Darryl Wiggers wrote:
>He claims he's NOT duplicating. Heres a FAQ page from his web site:
>http://www.ecomallbiz.com/cleanflicks/workrelatedquestions/
>
>"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 [mailto:jrosner@kino.com]
>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
>Kino
>
>> From: Darryl Wiggers <Darryl.Wiggers@AllianceAtlantis.com>
>> Reply-To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
>> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:26:27 -0800 (PST)
>> To: Multiple recipients of list <videolib@library.berkeley.edu>
>> 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
>in
>> intellectual property rights and film company executives say those
>versions
>> 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
>for
>> the sake of accommodating a 2-hour time-slot and commercials. They can
>also
>> 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,
>the
>> word "dick" is kept, but the word "pussy" is not. As a proud cat owner I
>was
>> 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
>be
>> 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
>his
>> 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
>this
>> 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 [mailto:jrosner@kino.com]
>> 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
>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/31/national/31UTAH.html
>> >> This MAY require a registration to read
>> >> Jessica Rosner
>> Kino >
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
> Received: from library.berkeley.edu [169.229.32.48] by mail.afionline.org >with ESMTP
> (SMTPD32-6.05) id A085679600C6; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:40:37 -0800
> Received: from library.berkeley.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by library.berkeley.edu (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: ><7EA10ADE2A06D411849B0008C75D25FC5AA63E@deniro.allianceatlantis.com>
> Errors-To: videoman@library.berkeley.edu
> Reply-To: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
> Originator: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
> Sender: videolib@library.berkeley.edu
> Precedence: bulk
> From: Darryl Wiggers <Darryl.Wiggers@AllianceAtlantis.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <videolib@library.berkeley.edu>
> 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: <hmattoon@afionline.org>
> X-UIDL: 261438426
> Status: U
>