Probably the best source of information I have found on this very topic is here:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html

From my reading of some of the information provided there there is certainly many grey areas. One interesting comment really made me stop and think a bit. We've all assumed that in this digital age anything can esily be preserved, that digital information is far more secure than the older forms of information storage yet perhaps the opposite is true. Paper, paintings, stone tables etc have survived for thousands of years without any intervention yet in the digital realm things can be permanantly erased with a mouse click.
Bob.

Keeping in mind that I'm not an attorney....
your practice of making TEN copies would likely be questionable, but otherwise, your practice of making a backup copy is perfectly legal. Originally, the purchase of recordable media actually contained a royalty to artists for this, this is why cassettes cost more than blank CDs. As a side note, in another thread someone asked why the V in DVD refers to "versatile." This was so the media could be designated for more than just video, thereby sidestepping the (at the time) copyright royalty share issue.
Anyway, even if you have 10, and they're vacuum packed away somewhere, no one is going to bust you for that if you can demonstrate you're archiving. Make as many copies as you'd like, just don't have them installed on more than one machine or CD player at a time. That's really more the issue. FWIW, I long ago tossed all my LPs, after either transferring the ones I couldn't re-purchase, or purchasing new copies.
The ability to do this is rapidly diminishing. As more technologies come online, the encryption/license key allows you to make a single, digital copy. After that, you'll not be able to copy more. Expect more of this in the near future, particularly as Longhorn comes in to play, and the operating system works in tandem with copyrighted media as a safeguard.

Only the looney music industry would demand such "protection" where some technology is suppose to ensure increased profits. What should we expect next, ink that disappears as you turn the pages in a book? Software that destroys itself if installed in a new drive? Television that goes to a black screen if you turn a recorder? Recording companies demanding only a single person listen to a CD at one time?

What I expect in the near future is a consumer revolt. Then we'll really see starving artisits because nobody will buy anything. The "music" being produced today in mostly crap to begin with. Anyone 40 or older knows that.

You can use all the technobabble who want, you can invent all the encryption schemes you care to, once Joe Citizen understands the real issue is GREED, the game is over.

Soon, consumers will buy much of their music off the Internet one song at a time. The days of buying a CD of 14-20 songs when 90% is junk is already fading into history. People are sick and tired of getting ripped off by the music industry where its common practice to incude one ot two decent works and fill up the rest of the space with crap. Market pressure will drive the price of songs you can legally download to chump change. Be careful what you wish for. You may get it. Five or ten years from now the greedy music industry will be wishing they had things as good as they have it now.

Just for clarity, I do not make ten copies of 1 original, I make one copy each of ten different originals and vacuum seal originals in packages of ten.

Interesting hobby Bob.

Gotcha. I misunderstood based on your wording in the previous post. Archiving is perfectly legal, and is covered by more than one doctrine. The only time archival is a questionable practice is when you decrypt any copy protection. This is what buried 321 Studios, and will likely bury the CleanFlix lawsuit against the DGA as well. The idea these people had was that decrypting was legal, since it stood in the way of their being able to copy the licenced media, which is legal. The NY Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court both held that it is illegal to decrypt copy protection tools.

Didn't the Senate just add language to a bill to *explicitly* allow outside companies to edit out "profanity, graphic violence, nudity and sexual content" in DVDs?

I am really looking forward to sharing appropriately edited versions of Friday the 13th, Eurotrip, A Rocky Horror Picture Show, and The Passion of the Christ with the children.

No more Little House on the Prairie. Now we can finally enjoy The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the films of Sam Peckinpah together as a family without feeling guilty!

To feel absolutely safe, I will call my congress critter to make sure they do the same thing for the TV news, so we don't risk having our paradise experience interrupted by torture in Abu Ghraib or genocide in Sudan.

If we just stick our heads in the sand, all dangers will go away.

The classic movie Fahrenheit 451 where all books were banned comes to mind again. Too many right wing extremists in the government these days trying to chip away at the Constitution. Heck, the news is already heavly edited. Can't show the 1,500+ corpses arriving at Dover AFB, that's not the message little Georgie and his gang wants you to see. Wars based on lies; good, good, wave the flag, some phony axis of evil, bad, bad, shake your fist. Hypocrisy is also a four letter word starting with the letter b and ending in h.

