An interesting perspective on this was offered in an interview on NPR
yesterday of one of the violators.  He said that if the studios started
releasing sanitized versions of their own films he would consider it mission
accomplished.  He said he felt he was supplying a needed service, and that
he had envisioned a Clean Flicks facility in every city-accomplished, he
said, virtually through the Web.  

He stated that some films-such as "Pulp Fiction" and "Caddyshack"-simply
didn't make any sense once the offending scenes and words were removed, so
they couldn't be sold when "cleaned up."  He claimed that their belief was
that because they sold films on a one-by-one basis proportionate to their
purchases (they purchased one copy, cleaned it up, then purchased a copy for
every one they sold) that they were operating under "fair use" and not
violating copyright.

In a discussion forum I checked into briefly on this topic, someone
suggested that the way to offer this service and not violate copyright would
be to sell a programmable DVD player that would accept input from the
Internet or other source about when to fast forward through a scene if you
wanted to avoid the "bad" parts.

These are neither my views nor those of my employer.  Just presenting
another viewpoint.

Arel Lucas, C.A., Archives/Special Collections Librarian/Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University, Prescott Campus

  _____  

From: Archives & Archivists [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Leon Miller
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Clean Flicks copyright case

 

My understanding is that Wal-Mart works with recording companies to explain
their concerns and requirements, and the companies themselves then create
versions to sell to Wal-Mart. Thus, no copyright issue is involved.

 

A similar issue has come up a couple of times in regard to Ted Turner
colorizing movies. However, Turner only colorized films he owned the rights
to. Thus, no copyright issues were involved.

 

With Clean Flicks, the issue wasn't merely that they were violating the law,
but that they must have known that they were violating the law. Their
violation of copyright was so clear cut, so egregious, so outlandish, that
it could only have resulted from a conscious decision to knowingly violate
copyright law. It's not that they didn't understand copyright law, but that
they understood it perfectly well and didn't give a damn (to put it within a
religious context).

 

Lee

 

 

---- 
Leon C. Miller, Manuscripts Librarian 
Special Collections, Jones Hall 
Tulane University Libraries 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 
ph: 504-865-5685, fx: 504-865-5761, [log in to unmask] 
http://specialcollections.tulane.edu <http://specialcollections.tulane.edu/>


-----Original Message-----
From: Archives & Archivists [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of James Stimpert
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Clean Flicks copyright case

I'm curious as to how this practice differs from Walmart's practice of
selling "sanitized" versions of CDs and DVDs.  At least with music CDs, I
guess the recording studios have approved the changes, in which case it's
not copyright infringement.  Radio stations for decades have played versions
of songs with certain words changed (one instance is Charlie Daniels Band's
"Devil Went Down to Georgia"), and often the albums containing those songs
have also been "cleaned up," depending on where they're being sold.  But
again, this was likely done with the knowledge and cooperation (if not
approval) of the studios.

 

I don't condone these companies taking movies and changing them to fit
whatever "morals" they favor.  In fact, I'm surprised that - having gone
that far - they didn't change the endings of a few if they didn't go along
with their notions of "good is supposed to triumph over evil."  But I'm
curious about how this differs from what Walmart (and maybe other large
chains?) has been doing for years.

 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

James Stimpert
Archivist (Arts and Sciences)        E-mail:    [log in to unmask]
MSE Library
Johns Hopkins University             Voice:     (410) 516-8323
3400 North Charles Street
Baltimore, MD  21218                  Fax:       (410) 516-7202

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the
Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org. For the terms of
participation, please refer to
http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp. 

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask] In
body of message: SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname *or*: UNSUB ARCHIVES To
post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask] 


Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html 


Problems? Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>


A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org.
For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>