| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Aug 2006 02:08:04 PM |
| Object: |
Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an activist
judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the "Hollywood
Cartel".
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11314/LEGAL/pornography/index.htm
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly" edited movies are
violating copyright law.
On July 6, a U.S. district court judge for the District of Colorado ordered
several companies to stop producing edited versions of popular movies in the
case Clean Flix v. Soderbergh.
The order affects a number of businesses that had provided family-friendly
movies, including Clean Flix and Family Friendly Flix of Colorado. Several
major movie studios, including Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Warner Brothers
Entertainment and Disney Enterprises, filed suit against the editing
companies.
The editing companies' practice was to purchase original copies of popular
movies and use editing software to delete material that depicted "sex,
nudity, profanity, and gory violence." Finally, the companies would either
sell or rent the edited movies.
The studios claimed that the practice of editing copyrighted material
violated copyright law by infringing on their "exclusive right to reproduce
the copyrighted works."
The companies argued that their acts were permissible under the "fair use"
doctrine of copyright law. The "fair use" doctrine provides an affirmative
defense to violations of copyright law when the materials are used for
"purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching.,
scholarship, or research."
In order to decide whether the use is "fair," the judge considered four
factors: "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the
nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion
used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work."
The companies argued that they were performing a socially useful service by
"criticizing the objectionable content commonly found in current movies and
that they were providing more socially acceptable alternatives to enable
families to view the films together."
They also argued that their work was not detrimental to the movie studios,
since customers would not purchase the unedited versions of the movies, and
the editing companies, therefore, weren't competing with the studios.
The court rejected the companies "fair use" defense. The judge observed that
"[t]his Court is not free to determine the social value of copyrighted
works. What are protected are the creator's rights to protect its creation
in the form in which it was created."
The judge also found the argument about the lack of adverse effects
unpersuasive. "This argument," he wrote, "has superficial appeal but it
ignores the intrinsic value of the right to control the content of the
copyrighted work." He concluded that the editing companies were infringing
on the movie studios' right to determine what audience is reached by their
work.
"Although this ruling and settlement effectively bars commercial
distribution of edited movies by anyone other than the copyright holder,
families looking for 'family-friendly' movies still have some options," said
Jan LaRue, CWA's Chief Counsel.
For example, a DVD player called ClearPlay can play regular DVD movies but
without profanity, violence or nudity. The company creates filtering
information on a movie by movie basis and puts the information in the DVD
player to block unwanted content. The DVD player then recognizes when to
skip or mute while the movie is playing.
A reasonably priced subscription is needed to receive updated filtering
information for the latest movies. For more information, visit:
www.ClearPlay.com. (This information is not meant to be nor should it be
construed as an endorsement of CWA for the company or product.)
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 05:57:52 PM |
|
|
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:RcWdnet0kNV5mXfZnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com:
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an
activist judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of
the "Hollywood Cartel".
Spin it any way you want, piglet. This has nothing to do with "decency"
(as defined by indecent fucks such as yourself) and everything to do with
breaking the law.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11314/LEGAL/pornography/index.htm
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly" edited movies
are violating copyright law.
As well they should. And for candy-asses like you who can't handle
anything stronger than Andy Motherfuckin' Griffith, watch TVLand for
*****'s sake, mind your own damn business and stop whining.
--
Doc Smartass
All morality is relative--especially the absolute ones.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 03:12:34 PM |
|
|
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:RcWdnet0kNV5mXfZnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com:
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an
activist judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of
the "Hollywood Cartel".
Liberalism? Censorship is just plain unamerican.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Member: Intensional misspellingg club
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 05:45:33 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:12:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , Uncle Vic
<address@withheld.com> in <Xns9826865ED6E06vicman@216.196.97.142>
wrote:
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:RcWdnet0kNV5mXfZnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com:
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an
activist judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of
the "Hollywood Cartel".
Liberalism? Censorship is just plain unamerican.
Which side was doing the censorship?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Newk Indofman" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 02:15:06 PM |
|
|
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:RcWdnet0kNV5mXfZnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an
activist
judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the
"Hollywood
Cartel".
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11314/LEGAL/pornography/index.htm
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly" edited movies are
violating copyright law.
The judge properly acted within the confines of existing copyright law. If
the judge had blatantly ignored those laws in favor of pleasing your
puritanical Jesusland agenda, *then and only then* could the judge in
question be labeled "activist". See how it works?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 02:28:10 PM |
|
|
Newk Indofman wrote:
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:RcWdnet0kNV5mXfZnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an
activist
judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the
"Hollywood
Cartel".