Course, they added the language, but the bill didn't go through as expected. (Thank heaven, IMO) It's a scary thing if we get to the point that any commercial enterprise might be allowed to take any sort of artwork and "edit" it. Regardless of anyone's stand on family values, they should be opposed to this sort of action, simply because it's an alteration of the statement of the artist. I wholeheartedly applaud Mel Gibson for doing a recut of his epic, simply because MEL GIBSON did it, not some guy in Provo, Utah, where it's illegal to show R-Rated films. If the community wants the standard for the community, that's fine. The theaters can choose to not buy those films and people can drive to a nearby community if they want to see these films. That's fair. But allowing a commercial enterprise to edit a film without the director knowing about it, having no control over it, and the value of the film being potentially diminished by the edit....that's another story.
Can you imagine....we're repeating history and it's Pope Gregory all over again, if this were permitted to take place. Maybe rather than editing out the bad parts, we take a page from the Vatican and have a plugin that covers questionable areas with fig leaves and puts "bleeps" at all swear words?

"Course, they added the language, but the bill didn't go through as expected."

Drat!

I was thinking that if anybody gets the right to edit anybody else's films and release the result, they should have the right to *color correct* also.

That way, all films could be corrected to show the good guys as whites and the bad guys as blacks. No reds and yellows to complicate what is after all a black-and-white world, good (us) vs. bad (them).

But why stop there?

Now that ADR (Dialog Replacement) is so easy, they could not just edit the dialog but replace the rest of it!

Imagine Dirty Harry pulling his .44 Magnum and saying, "In the immortal words of Jesus, 'If Somebody Slaps You on Your Right Cheek, Smite Them!'," and then the scene has to end unfortunately.

Of course everybody (all the good guys) will speak Texan, because that is God's language.

Etc.

After that I really don't know what else we could do here to make the world a better place.

But I sleep well at night, knowing that it will all be taken care of by our State Law and Order Restoration Council, modeled on a similar group in Myanmar...

8O[~]

I still have my records and have not backed them up to any form of "new" media - although I will admit to recording some of them onto my old 8-track way back when. (And yes I still have my record player with the built in 8-track that records) But I never gave it much thought when I would record any of those records onto 8-track or tape. And didn't when I recorded CD's onto cassette to listen to in my car. For the most part to me it is still a non-issue however the state of the internet more than anything has given rise to all the long winded discussions about the legalities of being able to do any of this. Yes if I take a cd and rip it and put it up on the net it is a no-no. But wording comes into play that would also make it against the law to take a few songs from that CD, and some from another one..and so on...and make one of those little comp tapes we all have made at one time or another for someone we like...and some for those we even "like" like.

It was said: it's a scary thing if we get to the point that any commercial enterprise might be allowed to take any sort of artwork and "edit" it and the fact is that it has been going on for *years*. I can not be the only person who ever cringed when the words "Edited for television" would pop onto the TV screen. I remember the work of art called Coming Home that, when aired on network television, became an emotional void of a film with Jon Voight streaming out "Gosh darn it all!" and "idiot" among other common kindergarten words. And I remember The Warriors was a bit too non-conformist for NBC so they added on a "new" ending of sorts. The gang made it back to their home turf after being wrongly accused of murder - but in the TV version we are shown a quick cut of police cars coming, sirens blaring...leading the viewer to feel that our anti-heros are soon to be jailed...for being in a gang and fighting their way home no doubt. For shame that Walter Hill failed to show this in his version fo the film! And don't even get started on how studios have edited directors visions to fit a certian time frame or what not.

