9 ms·

Why shouldn’t someone be free to modify their purchased, owned product to their hearts content, including paying others for modifications?

by vsnf 2y ago

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Replace “owned product” with “movie” and you see the problem that would require a total copyright restructuring.
- sp332 2y ago
  Huh? If I own a video, I can edit it if I want. Selling the modified version would be the difficulty? But I could still hire someone to make a modification for me I think.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    Not in the US. There was a company that tried selling modified (I.e. censored) versions of Hollywood films. They lost. Copyright infringement. There was also a second attempt where people would mail in their disks, and receive an edited version back. Again, lost. So, whether we like it or not, nope. That’s not how things work, because any editing creates a “derivative work” in the eyes of the law, and only the copyright owner is allowed to make such derivative works. Even if you edit the film yourself, you’re making a derivative work. The only reason you won’t be sued is because the harm is $0.
    - medellin 2y ago
      I don’t think you read what they wrote. They aren’t talking about selling anything
      - gjsman-1000 2y ago
        Even if you were to give away your modified version, you could still be sued for harming the market for the original product. You can’t legally make derivative works. Even in the privacy of your own home. It’s only that there’s nothing to be legally won from if you only did it at home. That’s a pragmatic distinction, not a legal one.
    - tombert 2y ago
      Actually you’re wrong on this, or painting an incomplete picture. CleanFlix was sued because they were editing and distributing movies without studio permission, but a competing product called ClearPlay, which was a specialized DVD player that you would plug a flash drive into, and censorship was then overlayed. It was allowed to continue existing because the end user was technically the one making the edits on their copy of the movie, and the movie itself was not being redistributed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearPlay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearPlay
      - gjsman-1000 2y ago
        I was talking about several different lawsuits, like the CleanFlicks and VidAngel lawsuits from 2002 and 2007ish. There’s also VidAngel v Disney as recent as 2019. Edit for below (“too many responses”): Irrelevant; as ClearPlay does not properly speaking edit the video; but messes with the playback timeline. Editing the video is illegal. Messing with the timeline as the unedited film is playing? Completely permitted for accessibility, organization, and other reasons. In particular, that amazing thing called an ad blocker. Skipping 30 seconds ahead to avoid an ad is legal, but editing the ad out is not.
        tombert 2y ago
        Sure, but the continued existence of ClearPlay indicates that your claim was incorrect. End users are allowed to make modifications to their own media, they just cannot redistribute that media in any way directly. ETA: Clearplay doesn’t just muck with the timeline. It would overlay clothes over nudity, replace naughty words, etc. It’s actually a kind of neat bit of technology.
        chandler5555 2y ago
        Clearplay has a whole law designated for it called the The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act I think without this act it might be considered a deriative work and illegal actually
        nulbyte 2y ago
    - amenhotep 2y ago
      Mailing in a DVD and receiving an edited copy back is clearly a process that involves the creation and distribution of an unauthorised copy. There's the philosophical justification that you're only "editing" a copy the customer has given you but it's not surprising that a judge is uninterested in that, you're writing the movie to a DVD and distributing it and nothing before that matters. Not a good argument against. It would be interesting if they had 1) distributed a program that automatically edits the user's copy, or 2) edited VHS tapes that customers sent in by physically splicing them. I'm pretty sure the first should be legal, but I'm curious what they'd make of the second.
      - tombert 2y ago
        That’s not completely different than how Clearplay worked. It was a specialized DVD player that you plugged in a flash drive, which contained data to automatically censor the movie on the fly, e.g. putting a bra on Kate Winslet in Titanic during the painting scene. It appears that it’s still around and does stuff on top of streaming applications.
    - adamomada 2y ago
      Remember the guy who raised a bunch of money in order to professionally remove the rat at the end of The Departed? (In the end he couldn’t legally do it in any fashion)
    - Salgat 2y ago
      Interestingly, you can sell a program that edits the file in a specific manner as long as the user provides the original file.
- antris 2y ago
