|
|
Posted by GMAN on 07/12/06 06:42
In article <e91ge9$t54$1@news01.intel.com>, "Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote:
>"PTravel" wrote ...
>> The ruling addressed the preparation of unauthorized derivative works,
>> i.e. copies that included substantial parts of the original, without the
>> authorization of the copyright owner. None of the examples you provided
>> are related to the suit, which involved companies that made unauthorized,
>> edited _copies_ of commercial DVDs without permission.
>
>My understanding was that the service didn't actually create new
>(edited) copies of the original work, but merely software which
>would cause playback of the original unaltered DVD to skip the
>offensive bits (audio and/or video). Like selling sheets of paper
>with holes cut out to read the PG parts when overlayed onto the
>Playboy magazine. :-)
>
>
There was a player that did this, but this lawsuit was about Cleanflics and
the other sanitizers actually editing the movie and supplying an edited DVD-R
along with the original in a package for rent or sale. Cleanflics thought that
if they included the original in the sale that they were in the clear. They
were mistaken.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|