Evil Hollywood Liberals Force Your Children To Watch Dirty, Dirty Porn (Trees And Things)

Iunebrave: Re: Evil Hollywood Liberals Force Your Children

Sat, 3 Mar 2007 10:13:19 EST

funeral director job flug nach schottland bonn rechtsanwalt benq mp6

Nekiihrac: Re: Evil Hollywood Liberals Force Your Children

Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:56:29 EST

fernbedienung problem flug nach zypern fernbedienung md 4688 3 order generic viagra lunesta taste klonopin anxiety side effects crestor

Ramasoonedith: Re: Evil Hollywood Liberals Force Your Children

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 05:08:31 EST

su rete 4 banco central paraguay encoder lame dll le opere pubbliche

koos: Re: Killing isn't porn

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:46:21 EST

They did take out the killing. The scene with Sonny at the toll booth? Not there.

{ k }

JimmyHavok: Killing isn't porn

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:40:45 EST

They didn't take out the killing, they took out the dirty, dirty words. We wouldn't want childrens' minds to be warped by hearing someone say "Take that, assbite" as they shot holes in someone else, would we?

nmiguy: Liberals Force Your Children To Watch Dirty Porn

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:35:09 EST

A clean version of the Godfather? You gotta be kidding me! What is the point of that? The whole story is about the Mafia! Hello?! Killing is part of what they do. If you don't want to see horses heads and guys getting sh

lyd: Still Confused

Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:50:24 EST

I am still failing to understand the wrongdoing here, I guess.

If I have purchased a retail copy of a film and I wish to edit it in some way for my personal use (leaving the DMCA's impact on my ability to legally extract content from a DVD aside for a m

kcwookie: One way to look at the ruling...

Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:12:13 EST

is to put the shoe on the other foot. What happens if I take a show like Lizzie McGuire and spiced it up. What about suppling versions for those who don't want the original "tame" version. I'm sure there would be people who would pay for

Thalia: Copyright, Derivative Works, Fair Use

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:17:18 EST

This is very clearly a derivative, and non-transformative derivative at that. The editors added absolutely nothing to the works, they took some parts away. Generally, fair use requires some sort of transformative use. Commentary, parody,

Adipic Acid: Just Wait Till They Go Public

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:04:22 EST

The shareholders will demand better sales and the "good bits" viewer will be a runaway success.

As Barnum said, you will never go broke underestimating the taste of the American Public.

koos: Er...

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:09:34 EST

Actually, if you make a derivative work without permission it's called an illegal copy, not an "illegal copyright".

I'm a moron. No matter how many times I preiview and edit... I still get something really wrong.

So sorry,
{ k }

koos: Depends, milo

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:06:53 EST

Well, if the seller made a xerox of the book and ripped out the pages from the copy and then sold you both versions of the book (similar to what the defendants in the case at issue have done)? Yes, they have obviously violated copyright law.<

cloudofdust: re: creators rights

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:28:09 EST

But the danger is that it could set a precedent for attacks on other creators, like those who produced Star Wars - The Phantom Edit, which removed Jar-Jar Binks from The Phantom Menace, or mashups of trailers like Brokeback to the Future.

There a

JimmyHavok: creators rights

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 04:19:29 EST

On the one hand, this seems to be a clear victory for creators rights, since it protects their work from bowdlerization.

But the danger is that it could set a precedent for attacks on other creators, like those who produced

I hadn't looked at it that way. If that's the case, then I agree with you 100% and reverse my opinion on the matter comp

wetkarma: Copyright law and product mindshare

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:48:33 EST

So you add the frame "Hiked up the mountain by charlies" - congratulations you have now published your own DVD.

The problem is that the original owners of movie have the exclusive right to publish and hasn't authorized you to republish it.

cloudofdust: Copyright Law

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:18:18 EST

Not a lawyer, but your example seems consistent with long established practice. And whether or not you're breaking the law by adding your "Hiked up the mountain" credit would depend on where you put it. Are you adding it to the very beginning or end of the

koos: Depends on what you mean by "fair use"

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:03:16 EST

Charlies,

I'm no Thalia, to be sure, but I do have a JD and a couple of Bar numbers (although, FYI, they're very, very fresh), so I'll take a stab at answering your questions without being obtuse or, hopefully, making too much of a fool of mysel

koos: Much thanks!

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:58:37 EST

I was wondering why I couldn't find it. I mean, it makes sense Lexis didn't have it online yet, but it should have been somewhere.

I am embarassed at my rusty legal research skills. But I thank you, heresiarch, for your assistance.

{ k }

charlies: Copyright Law

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:30:05 EST

Despite my natural leftist, pro-porn, potty-mouth leanings, this decision saddens me as it draws the noose ever tighter around the "fair use" doctrine. Whatever royalty issue might be involved was obviated when the "scrubber" paid for the original tapes. A

heresiarch: Opinion and Correction

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:19:00 EST

You can find the a .pdf of the opinion here. The opinion is from the District of Colorado, not the Tenth Circuit (though Colorado is in the 10th's bailiwick).

Evil Hollywood Liberals *Force* Your Children To Watch Dirty, Dirty Porn (Trees And Things)

Iunebrave: Re: Evil Hollywood Liberals *Force* Your Children

Nekiihrac: Re: Evil Hollywood Liberals *Force* Your Children

Ramasoonedith: Re: Evil Hollywood Liberals *Force* Your Children