RE: VERY interesting copyright article

Henry Mattoon (
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:59:52 -0800 (PST)

Reply to: RE: VERY interesting copyright article
In terms of the Macrovision question, it's been very easy to work around for quite some time. Every time the M. is updated, it's cracked. In fact, the company that makes those GO VIDEO duplicating video machines touts the fact in their advertising that unscrambles Macrovision, and I think some other copyguard techniques as well. They obviously sell a totally legal product, but explain in their adverts, etc. that it is illegal to use these dual deck machines to copy copyrighted material, to defeat the protection of Macrovision, etc. In fact, there's a ton of units that you hook up between your vcr units, legally sold for defeating Macrovision and other image/sound destabilizing systems. Again, completely legal. Radio Shack used to sell one (maybe they still do), and like all such companies, advertise it with the above caveats and market it as an "image stabilizer." Pictures typically show these units being hooked up between the vcr and the tv, but NOT between vsr's which is probably w
hat probably 95% of customers want them for.
Henry K. Mattoon
National Moving Image Database
The American Film Institute
2021 N. Western Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
323/856.7702 voice
323/856.7616 fax

Darryl Wiggers wrote:
>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 >
>RFC822 header
> Received: from [] by >with ESMTP
> (SMTPD32-6.05) id A085679600C6; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:40:37 -0800
> Received: from (localhost [])
> by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA00600;
> Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:34:25 -0800 (PST)
> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:34:25 -0800 (PST)
> Message-Id: ><>
> Errors-To:
> Reply-To:
> Originator:
> Sender:
> Precedence: bulk
> From: Darryl Wiggers <>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <>
> Subject: RE: VERY interesting copyright article
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-RCPT-TO: <>
> X-UIDL: 261438426
> Status: U