Comments on: Edited Music http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/23/edited-music/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=edited-music Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:27:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: ltbugaf http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/23/edited-music/comment-page-1/#comment-8256 ltbugaf Tue, 02 May 2006 11:52:21 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/23/edited-music/#comment-8256 Yes, I know. There are various organizations in this business. One that I used to live near was called Clean Flicks. They take out the "naughty parts" and rent or sell the movie without them. They have a license to produce copies for a fee, but they don't have a specific license to produce derivative works. So in the US, at least, they may be violating the original owner's copyrights by creating derivative works without a license. They may also be violating artists' "moral rights" by changing the works into something the artist doesn't want his work to be. Yes, I know. There are various organizations in this business. One that I used to live near was called Clean Flicks. They take out the “naughty parts” and rent or sell the movie without them. They have a license to produce copies for a fee, but they don’t have a specific license to produce derivative works. So in the US, at least, they may be violating the original owner’s copyrights by creating derivative works without a license. They may also be violating artists’ “moral rights” by changing the works into something the artist doesn’t want his work to be.

]]> By: Kim Siever http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/23/edited-music/comment-page-1/#comment-8246 Kim Siever Tue, 02 May 2006 05:08:31 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/23/edited-music/#comment-8246 <p>By edited, I meant censored. </p> By edited, I meant censored.

]]> By: ltbugaf http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/23/edited-music/comment-page-1/#comment-8241 ltbugaf Tue, 02 May 2006 02:47:40 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/23/edited-music/#comment-8241 (I should clarify my first paragraph: The Copyright Act I'm describing is a United States federal law. I assume, but don't know, that the laws of our fellow English common-law neighbor to the north resemble it somewhat.) (I should clarify my first paragraph: The Copyright Act I’m describing is a United States federal law. I assume, but don’t know, that the laws of our fellow English common-law neighbor to the north resemble it somewhat.)

]]> By: ltbugaf http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/23/edited-music/comment-page-1/#comment-8234 ltbugaf Tue, 02 May 2006 02:02:51 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/23/edited-music/#comment-8234 It probably does violate copyright law. The Copyright Act prohibits creating a derivative work of a copyrighted work, without the permission of the original creator. It's arguable whether this edited version would be a derivative work, but if it's considered sufficiently transformed, it is. It also violates a principle of "moral rights" that is involved in international copyright law. Under that principle, if I buy your painting, I own it, but I still don't have the right to deface it and then sell it (or copies of it) as a defaced work. The French were pioneers in adopting that principle, and it's been codified into international coyright conventions. It probably does violate copyright law. The Copyright Act prohibits creating a derivative work of a copyrighted work, without the permission of the original creator. It’s arguable whether this edited version would be a derivative work, but if it’s considered sufficiently transformed, it is.

It also violates a principle of “moral rights” that is involved in international copyright law. Under that principle, if I buy your painting, I own it, but I still don’t have the right to deface it and then sell it (or copies of it) as a defaced work. The French were pioneers in adopting that principle, and it’s been codified into international coyright conventions.

]]> By: Polly http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/23/edited-music/comment-page-1/#comment-4669 Polly Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:43:08 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/23/edited-music/#comment-4669 Kris, I've heard this argument before: editing a movie before resale is illegal. Please tell me, does it violate copyright law? If not, what law does this practice violate? Kris, I’ve heard this argument before: editing a movie before resale is illegal.

Please tell me, does it violate copyright law?

If not, what law does this practice violate?

]]> By: Kris http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/23/edited-music/comment-page-1/#comment-4650 Kris Sun, 26 Feb 2006 02:16:41 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/02/23/edited-music/#comment-4650 In MY opinion, only if the edited movies/music/material was edited BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER (film producer, music artist etc.) then it is bordering on illegal and therefore STUPID to buy. I do not buy edited material (although there was this company trying to get all of the member of the church to support thier edited versions of mainstream movies up here for a while...I told them to screw off). If it is not suitable to be watched/listened to in unedited form then I don't wan tit in my house. PLUS, I just think the whole idea is stupid...I understand it may have originated in Utah...shocking. K. In MY opinion, only if the edited movies/music/material was edited BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER (film producer, music artist etc.) then it is bordering on illegal and therefore STUPID to buy. I do not buy edited material (although there was this company trying to get all of the member of the church to support thier edited versions of mainstream movies up here for a while…I told them to screw off). If it is not suitable to be watched/listened to in unedited form then I don’t wan tit in my house. PLUS, I just think the whole idea is stupid…I understand it may have originated in Utah…shocking.

K.

]]>