Moral Rights v. Morals Right
I have a post up on The Blawg Channel discussing the Family Movie Act (We need Moral Rights...). Please feel free to join the discussion. You can find more info on the act here and on Droite Moral here.
HR 4586 (the 'Family Movie Act' [pdf]) provides that making limited portions of motion picture content imperceptible to the viewer for private home viewing is not an infringement of copyright. The act amends 17 USC 110 (Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays) by inserting after p.(10) the following
Motions are now pending in Denver federal court between ClearPlay and the copyright holders (directors and movie studios). Clearplay, relying on Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo of America, 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992) argues that since there are no permanent changes to the dvd, its not sufficiently fixed to constitue a derivative work and thus no infringement can occur. Alternatively, the copyright holders, relying on Micro Star v. FormGen, 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998) (infringing derivative works such as modified audiovisual displays were in fact "embodied in permanent or concrete form." ), argue that the Copyright Act does not require the work to be fixed to be infringed. In a situation similar to IIICA, Congress is attempting to pass legislation rather than resolving the issues in court.
So what is the issue? Shouldn't parents be able to purchase new technology that allows them to filter content they consider unsuitable, for their children, without worrying whether it runs the risk of infringing copyright. Is it really that important to allow our children to watch these movies in the first place that we need filtering technology? Should we allow Clearplay to babysit our children because we are unable to make independent decisions about what they are watching? Is it really this important that we would rather compromise the artistic vision of directors and legalize censorship?
Rather than adopting this act, maybe its time to take responsibility for ourselves and to pass a Moral Rights act (stronger than VARA) that protects the ability of authors to protect the fate of their works from censorship, destruction, modification and infringement. We already have fast forward and skip scene to censor the films ourselves and do not need federal legislation to tell us we can do that.
HR 4586 (the 'Family Movie Act' [pdf]) provides that making limited portions of motion picture content imperceptible to the viewer for private home viewing is not an infringement of copyright. The act amends 17 USC 110 (Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays) by inserting after p.(10) the following
(11)(A) the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible by or for the owner or other lawful possessor of an authorized copy of that motion picture in the course of viewing of that work for private use in a household, by means of consumer equipment or services that are operated by an individual in that household and serve only such household; and (B) the use of technology to make such audio or video content imperceptible, that does not create a fixed copy of the altered version.Backers, including sponsor Lamar Smith, of the bill say it will help consumers protect their children from objectionable movie content. Opponents argue that the bill is a handout to ClearPlay who has created a technology that sanitizes racy, profane or graphic films in violation of copyright (and a potential INDUCEr). The bill was recently passed by the House Judiciary Committee and awaits approval by the House.
Motions are now pending in Denver federal court between ClearPlay and the copyright holders (directors and movie studios). Clearplay, relying on Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo of America, 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992) argues that since there are no permanent changes to the dvd, its not sufficiently fixed to constitue a derivative work and thus no infringement can occur. Alternatively, the copyright holders, relying on Micro Star v. FormGen, 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998) (infringing derivative works such as modified audiovisual displays were in fact "embodied in permanent or concrete form." ), argue that the Copyright Act does not require the work to be fixed to be infringed. In a situation similar to IIICA, Congress is attempting to pass legislation rather than resolving the issues in court.
So what is the issue? Shouldn't parents be able to purchase new technology that allows them to filter content they consider unsuitable, for their children, without worrying whether it runs the risk of infringing copyright. Is it really that important to allow our children to watch these movies in the first place that we need filtering technology? Should we allow Clearplay to babysit our children because we are unable to make independent decisions about what they are watching? Is it really this important that we would rather compromise the artistic vision of directors and legalize censorship?
Rather than adopting this act, maybe its time to take responsibility for ourselves and to pass a Moral Rights act (stronger than VARA) that protects the ability of authors to protect the fate of their works from censorship, destruction, modification and infringement. We already have fast forward and skip scene to censor the films ourselves and do not need federal legislation to tell us we can do that.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment