Hacker News Reader

Comment by gjsman-1000 | Hacker News Reader

Not in the US. There was a company that tried selling modified (I.e. censored) versions of Hollywood films. They lost. Copyright infringement.

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.

View on HN

Actually you’re wrong on this, or painting an incomplete picture.

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearPlay

I was talking about several different lawsuits, like the CleanFlicks and VidAngel lawsuits from 2002 and 2007ish. There’s also VidAngel v Disney as recent as 2019.

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.

Sure, but the continued existence of ClearPlay indicates that your claim was incorrect. End users are allowed to make modifications to their own media, they just cannot redistribute that media in any way directly.

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.

Clearplay has a whole law designated for it called the The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act

I think without this act it might be considered a deriative work and illegal actually

Ripping a page out of a book you own or slathering it in white out is not illegal, so I don't see why cutting a scene or overlaying a black bar or, for that matter, any other forms of editing would be illegal. The copy is yours. You own it.

Selling a modified copy for a profit? Yes, that would be a violation of copyright. That's the distinction being made.

I've bought lots of modified second-hand books (highlights, cross-outs, corrections). Are you saying that's illegal?

its illegal when its considered a derivative work (substantially altering or adding content)

those little modifications made from a consumer prob dont count. the first sale doctrine covers minor wear and tear type stuff

Your telling me it's illegal to pay someone to illustrate my copy of a book? It's illegal to commission a translation of a book for personal use? Is it illegal to pay someone to read a book to me?

yeah all three are copyright infringement

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

I have no idea if that's true, but you can't seriously expect anyone to actually abide by that, it's absurd.

> its legal for a kindle to read it to you

It seems to me that computers programs have more rights than humans.

I think you're confused, or at least talking past GP. It's not copyright infringement to create a derivative work - e.g. by adding illustrations to a book. What's infringement is if you copy and distribute the derivative work without a license to the original. GP was asking about the former, not the latter.

us code 106 gives the copyright holder exclusive rights of derivative works

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

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's "illegal" to create a derivative work. It just means that the original author has rights they can exert over what you make.

I dont know everything i read online says its copyright infringement to create derivative works, outside of stuff like parodies, fair use and getting permission.

> outside of stuff like .. fair use

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?".

There's a case where a Japanese venue commissioned an art piece, wrapped it, artists sued the venue, and the court ordered the art be restored to the original state on the ground of copyright. I think it was a couple feet tall cat statue or something.

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.

Mailing in a DVD and receiving an edited copy back is clearly a process that involves the creation and distribution of an unauthorised copy. There's the philosophical justification that you're only "editing" a copy the customer has given you but it's not surprising that a judge is uninterested in that, you're writing the movie to a DVD and distributing it and nothing before that matters. Not a good argument against.

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.

That’s not completely different than how Clearplay worked. It was a specialized DVD player that you plugged in a flash drive, which contained data to automatically censor the movie on the fly, e.g. putting a bra on Kate Winslet in Titanic during the painting scene.

It appears that it’s still around and does stuff on top of streaming applications.

I don’t think you read what they wrote. They aren’t talking about selling anything

Even if you were to give away your modified version, you could still be sued for harming the market for the original product.

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.

Remember the guy who raised a bunch of money in order to professionally remove the rat at the end of The Departed?

(In the end he couldn’t legally do it in any fashion)

Interestingly, you can sell a program that edits the file in a specific manner as long as the user provides the original file.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com