Comments on: D. Colo.: CleanFlicks Infringes Movie Copyrights

By: ILISA » CleanFlicks and droit d’auteur

ILISA » CleanFlicks and droit d’auteur — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 03:48:26 +0000

[...] CleanFlicks and droit d’auteur July 10, 2006 on 9:25 am | In Friends of ILISA | Joe Grantz, on his blog (via Freedom to Tinker, has posted an interesting overview of the recent CleanFlicks decision. CleanFlicks, along with others, was producing less raunchy versions of popular movies that were then distributed on DVDs to home consumers. CleanFlicks purchased a legitimate DVD copy for every edited DVD they sent out in an effort to stay legit. Congress recently provided statutory protection to companies that manufactured machines that could do this just-in-time when provided with a skip list, but did not protect companies like CleanFlicks, something the court found significant. I thought the ruling was interesting, if only because it seems to represent the artist’s moral rights approach to copyright law, rather than the traditional U.S. utilitarian view. Moral rights, at least in civil law systems, can apparently a lot further than U.S. style copyright law. In this case, the similarity lies in an artist’s right to protect the integrity of his or her works. I’m not sure how the willingness of the directors to allow TV edits of their movies would impact this type of analysis, but that’s certainly an interesting question. The bigger issue may be in fair use analysis. Fair use makes sense, I think, when we think about socially valuable or important uses that copyright law would, hopefully unintentionally, suppress. I guess that could be considered a type of market failure correction in copyright law, when transaction costs or unreasonable actors need to be corrected. In the case of moral rights, however, the analysis is more rawly normative that socially utilitarian. If you truly believe that an artist has an inalienable moral right to preserve the integrity of his or her works, that may be very difficult to reconcile with socially valuable uses. Any thoughts on scholars who’ve looked into this subject? [...]

By: Brent Tubbs

Brent Tubbs — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 06:27:38 +0000

Thank you so much for the links to the actual ruling and briefs. I spent the last hour searching for those documents after hearing about this on Boing Boing, finally finding your site through Freedom to Tinker.

By: Infothought

Infothought — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:06:42 +0000

“Clean Flicks”, copyright infringement, and DMCA…

Bowlderization not OK, but wary on DMCA.
…

By: Derek Slater

Derek Slater — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:13:09 +0000

FWIW: MPAA conceded the intermediate copying issue.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004127.php

By: Rant, less » Blog Archive » CleanFlicks and droit d’auteur

Rant, less » Blog Archive » CleanFlicks and droit d’auteur — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:25:45 +0000

[...] CleanFlicks and droit d’auteur Joe Grantz, on his blog (via Freedom to Tinker, has posted an interesting overview of the recent CleanFlicks decision. CleanFlicks, along with others, was producing less raunchy versions of popular movies that were then distributed on DVDs to home consumers. CleanFlicks purchased a legitimate DVD copy for every edited DVD they sent out in an effort to stay legit. Congress recently provided statutory protection to companies that manufactured machines that could do this just-in-time when provided with a skip list, but did not protect companies like CleanFlicks, something the court found signficant. [...]

By: Freedom to Tinker » Blog Archive » CleanFlicks Ruled an Infringer

Freedom to Tinker » Blog Archive » CleanFlicks Ruled an Infringer — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:35:35 +0000

[...] Joe Gratz writes, [...]