?

I'm sure their site leaves the exact impression they desire.

DJ

 

[Neil Joseph]

Well, what a subject. Just to chime in my opinions on the matter.... I don't particularly care for excessive use of F-words and such although some of my DVD collection consists of that. I certainly would not allow my kids to watch it which is my choice as a parent but, laws or no laws, I am against such services that alter movies for these purposes. If someone uses that service then so be it, I just am against it personally for altering something that was not intended to be so.

 

[Matt Perkins]

I quote Damin, responding to Thomas Newton:

"... what's the relevance?"
"... another irrelevant rant ... "
"...it's rather immaterial...."
"Your point?"

So tell us straight, Damin ... is Thomas on to something?

 

[Ken Chan]

but it would be better if people had more options, rather than less. Do you disagree?

Options are not always free (in terms of money and/or consequences). The option to have pan&scan is a good example. Also, you do not have the inalienable right to more options; or the right not to be offended, either.

//Ken

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Maybe if people spent less time trying to fit films unintended as general or family entertainment into that mold, more people (especially kids) would be exposed to the thousands of truly great and criminally underappreciated films of yesteryear that are out there.
My strongest childhood memories are of Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Sea Hawk and Captain Blood. Oh, and Star Wars.
I remember going to the CED videodisc rental place with my parents (for birthdays and special events we'd rent a player and a pile of movies) and always being disappointed that they didn't have Robin Hood or The Sea Hawk. I checked every time anyways. I finally tracked down the LD of The Sea Hawk last year, and it's still one of my favourite films.
How many people considering purchasing or renting a sanitized version of Titanic for their kids have shown them The Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Hear Hear!

Ever since I was 2, when they used to show the movie every thanksgiving on a local UHF station I've loved that movie. Drooling for the restored DVD that's on the way!

 

[Tim Hoover]

In reference to the ad that Jeremy read in the newspaper, I wonder why CleanFlicks considers certain movies "great" when they contain so much profanity, sex, nudity, and violence...
I agree with the popular sentiment that, if the movie contains much material that is offensive to you, you should find a different movie to watch.

I can see it now: someone will start a service that alters a movie to depict more violence, language or nudity. "Gee, I would love to own "Crossroads", but there wasn't any nudity. Can you make me a version that fits my needs?"

Now THAT, I would buy

 

[Daniel J]

I'll agree that we need better awareness of the content that's out there; I love watching old movies with my family, and I'm sure that if it was better available, other people would as well.
But just because I like watching Errol Flynn and Charlie chaplin doesn't mean that my neighbor, or my uncle, or my best friend like those sorts of movies. So what does that leave them?
Face it, folks; if it's an action movie made in the last 20 years, chances are that it's rated R. Chances are that it was rated R mostly because of gratuitous linguitic barbarism (though violent content did make alot of headway coming into the mid-eighties).
So, what am I supposed to tell my dad when he wants to watch Die Hard? Should I lie and say: "it's really not your kind of movie, dad"; Or should I tell him the truth: "I'm sure you would absolutley love this movie; lots of gunfire, a gripping story about an everyday-type NYPD officer vs a building full of european crooks, and a happy ending; but the fact is there's a nude scene and a lot of swearing, so you wouldn't really feel comfortable watching it, and I wouldn't feel comfortable watching it with you. How 'bout Lawrence of Arabia again?" [father mumbles something and walks back to bedroom]

If I were allowed to contract a small studio to edit Die Hard, I would have a sure-fire father pleaser for those long weekend evenings when he's getting restless.

But I'm forgetting, the director doesn't want my father to enjoy Die Hard, he thinks my father's views toward barbaric linguistics make him "stupid" and "morally conservative"; so he's not worthy of such a masterpiece of modern cinematic artistry. I should feel stupid for even suggesting that I could buy movies that I can "enjoy" with my father; we don't deserve this "privelage".

 

[Damin J Toell]

But I'm forgetting, the director doesn't want my father to enjoy Die Hard, he thinks my father's views toward barbaric linguistics make him "stupid" and "morally conservative"; so he's not worthy of such a masterpiece of modern cinematic artistry. I should feel stupid for even suggesting that I could buy movies that I can "enjoy" with my father; we don't deserve this "privelage".

