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

[Brian W.]

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.
Balderdash.
:

Well, this company has been operating for many years. They're at www.lp2cd.com. Apparently their lawyers are under the impression this is legal.
So where are you getting your info? Are you a copyright attorney?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

It's true you can make your own backup of ANYTHING (unless you're circumventing copy protection see DMCA)

HOWEVER

The difference is that the consumer is not doing this backing up, it's being done by a 3rd party for profit AND they are absolutely violating the DMCA when they do it

They're screwed either way

 

[Damin J Toell]

So where are you getting your info? Are you a copyright attorney?

I am currently a 3rd-year law student in New York City. I have, under the proper supervision of attorneys, practiced copyright law in the entertainment industry here in New York.
And, FWIW, I got an A in Copyright.
DJ

 

[Brian W.]

Well, you're partially right, Damin. The law I was referring to does not apply to home video.
However, you were wrong when you said "there is no such law" regarding the copying of CDs, Mr. Smartypants.
It's called the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, and it does allow consumers to copy CDs for personal use. From section 1008:

No copyright infringement lawsuit may be brought based on consumers' noncommercial use of digital or analog recording devices to copy prerecorded music.

Here's a link to a summary of the act and a separate link to the full text of the act:
http://www.hrrc.org/html/ahra_summary.html
http://www.hrrc.org/html/ahra.html
So maybe there is no law allowing copying of videos -- but with a conservative president in office and Hollywood already heavily criticized by Congress for violence and sex in the movies, you'd better believe one is coming.

 

[Damin J Toell]

So maybe there is no law allowing copying of videos -- but with a conservative president in office and Hollywood already heavily criticized by Congress for violence and sex in the movies, you'd better believe one is coming.

I fail to see what any of that has to do with copyright law. I've never seen a copyright amendment passed because an entertainment industry is too violent. I'll end discussion of the topic there so as to avoid getting into a political discussion in opposition to HTF rules. Suffice it to say that, despite your advice, I do not believe that any such law is on the horizon.

DJ

 

[Brian W.]

I've never seen a copyright amendment passed because an entertainment industry is too violent.

Does AHRA override copyright law? Why would a "VHRA" be any different?

I don't feel I'm getting into politics too much when I say there are very few lawmakers (outside of California and New York) who show much interest in artists' rights. If the CleanFlicks controversy really heats up, I do think we may very well see such a law in the coming years.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I don't feel I'm getting into politics too much when I say there are very few lawmakers (outside of California and New York) who show much interest in artists' rights. If the CleanFlicks controversy really heats up, I do think we may very well see such a law in the coming years.

Perhaps, except that there is no logical relevance between "Industry X is too violent" and "We should allow non-commercial copying of industry X's product." AHRA certainly wasn't passed for that reason. Remember again that a provision similar to § 1008 for videos wouldn't protect Clean Flicks, anyway, so it would do nothing to affect violent content of films.

DJ

 

[Brian W.]

Perhaps, except that there is no logical relevance between "Industry X is too violent" and "We should allow non-commercial copying of industry X's product."

There is if what's driving the move toward such a law is the CleanFlicks debate, which itself is driven by Hollywood's "dirty, violent films" -- which is already a hot button issue in Washington. And just because AHRA doesn't allow editing of content by a second party doesn't mean its home video equivalent wouldn't.
I do think CleanFlicks is walking a thin line, but I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you feel it is. Then again, I'm not a third year law student. Then again, neither are CleanFlicks' lawyers.
But you know what I think is just as likely to happen with this? I think the studios will eventually start marketing their own "clean" versions of films and put these places out of business.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I do think CleanFlicks is walking a thin line, but I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you feel it is. Then again, I'm not a third year law student. Then again, neither are CleanFlicks' lawyers.

There are a lot of bad and clueless lawyers out there. You're certainly allowed to believe what you want; one right I would certainly admit that you have is the right to be completely wrong.

DJ

 

[wally]

But you know what I think is just as likely to happen with this? I think the studios will eventually start marketing their own "clean" versions of films and put these places out of business.

NO OARLVN = NO SALE
(Original Aspect Ratio, Language, Violence, Nudity)

 

[David_Jr]

I am surprised to see the high level of criticism leveled at folks who would like to use these services. This discussion seems to have centered mainly on the rights of the copyright holder being infringed. As I see it (not an attorney or law student) these services are not geared toward screwing the copyright holder out of paying for the product. So what is the harm? You can argue the language of this act and that law in this forum for days! Everyone has an opinion, informed, personal, or otherwise, but they are all just opinions. Nothing will be settled until it is litigated. I seriously doubt it would ever go that far. I don't think these services are going to generate enough business for the studios to waste time and what they really love most, MONEY, on such a small undertaking. If I'm wrong and the concept reaches a bigger than expected audience, then the studios will probably start marketing their own "family friendly" versions. Its dollars and cents to the studios.

