Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • On this issue, I think its crazy that a law has to be passed to allow people to create editted versions of movies.

    If I buy a book, I can rip out pages, or paint over words or paragraphs to improve (in my opinion) the book; and I can publish a list of the pages, paragraphs, and words that I felt were extraneous. As long as someone who gets my list still has to buy the actual book and choose to apply my cuts, the author should have no recourse.

    I've never done that and find no appeal in the "service" that

    • On this issue, I think its crazy that a law has to be passed to allow people to create editted versions of movies.

      I'm not sure that is what the law [loc.gov] allows.
      the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology.
      The key words being if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion is created. Nothing is being created. An experience is being modified.

      It is like someone creating a painting, and then suing a museum because they let someone look at the painting while wearing glasses. (or sun glasses if that helps the analogy) The original is not affected, just the perception of the original. And most importantly, it is done privately at the behest of the user.

      In my mind, this is the worst part of the law... because this is (IMHO) covered by fair use. No law is needed to allow for this.

      We have just started down the slippery slope of actually legislating use of copyrighted material.

      If I buy a book, I can rip out pages, or paint over words or paragraphs to improve (in my opinion) the book; and I can publish a list of the pages, paragraphs, and words that I felt were extraneous. As long as someone who gets my list still has to buy the actual book and choose to apply my cuts, the author should have no recourse.

      My understanding of the first sale doctrine is that you can actually sell your books... even if they have been altered. I may be wrong on that tho.

      What makes this law different tho is that we are actually talking about a "companion product". It is basically a playlist that gets used in conjunction with the copyrighted material. (I might add that the playlist itself will most likely be copyrighted).

      Using the playlist in no way changes the original source, and no new "product" is created.