An interesting column on copyright law

One can make a bugbear out of the entertainment industry, that's easy, but what you can't do is tell me how to protect my work. Do i do it electronically? No, that is hampering your freedom. Can I sue you? No, that is litigious bullying. Can I have your butt thrown in jail? No, that is using the government for my evil, money-grubbing purposes.

There are hippy/geek freaks saying that the whole idea of copyrights and patents is wrong, that the concept totally serves the 'corporate' interest. Do you think the guy down the street is gonna steal your work and make millions? Take a hard look at history. Does the little guy generally steal ideas, or is it the parties who have the resources to start production tomorrow?

If we had crippled copyright law it would be one of Time Warner's little sluts singing your music or one of their sweatshop hack writers stealing your plot. They make a fervent effort NOW to snatch all the ideas they can. If you think the entertainment industry is bad, hamstring copyright law and see what they become.

What you have here is a bunch of geeks that got away with a new format for stealing just long enough for them to feel like they had a right to do it. If you don't like the lengths the entertainment industry is going to stop people who commit cybersmuggling: ( http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/enforcem/cyber.htm ), then perhaps you ought to come up with an alternative way for them to protect themselves. Making the crime legal is no way to fix the problem.

I'm not gonna debate what is good for artists. I think some sharing is good, and i think it has benefitted them to a point, but it is THEIR call to say who can and can't share, not mine. They have the right to make the wrong decision, and no one has the right to make that decision for them by hosting and distributing their work illegally.

P.S. I have to voice my utter outrage and disgust for the statement:

"Eight Hollywood studios have filed suit against local retailers who buy their videos and DVDs and then delete the nudity, violence and foul language for the benefit and at the expense of their customers. Hollywood doesn't lose any sales from this practice; Hollywood is just determined to force viewers to watch the lurid sex and violence."

The idea that any party thinks they have the right to COMMERCIALLY censor my work and then resell or rent it is ethically reprehensible. How would any of us react if an art site put black bars over what they considered 'lurid' before they offered our work for download. The writer of the column you link is, in my opinion, an artless hack; cutting and pasting bits and pieces of Slashdot rants.

Listen closely and lucidly to Baker here.

Particularly the reference to the concept of third-party tampering with artists' intellectual property by any form of censorship of a non-officially sanctioned type.
It is one thing to have a governing body representing the will of the people with regards to 'censorship' controls and entirely another to condone vigilantism, with the potential to destroy the artists' work itself.

Reminds me of the time China showed 'The Sound Of Music'...was apparently too long for their cinema timing or something so they edited out all the songs....[of course, that probably improved it]...

Oh, yes...and 'Art' is not 'information'.
The TV Guide is 'information'.
The Tote Dividend is 'information'.
Your tax return is 'information'.

Art is 'creative expression'.

Get it right....

bakerstreet: The people who censor these videos are cleansing them so they are fit for human consumption. There are movies I don't watch simply because they are full of sex and filthy language, just as there are some websites I don't visit *coughdeviantARTcough* because they are full of sex and filthy languge. Your argument about putting black bars over wallpapers on websites is flawed: That would likely destroy a static image, but bleeping out words and cutting gratuitous sexual scenes would likely improve movies that I could not in good conscience watch otherwise. These commercial censors have a good service to sell: They watch and erase the needless filth out of movies as a good surgeon removes the cancer from his patient. Hollywood loses nothing from these enterprises: They sell no more videos than if they were selling to BlockBuster or some other rental agency. Why should they attempt to force their beliefs (about sex, language, violence, etc) on me?

Incidentally, the writer in question is named "Phyllis Schlafly," and (at least in the 70's) was a leader in conservative Christian circles, or so I'm told (not having been alive at the time). I'm certain that her work was original.

I do wish to point out that she is not in disagreement with the concepts of copyright law, but she believes that those laws are being abused, as evidenced by her last paragraph. She is saying that certain records labels and Hollywood companies are taking it too far. Would you not call the "vandalism of computer networks" taking it too far? Would you not say that claiming that TV viewers are stealing when they don't watch the commercials is taking it too far?

I don't know what should be done about copyright law; speaking as one who wants to perhaps become a writer someday, I do want to have *some* protective laws, but on the other hand, as a person, I do want to have the freedom to do what I wish with my property. If I buy a book, it's my book, and so I can tear pages out and blacken words, and then give it to a friend to read if I so desire, or even sell it to him if that is my wish. If I purchase a CD, I can play it in my car, and three other friends can listen to it without having to pay for it. (Of course, if the CD is of high quality, then they may be inspired to purchase it, just as someone who downloads a piece of music can be inspired to purchase the CD from which it came).

One quote from your post that needs addressing: "Do you think the guy down the street is gonna steal your work and make millions? Take a hard look at history. Does the little guy generally steal ideas, or is it the parties who have the resources to start production tomorrow?"