  >total copyright restructuring Yes, please. Hell, throw patents in too while you're at it.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    Heck, no. Not right now. The copyright owners are begging for a restructuring. One that would greatly increase their authority on two issues: AI use, and Internet website blocking. Ask for a restructuring right now, and you’ll bring Japanese-style copyright to America (“fair use” doesn’t exist over there) with European-style judicial site blocking (and mass blocking of suspected piracy outlets).
    - coobird 2y ago
      This. If you want to see a world without fair use, check out the Japanese Wikipedia pages -- it's noticeably lacking in pictures and images than the English counterpart, likely because the latter was written by those in the U.S. It's especially ironic when there's more photos and images on the English language article for topics about Japan!
    - anticensor 2y ago
      > Ask for a restructuring right now, and you’ll bring Japanese-style copyright to America (“fair use” doesn’t exist over there) with European-style judicial site blocking (and mass blocking of suspected piracy outlets). And with a German-style enforcement procedure (i.e. all copyright infringement is criminal, but personal non-commercial use is civil) and Mexican-style copyright term (120+ years after death).
  - Biganon 2y ago
    > patents How would you incentivize companies to spend years and millions in R&D, if anyone can benefit from their inventions immediately after they're done? Patent trolls are a problem, patents themselves aren't
    - calgoo 2y ago
      I’ll bite… let’s start by removing any software patents, they are just stupid. Then, let’s start having a look at over broad patents that don’t help anyone but megacorps to block innovation and competition. Then finally, the whole RD sob story is brought up a lot, which has a point in the original definition, but it’s used by megacorps to justify stupid high prices (see medication industry in the US for example) and block affordable medications that save lives. So I say, screw that, let the actual market speak for itself.
- metalspoon 2y ago
  But, didn't the guy sell the save data? That's not the game itself.
anigbrowl 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 2024throwaway 2y ago
  But you can’t buy, since selling is illegal. Nothing personal, but it’s a bad mental habit to make a distinction where there is no difference.
  - p-e-w 2y ago
    There is a big difference between selling and buying, and you can (legally) buy plenty of things that are illegal to sell.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    There are practical differences between the two. See, for example, the past 20 years of marijuana regulation in the US.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    The difference is that you won't get arrested for buying a roided-up Jigglypuff.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - seanhunter 2y ago
    Take a trivial example, proscription medications. In many countries it is illegal to sell these unless you have a pharmacist's license. It's not illegal to buy them, because you can buy them from a legal seller. This case is very similar in the asymmetry between buying and selling. You get the save game by buying the game and playing the game. That's not illegal. It's also not illegal to tamper with your own save game (if I understand other comments on this article correctly). What is illegal is to sell a save that you have tampered with.[1] From a legal perspective it's perfectly possible to ban the sale of something without banning the purchase, just like certain things are illegal to sell or buy but not illegal to have.[2] [1] You may well say it's crazy that this is the case, but I could sort of see both sides of this. I do think cheating in competitive multiplayer games really ruins things for other players so I could see the argument for banning anything that does that. In singleplayer games my view is "do whatever you think is fun for you" but that's just a personal perspective. My understanding is people play Pokemon against each other so you could say that cheating with a modified save harms others. I'm not sure that's important enough to justify a law but it's really not my business to say. [2] Famous example - if you go to the Moma there is an artwork by Robert Rauschenberg that was the centre of a famous tax lawsuit for this exact reason. The artwork itself is basically a painting, but one of the things that Rauschenberg did was sort of alter paintings by sticking sculptural elements on to them and this particular one includes a dead and stuffed bald eagle. Now this was not illegal at the time, but when the bald eagle became endangered, the sale of anything that included any part of a bald eagle became illegal. So this artwork can never be sold. When Rauschenberg died, the IRS went after his estate for tax on this painting which they valued at $29million. However his family said the value of the painting was zero because it can never be legally sold (even though it's not illegal for them to own it). https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/arts/design/a-catch-22-of-art-and-taxes-starring-a-stuffed-eagle.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/arts/design/a-catch-22-of...