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11314/LEGAL/pornography/index.htm
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly" edited movies are
violating copyright law.
The judge properly acted within the confines of existing copyright law. If
the judge had blatantly ignored those laws in favor of pleasing your
puritanical Jesusland agenda, *then and only then* could the judge in
question be labeled "activist". See how it works?
You have it all wrong. Any ruling that goes against the Talibangelicals, no
matter how soundly the ruling is based in the Constitution and other civil
law, is by definition a ruling by an activist judge. Any ruling that favors
the Talibangelicals, no matter how grossly it violatees the Constitution or
offends other civil law, is by definition a ruling by a true juror.
Isn't it obvious?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
Help defend marriage in Washington state!
http://www.wa-doma.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Newk Indofman" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 03:28:15 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:44EA094A.2501D2B8@serv.net...
Newk Indofman wrote:
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:RcWdnet0kNV5mXfZnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an
activist
judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the
"Hollywood
Cartel".
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11314/LEGAL/pornography/index.htm
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly" edited movies
are
violating copyright law.
The judge properly acted within the confines of existing copyright law.
If
the judge had blatantly ignored those laws in favor of pleasing your
puritanical Jesusland agenda, *then and only then* could the judge in
question be labeled "activist". See how it works?
You have it all wrong. Any ruling that goes against the Talibangelicals,
no
matter how soundly the ruling is based in the Constitution and other civil
law, is by definition a ruling by an activist judge. Any ruling that
favors
the Talibangelicals, no matter how grossly it violatees the Constitution
or
offends other civil law, is by definition a ruling by a true juror.
Isn't it obvious?
We are obviously on the same page.
I understand how the American Talibangelicals like to use the term
"activist". I was merely attempting to educate Mr. Wrongopinions on a more
appropriate use of the word.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 05:59:58 PM |
|
|
Newk Indofman wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:44EA094A.2501D2B8@serv.net...
Newk Indofman wrote:
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:RcWdnet0kNV5mXfZnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an
activist
judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the
"Hollywood
Cartel".
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11314/LEGAL/pornography/index.htm
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly" edited movies
are
violating copyright law.
The judge properly acted within the confines of existing copyright law.
If
the judge had blatantly ignored those laws in favor of pleasing your
puritanical Jesusland agenda, *then and only then* could the judge in
question be labeled "activist". See how it works?
You have it all wrong. Any ruling that goes against the Talibangelicals,
no
matter how soundly the ruling is based in the Constitution and other civil
law, is by definition a ruling by an activist judge. Any ruling that
favors
the Talibangelicals, no matter how grossly it violatees the Constitution
or
offends other civil law, is by definition a ruling by a true juror.
Isn't it obvious?
We are obviously on the same page.
I understand how the American Talibangelicals like to use the term
"activist". I was merely attempting to educate Mr. Wrongopinions on a more
appropriate use of the word.
A noble intention indeed, but many have gone before you, and when they
switched the light on, they realised that they were pissing into a
colander.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Newk Indofman" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 06:11:03 PM |
|
|
"Pastor Kutchie" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1156201197.967736.70270@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Newk Indofman wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:44EA094A.2501D2B8@serv.net...
Newk Indofman wrote:
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:RcWdnet0kNV5mXfZnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an
activist
judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the
"Hollywood
Cartel".
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11314/LEGAL/pornography/index.htm
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly" edited movies
are
violating copyright law.
The judge properly acted within the confines of existing copyright
law.
If
the judge had blatantly ignored those laws in favor of pleasing your
puritanical Jesusland agenda, *then and only then* could the judge in
question be labeled "activist". See how it works?
You have it all wrong. Any ruling that goes against the
Talibangelicals,
no
matter how soundly the ruling is based in the Constitution and other
civil
law, is by definition a ruling by an activist judge. Any ruling that
favors
the Talibangelicals, no matter how grossly it violatees the
Constitution
or
offends other civil law, is by definition a ruling by a true juror.
Isn't it obvious?
We are obviously on the same page.
I understand how the American Talibangelicals like to use the term
"activist". I was merely attempting to educate Mr. Wrongopinions on a
more
appropriate use of the word.
A noble intention indeed, but many have gone before you, and when they
switched the light on, they realised that they were pissing into a
colander.
Well... when ya gotta go, ya gotta go.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
22 Aug 2006 08:21:28 AM |
|
|
Pastor Kutchie wrote:
Newk Indofman wrote:
I understand how the American Talibangelicals like to use the term
"activist". I was merely attempting to educate Mr. Wrongopinions on a more
appropriate use of the word.
A noble intention indeed, but many have gone before you, and when they
switched the light on, they realised that they were pissing into a
colander.
That is NOT an image I need in my head this morning. :-? Thanks a lot.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
Help defend marriage in Washington state!
http://www.wa-doma.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
22 Aug 2006 01:06:31 AM |
|
|
a =E9crit :
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an activ=
ist
judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the "Hollyw=
ood
Cartel".
J Young, if you wanna do something decent with good taste, why don't
you stop posting your anti-american propaganda as well as your racist,
homophobic and bigotted messages? Better: why don't you commit suicide?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cor" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
22 Aug 2006 03:07:45 AM |
|
|
wrote:
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an activist
judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the "Hollywood
Cartel".
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11314/LEGAL/pornography/index.htm
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly" edited movies are
violating copyright law.
No, It just says that if you want a G movie is not ok to pirate and modify
someone else's R movie.
Is that too difficult for your Rightwing brain to understand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
22 Aug 2006 04:41:55 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:07:45 -0800, cor <cor@exchangenet.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <44EABB51.6B7D968@exchangenet.net> wrote:
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an activist
judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the "Hollywood
Cartel".
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11314/LEGAL/pornography/index.htm
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly" edited movies are
violating copyright law.
No, It just says that if you want a G movie is not ok to pirate and modify
someone else's R movie.
Especially if you then sell it to make a profit.
Is that too difficult for your Rightwing brain to understand?
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 02:17:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an activist
judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the "Hollywood
Cartel".
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11314/LEGAL/pornography/index.htm
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly" edited movies are
violating copyright law.
On July 6, a U.S. district court judge for the District of Colorado ordered
several companies to stop producing edited versions of popular movies in the
case Clean Flix v. Soderbergh.
The order affects a number of businesses that had provided family-friendly
movies, including Clean Flix and Family Friendly Flix of Colorado. Several
major movie studios, including Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Warner Brothers
Entertainment and Disney Enterprises, filed suit against the editing
companies.
The editing companies' practice was to purchase original copies of popular
movies and use editing software to delete material that depicted "sex,
nudity, profanity, and gory violence." Finally, the companies would either
sell or rent the edited movies.
The studios claimed that the practice of editing copyrighted material
violated copyright law by infringing on their "exclusive right to reproduce
the copyrighted works."
The companies argued that their acts were permissible under the "fair use"
doctrine of copyright law. The "fair use" doctrine provides an affirmative
defense to violations of copyright law when the materials are used for
"purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching.,
scholarship, or research."
In order to decide whether the use is "fair," the judge considered four
factors: "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the
nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion
used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work."
The companies argued that they were performing a socially useful service by
"criticizing the objectionable content commonly found in current movies and
that they were providing more socially acceptable alternatives to enable
families to view the films together."
They also argued that their work was not detrimental to the movie studios,
since customers would not purchase the unedited versions of the movies, and
the editing companies, therefore, weren't competing with the studios.
The court rejected the companies "fair use" defense. The judge observed that
"[t]his Court is not free to determine the social value of copyrighted
works. What are protected are the creator's rights to protect its creation
in the form in which it was created."
The judge also found the argument about the lack of adverse effects
unpersuasive. "This argument," he wrote, "has superficial appeal but it
ignores the intrinsic value of the right to control the content of the
copyrighted work." He concluded that the editing companies were infringing
on the movie studios' right to determine what audience is reached by their
work.
"Although this ruling and settlement effectively bars commercial
distribution of edited movies by anyone other than the copyright holder,
families looking for 'family-friendly' movies still have some options," said
Jan LaRue, CWA's Chief Counsel.
For example, a DVD player called ClearPlay can play regular DVD movies but
without profanity, violence or nudity. The company creates filtering
information on a movie by movie basis and puts the information in the DVD
player to block unwanted content. The DVD player then recognizes when to
skip or mute while the movie is playing.
A reasonably priced subscription is needed to receive updated filtering
information for the latest movies. For more information, visit:
www.ClearPlay.com. (This information is not meant to be nor should it be
construed as an endorsement of CWA for the company or product.)
You don't even give a damn that this case was about copyright
infringement, do you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "hal lillywhite" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 05:44:04 PM |
|
|
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly" edited movies are
violating copyright law.
You don't even give a damn that this case was about copyright
infringement, do you?
It was about some rather technical aspects of copyright law and I think
you can look for the ruling to be appealed.
To be clear about the issue, the copyright owners, AFIK, were paid the
normal royalties just as if the companies had sold/rented the unedited
version. As an author myself, that is my primary concern. If someone
wants to sell my book with a chapter or an appendix removed, and to pay
me the royalties as though they had sold the complete book, that is OK
by me (unless of course they materially change the content).