I was in WalMart the other day and picked up the new Motley Crue CD - but put it back down because it said "Edited" on it. On a like note years ago some friends were on RCA and had a video out for a song - one of the lyrics was something like "Wear your rubbers in the rain" so MTV censors flat out refused to pass the video on saying that unless the audio was re-done it would not be aired. It went back and forth between the band, RCA and MTV until the band finally gave in and, at their own expense, went into the studio and remixed the song for that one line...just for MTV. After it was done and resubmitted MTV turned down the video because it wasn't "commercial" enough. Yes, the band had 2 words for them after that. MTV clearly pulling a power play just to show how much power they have/had over the industry.

And on another note here is a little news clip in the news last week - for those who missed it:

Computer-technology company Intel alligned itself with file-trading services Grokster and Morpheus last week, urging the U.S Supreme Court to protect the technology that these services use.

And while we are on to subject - anyone else read about the lawsuit against Kaleidescape? Pretty interesting in that they have been paying royalties and obtained licenses to store films on the system. However doing this will bypass the CSS protections, so that, as we all know, is a big no-no. So here is a company going out of its way to do things the right way, since 2002 mind you, and they get slapped with a lawsuit. IMO if this gets far into the system it could cause issues with every person here because the one concept it having a film on a hard drive - which could mean a throw back to this threads main topic - "Space shifting". Anyone who offers any form of hard drive and or server that could be used to store film (Or perhaps recorded onto a hard drive - TIVO or other) could be in trouble. Keep in mind I am saying "if" here. These guys have done thing the legal way and the cost of this server is not cheap. However, in the claim against them it is alleged that content copied to the Kaleidescape server remained playable without the physical presence of the original DVD and thus constituted a breach of the CSS license. Something to keep an eye on.

And the editing case Coursedesign spoke of that is on the hill is not dead yet - this is news from yesterday, March 11:

The House Judiciary Committee this week endorsed the

And for the heck of it - sort on this whole topic - probably not covered by much media or noticed by too many people - George Atkinson passed away earlier this month. Here is his obit:

George Atkinson, credited as the “father” of the home video retail business, died Thursday morning at his home in Northridge, Calif. He was 69.

*EDIT* - some spelling and space issues fixed.

Great post as always, Dave.
One thing about the House Judiciary...Chris Cannon (Utah) was the urging member, and there is a cry on the hill because he's related by marriage to the owners of ClearPlay. ClearPlay's technology will likely pass, but the DGA suit, and the portions that were stricken from the original house bill, were related to actual editing. CleanFlix and Family Videos in Provo, Utah, use Final Cut Pro to actually edit DVDs. They take a hit movie, edit it, create new menus based on original menus, and resell it. You buy an offensive flick, you bring it into them, they shelve it, and give you a new version of the same video that they created.
ClearPlay can work with existing DVDs, no actual editing, and anyone who wants to watch the full version is capable of seeing it in all it's original sexual, blood n' guts, or nasty language format. I'm opposed to both forms of altered vids but frankly, but who cares what I think? :-)
IMO, it should always be up to the director to alter what he does and doesn't want people to hear or see. The music industry was forced into making "Walmart" versions of CD's, if there is enough hue and cry...the film industry should have to do the same thing, but in any event, the director should do this, not the public. Lucas had a very interesting view on this just yesterday, because the new Star Wars is PG-13, not PG. He said "Any parent who would take a child to see this is irresponsible." Good for him. He's also part of the DGA suit too.

Interesting that the same video rental business that the studios said would bankrupt them, now pulls in more revenues for them than theatrical exhibition. On top of that, the studios somehow get away with paying the talent a much smaller royalty for videos, so their profitability is WAY higher.


DSE, about PG-13 etc., it is really interesting to look at the various national ratings in IMDB. The same film can be rated 12 years old in one country and 13, 15, or 18 years old elsewhere.

I remember seeing Blazing Saddles (one of the funniest movies of all time!) on network television in the U.S. and in Sweden. In both countries, they felt compelled to edit this for a family audience.

Any difference?

In Sweden, they edited out the violence and kept the sex.

In the U.S., they edited out the sex and kept the violence.

The latter made major scenes incomprehensible, in addition to seeming to support the concept that sex is bad but violence is good.


Then there is always the "edited for in-flight presentation", that's gotta be the ultimate crime against humanity...

