Tintin Forums

Tintin Forums / The Members Lounge /

A question on copyright not to be taken to seriously

number1fan
Member
#1 · Posted: 21 Apr 2010 19:38
This is just a theory I have BUT IT DOESN'T WORK!.But I thought it would be an interesting topic.
Say if I wear to go in to HMV and buy a dvd of for example the movie 2012.Now you have purchased it.The Dvd and the content is yours.So technically you could play around with the copy you have and change certain parts of it.You have purchased it you now own the film it is no longer the distributor because it is solid you own copy.Would anyone agree with me to some extent on this suggestion.
jock123
Moderator
#2 · Posted: 21 Apr 2010 20:17
number1fan:
The Dvd and the content is yours.

That's where the catch lies - you own the media (DVD, Blue-Ray, HD-DVD, whatever), but not the content: you only have the right to view it. Generally the studio that sells the disk doesn't give away the rights to you to copy or alter or distribute or exhibit those contents - most often encapsulated as "All Rights Reserved", which is usually written in the small print on the back of the case, on the disk itself, and in the copyright captions at the start of the disk's playing cycle (I just looked at one, and it has to be said that they don't help their case on the cover of my DVD - When Worlds Collide, as it happens - by making the notice in 3pt type in white on a busy background, but it is there, and is enforceable).
Balthazar
Moderator
#3 · Posted: 21 Apr 2010 20:31 · Edited by: Balthazar
number1fan:
So technically you could play around with the copy you have and change certain parts of it.You have purchased it you now own the film it is no longer the distributor because it is solid you own copy

As I understand it, there's probably no law to prevent you from ripping pages out of your own copy of a book, sellotaping them back in in the wrong order and drawing moustaches on all the ilustrated characters with a felt tip pen as long as you're only using your tampered copy of the book for your own private reading. So presumably, on the same basis, the copyright law also wouldn't prevent you from mucking about with your own particular copy of a DVD, eg: scratching out scenes, redubbing the soundtrack, again as long as you were only using your vandalised DVD for your own private viewing.

What you're obviously not allowed to do is to publicly show, distribute, re-publish or post online your tampered book or DVD, regardless of whether you're doing so for free or for money. That would be infringing the rights of the author/filmmaker/copyright-holder to have their work published or shown in the form they wanted. You've bought a copy of a DVD, which as you say is your own solid copy; but you only own that copy of the DVD. You haven't bought the copyright or the adaptation rights on the content. Even assuming that the author or film producers wanted to sell or licence you those rights, it would typically cost you much much more than what you'd pay for your own copy of a book or DVD.

To take a real example, a few years ago, there was a Mormon video rental store in the USA who were re-editing video cassettes of movies such as James Bond films, taking out any swearing, drinking, violence, nudity, etc, and renting them out as family-safe versions of the films. Not surprisingly, the film studios came down hard on them to stop this practice. Obviously there'd have been nothing to stop the store owner from fast-forwarding or deleting the offending scenes in his own home when showing his own copy of a video to his family, nor anything to stop his customers buying their own copies of videos and doing the same for private family viewing. It was the distributing of his tampered versions that was the criminal offence.

Edit: I see that as I was writing the above, Jock's posted a similar, if more succinct answer. Oh, well, now you've got two answers!
mct16
Member
#4 · Posted: 21 Apr 2010 20:35
One argument could be that when something is uploaded a certain amount of quality is lost: picture, sound, ease of finding a particular scene, fast-forwarding, backing etc.

I once watched a film on Youtube. It was good, but the quality, as you might expect, was bad so I went and bought the DVD.
number1fan
Member
#5 · Posted: 21 Apr 2010 20:36
Balthazar:
sellotaping them back in in the wrong order and drawing moustaches on all the ilustrated characters with a felt tip pen

I had to chuckle at that
jock123
Moderator
#6 · Posted: 21 Apr 2010 21:22 · Edited by: jock123
Balthazar:
Jock's posted a similar, if more succinct answer

I don't think I covered it as well, though, so there's a place for them both!

mct16:
One argument could be that when something is uploaded a certain amount of quality is lost: picture, sound, ease of finding a particular scene, fast-forwarding, backing etc.

Degrading the material, be it deliberate (Balthazar's example with the book) or accidental (loss through copying), is of little matter, and the ability to forward and reverse is a mere adjunct to the technology involved (you can't do either of those things at the pictures, for example), not the rights in the material. The question is the intention of the re-processing: if it is for your own quiet enjoyment at home, as Balthazar says, you are likely covered (and you are unlikely to be found out, at that); if it is for posting to the internet, you don't have the right to make a copy to do that in the first place, so perfect and pristine, or blotchy and degraded, they both violate the rights of the material's owners.
Eric
Member
#7 · Posted: 23 Apr 2010 06:36
Give this book a read.
tintinophile691
Member
#8 · Posted: 27 Apr 2010 10:39
number1fan:
Say if I wear to go in to HMV and buy a dvd of for example the movie 2012.Now you have purchased it.The Dvd and the content is yours.So technically you could play around with the copy you have and change certain parts of it.You have purchased it you now own the film it is no longer the distributor because it is solid you own copy.Would anyone agree with me to some extent on this suggestion.

I've actually done this before. It's called fan-editing and there is an entire community out there. I made Mr Bean's Holiday: Extended Edition, but I kept it for myself just for my enjoyment.

Lucasfilm is aware of the many Star Wars re-edits and said they will only take legal action when they believe that it may be mistaken as an official Lucasfilm product and when they believe copyright infringment has actually taken place.
number1fan
Member
#9 · Posted: 27 Apr 2010 12:16
tintinophile691:
I made Mr Bean's Holiday: Extended Edition, but I kept it for myself just for my enjoyment.

Kool did you just add the deleted scenes in to the appropriate places.I would love to do something like this.

Please be sure to familiarize yourself with the Forum Posting Guidelines.

Disclaimer: Tintinologist.org assumes no responsibility for any content you post to the forums/web site. Staff reserve the right to remove any submitted content which they deem in breach of Tintinologist.org's Terms of Use. If you spot anything on Tintinologist.org that you think is inappropriate, please alert the moderation team. Sometimes things slip through, but we will always act swiftly to remove unauthorised material.

Reply



  Forgot your password?
Please sign in to post. New here? Sign up!