Studios take action against "family friendly" editing facilities (1 Viewer)

[Thomas Newton]

Violating a § 106 right falls under violating any exclusive right provided between §§ 106-121, does it not?

§ 106 rights are not defined solely by § 106. Other sections constrain the scope of § 106. So does the First Amendment (which protects publication of works like "The Wind Done Gone").

 

[Damin J Toell]

§ 106 exclusive rights are not defined solely by § 106. Other sections constrain the scope of § 106 rights. So does the First Amendment (which protects publication of works like "The Wind Done Gone").

Both true and irrelevant to the wording of the definition of "infringment."

DJ

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I must say this is fascinating
Maybe you guys should offer your services and get some cash from all this research

 

[Matt Perkins]

....." Any. Any single one. Violating a § 106 right falls under violating any exclusive right provided between §§ 106-121, does it not?

Oh. My mistake.
When I read the phrase "as provided by," I must have forgotten to internally replace it with "between." I'll certainly be more careful in the future!
I guess this also means that Marilyn Manson's "Sweet Dreams" is an infringement of the Eurythmics composer's copyright. Even though Manson paid the statutory royaties ("as provided in sections 106 through 121") and Eurythmics therefore can't bring a suit, it's nonetheless an infringement because it violates 106. Got it.
I completely disagree with that analysis, but at least I understand your reasoning.
Hey, we've been spelling "infringement" differently. Is there one e, or two? This is going to piss me off until I find out.
Copyright, schmopyright.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Hey, we've been spelling "infringement" differently. Is there one e, or two? This is going to piss me off until I find out.

It is properly spelled "infringement." I, however, am too sloppy/lazy to spell it correctly.

DJ

 

[Matt Perkins]

Quote:

My last paragraph explains why I (and Thomas, perhaps?) stick to our ground on this matter. You dismiss our motives, and perhaps that's because we haven't clearly articulated them -- so for that, I have to apologize. But, your quote above is what I'm talking about when I say, "you assert your opinion without acknowledging that there is room for debate."
Let it be known, shout it from the rooftops, and paint it on the streets: there is room for debate.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Let it be known, shout it from the rooftops, and paint it on the streets: there is room for debate.

But you apparently don't claim to debate against what I'm saying (despite constant surface disagreement); you're apparently saying something else entirely. There is room for debate, but apparently we haven't been having one.

DJ

 

[Glenn Overholt]

There is nothing like a mini legal battle. I only wish I could understand more of it.
Ok, there is room for debate here, right? Could we do this English? Pretty please?
My take is that the DGA is suing because a company(s) is altering their work for profit, and the DGA wants their cut of it. (A bit too greedy for my tastes). This is because the movies are being altered without their permission.
On the other side a service is being provided, and these companies are not making more copies than those that already exist, and the DGA already has enough profit. (It would be funny if someone had asked for permission to do this before, and had been denied).
On an offshoot of this, my favorite is to buy a small widescreen TV. As these are not available in the US, I'd have to buy it from say the UK and have it shipped over.
I can see the US Customs slapping a huge customs tax on this, but I'd just turn around and tell them that this model, or anything near it in size, is not avaiilable in the US, so no tax should be handed down to me.
For the few that do want 'clean movies' should they be denied the right to get them that way? If the DGA wins, can someone else sue them for the P&S issue? (Permission or not, the film is being hacked). Oh, and adding porn material to a religous film is NOT a valid argument here. No one is adding any footage.
Glenn

 

[Jeff Kleist]

For the few that do want 'clean movies' should they be denied the right to get them that way?

Movies are a privilage, not a right. If this were a handicap ramp, I'd tell the DGA to go stuff it

If you're offended by a movie, DON'T WATCH IT
Show your disaproval with your dollars. As had been said before, people just want to still be "in" while maintaining their wittle sensibilities.

I'm sorry they don't like it, but tough noogies. Clean flicks should go about making their own "family friendly" material instead of the unauthorized wholesale alteration of other people's work. The DGA will win, and CleanFlicks will be dead, because, worse comes to worse the DGA has the DMCA to sic on them

 

[Damin J Toell]

If the DGA wins, can someone else sue them for the P&S issue? (Permission or not, the film is being hacked).

