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