Apparently it is not OK with Hollywood. They want to force all
versions of their movies to be the same. You don't like gratuitous
violence, profanity or nudity? Too bad, if you want to see the movie
they want to force you to see that along with the rest of it. What
those companies were doing was giving people the option to see the
movie without what they regarded as objectionable scenes.
Nor can the editing companies legitimately be accused of censorship.
They are doing nothing to prevent those who want from seeing the uncut
versions. All they are doing is making a cut version available to
those who prefer it. I'm no expert on copyright law so I don't know
who will win the appeals which I believe will be filed. However it
does seem to me that Hollywood is shooting itself in the foot with
this. People who otherwise would not rent or buy the movies will do
so, and pay the copyright owner, if they are allowed access to the
edited versions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 05:49:47 PM |
|
|
In News 1156200244.435206.27810@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,, hal
lillywhite at hlillywh@juno.com, typed this:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly" edited
movies are violating copyright law.
You don't even give a damn that this case was about copyright
infringement, do you?
It was about some rather technical aspects of copyright law and I
think you can look for the ruling to be appealed.
To be clear about the issue, the copyright owners, AFIK, were paid the
normal royalties just as if the companies had sold/rented the unedited
version. As an author myself, that is my primary concern. If someone
wants to sell my book with a chapter or an appendix removed, and to
pay me the royalties as though they had sold the complete book, that
is OK by me (unless of course they materially change the content).
Apparently it is not OK with Hollywood. They want to force all
versions of their movies to be the same. You don't like gratuitous
violence, profanity or nudity? Too bad, if you want to see the movie
they want to force you to see that along with the rest of it. What
those companies were doing was giving people the option to see the
movie without what they regarded as objectionable scenes.
Nor can the editing companies legitimately be accused of censorship.
They are doing nothing to prevent those who want from seeing the uncut
versions. All they are doing is making a cut version available to
those who prefer it. I'm no expert on copyright law so I don't know
who will win the appeals which I believe will be filed. However it
does seem to me that Hollywood is shooting itself in the foot with
this. People who otherwise would not rent or buy the movies will do
so, and pay the copyright owner, if they are allowed access to the
edited versions.
If the company was paying royalties, then there should have been a contract
or agreement between them and the movie producers. If the company producing
the cut version went outside of the contract specifics, then they violated
copyright law. It doesn't really matter how much of the content they
changed, as long as they didn't venture outside of the agreement.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 08:21:40 PM |
|
|
Andrealphus wrote:
It was about some rather technical aspects of copyright law and I
think you can look for the ruling to be appealed.
To be clear about the issue, the copyright owners, AFIK, were paid the
normal royalties just as if the companies had sold/rented the unedited
version. As an author myself, that is my primary concern.
....
If the company was paying royalties, then there should have been a contract
or agreement between them and the movie producers. If the company producing
the cut version went outside of the contract specifics, then they violated
copyright law.
Nope. If the contract specified no cutting it would have been a
violation of contract law, not copyright law. Since the suit was for
copyright violation they probably did follow the contract. Most likely
the contract had no such restriction so the owner tried a copyright
suit to make up for that oversight. My guess would be that the
copyright owner just gave them a standard contract without thinking
that they would edit the movies. Most likely such standard contracts
allow for some changes so the rental company can add previews, ads etc.
and probably modify the format to fit a non-HDTV television screen. If
the contract allowed modifications without specifying what could be
modified the rental company would have the right to edit to their
heart's content.
I would guess that it's much easier to win a suit for contract
violation than one on a technical point of copyright law. If the
contract was violated that would be the logical way to go.
As I say, I suspect this will be appealed so the final word is probably
not in.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 08:33:37 PM |
|
|
In News 1156209700.831326.124850@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,,
hlillywh@juno.com at hlillywh@juno.com, typed this:
Andrealphus wrote:
It was about some rather technical aspects of copyright law and I
think you can look for the ruling to be appealed.
To be clear about the issue, the copyright owners, AFIK, were paid
the normal royalties just as if the companies had sold/rented the
unedited version. As an author myself, that is my primary concern.
...
If the company was paying royalties, then there should have been a
contract or agreement between them and the movie producers. If the
company producing the cut version went outside of the contract
specifics, then they violated copyright law.
Nope. If the contract specified no cutting it would have been a
violation of contract law, not copyright law. Since the suit was for
copyright violation they probably did follow the contract.
Actually, it could be a violation of both, depending on how the contract was
set up.
