From: notapipe	Date: June 23rd, 2004 08:41 pm (UTC)		(linkie thing)

It's policies like these that were responsible for me not seeing The Princess Bride until my senior year of high school and not seeing The Goonies until my sophmore year of college.

Do you know how it feels to realize that you had never lived?

	From: joxn	Date: June 23rd, 2004 10:08 pm (UTC)		(linkie thing)

I hate to say it, but this law should be unneccessary. What they want to do(*) is completely within the spirit of "fair use", and it's only because of stupid draconian copyright laws and stupid courts that it was deemed illegal in the first place.

(*) As I understand it, they want to take a DVD, copy verbatim the contents onto another DVD, add to the other DVD the sanitized track cue and subtitle information, and sell both to their clients.

	From: joxn	Date: June 23rd, 2004 10:13 pm (UTC)		(linkie thing)

Plus, it doesn't violate the Clare Booth Luce maxim: "Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but unlike charity, it should end there."

	From: jmhm	Date: June 24th, 2004 04:19 am (UTC)		(linkie thing)

and that, I must say, is a perfectly Clare Booth Luce maxim: it doesn't really mean anything, if it meant what it sounded like it would be wrong, and she didn't follow it either way.

	From: jmhm	Date: June 24th, 2004 02:47 am (UTC)		(linkie thing)

so if you wrote a book, and I had a bunch printed with a cover i liked better than the one you used, you'd be OK with that?

	From: joxn	Date: June 24th, 2004 07:02 am (UTC)		(linkie thing)

It's more like you printing a bunch of slipcovers and selling my book in them; but in any case, as long as you buy one copy of my book for every one you print, and it's clear that you're not selling just my original work, you're selling something that contains editorial work by you, I don't see why I should care.

What do you think of the fan re-edit of The Phantom Menace that eliminates Jar-Jar?

	From: jmhm	Date: June 24th, 2004 08:54 am (UTC)		(linkie thing)

I see it as more What if it cost me a few pennies to reprint your book with a new cover and I sold my version of your book and kept the profits?

I see some distinction in the fan version, since they aren't trying to sell someone else's work.

I really like your chop, btw

	From: joxn	Date: June 24th, 2004 09:32 am (UTC)		(linkie thing)

I didn't remember correctly how ClearPlay works. But it doesn't matter, because the actual technology is absolutely "fair use" of the DVDs.

Here's what ClearPlay, the company in question, does. They produce DVD-playing software for computers, and they market a DVD player. You download their list of edits into the DVD player (not all movies are supported). Then you buy or rent the DVD. When you play the DVD in ClearPlay's DVD player, it merges their edits into the movie. You can specify various levels of "sanitation", or turn ClearPlay off entirely.

They're not reproducing the DVDs, they're just selling a list of edits and a means to merge those edits into the DVDs as they are playing (the way the video and audio streams are structured in the DVD standard actually makes this very easy, though mostly it's used to provide stuff like "popup enhancement" to movies). That's what the movie industry wants to call a copyright violation. It's completely ridiculous.

I'm not saying their objective is wise. I'm on your side there -- children suffer from being parented by machines. And there are other disturbing points about the whole thing -- the unprecedented access that conservative groups have to the legislative process, for instance.

But considering the copyright issues alone, ClearPlay is morally in the right. Their legal troubles are just another power grab on the part of the MPAA, who would like nothing better than to keep "intellectual property" locked away from the public domain forever. That's a huge social problem -- far bigger than a group of squeamish parents who don't like dirty words -- and it's only going to get worse, since Eldred v. Ashcroft made it clear that the Supreme Court is on the side of the corporations here.

A Taiwanese friend had the chop made for me. He chose to render my first name (John) with the character for "strong" (jian).

	From: jmhm	Date: June 24th, 2004 09:39 am (UTC)		(linkie thing)

See, I think you need to look at the article again - the lawsuit is against ClearPlay. The legislation authorizes unauthorized editing and sale of "value-added" copies of someone else's copyrighted materia.