Wow, you totally destroyed that straw man. Good show.
Watch what movies you like, but show artists a little respect and don't modify their works because they make you feel uncomfortable. You are indeed allowed to buy movies that you can enjoy with your father, but not every film is for every person (or for every uncomfortable father/son pair). If you and a film don't match up, find another. There are other films in the universe besides Die Hard. I haven't seen Die Hard in about 10 years, yet somehow my movie viewing schedule has been quite filled despite that glaring deficiency.
And I find it odd that you apparently so desperately want to watch Die Hard, yet you can't help but insult the film (and your straw man director). Why are you desirous to watch a film you apparently find so distateful? Surely there are other films out there (Raiders of the Lost Ark, perhaps? It's my father's all-time favorite film, AFAIK.). Even if there somehow isn't a single film in the universe that fits your requirements, chalk it up to the many hardships of life. Personally, I'd rather watch nothing at all than to be so presumptuous as to modify a film to make it "fit" me. If nothing else, respecting the wishes of filmmakers is one of the mission statements of this forum, and it's one I take quite seriously.
DJ

 

[cafink]

If I were allowed to contract a small studio to edit Die Hard, I would have a sure-fire father pleaser for those long weekend evenings when he's getting restless.

Why don't you just find a movie that your father would like without editing? Why go through the extra hassle?

 

[Julian Lalor]

So, what am I supposed to tell my dad when he wants to watch Die Hard? Should I lie and say: "it's really not your kind of movie, dad"; Or should I tell him the truth: "I'm sure you would absolutley love this movie; lots of gunfire, a gripping story about an everyday-type NYPD officer vs a building full of european crooks, and a happy ending; but the fact is there's a nude scene and a lot of swearing, so you wouldn't really feel comfortable watching it, and I wouldn't feel comfortable watching it with you. How 'bout Lawrence of Arabia again?" [father mumbles something and walks back to bedroom]

So, let me get this right: explosions, deaths, people killing each other, gunshot wounds, people falling to their deaths in the most grisly fashion and other acts of assorted violence is OK but frank language and a woman's breasts needs to be edited out because they are offensive?

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

So, let me get this right: explosions, deaths, people killing each other, gunshot wounds, people falling to their deaths in the most grisly fashion and other acts of assorted violence is OK but frank language and a woman's breasts needs to be edited out because they are offensive?

Some people are scared of boobs.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Julian

(paraphrase)

"It's like the MPAA says, you can have horrible deplorable violence, as long as you don't say any naughty words!"

-
Sheila Brofslowsky- South Park

 

[wally]

...but the fact is there's a nude scene...

It's been about six months since I watched Die Hard, but I don't remember a nude "scene". Are you talking about when Hans' thugs sweep the Nakatomi offices when first entering and they catch a couple doin' the nasty?
That nudity can't last more than 20-30 frames, hardly a "scene".
I hope the directors bury Clean Flicks with the suit they have pending.
I'd at least rent a nuded up version of Crossroads, as long as it's OAR

 

[Brian W.]

I don't approve of this service at all. "Die Hard"? My goodness, it's not like it's "Salo."

But I do think this service is perfectly legal. I'm not a laywer, but I used to work for the Washington State Bar Association, and I once asked a co-worker, who had been a lawyer for many years, if it is illegal to copy CDs. He told me the law allows you to make one copy for personal use. "What does personal use mean?" I asked. He shrugged and said, "The law is vague on that." I would assume this applies to movies as well as CDs.

According to one web site that transfers LPs to CD for their customers:

Making a copy of a copyrighted sound recording is legal as long both of the following two conditions are met:

1. You own [the copy of] the original LP or recording, and
2. You will keep the CD transfer for your own use.

The copyright laws allow the person that has purchased a musical recording to make a copy of the music they purchased on a different medium. Example: you buy the CD, then record it on a cassette to listen in the car. That is legal. It would not be legal if you then give (or sell) the cassette tape to aunt Becky. That would be illegal.

Also, the copyright laws allow a person to make a copy of the recording for safekeeping (or archiving). Frequently you see that on copyrighted software. Some companies even tell you to make a copy for safekeeping, in case your original copy gets damaged.

Again, I would assume this applies to videos as well.

What CleanFlicks advertises on their web site is that you can send them your video to copy or THEY WILL BUY A VIDEO FOR YOU and copy that. Technically, if you're paying for them to buy the movie for you, it's your copy, and you can have them do with it what you wish, as long as it and the copy are returned to you and it is for your personal use.

Now, if you were to resell a CleanFlicks video, that would definitely be illegal.

Though, in a way, I don't know what everyone is suddenly up in arms about. "Clean" versions of "Die Hard" and every other film ever made have existed for years -- they're called the network broadcast versions. Why is everyone suddenly crying "foul"? What's the difference?

 

[Damin J Toell]

Though, in a way, I don't know what everyone is suddenly up in arms about. "Clean" versions of "Die Hard" and every other film ever made have existed for years -- they're called the network broadcast versions. Why is everyone suddenly crying "foul"? What's the difference?

The difference is that network broadcast versions are made with the authorization of the copyright holders.
DJ