Most
likely the contract had no such restriction so the owner tried a
copyright suit to make up for that oversight.
Without seeing the original agreement, you're just speculating.
My guess would be that
the copyright owner just gave them a standard contract without
thinking that they would edit the movies. Most likely such standard
contracts allow for some changes so the rental company can add
previews, ads etc. and probably modify the format to fit a non-HDTV
television screen.
Addint previews, ads, etc, is not the same as modifying the movie itself.
If the contract allowed modifications without
specifying what could be modified the rental company would have the
right to edit to their heart's content.
I doubt that any movie producer would allow such a contract.
I would guess that it's much easier to win a suit for contract
violation than one on a technical point of copyright law. If the
contract was violated that would be the logical way to go.
You could sue for both, depending on how the contract was set up, and how
far the company making the cuts went.
As I say, I suspect this will be appealed so the final word is
probably not in.
Probably not.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "hal lillywhite" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 09:52:12 PM |
|
|
Andrealphus wrote:
If the company was paying royalties, then there should have been a
contract or agreement between them and the movie producers. If the
company producing the cut version went outside of the contract
specifics, then they violated copyright law.
Nope. If the contract specified no cutting it would have been a
violation of contract law, not copyright law. Since the suit was for
copyright violation they probably did follow the contract.
Actually, it could be a violation of both, depending on how the contract was
set up.
True but the law suit was only for copyright issues so it appears
improbable that there was any significant contract violation. Long as
you're filing a suit you might as well throw in anything that might be
to your benefit.
Most
likely the contract had no such restriction so the owner tried a
copyright suit to make up for that oversight.
Without seeing the original agreement, you're just speculating.
There's speculation and there's speculation with reasoning behind it.
The fact that there was no suit for contract problems is at least
suggestive that there were none.
....
If the contract allowed modifications without
specifying what could be modified the rental company would have the
right to edit to their heart's content.
I doubt that any movie producer would allow such a contract.
Yet there was nothing in the suit about contract violation. Don't
ascribe omniscience to anyone, especially to Hollywood types, they make
mistakes as well as anyone else.
I would guess that it's much easier to win a suit for contract
violation than one on a technical point of copyright law. If the
contract was violated that would be the logical way to go.
You could sue for both, depending on how the contract was set up, and how
far the company making the cuts went.
But, AFIK, they didn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Carrigaholt" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
22 Aug 2006 06:02:07 AM |
|
|
Films and books are an artistic property.
You cannot edit them or alter them without specific permission.
Why, it would be like draping St Gauden's Statue of Justice at the Attonrey
General's office to avoid seeing breasts....
--
Brightest Blessings;
Caillean; Lady Carrigaholt
I Who am the beauty of the green earth and the white moon among the stars and
the mysteries of the waters,
I call upon your soul to arise and come unto me.
For I am the soul of nature that gives life to the universe.
From Me all things proceed and unto Me they must return.
Let My worship be in the heart that rejoices, for behold, all acts of love and
pleasure are My rituals.
Let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion, honor and humility, mirth
and reverence within you.
And you who seek to know Me, know that the seeking and yearning will avail you
not, unless you know the Mystery: for if that which you seek, you find not within
yourself, you will never find it without.
For behold, I have been with you from the beginning, and I am That which is
attained at the end of desire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 10:15:09 PM |
|
|
In News 1156215132.199922.272170@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,, hal
lillywhite at hlillywh@juno.com, typed this:
Andrealphus wrote:
If the company was paying royalties, then there should have been a
contract or agreement between them and the movie producers. If the
company producing the cut version went outside of the contract
specifics, then they violated copyright law.
Nope. If the contract specified no cutting it would have been a
violation of contract law, not copyright law. Since the suit was
for copyright violation they probably did follow the contract.
Actually, it could be a violation of both, depending on how the
contract was set up.
True but the law suit was only for copyright issues so it appears
improbable that there was any significant contract violation. Long as
you're filing a suit you might as well throw in anything that might be
to your benefit.
Not necessarily, sometimes you run the risk of clouding the issue, and you
stand a better chance of recovering lost profits in a copyright suit if you
can show a quantifiable loss. It's harder to tie a loss to a contract
violation than it is a copyright infringement.
Most
likely the contract had no such restriction so the owner tried a
copyright suit to make up for that oversight.
Without seeing the original agreement, you're just speculating.
There's speculation and there's speculation with reasoning behind it.
The fact that there was no suit for contract problems is at least
suggestive that there were none.
That is, again, not necessarily true.
...
If the contract allowed modifications without
specifying what could be modified the rental company would have the
right to edit to their heart's content.