That's an interesting point, considering that it is companies here going after the "little guys." They are not going after other companies; they're going after U.S. Naval Academy students and small businessmen.

I'd keep going, but this post is already too long. I'll return to this later.

Bakerstreet's point is very valid, EnsRegis.
A movie is released the way to its author/producer intended it. If they want to put some sex scenes and fould language in it, then that's the way it should be seen. As a viewer, you have only two choices: see the movie or not see the movie. Unless of course the author/producer makes or authorises an edited version.
Imagine a Dirty Harry movie edited by an anti-tabacco fanatic so all the scenes where Clint Eastwood smokes are removed or blurred out...
Nobody but the author has the right to decide what part of the movie is essential and which isn't. As a future writer, if you ever write for example "Good Luck my friend" but some fanatic guy somewhere who thinks that everything is designed by God and refering to luck is profanity changes your words for "May God be with you, brother"; I'm sure you may not be happy with the changes.

A few other things tickled me when I read the above column:

"The U.S. Naval Academy seized 100 student computers suspected of containing unauthorized music and threatened the Annapolis midshipmen with court-martial and expulsion. These fine students are training to fight a war in behalf of our country, and they should be allowed to listen to a little music in their spare time."
Ahem, these "fine students" have been cought stealing music. They are perfectly allowed to listen to music, as long as they pay for it. If they were caught stealing a car, they'd wouldn't have been treated any different.

"A teenager is on trial in Norway for figuring out a novel way to play DVD movie discs on his personal computer. He should be commended for his ingenuity, not punished."

Sorry again, but he didn't find a way to play DVD discs on his computer, he found a way to copy DVD discs on his computer. Which is illegal.
If I invented some sort of "replicator" and found a way to duplicate cars, do you think the car industry would leave it be? What would be the repercussions on the car industry if I could buy only one car and make 1000 copies of it that I could just distribute in all my neighbourhood?

Come on, think about it. Yes, some copyright laws are there to protect the movie and music industry, and it is perfectly understandable.

EnsRegis: I am familiar with Ms. Schlafly, unfortunately. Anyone who knows me online and off knows that I am conservative, fiscally and otherwise. She is to my beliefs, though, what Phil Donahue is for Democrats, and 'You damn, dirty apes' is for the NRA; i.e. one so sadly out-of-step and politically motivated that she is a liability, even when you agree with her. That generation is fading, though, so perhaps things will improve. In this case I think you are right, she likes copyright law, but she wants to decide who it will protect. Conservatives of that generation loved making laws that protected a favored section of society.

As to your point about 'cleansing them so they are fit for human consumption', I reiterate my disgust for the concept and the statement itself. A man has a vision, he uses craft to make that vision reality, and then you impose your concept of 'filth' on it, so his messages is hidden or tainted. I don't want to insult you, but books, wallpapers, music, movies, etc., are all about life, and there is a great deal of what you call 'filth' in life; and a great deal of *that* isn't 'filth'. When *witnessing* reality becomes intolerable because of your beliefs, reality isn't to blame; it's been pounding out the same material for millions of years. If human beliefs diverge from that, then humanity is making its own state intolerable.

Regardless, editing the work is illegal, whether it is 'filthy' or not. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to say who may create derivative works. If they want to sell clean versions of "Deep Throat" they have to ask the copyright holder before they impose their *cough*petty*cough* standards on his/her vision.

Whoa... I must say that this statement by Paxx really hits home!

"As a future writer, if you ever write for example "Good Luck my friend" but some fanatic guy somewhere who thinks that everything is designed by God and refering to luck is profanity changes your words for "May God be with you, brother"; I'm sure you may not be happy with the changes."

Complete new context. Very Scary... I fully understand the Movie industries stance.

BTW. to remove the cigarette from Dirty Harry would leave about a 10 min film.

The only obscenity here is people thinking they have some kind of right to interfere with an artist's creativity or the freedom of others to view that art.

Again another thread started to felicitate a self righteous bigoted opinion. Nuff said >

... I tend to agree with it's thesis, that the government should not control the flow of information... EnsRegis

Sounds like you two are in agreement?

It took 30 years for England to publicly see screened 'A Clockwork Orange' by Kubrick.
Reason...?
Kubrick owned sole screening rights in England, but censors were 'nervous' and wanted it altered.
He rightly said 'no way are you altering my work' so pulled any and all rights to its screening there.....not rescinded until his death.
Side note.....in Oz, with the same Pal TV system, we were about to see it released on VHS until someone figured there would be a massive mail-order to the UK and realised it would violate Kubrick's rights in the UK.
Again, Oz then had to wait till his death.

Funny thing was...I was in London at the time of its release and actually saw it there in its 'preview release'...

