Replace “owned product” with “movie” and you see the problem that would require a total copyright restructuring.
There was also a second attempt where people would mail in their disks, and receive an edited version back. Again, lost.
So, whether we like it or not, nope. That’s not how things work, because any editing creates a “derivative work” in the eyes of the law, and only the copyright owner is allowed to make such derivative works.
Even if you edit the film yourself, you’re making a derivative work. The only reason you won’t be sued is because the harm is $0.
CleanFlix was sued because they were editing and distributing movies without studio permission, but a competing product called ClearPlay, which was a specialized DVD player that you would plug a flash drive into, and censorship was then overlayed. It was allowed to continue existing because the end user was technically the one making the edits on their copy of the movie, and the movie itself was not being redistributed.
Edit for below (“too many responses”):
Irrelevant; as ClearPlay does not properly speaking edit the video; but messes with the playback timeline.
Editing the video is illegal. Messing with the timeline as the unedited film is playing? Completely permitted for accessibility, organization, and other reasons. In particular, that amazing thing called an ad blocker. Skipping 30 seconds ahead to avoid an ad is legal, but editing the ad out is not.
ETA: Clearplay doesn’t just muck with the timeline. It would overlay clothes over nudity, replace naughty words, etc. It’s actually a kind of neat bit of technology.
I think without this act it might be considered a deriative work and illegal actually
Selling a modified copy for a profit? Yes, that would be a violation of copyright. That's the distinction being made.
those little modifications made from a consumer prob dont count. the first sale doctrine covers minor wear and tear type stuff
you cant make audio books, illustrations, or translations of a book without the authors permission
note that text to speech isnt considered derivative work. its considered a tool rather than creating content. so its legal for a kindle to read it to you
It's somewhat of a case by case basis matter and it's rarely brought to the court, but just because you own a piece doesn't always make it all to your discretion to modify it.
so yes even at home, making art for a book you dont have permission for, and isnt seen by anyone but you, is still copyright infringement
That's the important bit - the things you called illegal a few comments back were obvious examples of (presumptive) fair use.
More generally, whether something is copyright infringement can be vague and subjective - so the bar for going around saying "yes, that is infringement" is not "does it meet a description I read online?". The bar is: "have courts previously ruled that a very similar case was infringement?".
It seems to me that computers programs have more rights than humans.
It would be interesting if they had 1) distributed a program that automatically edits the user's copy, or 2) edited VHS tapes that customers sent in by physically splicing them. I'm pretty sure the first should be legal, but I'm curious what they'd make of the second.
It appears that it’s still around and does stuff on top of streaming applications.
You can’t legally make derivative works. Even in the privacy of your own home. It’s only that there’s nothing to be legally won from if you only did it at home. That’s a pragmatic distinction, not a legal one.
(In the end he couldn’t legally do it in any fashion)
Yes, please. Hell, throw patents in too while you're at it.
The copyright owners are begging for a restructuring. One that would greatly increase their authority on two issues: AI use, and Internet website blocking.
Ask for a restructuring right now, and you’ll bring Japanese-style copyright to America (“fair use” doesn’t exist over there) with European-style judicial site blocking (and mass blocking of suspected piracy outlets).
If you want to see a world without fair use, check out the Japanese Wikipedia pages -- it's noticeably lacking in pictures and images than the English counterpart, likely because the latter was written by those in the U.S. It's especially ironic when there's more photos and images on the English language article for topics about Japan!
And with a German-style enforcement procedure (i.e. all copyright infringement is criminal, but personal non-commercial use is civil) and Mexican-style copyright term (120+ years after death).
How would you incentivize companies to spend years and millions in R&D, if anyone can benefit from their inventions immediately after they're done?
Patent trolls are a problem, patents themselves aren't
100% agree and I'm primary author on 2 software patents taken out by a former employer. Software is maths. Patenting a software process makes as little sense as allowing patents on any other mathematical function.
I also think business method patents in general are crazy, because pretty much all business processes have some sense of inevitability to them that in my view should fail the "obviousness" test for patentability. It seems the tide has turned against them officially too which I think is positive overall for society.[1]
[1] http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/~/media/Files/articles/201...
Please refrain from implying that the question you're answering to was asked in bad faith. You're not "biting", you're answering a valid question.