I doubt that any movie producer would allow such a contract.
Yet there was nothing in the suit about contract violation. Don't
ascribe omniscience to anyone, especially to Hollywood types, they
make mistakes as well as anyone else.
Not likely. We're not just talking about Hollywood types, but we're talking
about the bank of lawyers that these people keep on tap just to hammer out
these little details. It's not like you just walk in and say, "Hey! I want
to edit and release your films, are you game?" "Sure! No problem bud, go
for it!" These things are generally reached through months of negotiation,
if not longer, and scrutinized by their legal beagles.
Think about it from the other direction though, if the company making the
cuts had full legal permission in a contract to act as they did, then why
didn't they simply present that contract to the judge? Or maybe they did.
Did the judge examine it? There's a lot of detail that we simply don't
know.
I would guess that it's much easier to win a suit for contract
violation than one on a technical point of copyright law. If the
contract was violated that would be the logical way to go.
You could sue for both, depending on how the contract was set up,
and how far the company making the cuts went.
But, AFIK, they didn't.
AFAYK, they did. That's the problem with speculating.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Carrigaholt" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
22 Aug 2006 06:03:56 AM |
|
|
Andrealphus wrote:
In News 1156215132.199922.272170@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,, hal
lillywhite at hlillywh@juno.com, typed this:
Andrealphus wrote:
If the company was paying royalties, then there should have been a
contract or agreement between them and the movie producers. If the
company producing the cut version went outside of the contract
specifics, then they violated copyright law.
Nope. If the contract specified no cutting it would have been a
violation of contract law, not copyright law. Since the suit was
for copyright violation they probably did follow the contract.
Actually, it could be a violation of both, depending on how the
contract was set up.
True but the law suit was only for copyright issues so it appears
improbable that there was any significant contract violation. Long as
you're filing a suit you might as well throw in anything that might be
to your benefit.
Not necessarily, sometimes you run the risk of clouding the issue, and you
stand a better chance of recovering lost profits in a copyright suit if you
can show a quantifiable loss. It's harder to tie a loss to a contract
violation than it is a copyright infringement.
Artistic properties are protected from mutilation under copyright law.
Bowdler would not have been able to do the mutilation that he he did to
Shakespeare's works in modern times.
--
Brightest Blessings;
Caillean; Lady Carrigaholt
I Who am the beauty of the green earth and the white moon among the stars and
the mysteries of the waters,
I call upon your soul to arise and come unto me.
For I am the soul of nature that gives life to the universe.
From Me all things proceed and unto Me they must return.
Let My worship be in the heart that rejoices, for behold, all acts of love and
pleasure are My rituals.
Let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion, honor and humility,
mirth and reverence within you.
And you who seek to know Me, know that the seeking and yearning will avail you
not, unless you know the Mystery: for if that which you seek, you find not
within yourself, you will never find it without.
For behold, I have been with you from the beginning, and I am That which is
attained at the end of desire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
22 Aug 2006 06:30:53 AM |
|
|
"Lady Carrigaholt" <Caillean@PaganLesbianWitches.org> wrote in message
news:44EAE496.901823AD@PaganLesbianWitches.org...
Andrealphus wrote:
In News 1156215132.199922.272170@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,, hal
lillywhite at hlillywh@juno.com, typed this:
Andrealphus wrote:
If the company was paying royalties, then there should have been a
contract or agreement between them and the movie producers. If the
company producing the cut version went outside of the contract
specifics, then they violated copyright law.
Nope. If the contract specified no cutting it would have been a
violation of contract law, not copyright law. Since the suit was
for copyright violation they probably did follow the contract.
Actually, it could be a violation of both, depending on how the
contract was set up.
True but the law suit was only for copyright issues so it appears
improbable that there was any significant contract violation. Long as
you're filing a suit you might as well throw in anything that might be
to your benefit.
Not necessarily, sometimes you run the risk of clouding the issue, and
you
stand a better chance of recovering lost profits in a copyright suit if
you
can show a quantifiable loss. It's harder to tie a loss to a contract
violation than it is a copyright infringement.
Artistic properties are protected from mutilation under copyright law.
Bowdler would not have been able to do the mutilation that he he did to
Shakespeare's works in modern times.
--
Brightest Blessings;
Caillean; Lady Carrigaholt
I Who am the beauty of the green earth and the white moon among the stars
and
the mysteries of the waters,
I call upon your soul to arise and come unto me.
For I am the soul of nature that gives life to the universe.
From Me all things proceed and unto Me they must return.
Let My worship be in the heart that rejoices, for behold, all acts of love
and
pleasure are My rituals.
