Posted by Richard Crowley on 07/12/06 00:40

"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. :-)

[Back to original message]