Yep, that IS funny. One country bans much of the sexual content but allows violence, while others ban the violence and have no problem with sexual content.

I wonder how JackAss, the movie, was preceived in Europe. It was on cable again the other night and some of the content in that "movie" is really gross. Hint: making a snowcone in backyard, unconnected toilet used in showroom.

They should have got a "S" rating for plain stupid.

There's no accounting for the whims of censorship. Shortly after 9/11, the twin towers of the World Trade Center were supposedly edited out of the skyline in some movies, and the word "terrorist" was edited out of the movie "E.T."

If history is any indicator, there was never more drinking (and people dying from drinking bootleg gin) than during the Prohibition Era in the US during the 1920s.

Not that I am the paragon of parental perfection, but both my kids (15 and 12) have completely unfiltered access to te Internet, which contains more porn, hate, and overall vulgarity than I ever could have dreamed of when I was a kid. I keep a casual eye on their computer use, and I am actually surprised at how relatively well-behaved their surfing habits are. I think that it would be worse if they knew there was some content that I was preventing them from getting at. Don't get me wrong, I think that the music industry is responsible, to a large extent, for glamourizing and promoting gangstas, pimps, and ho's to anyone who's willing to fork over the $15 for a CD. I can't even imagine what kind of background music my kids would want to have for their own 50-year wedding montages. Which is why I have little compassion for the fact that their business model is changing. At least now they only have to spend 99 cents each to "legally" download that junk from iTunes, etc. Wal*Mart's only 88 cents/song, but they don't offer the "explicit lyrics" they want.

I think that the music industry is responsible, to a large extent, for glamourizing and promoting gangstas, pimps, and ho's to anyone who's willing to fork over the $15 for a CD.

A'flippin'-MEN! Will Smith has a great take on this, as does Jamie Foxx, Bill Cosby, and a host of other folks that have commented on the whole street mentality. I can't remember the name of the basketball player that started in the NBA as a gangsta' thug, but was recently interviewed and he spoke very clearly, no slang or other wordcraft, and he made the comment that he didn't want kids to idolize who he used to be, but that he wanted kids to idolize who he's become. (A "normal" father, businessman, contributing member of society)
That said, even though I usually disagree with much of what I hear in the music or movies today, I still have to support the way Sweden and other countries (or airlines) do the editing, the director is allowed to edit the film themselves, or approve the edits before the show hits the air. ClearPlay may change that, who knows...

>>>.the film industry should have to do the same thing, but in any event, the director should do this, not the public. <<<

I agree fully. But I also feel that films should not be "edited for TV" or for "in flight" or whatever...unless the creative powers behind it oversaw those cuts. (Steven Spielburg oversaw the little Super 8, 10 minute, version of Jaws and it was all the buzz at the time. I think I still have mine around here somewhere) I feel that if someone does not want to view a film, or are afraid that something in it will be considered offensive - just do not show it / view it. I don't know a lot of pople that refuse to fly because a certian film is not being shown...but perhaps if they new a certian film was going to be shown maybe they would not fly. If that sounded vauge all I mean is that I can understand that if you get on a plane with your family and find out they are showing Deep Throat you don't have much choice because the visuals are there - you can't just "turn off" the monitor or get off the plane. In that case I could see how content would affect the people who flew. But on the other hand I don't know any airline activly doing mass theatre-like advertising about what film they will be showing...or likewise when you book a flight do you ask what film is going to be showing? Now a reasonable airline could assume showing Deep Throat would not be good, but The Incredibles would be...sans any editing to make it family friendly. So really, why show anything that "needs" to be edited? Just don't do it. Of Course now with airlines having a sort of PPV thing going with private screens that could all be null and void anyway.

But I guess, really, the "public" that we are all part of does have a right to "edit", in any way we feel like, something we own...and by "edit" I mean the ability to skip tracks on a CD, fast forward through scenes on a DVD, mute the TV during commericals and change the radio station if we don't like what DJ is on. And remember some of these "rights" have already been questioned - the little "black box" that was sold to auto pause VCR's when a commerical was about to happen comes to mind.