8705 Honeycomb Ct. NW
Seabeck, WA 98380
Tel: (800) 692-2270; Fax: (360) 830-9346
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darryl Wiggers" <Darryl.Wiggers@AllianceAtlantis.com>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:52 PM
Subject: RE: VERY interesting copyright article
> The copyright "owners" have rarely given a damn about "artistic rights" in
> the past so I don't see that as a defence. If the "owners" insist on
> upholding "artistic rights" (as suggested in the Times article) then they
> should clean up their own backyard and let filmmakers have final cut.
> I don't remember anything like this arising before because, in the past,
> religious stores like this would simply avoid purchasing certain films; a
> minimal loss of revenue to the copyright owners, but a loss nonetheless.
> Mr. CleanVideo is not pirating. He's not stealing. He giving money to the
> copyright owners to purchase these individual videos that normally
> be bought. And his customers (a staggering 500 according to the article --
> oh my!) are also throwing cash to the copyright owners to also purchase
> films they wouldn't normally buy.
> > So, he apparently has a stockpile of the "nonoffensive" versions
> > ready to ship on the one hand.
> So what? I bet he already paid for every single one, and the money now
> in the pockets of the copyright owners. You tell me: is that stealing?
> Bottom line: Nobody is losing money. Mr. CleanVideo is making money. Maybe
> (his operation sounds very labour intensive). The studios are making money
> from sales they normally wouldn't receive. The artists are having their
> films seen by viewers who may normally have opted to avoid them
> What I do sense from this discussion is a disdain for the morality side of
> this issue. But what I admire about the guy is not just that I don't see
> illegal about it (if you want to convince me otherwise, I urge you to find
> an act, regulation, amendment -- anything! -- that clearly says this can't
> be done) but that he's being upfront. True, Blockbuster sticks to the law
> but I can't find anything -- nothing! -- in their company info that
> identifies they rent altered versions of certain films. That's deceptive
> fraudulent as far as I'm concerned.
> Laugh all you want about a supplier who edits out references to the deity,
> but at least he's honest about it.
> > How I would feel if I wrote a book that was destined to do well
> > in the marketplace, only to find out that someone, without my
> > permission, took my book, changed it slightly to make it more to
> > their liking, and sold it. I don't think I would like it much,
> > and I would take the person to court to stop it.
> Publishers do it all the time, but authors can't do anything because they
> don't "own" it. Only the publishers can take action in a case like this.
> the only thing that concerns the publishers -- or studios in this case --
> losing money. They don't give a damn about art. Only commerce (hasn't
> figured this out yet?). And what probably upset the people in that Times
> article was the assumption -- the same assumption all of us made in the
> beginning -- was that the guy was copying the material (i.e. buying one
> video and making multiple copies of it). But, if Mr. Cleanvideo is to
> believed, that's not the case here.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jessica Rosner [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:18 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: VERY interesting copyright article
> The very definition of copyright is ownership and you can't alter material
> without permission. If this were being done strictly for home use
> no one would notice but the store is doing them for public rental. Again
> this were legal I could just buy a bunch of legal copies of Disney films
> insert whatever I wanted so long as I had purchased them and then I could
> rent them out ?. Sorry but I don't have any sympathy for the guy and for
> once I would cheer the MPPA. It goes to the heart of both copyright and
> artists rights that you can't alter without permission.
> > From: Darryl Wiggers <Darryl.Wiggers@AllianceAtlantis.com>
> > Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:51:07 -0800 (PST)
> > To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
> > Subject: RE: VERY interesting copyright article
> > Where is it written that one can't alter a legally purchased copy? The
> > warning on all my videos only talks about public screenings and copying.
> > That's it. Besides, it's not as if he disguising what he's doing. No one
> > is interested in purchasing an unedited version would be fooled into
> > with this guy...
> > According to the Copyright Infringement Act of 1976 "Any person who,
> > fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing
> > copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500." That's
> > Only the warning can't be "removed" or "altered." And you can't even
> > fraud with Mr. CleanVideo. He spells out what is omitted... I can't find
> > anything else in the Copyright Infringement Act that suggests that what
> > CleanVideo claims he's doing can't be done. Can anyone?
> > And let's suppose he is nailed. How is his crime different from a video
> > store that sells me a "used" mangled, chewed-up video that's blurry and
> > of picture drop-outs. That video has been altered too from its original
> > condition. Maybe I can get the MPAA on my local store's case...
> > Personally I would never do business with Mr. CleanVideo because I want
> > see my movies unedited. But I'm not convinced that what he's doing is
> > illegal, and cannot share in the drooling enthusiasm to have him drawn
> > quartered. I especially don't understand why people seem less bothered
> > corporations who lie, deceive, cheat, overcharge and steal from millions
> > consumers than a guy who is openly providing a seemingly legal service
> > his community clearly wants.