Let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion, honor and
humility,
mirth and reverence within you.
And you who seek to know Me, know that the seeking and yearning will avail
you
not, unless you know the Mystery: for if that which you seek, you find not
within yourself, you will never find it without.
For behold, I have been with you from the beginning, and I am That which
is
attained at the end of desire
Charge of the Goddess, eh? :)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Carrigaholt" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
22 Aug 2006 07:56:35 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Lady Carrigaholt" <Caillean@PaganLesbianWitches.org> wrote in message
I Who am the beauty of the green earth and the white moon among the stars
and
the mysteries of the waters,
I call upon your soul to arise and come unto me.
For I am the soul of nature that gives life to the universe.
From Me all things proceed and unto Me they must return.
Let My worship be in the heart that rejoices, for behold, all acts of love
and
pleasure are My rituals.
Let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion, honor and
humility,
mirth and reverence within you.
And you who seek to know Me, know that the seeking and yearning will avail
you
not, unless you know the Mystery: for if that which you seek, you find not
within yourself, you will never find it without.
For behold, I have been with you from the beginning, and I am That which
is
attained at the end of desire
Charge of the Goddess, eh? :)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
That it is Robyn. Trying to educate the Christians to other possibilities and
beliefs...
--
Brightest Blessings;
Caillean; Lady Carrigaholt
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "hal lillywhite" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
22 Aug 2006 10:29:19 AM |
|
|
Andrealphus wrote:
True but the law suit was only for copyright issues so it appears
improbable that there was any significant contract violation. Long as
you're filing a suit you might as well throw in anything that might be
to your benefit.
Not necessarily, sometimes you run the risk of clouding the issue, and you
stand a better chance of recovering lost profits in a copyright suit if you
can show a quantifiable loss. It's harder to tie a loss to a contract
violation than it is a copyright infringement.
Say What? Monetary loss seems not to have been an issue. The only
result was an injunction to stop doing the editing.
If there were no authorization to rent or sell the movies in question
however, it would be a slam dunk to get a monetary award. If the works
in question were not registered with the copyright office they could
only recover actual lost revenue whice would be the money the companies
received for renting/selling the plagerized works. If they were
registered, the copyright owner could recover very large punitive
damages. And winning such a suit for monetary damages would be easy
(though determining the amoung of damages may not be). All you gotta
do is show that they rented/sold your copyrighted work and weren't
authorized to do so. If the editing companies had no athorization to
rent/sell that would be the logical way to go, both from ease of
presenting your case and from the monetary benefits you would recover.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
22 Aug 2006 04:52:11 PM |
|
|
In News 1156260559.634550.131120@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com,, hal
lillywhite at hlillywh@juno.com, typed this:
Andrealphus wrote:
True but the law suit was only for copyright issues so it appears
improbable that there was any significant contract violation. Long
as you're filing a suit you might as well throw in anything that
might be to your benefit.
Not necessarily, sometimes you run the risk of clouding the issue,
and you stand a better chance of recovering lost profits in a
copyright suit if you can show a quantifiable loss. It's harder to
tie a loss to a contract violation than it is a copyright
infringement.
Say What? Monetary loss seems not to have been an issue. The only
result was an injunction to stop doing the editing.
This go around.
If there were no authorization to rent or sell the movies in question
however, it would be a slam dunk to get a monetary award. If the
works in question were not registered with the copyright office they
could only recover actual lost revenue whice would be the money the
companies received for renting/selling the plagerized works. If they
were registered, the copyright owner could recover very large punitive
damages. And winning such a suit for monetary damages would be easy
(though determining the amoung of damages may not be). All you gotta
do is show that they rented/sold your copyrighted work and weren't
authorized to do so. If the editing companies had no athorization to
rent/sell that would be the logical way to go, both from ease of
presenting your case and from the monetary benefits you would recover.
Well, let's just see how the appeal goes.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 11:35:46 PM |
|
|
hal lillywhite wrote:
To be clear about the issue, the copyright owners, AFIK, were paid the
normal royalties just as if the companies had sold/rented the unedited
version. As an author myself, that is my primary concern. If someone
wants to sell my book with a chapter or an appendix removed, and to pay
me the royalties as though they had sold the complete book, that is OK
by me (unless of course they materially change the content).
Apparently it is not OK with Hollywood. They want to force all
versions of their movies to be the same. You don't like gratuitous
violence, profanity or nudity? Too bad, if you want to see the movie
they want to force you to see that along with the rest of it. What
those companies were doing was giving people the option to see the
movie without what they regarded as objectionable scenes.
