Timewaster's Guide Archive

I guess I could have changed it to "cause I'm waiting for my copy of the counterfeit...

I hear Giants lyrics and I have to join in, related or not.

Congratulations!  Very cool.  

I went into DB the other day, and saw your book.  In the back.  Spine out.

I put it face out, and then kicked a clerk while exiting the building.

To their credit, the clerk turned the other cheek.

Which I kicked.

I felt bad I missed this, and then realized that I had it on my iPod.  Dougy podcasts his show now, so if anybody missed the interview, you can download it.

Seagull just put out a press release.

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060719005677&newsLang=en


"Seagull Book and Deseret Book have begun discussions to explore options for addressing the differences that have existed between our two companies," said Jon Kofford, executive vice president of Seagull Book. "In the meantime, Deseret Book has extended Seagull Book's ability to purchase Deseret Book products through the end of August 2006."

No additional details about the relationship between Seagull Book and Deseret Book will be forthcoming at this time. "

By the way, a good writeup on the opinion can be found here.

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/07/court_nix_clean.htm

And the opinion in it's entirety can be found here:

http://www.joegratz.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/CleanFlicksDistCtOpinion.pdf

Ok, upon further reading, the judge actually found the works to not be transformative, so they wouldn't have been affected by the dirivitive clause.  However, since a copy was made, the judge found them in the wrong.

So to my limited reading, it was not the editing that was wrong, but the copying.

From the opinion.

The Studios claim that CleanFlicks and Family Flix are infringing their exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted works under § 106(1); that CleanFlicks and Family Flix are violating the Studios’ right to create derivative works under § 106(2); and that all four of the counterclaim defendants are infringing the exclusive right of distribution of copies under § 106(3).

They weren't concerned that there was editing going on, just that there were copies being made, and those copies were being distributed.

There's nothing wrong with remixing music, but there's something wrong when you sell that remix without getting the permission of the copyright holder.  DM didn't get in trouble for mixing it, he got in trouble for selling it.

 See, again, I'm not so sure.  I worked with an artist at Weber State who painted 'pop art'...  He took images from pop art, painted them, and then sold his work.  Even though there were all sorts of images and logos that are not in the public domain.  That is what pop art is, the painting of popular images..  

I can see, and think I could argue, both sides of the issue.  The question I would pose is how does selling edited copies of a movie negatively affect those who want to see the regular version?  In other words, if there is a copy of Schindler's List, without all of the nudity, how does that affect my watching the original version?  I can't think of how I'm hurt if somebody else is watching an edited version.  

If I buy a CD, I might listen to songs out of order.  Or I might skip some songs because I don't like them.  Why should anybody care how I interact with the 'art' that I purchase.  I would be willing to bet that a lot of time is spent on 'ordering' the music.  

Of course I tend to allow for even further 'meddling' with artistic things.  I think those who take art and alter or 'remix' it can often give us new and sometimes refreshing insight.  Has anybody heard the Grey Album?  Good stuff, if you're into that kind of thing.  Or what about Fat Boy Slim?  Find “Brimful of Asha” regular version, and then listen to Fat Boy Slim's version.  I'm sure some might prefer the original, but it was Slim's version that shot the song to the top of the charts.  Slim is an example of somebody who takes artists' work, fiddles around with it, and gives it a new twist.  

Of course this isn't what Clean Flix is doing, they are just 'sanitizing it'.  But I guess I tend to be more open to people taking existing material, remixing it, and allowing others to experience it in a different way.  If people want to watch a movie without any of the violence or the nudity, let them do it.  It doesn't affect my experience.  

Maybe tomorrow I'll argue the flip side of the issue, and call myself a friggin' moron.