You can't just say "permission or not," as if it doesn't matter. The fact that a contractual agreement exists between filmmakers and studios to allow studios to make certain modifications would prevent a successful lawsuit against those studios by the filmmakers. And ordinary citizens (the "someone else" you mention?) uninvolved with the films would presumably have no cause of action to sue anyone for making P&S versions.
DJ

 

[Matt Perkins]

Copyright, schmopyright. Here's what I find really troubling about the DGA's position:
For a moment, forget about the "cleaned-up" versions that are causing such a ruckus. Think of this in terms of music: what would we be saying if this was the music industry that was complaining?
They would have much to complain about, for sure. People regularly use recorded music for karoake, filtering away the lead voices -- and replacing them with the grunts and howls of any drunken "vocalist" in the rabble! Can you imagine the argument? "If just anyone could change this music in such a way, we will certainly stop making music! After all, why make art if the integrity of that art is demolished?"
Or, DJs speeding up a pop ballad and adding techno loops behind it. "How dare someone desecrate our art like this! This is not how we intended for this music to be heard! Surely, this kind of artistic mutilation will confuse people into thinking that we are responsible for such tragic renditions of our work."
I find it crazy that what's okay for music, is not okay for movies. Perhaps it's because so many of us are accustomed to making music. So many of us have musical training and ability -- and since literally anyone can make music, it's only natural for us to use and enhance prerecorded music within our own artistic and aesthetic gifts.
It is not yet typical for people at large to become familiar with filmmaking, although we're getting there. Digital video and editing is available to anyone for pretty cheap. DVDs are offering us more insights into the filmmaking process than ever before. And DVDs have put a sledgehammer through one notion that many of us held dear only a few years ago:
the notion of a single, authoritative version of a film.
Ever since WB released its Superman DVD with added scenes and "improved" sound effects, I've been waiting for someone to release a desktop program that would filter out the changes, and re-introduce the original elements. Now, that technology is here.
And people on this forum are bashing it! What a ridiculously nearsighted, knee-jerk reaction to a technology that can give us so much! We are literally moving into a world where I don't have to pick between WB's altered "Superman," or nothing. We're moving to an age where I can watch WB's "Superman" ... or Richard Donner's, or Jim Smith's, or Suzy Johnson's! Folks, this is exciting! Edit: fuck, man ... how much would I pay to see David Fincher's "Superman?!"
This is a terrifying, seismic change in how we've enjoyed movies in the past. I'd bet it's more terrifying than home taping seemed in the 1970s.
There is a romantic notion that a movie's presentation "should" be at the discretion of the director, or at least the studio. We don't have that prejudice for recorded music. Ernest Miller has articulated this far better than I could, in this article and in this one. Mandatory reading for an informed (or, at least balanced) discussion on the MovieMask/CleanFlicks debate.
Can someone explain the difference to me? Why is karoake okay, but MovieMask is not?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Or, DJs speeding up a pop ballad and adding techno loops behind it. "How dare someone desecrate our art like this! This is not how we intended for this music to be heard! Surely, this kind of artistic mutilation will confuse people into thinking that we are responsible for such tragic renditions of our work."

Again, they LICENSE the right to do this. If they don't they are open to the SAME kind of lawsuit CleanFlicks et al is enjoying

 

[Matt Perkins]

Jeff, thanks for the response!

A - I've seen some custom filters that do this very well. Made from some engineering program the name of which I can't remember ... do you think that, if the filtering got really good, it should be banned?

B - Is this actually true? I've heard of a public performance license (ASCAP, etc.), but I've never heard of a "derivative performance license" (changing the playback, adding/removing sounds, etc.). Is there a difference, or are you just referring to the public performance license?

If the latter, then I think artist's cries of "mutilating art" would apply just as strongly to DJ mixing as it would to MovieMask.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Matt, clubs have to keep records of the songs that are covered in their clubs and pony up licensing fees every few months. This would include people sampling.

As for the filtering, are people doing this for profit, or in their own homes privately?