Why would a -- ahem -- "moral person" want to see movies with
objectionable content?
Remove it and they still know it was there. Hell, that was the whole
selling point. Literally. "See it, without seeing it." All the
titillation, with none of the titties.
Somebody's outraged that folks aren't making a profit from folks wanting
cake, but whom also insist on not getting near an oven. They can't take
the heat, and they don't like the kitchen.
<cue crying infant>
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 06:09:18 PM |
|
|
On 21 Aug 2006 12:17:25 -0700, "Conspiracy of Doves"
<mark_dp73@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1156187845.733640.40830@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:
You don't even give a damn that this case was about copyright
infringement, do you?
He doesn't give a damn about anything but making himself feel
important by rabble rousing.
He keeps trying to prove to himself that he is important. He isn't.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 11:16:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an activist
judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the "Hollywood
Cartel".
In other words, the Conservative need to make money on the cheap was
circumvented by big business (I.E.: The bed partners), so -- naturally
-- a judge following the rule of law had to be demonized.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 04:01:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an activist
judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the "Hollywood
Cartel".
Gee. In Ibenland, it would be legal to release a version of The Passion
with explicit sex scenes spliced in. I, for one, would actually watch
the movie for the first time...of course I'd have to fast-forward to the
good stuff... like a hot F/F scene between Mary Magdalene and JC's mom.
655321
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 05:04:27 PM |
|
|
In article <abpGg.11892$kO3.7078@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, 655321
<DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
youngopinions@aol.com wrote:
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an activist
judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the "Hollywood
Cartel".
Gee. In Ibenland, it would be legal to release a version of The Passion
with explicit sex scenes spliced in. I, for one, would actually watch
the movie for the first time...of course I'd have to fast-forward to the
good stuff... like a hot F/F scene between Mary Magdalene and JC's mom.
In most of the civilized world, that would also be kiddie porn.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middla Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 02:27:30 PM |
|
|
Hypocrite and loon <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:RcWdnet0kNV5mXfZnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
It appears the forces of liberalism have succeeded in convincing an
activist judge that good taste and decency will curtail the profits of the
"....and this has what to do with abortion?"
From: "J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: OT Shuttle flight
Date: 15 Jul 2005 19:48:26 -0700
Message-ID: <1121482106.603928.73340@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"Hollywood Cartel".
Gee...I wonder what anti-Semetic bigot and Ku Klux Kook "J" is implying
here? <rolls eyes>
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11314/LEGAL/pornography/index.htm
You sure do spend alot of time thinking about pornography, "Jon":
"Porn strars? I love porn stars!God bless them."
From: (Jon Young)
Message-ID: <25e1e54f.0404240901.7eb55105@posting.google.com>
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly" edited movies are
violating copyright law.
[...]
The court rejected the companies "fair use" defense. The judge observed
that "[t]his Court is not free to determine the social value of
copyrighted works. What are protected are the creator's rights to protect
its creation in the form in which it was created."
The judge also found the argument about the lack of adverse effects
unpersuasive. "This argument," he wrote, "has superficial appeal but it
ignores the intrinsic value of the right to control the content of the
copyrighted work." He concluded that the editing companies were infringing
on the movie studios' right to determine what audience is reached by their
work.
"Creator's rights". Look it up, IBen.
<umlaut-boy's spam canned>
LC~ Figures spam/ham "J" to be a major consumer of pornography.
"men find good looking lesbos a turn-on.It's the fags that disgust us,and
turn us off to your protests.Marketing is the key to everything in America."
From: (Jon Young), full time jerk-off.
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.abortion,alt.fan.jerry-springer
Subject: Every body loves lesbians.
Date: 25 Apr 2004 21:44:53 -0700
Message-ID: <25e1e54f.0404252044.16c20416@posting.google.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- Help to make the USA Bigotry-FREE!" |
|
| Title: Re: Family-Friendly Flix Nixed by Federal Judge |
21 Aug 2006 03:10:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:08:04 -0400,
Bigoted LOSER, "Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" wrote:
Court rules that companies marketing "family-friendly"
edited movies are violating copyright law.
They WERE, you submoronic CRETIN!!
The judge was RIGHT!
You just don't go around ALTERING **other** people's
literary creations!
NO WONDER you've been engaging in those inane forgeries.
You are too bone DUMB to know any better. What a tool !!
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
---
RRR Cult lemmings.
Dumber than dirt. America's own version of the Taliban.
Selfishly, hatefully, and mindlessly supporting sociopathic
agendas that seek to destroy vital personal liberties of
millions of people. (That's as dumb as it GETS!!!)
And constantly proving that to everyone.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