There are very many arguments between creator and censor when a film is released....often it's to do with its classification and therefore just how wide an audience it can receive...

Of course, all this thread seems to be another whinge as to why the good boys at Napster shouldn't be allowed to continue their God-given right to steal other's property...

Sometimes, the 'bible belt' in the US gives outside observers cold shivers.....'ah feel a book-burnin' comin' on'....

I'll chime in and comment that I'm fully in favor of copyright and intellectual property protection with the following caveats:

First, that as specified in the constitution, that the period of protection be limited, since the release into the public domain after that limited period is a substantial benefit to the generation of new ideas and intellectual property. What constitutes limited is indeed a subject for debate, but I do believe that the current limits are too long, and I am utterly opposed to any retroactive extensions.

Second, I firmly believe in the fair use rights of individuals to alter, reverse-engineer, sell, or whatever they want to any intellectual property they legally own. Profiting, redistribution or anything of that nature should rightly be forbidden. Fair use rights are time shifting, space shifting, the first sale doctrine, the right to reverse engineer, and the right to copy or alter for personal use.

Paxx:

I agree with you about the Navy midshipmen, but I disagree with you about DeCSS. The Norwegian court ruled that he did not break any laws in reverse engineering the DeCSS information as he worked on property he legally owned. In addition, the court also found that there was no evidence that DeCSS had been used for wholesale copyright violation. While it is possible to copy a DVD using DeCSS, it is also possible to copy them with any number of other tools. And since the mere act of copying is not illegal, and since there are legal uses for such tools, such non-infringing uses render the tools themselves legal.

I also find myself agreeing with Hollywood against the businesses that alter copyrighted works and resell them. If such a company wants to create such a tool to provide to the end user that the end user can use to self censor what they watch, I have no problem with that, but when they resell the altered works, they ARE in violation of copyright law and should be penalized.

My stance is that the owners of intellectual property should pursue the violators of copyright law, rather than trying to outlaw tools or make new laws that attempt (to one degree or another) to take away the rights of fair use that are just as much a part of the value of copyright as the intellectual property itself.

Addenda:

In point 2 above, I should have said resell rather than sell as part of fair use rights :o)

Paxx: I'll concede those points. I hadn't done any research beyond the article, so I assumed that the guy from Norway had just figured out how to play DVD's on his computer. (I'm starting to agree with bakerstreet about Mrs. Schlaffly; if she can't be bothered to check her facts before writing an article...) Your point about the Naval academy expulsions is valid also; however is a court-martial really an appropriate punishment for the crime? Would it not be better to either demand that they erase all their stolen music, or else pay money to the CD companies for their stolen music? In essence, instead of destroying their military careers, should they not make restitution?

bakerstreet: I can see your point, but isn't art supposed to be of higher quality than the reality it reflects? Taking movies as an example (although calling most movies works of art is a stretch), does anyone really believe that everything always works out, that everyone has perfect bodies, or that justice is always served in a reasonable amount of time? Of course not! They reflect a reality (with the exception of disaster films) that we would like to see happen. Likewise, I would rather see a world without the filth that actually is in the world. I do not wish to see the evil works of evil people, and I will not see them for the purpose of my own entertainment. This is why many people do not go to movie theaters, because they will have no control over what is played. When I am at home, watching a movie on TV, I can fast forward or change the channel, or mute in the case of a severe bout of profanity. All that these movie editors are doing is a more advanced version of that. It can be assumed that they have the same or similar moral standards that I do; therefore, when they cut a scene, it would be the same scene that I would have fast-forwarded through. When they bleep out a section of dialog, not only does it prevent me from hearing the parts I don't want to hear, but I can find out what is happening in that part of the plot because of the words that are *not* bleeped out, an advantage that muting does not give me.

But I do understand your point, especially when illustrated as a censorship or alteration to some work of my own. The only flaw in your illustration is that very, very few people would change something like "good luck" to "God be with you." Very many people (I would hope) would edit out the sorts of scenes I'm talking about. The other potential illustration along these lines would be "What if someone decided to add sex/cursing to my work?" Of course I would be outraged, and so I can see the cause of the outrage of Hollywood "artists" when their work is altered. However, if the "artists" are unwilling to show good taste on their own, someone else may decide to impose good taste upon their works, just like a person without self control must be controlled. The question then typically boils down to who decides what good taste is; in this case, the answer is the owner of the rental shop. I have little problem with this, so long as the editations are marked (which, in a movie, can hardly be helped; loud bleeping and/or a frame or two from the removed scene tend to give away the marking).

