Henry K. Mattoon
National Moving Image Database
The American Film Institute
2021 N. Western Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Darryl Wiggers wrote:
>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. But
>Mr. CleanVideo is not pirating. He's not stealing. He giving money to the
>copyright owners to purchase these individual videos that normally wouldn't
>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 sits
>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 altogether. >
>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 any
>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 and
>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. And
>the only thing that concerns the publishers -- or studios in this case -- is
>losing money. They don't give a damn about art. Only commerce (hasn't anyone
>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.
>From: Jessica Rosner [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>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 obviously
>no one would notice but the store is doing them for public rental. Again if
>this were legal I could just buy a bunch of legal copies of Disney films and
>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: email@example.com
>> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:51:07 -0800 (PST)
>> To: Multiple recipients of list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> 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, with
>> fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on
>> 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 claim
>> 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 to
>> 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 and
>> quartered. I especially don't understand why people seem less bothered by
>> 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.
> Received: from library.berkeley.edu [220.127.116.11] by mail.afionline.org >with ESMTP
> (SMTPD32-6.05) id AD8E24060112; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:56:46 -0800
> Received: from library.berkeley.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by library.berkeley.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA21215;
> Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:52:05 -0800 (PST)
> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:52:05 -0800 (PST)
> Message-Id: ><7EA10ADE2A06D411849B0008C75D25FC5AA643@deniro.allianceatlantis.com>
> Errors-To: email@example.com
> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Originator: email@example.com
> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Precedence: bulk
> From: Darryl Wiggers <Darryl.Wiggers@AllianceAtlantis.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
> 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: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> X-UIDL: 261438476
> Status: U