Why shouldn’t someone be free to modify their purchased, owned product to their hearts content, including paying others for modifications?

by vsnf 2y ago

Why shouldn’t someone be free to modify their purchased, owned product to their hearts content, including paying others for modifications?

gjsman-1000 2y ago

Replace “owned product” with “movie” and you see the problem that would require a total copyright restructuring.

sp332 2y ago
Huh? If I own a video, I can edit it if I want. Selling the modified version would be the difficulty? But I could still hire someone to make a modification for me I think.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Not in the US. There was a company that tried selling modified (I.e. censored) versions of Hollywood films. They lost. Copyright infringement. There was also a second attempt where people would mail in their disks, and receive an edited version back. Again, lost. So, whether we like it or not, nope. That’s not how things work, because any editing creates a “derivative work” in the eyes of the law, and only the copyright owner is allowed to make such derivative works. Even if you edit the film yourself, you’re making a derivative work. The only reason you won’t be sued is because the harm is $0.
  - medellin 2y ago
    I don’t think you read what they wrote. They aren’t talking about selling anything
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      Even if you were to give away your modified version, you could still be sued for harming the market for the original product. You can’t legally make derivative works. Even in the privacy of your own home. It’s only that there’s nothing to be legally won from if you only did it at home. That’s a pragmatic distinction, not a legal one.
  - tombert 2y ago
    Actually you’re wrong on this, or painting an incomplete picture. CleanFlix was sued because they were editing and distributing movies without studio permission, but a competing product called ClearPlay, which was a specialized DVD player that you would plug a flash drive into, and censorship was then overlayed. It was allowed to continue existing because the end user was technically the one making the edits on their copy of the movie, and the movie itself was not being redistributed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearPlay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearPlay
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      I was talking about several different lawsuits, like the CleanFlicks and VidAngel lawsuits from 2002 and 2007ish. There’s also VidAngel v Disney as recent as 2019. Edit for below (“too many responses”): Irrelevant; as ClearPlay does not properly speaking edit the video; but messes with the playback timeline. Editing the video is illegal. Messing with the timeline as the unedited film is playing? Completely permitted for accessibility, organization, and other reasons. In particular, that amazing thing called an ad blocker. Skipping 30 seconds ahead to avoid an ad is legal, but editing the ad out is not.
      - tombert 2y ago
        Sure, but the continued existence of ClearPlay indicates that your claim was incorrect. End users are allowed to make modifications to their own media, they just cannot redistribute that media in any way directly. ETA: Clearplay doesn’t just muck with the timeline. It would overlay clothes over nudity, replace naughty words, etc. It’s actually a kind of neat bit of technology.
        chandler5555 2y ago
        Clearplay has a whole law designated for it called the The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act I think without this act it might be considered a deriative work and illegal actually
      - nulbyte 2y ago
  - amenhotep 2y ago
    Mailing in a DVD and receiving an edited copy back is clearly a process that involves the creation and distribution of an unauthorised copy. There's the philosophical justification that you're only "editing" a copy the customer has given you but it's not surprising that a judge is uninterested in that, you're writing the movie to a DVD and distributing it and nothing before that matters. Not a good argument against. It would be interesting if they had 1) distributed a program that automatically edits the user's copy, or 2) edited VHS tapes that customers sent in by physically splicing them. I'm pretty sure the first should be legal, but I'm curious what they'd make of the second.
    - tombert 2y ago
      That’s not completely different than how Clearplay worked. It was a specialized DVD player that you plugged in a flash drive, which contained data to automatically censor the movie on the fly, e.g. putting a bra on Kate Winslet in Titanic during the painting scene. It appears that it’s still around and does stuff on top of streaming applications.
  - adamomada 2y ago
    Remember the guy who raised a bunch of money in order to professionally remove the rat at the end of The Departed? (In the end he couldn’t legally do it in any fashion)
  - Salgat 2y ago
    Interestingly, you can sell a program that edits the file in a specific manner as long as the user provides the original file.
antris 2y ago
>total copyright restructuring Yes, please. Hell, throw patents in too while you're at it.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Heck, no. Not right now. The copyright owners are begging for a restructuring. One that would greatly increase their authority on two issues: AI use, and Internet website blocking. Ask for a restructuring right now, and you’ll bring Japanese-style copyright to America (“fair use” doesn’t exist over there) with European-style judicial site blocking (and mass blocking of suspected piracy outlets).
  - coobird 2y ago
    This. If you want to see a world without fair use, check out the Japanese Wikipedia pages -- it's noticeably lacking in pictures and images than the English counterpart, likely because the latter was written by those in the U.S. It's especially ironic when there's more photos and images on the English language article for topics about Japan!
  - anticensor 2y ago
    > Ask for a restructuring right now, and you’ll bring Japanese-style copyright to America (“fair use” doesn’t exist over there) with European-style judicial site blocking (and mass blocking of suspected piracy outlets). And with a German-style enforcement procedure (i.e. all copyright infringement is criminal, but personal non-commercial use is civil) and Mexican-style copyright term (120+ years after death).
- Biganon 2y ago
  > patents How would you incentivize companies to spend years and millions in R&D, if anyone can benefit from their inventions immediately after they're done? Patent trolls are a problem, patents themselves aren't
  - calgoo 2y ago
    I’ll bite… let’s start by removing any software patents, they are just stupid. Then, let’s start having a look at over broad patents that don’t help anyone but megacorps to block innovation and competition. Then finally, the whole RD sob story is brought up a lot, which has a point in the original definition, but it’s used by megacorps to justify stupid high prices (see medication industry in the US for example) and block affordable medications that save lives. So I say, screw that, let the actual market speak for itself.
metalspoon 2y ago
But, didn't the guy sell the save data? That's not the game itself.