Besides, what do gratuitous sex scenes and obscenities add to the work? (Nothing; that's the definition of gratuitous) All that they do is alienate the people who try to maintain certain standards of morality in their lives. To take an illustration I've heard, no one has ever watched a movie and said, "You know, that movie just didn't have enough cursing in it." (Now, on the other hand, there is the fifties (?) "Batman" quote where the best insult Robin can come up with is "You're not a very nice person, Catwoman!" There are limits to both sides, after all)

Fuzzy Logic: No, no, no I do not mean to say that no one should have the option to see these scenes or hear this profanity; I mean that I should have the option *not* to see and hear them. As to starting the thread to advance a "self-righteous, bigoted opinion," that was not my intention at all. I was just interested in seeing what others thought of this article; unfortunately the only paragraph in the article that is getting much discussion in the one about the rental video censorship. As to allegations of self-righteousness and bigotry: I try to discriminate in *my* viewing habits between that which is acceptable according to the Bible and that which is not. If this makes me bigoted and self-righteous, then so be it. But others are welcome to watch whatever they want.

werewolf: I'm not sure yet.

Jafo: Two comments here should be addressed. First, I am not whining about my "God-given right to steal property" as you put it. I was just bringing the article to the table for discussion. I'm not agreeing with the Napster-boys; I tend to think of Napster-esque programs as a sort of preview, like the kinds found on CDNOW.com or like listening to the music in the store; if I like it, I'll buy it. If not, I won't.

Secondly, I'll respond to this comment: "Sometimes, the 'bible belt' in the US gives outside observers cold shivers.....'ah feel a book-burnin' comin' on'...." I am most emphatically not for book burning and depriving everyone of the unedited films that they wish to see. They have their freedoms of speech and the press, and they may watch what they want to watch. I *do* think, however, that *I* should be allowed to watch what I want to watch--that is, clean movies and books. That is why I am for movie rental agencies with censors, instead of censors at the top of the movie industry, cleaning the movies before anyone can see them. My point is: Don't force your beliefs about morality (or lack thereof) on me.

Aleatoric: It looks like you and I are in agreement except for your second-to-last paragraph.

EnsRegis: you do have the right to watch what you consider clean movies. That is why there are such things are ratings. If a movie contains scenes of nudity and/or violence, it is clearly identified. You thereafter after the freedom of choosing to watch the movie or not.

You example of an editor deciding to ADD nudity and corse language to a movie you'd make is a good one. In such a case, somebody else might argue like you that he has the right to watch a movie the way he wants to see it, with nudity if he so pleases.
But the fact remains: YOU as an author decided NOT to include nudity and it's your author's right. Nobody else can change that.

EnsRegis: you have the God given right to watch what you want, and to fast-forward through what you want, but it is *illegal* to alter an artists copyrighted work and resell it without his permission. I tend to agree that if you want to get the software to edit and bleep stuff in your own home on post-market material, that is your right, too, but when businesses offer such services on pre-market media they are creating derivative works, and therefore have to have permission from the copyright holder.

The problem with our debate on what is obscene is that you have a definition of 'gratuitous' and i have a completely different one. You might, for instance, feel that a character in a movie who visits a strip bar might have as easily visited a regular bar, thus removing what you see as gratuitous nudity. On the other hand the difference might be enormous in how we see the character as a person and how that scene impacts the audience. Not all nudity is there to turn people on. Sure, implied violence and nudity, (like Hitch did so well) can have as an large impact, but that is for the artist who makes the movie to decide.

It doesn't matter if the odds are in our favor that we will agree on obscenity 90% of the time, what matters is the law protects us from people we will both disagree with 100% of the time. That is worth the trouble of being selective about our viewing.

One of the tasks the admins here at Wincustoize.com is to 'censor' what is allowed to be displayed on the site.
The vast majority of what hits the cutting-room floor is copyright violations of others' work, but there is/are also quite a few examples of 'inappropriate' content....one of the more recent was an 'alleged' humorous wall depicting Bin Laden standing over a dead Bill Gates, with some smart-arsed comment attached.
I personally look at what gets submitted and then put myself [or try to] in the shoes of the half-million members and countless more passers-by and wonder just how many would be likely to see these things as 'poor taste', and so I/we act accordingly.

The difference between this and what these video stores are doing is that we do NOT alter the artist's so-called 'work', just deny its hosting.
The video store does the equivalent of perhaps me still letting the work be shown, but with the characters blanked out and the message/comment obscured.
THAT is a copyright violation [though in this particular case, the 'artist' had used images taken from another source so was in breach himself].

If a viewer does not like the content of a film, etc, he has the inalienable right to NOT WATCH IT. He has absolutely NO INHERENT RIGHT [or any other kind] to modify its content for public distribution.

If a movie is created with violence or sex scenes as pivotal plot sequences then either it is viewed in that form or you take out a copy of Bambi instead.
There is absolutely no way that a film such as A Clockwork Orange, for example could possibly be screened without the inherent violence....considering it is a commentary on social violence and its public acceptance. It would make as much sense as watching a telecast of the Superbowl with all the football action deleted...