	From: joxn	Date: June 24th, 2004 10:52 am (UTC)		(linkie thing)

My description of how ClearPlay works is based on their website: http://www.clearplay.com/About.aspx

It's clear from that description that they're not selling copies of the movies themselves. "ClearPlay works with the regular DVDs that you already rent or purchase from your local stores." They just sell the filters.

	From: jmhm	Date: June 24th, 2004 11:24 am (UTC)		(linkie thing)

I think I'm clear about how ClearPlay works. What I'm saying is that I believe that if you check the article, the legislation was inspired by the ClearPlay suit, but what it allows is re-editing and reselling content.

	From: joxn	Date: June 24th, 2004 11:57 am (UTC)		(linkie thing)

I don't think that's what the article says at all. I think the article implies that the legislation would affirm that what ClearPlay is doing is legal. (I wonder how one goes about getting copies of proposed legislation to check?) The Phantom Menace guy is actually, in terms of copyright law, far more liable because he was reproducing and distributing the work itself, as are samplers and file-sharers. I don't even think the FSF would consider the filters, as a software program, to be derivative works of the DVDs, as a software program.

It's not a slippery slope to assert that the result of the MPAA winning their suit is going to be legal restrictions on your right to fast-forward through commercials, resell media you've purchased, tape or Tivo movies with a "broadcast flag" off the air, make backup copies of software, rip music to MP3s, copyright public laws and make you pay for a copy (you're stuck there, because if you want to comply with the law, you have to know what it says), and a myriad of other things we take for granted under the doctrines of "first sale" and "fair use". These guys are already actively trying to do all of those things; they're the same guys who have publicly stated that muting a commercial during a TV show is theft!

	From: jmhm	Date: June 24th, 2004 01:06 pm (UTC)		(linkie thing)

OK, found it.

I don't see where this

H.R.4586

Title: To provide that making limited portions of audio or video content of motion pictures imperceptible by or for the owner or other lawful possessor of an authorized copy of that motion picture for private home viewing, and the use of technology therefor, is not an infringement of copyright or of any right under the Trademark Act of 1946.

restricts anyone to ClearPlay technology.

	From: joxn	Date: June 24th, 2004 01:25 pm (UTC)		(linkie thing)

X is a person. X is a lawful possessor (i.e., owner, renter, borrower) of an authorized copy of a motion picture. I make limited portions of the audio or video content of that authorized copy imperceptible to X (i.e., I sanitize it in place) and I use technology to do so. The law provides that such an act is not an infringement of copyright.

I think the key phrase is authorized copy. It means X already has to have acquired the DVD before I censor it for them. It doesn't restrict me to ClearPlay technology, because it's potentially applicable to a film, VHS, or flipbook version of the motion picture, and it's potentially applicable to non-technological means of censoring the motion picture (though what would those be?), but in any case only if the already-extant version is an authorized copy in the person's possession already.

	From: jmhm	Date: June 24th, 2004 02:32 pm (UTC)		(linkie thing)

You're answering a different question than I'm asking.

Yes, the bill as written covers ClearPlay technology.

It is not restricted to ClearPlay technology.

	From: fiberpunk	Date: June 24th, 2004 05:01 pm (UTC)		(linkie thing)

Aaggh! This thing ate my last attempt:

The clause in the bill:

`(B) the use of technology to make such audio or video content imperceptible, that does not create a fixed copy of the altered version.'.

seems to rule out the idea of resale or repackaging. I suspect the closest analogue in the world of books would be to a set of mostly-clear plastic sheets which you could attack to the pages of books, blocking out objectionable sentences. I don't understand why such a thing should be illegal.

	From: jmhm	Date: June 24th, 2004 05:47 pm (UTC)		(linkie thing)

I dunno - it seems wiggly to me. If they're specifically allowing for this technology, I think they should specify.

Of course, you have better access to legal advice than I. ;)

	From: polonius	Date: June 25th, 2004 12:01 am (UTC)		(linkie thing)

(I wonder how one goes about getting copies of proposed legislation to check?)

You go here. It helps to know the bill number or at least the name of the sponsor.

(Fancy meeting you here.)