3 ms·

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 20

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
Ripping a page out of a book you own or slathering it in white out is not illegal, so I don't see why cutting a scene or overlaying a black bar or, for that matter, any other forms of editing would be illegal. The copy is yours. You own it. Selling a modified copy for a profit? Yes, that would be a violation of copyright. That's the distinction being made.
- edflsafoiewq 3y ago
  I've bought lots of modified second-hand books (highlights, cross-outs, corrections). Are you saying that's illegal?
  - chandler5555 3y ago
    its illegal when its considered a derivative work (substantially altering or adding content) those little modifications made from a consumer prob dont count. the first sale doctrine covers minor wear and tear type stuff
    - edflsafoiewq 3y ago
      Your telling me it's illegal to pay someone to illustrate my copy of a book? It's illegal to commission a translation of a book for personal use? Is it illegal to pay someone to read a book to me?
      - chandler5555 3y ago
        yeah all three are copyright infringement you cant make audio books, illustrations, or translations of a book without the authors permission note that text to speech isnt considered derivative work. its considered a tool rather than creating content. so its legal for a kindle to read it to you
        edflsafoiewq 3y ago
        I have no idea if that's true, but you can't seriously expect anyone to actually abide by that, it's absurd.
        ordu 3y ago
        > its legal for a kindle to read it to you It seems to me that computers programs have more rights than humans.
        fenomas 3y ago
        I think you're confused, or at least talking past GP. It's not copyright infringement to create a derivative work - e.g. by adding illustrations to a book. What's infringement is if you copy and distribute the derivative work without a license to the original. GP was asking about the former, not the latter.

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

Ripping a page out of a book you own or slathering it in white out is not illegal, so I don't see why cutting a scene or overlaying a black bar or, for that matter, any other forms of editing would be illegal. The copy is yours. You own it. Selling a modified copy for a profit? Yes, that would be a violation of copyright. That's the distinction being made.

edflsafoiewq 3y ago
I've bought lots of modified second-hand books (highlights, cross-outs, corrections). Are you saying that's illegal?
- chandler5555 3y ago
  its illegal when its considered a derivative work (substantially altering or adding content) those little modifications made from a consumer prob dont count. the first sale doctrine covers minor wear and tear type stuff
  - edflsafoiewq 3y ago
    Your telling me it's illegal to pay someone to illustrate my copy of a book? It's illegal to commission a translation of a book for personal use? Is it illegal to pay someone to read a book to me?
    - chandler5555 3y ago
      yeah all three are copyright infringement you cant make audio books, illustrations, or translations of a book without the authors permission note that text to speech isnt considered derivative work. its considered a tool rather than creating content. so its legal for a kindle to read it to you
      - edflsafoiewq 3y ago
        I have no idea if that's true, but you can't seriously expect anyone to actually abide by that, it's absurd.
      - ordu 3y ago
        > its legal for a kindle to read it to you It seems to me that computers programs have more rights than humans.
      - fenomas 3y ago
        I think you're confused, or at least talking past GP. It's not copyright infringement to create a derivative work - e.g. by adding illustrations to a book. What's infringement is if you copy and distribute the derivative work without a license to the original. GP was asking about the former, not the latter.