As far as editing films to meet family standards goes, I would certainly agree that most R-rated films could not become "family friendly" by making a few language and nudity edits. However, there are other PG & PG-13 films, Titanic has been mentioned a lot, that have either a historical significance or deal with subject matter that is not inappropriate for younger children, and with just an edit or two (1 F word and 1 breast shot) could easily become "friendly" to an audience younger than the PG-13 rating would suggest. I think there is a big difference between this and, say, trying to do the same to a Tarantino film. Some criticize those who do not want to hear excessive profanity or see nudity in their living room. Go ahead, just remember not everyone lives where the "F" word is a helping verb. Also, these people are not trying to force this on you, they just want it available for themselves and their families and I fail to see how this hurts anyone. The "idea" is not immoral or fattening and whether in "practice" it is legal or illegal, I'm sure we will find out when the lawsuits, if any, are settled.

 

[cafink]

I fail to see how this hurts anyone

The idea that films are nothing more than a commercial product to be custom-ordered by the consumer is a threat to anyone who loves film.

 

[David_Jr]

Film can be considered both an art form and a commercial product. There is no denying the commercial side of this. Whether we personally agree or disagree with it, most films are changed in some way for various reasons, the most obvious of which are: P/S, edited for TV/airlines, re-edited with additional content for SE reissue and re-mixed soundtracks. These changes are not always made by the director and we may agree, disagree or have no opinion about the changes, but in the end we vote with our dollars. We either purchase the changed product, directly or indirectly (TV ads), or we pass. I think it is a mistake to ignore the commercial aspect of films as it regards this threads topic, however I am not suggesting that the art form side is unimportant. I hope this is not a hypocritical position. Films are changed from their "theatrical version" for many reasons (consider the much anticipated and ballyhooed upcoming LOTR extended version release). I just don't see how the "cleaning up for family viewing" for those who prefer it is more harmful than for the other reasons it's already done. I don't think I'm alone on this opinion.

 

[Ken Chan]

With over six billion people in the world, you can practically guarantee no one is alone in any opinion
As you mention, editing for "family viewing" is done often, like when a movie is shown on TV. But the important point is who does the editing, and who profits from it? There's a sliding scale from the director, to the producers, the studio, and then way down, "across the line", a bunch of yahoos that are profiting from someone else's art, without the consent or participation of the artist.
Relying on market fundamentalism, voting with our dollars, doesn't work. First, apparently there are plenty of people out there that want this product. Second, the cost for someone like Clean Flicks to do it is so low -- for the very fact that they don't pay any kind of royalties -- that they can easily do it at a profit. And third, just because someone can make a business out of it doesn't make it right.
If and when this ever goes to court, it might settle the legality of this practice. But let's not pretend that the law always makes sense.
Titanic is rated PG-13 for "disaster related peril and violence, nudity, sensuality and brief language." Why are some people fixated on the bare breasts and F-word (no need to answer, rhetorical question). The death of a thousand people, women and children, floating frozen in the ocean -- this is fine family viewing for the little kids?
//Ken

 

[Barb Jarvis]

If Cleanflicks wants family friendly edits of movies. They should carry versions edited for content already instead of breaking the law. Hollywood, offers edited films for airlines, television, etc... Cleanflicks should request those versions. And if Hollywood studios won't comply with their request, take your fight to Fox News. it would give Bill O'Reilly something besides the War on Terror to talk about. Also, they can import Malaysian, Mainland Chinese, Thai, Indian, Arabic, etc... releases of Hollywood films. These are generally censored quite a bit. Well, the legal ones. Sometimes Thai releases are dubbed either in Thai or Mandarin Chinese. Also, many of these releases aren't on VHS or DVD, just VCD (most DVD players play VCDs). They might get into a hassle over parallel importing. It is one thing for me to import a dvd; it's quite another for a video chain to import a hundred copies of the Malaysian Titanic dvd. Or possibly Cleanflicks could requests versions of the films edited for the Malaysian market. There use to be a family friendly cable movie channel that showed movies edited to "PG" level. Hollywood provided films to them as well as AMC and TCM (which edit movies for content). It's just a thought.