anigbrowl 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
2024throwaway 2y ago
But you can’t buy, since selling is illegal. Nothing personal, but it’s a bad mental habit to make a distinction where there is no difference.
- p-e-w 2y ago
  There is a big difference between selling and buying, and you can (legally) buy plenty of things that are illegal to sell.
- kube-system 2y ago
  There are practical differences between the two. See, for example, the past 20 years of marijuana regulation in the US.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  The difference is that you won't get arrested for buying a roided-up Jigglypuff.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- seanhunter 2y ago
  Take a trivial example, proscription medications. In many countries it is illegal to sell these unless you have a pharmacist's license. It's not illegal to buy them, because you can buy them from a legal seller. This case is very similar in the asymmetry between buying and selling. You get the save game by buying the game and playing the game. That's not illegal. It's also not illegal to tamper with your own save game (if I understand other comments on this article correctly). What is illegal is to sell a save that you have tampered with.[1] From a legal perspective it's perfectly possible to ban the sale of something without banning the purchase, just like certain things are illegal to sell or buy but not illegal to have.[2] [1] You may well say it's crazy that this is the case, but I could sort of see both sides of this. I do think cheating in competitive multiplayer games really ruins things for other players so I could see the argument for banning anything that does that. In singleplayer games my view is "do whatever you think is fun for you" but that's just a personal perspective. My understanding is people play Pokemon against each other so you could say that cheating with a modified save harms others. I'm not sure that's important enough to justify a law but it's really not my business to say. [2] Famous example - if you go to the Moma there is an artwork by Robert Rauschenberg that was the centre of a famous tax lawsuit for this exact reason. The artwork itself is basically a painting, but one of the things that Rauschenberg did was sort of alter paintings by sticking sculptural elements on to them and this particular one includes a dead and stuffed bald eagle. Now this was not illegal at the time, but when the bald eagle became endangered, the sale of anything that included any part of a bald eagle became illegal. So this artwork can never be sold. When Rauschenberg died, the IRS went after his estate for tax on this painting which they valued at $29million. However his family said the value of the painting was zero because it can never be legally sold (even though it's not illegal for them to own it). https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/arts/design/a-catch-22-of-art-and-taxes-starring-a-stuffed-eagle.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/arts/design/a-catch-22-of...