 

[Matt Perkins]

Right, right ... I understand, you're paying the public performance license. But in "sampling," you modify the underlying work. Is that privilege explicitly granted in the license? If it isn't, I think that composers/artists would have a "mutilation of art" argument against DJ sampling -- the same one that film owners are employing against MovieMask. And I know I'd laugh at that argument.

For filtering: I've only seen it in homes, but it might just as well apply to public performances. I mean, whether I buy the standard CD or the karoake-friendly stripped-vocals CD, the artists are getting compensated. And as long as I'm paying the ASCAP fees, I get to perfom it publicly. What difference does it make whether I buy the karaoke CD, or just filter the standard CD?

Or, are karaoke CDs more expensive, implying that this "privilege" is only granted to those who want to pay for it?

Sorry for all this, but it's an industry I don't know very well. Thanks ...

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Karaoke CDs are more expensive because it's a much smaller market, and it's licensed, just like what Criterion does. Also usually the karaoke studio has a 3rd party re-record the song to keep their fees down

You won't find any pro karaoke people stripping vocals, it's strictly a home thing.

As far as sampling goes, it's profitable, so a lot of artists allow it. However there are a ton who do forbid it, and have sued in the past

For example, Dragon Ash was sued by Joan Jett because they didn't pay the sampling fee on "I Love Hip Hop". If these clubs do not pay these fees they leave themselves and the DJ open to lawsuit

 

[Damin J Toell]

Can someone explain the difference to me? Why is karoake okay, but MovieMask is not?

MovieMask is almost certainly legally okay (see: Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo Of America, Inc., 964 F.2d 965) in that no derivative work is created, since derivative works need to be fixed. On-the-fly editors like MovieMask do not create fixed works, so no derivative work is created and no violation occurs. If, however, MovieMask circumvents CSS in order to do its work, they've got an entirely different problem. Circumvention aside, I don't see the DGA or studios claims going very far against MovieMask.

As I see, I've got no problem with toys that let people mess with movies, music, photographs, or anything else. Ruin movies, have fun; it doesn't hurt me.

DJ

 

[Matt Perkins]

No, no, no ... not sampling for a recording. Sampling like I described above: modifying a playback live, during a public performance. Like, adding a techno loop, or increasing the playback speed. (Maybe "sampling" isn't the right word; I used it because that's the word you used.)
I'm suggesting that those changes are "desecrations of art" just as much as MovieMask is. And, I'm suggesting that those changes are acceptible in our culture (unless I'm mistaken -- please keep the DJ information coming!).
And I'm concluding that it's a hypocracy to criticize MovieMask for doing (or, enabling) what DJs around the world have been doing for decades.
Thanks for the explanation of the Karoake market; that's an interesting beast. I wonder if pro karoake people will move to filtering, when it starts getting good enough? (Because, I promise you: if it's not there yet, it will be.)

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Filtering works by blocking the frequencies that the human voice usually occupies. No matter what it's definately second best to a real disc. Make that third best

No, no, no ... not sampling for a recording. Sampling like I described above: modifying a playback live, during a public performance. Like, adding a techno loop, or increasing the playback speed. (Maybe "sampling" isn't the right word; I used it because that's the word you used.)

It doesn't matter if you're using a riff or a whole song, you still have to pay a licensing/performance fee as you are creating a derivative work for profit.

Movie Mask will win for the same reason why Game Genie won. Because the original work remains intact, no copyright laws are being broken, and the user must manually select to do this.

It's still an evil product, but it will win out under the law

 

[Matt Perkins]

Hey again, Damin -- sure, legally okay by copyright, excepting 1201 of course, although what the judge thinks and in which orifice his head is buried are yet to be known. But DGA's all about the Lanham Act (of which I know nothing, and I'm glad that you seem to understand it!).
And under DGA's complaint (Lanham, not copyright), it seems like MovieMask and CleanFlicks do the same thing: they violate the integrity of the authors, they desecrate the art work, and they misstate the origin of the product.
I think those suggestions are silly, so I've come up with this karaoke analogy to poop on them. Maybe it won't work, and I'll have to come up with a better one. We'll see how it goes.