3 ms·

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

sp332 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago
    I don’t think you read what they wrote. They aren’t talking about selling anything
    - gjsman-1000 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago
  - amenhotep 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago
>total copyright restructuring Yes, please. Hell, throw patents in too while you're at it.
- gjsman-1000 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago
But, didn't the guy sell the save data? That's not the game itself.

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 3y 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 3y ago
  I don’t think you read what they wrote. They aren’t talking about selling anything
  - gjsman-1000 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago
- amenhotep 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago

>total copyright restructuring Yes, please. Hell, throw patents in too while you're at it.

gjsman-1000 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y ago

But, didn't the guy sell the save data? That's not the game itself.