RE: VERY interesting copyright article

Darryl Wiggers (
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:35:17 -0800 (PST)

He claims he's NOT duplicating. Heres a FAQ page from his web site:

"We do not copy movies onto blank tapes.... We either drop the volume on
swear words or do a cut edit so you can't tell there is an edit."

This might explain my Macrovision query. But I'm still suspicious. This is
not like editing film prints.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jessica Rosner []
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:49 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: VERY interesting copyright article

Sorry but Mr. Lines is DUPLICATING and changing the contents of these tapes
without permission and he is clearly violating copyright. It is true that
Blockbuster and big chains pressure distributors to make cuts BUT the
distributor is free to say no and Schindler's list is NOT edited in
Blockbuster. IF Mr. Lines want to do this he is free to contact the rights
holders to ask for permission. I think there is an additional murky question
about how many copies of each edited film he is making. Also the TV analogy
does not work at least legally since in fact the contracts would allow
editing but Mr. Lines has no contract with anyone.He can either get
permission to make censored tapes or simply stick to G rated movies but he
can't edit and duplicate on his own

Jessica Rosner

> From: Darryl Wiggers <>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:26:27 -0800 (PST)
> To: Multiple recipients of list <>
> Subject: RE: VERY interesting copyright article
> My reactions are somewhat different. But, first, some questions....
> How can he make transfers and get around Macrovision? I assume he had
> something more sophisticated than two vcrs.
> Doesn't Blockbuster get away with doing much the same thing? The main
> difference is they don't do in-house editing. They simple pressure the
> studios to provide edited versions -- or they won't carry them. Ditto
> Wal-Mart. They have the clout to get away with this. Mr. Lines simply does
> not.
> "...films shown on television and airplanes are also edited. But experts
> intellectual property rights and film company executives say those
> are edited in collaboration with the studios that make them."
> Huh? Not true. Otherwise my employer is in big trouble. But it is worth
> noting that studios such as Universal make tv-safe versions for
> broadcasters. However broadcasters are also free to make additional cuts
> the sake of accommodating a 2-hour time-slot and commercials. They can
> make creative changes. A local station, for example, will often air films
> unedited but... if a character says the word "motherf**cker" the word
> "mother" is bleeped (a whole new dimension of humour was added to Repo Man
> when they aired that). Or, in the case of Fast Times at Ridgemont High,
> word "dick" is kept, but the word "pussy" is not. As a proud cat owner I
> quite miffed when I saw that.
> All in all I don't mind viewing Mr. Lines as someone who is proving a
> desired community service, much like the broadcasters that decide what is
> appropriate to edit based on the community standards -- for better or for
> worse -- that exist in their area. Why should a community of Mormons not
> given an option to view edited movies if that's what they want? Not in a
> million years is this guy suggesting that ALL video stores -- either in
> community or elsewhere -- carry similar versions (whereas Wal-Mart and
> Blockbuster tend to wipe out competition and eliminate diversity). As long
> as he isn't making multiple copies from the same tape, I don't see how
> would impact on multi-billion dollar corporations.
> Since when did the "Land of the Free" become the "Land That Bows To the
> Powers of Big Business"?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jessica Rosner []
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 2:48 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: VERY interesting copyright article
> Check this out in Today's New York Times. I would LOVE to the see the
> studios bust this guy
> This MAY require a registration to read
> Jessica Rosner
> Kino