logo Sign In

Info: Lawrence Lessig (Copyright Lawyer) on the "Phantom Edit"

Author
Date
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Influential copyright lawyer, Lawrence Lessig (Website), who has written on changes which need to be made to the current US copyright system, and is one of the creators of Creative Commons (Website) an organization which is pro-sharing and offers flexible copyrights to creative works, recently was part of a discussion at the New York Public Library (Who Owns Mp3) and at one point the “Phantom Edit” is mentioned.

Listen to the discussion @ campusprogress.org. (45meg mp3 entire lecture is 1hr 33 min.)
The mention, and discussion of editing movies, creating documentaries, reusing footage, comes in around ~32:30, and lasts about 5 minutes.

If you can’t get enough of that lawyer speak, check out the ‘debate of the century’ between the main players from the content industries (Fritz Attaway (MPAA), Cary Sherman (RIAA), Avery Kotler (Napster) and the public advocacy groups (Fred von Lohmann (EFF), Siva Vaidhyanathan):
The History and Future of the Book: Digital Copyright
Torrents (audio and video) in various formats of a three hour debate with the same people who just debated their case in front of the Supreme Court. It’s fascinating to finally hear these people battle it out in public.

none

Author
Time
Post link
I have stupid dial-up. Can you give the short version.

IOW, Can we edit movies we purchase or not???
Author
Time
Post link
You can do whatever you want with them....at home. What you cannot do resell the material, either altered or in original form.

I do know that Lucas asked for an received a copy of the Phantom Edit, but he never commented on it after viewing it.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
If you want more of Lessig, and for free, check out his book "Free Culture," available in many forms -- for free -- on the Web. Or get it from your local library. Very interesting stuff. For example, did you know that NOTHING has entered the public domain in the US since 1923?? That's right: NOT ONE WORK has gone the way of the brothers Grimm, or Peter Pan, or The Jungle Book and been made freely available to all for publication or modification. Mostly thanks to the company that pillaged the public domain (see aforementioned brothers Grimm, Peter Pan, and The Jungle Book) for its ideas...

Under the US DMCA, isn't it illegal to rip a DVD movie for ANY purpose? Pretty sure I'm right. In other words, starting from the official Ep I DVD and making the Phantom Edit -- even for your own purposes at home -- is illegal. That's how stupid and draconian the DMCA is. MBJ makes backups of Disney DVDs so his original doesn't get messed up through repeated viewings and handlings? PIRATE!!! YOU'RE KILLING THE MOVIE INDUSTRY!!!

Clearly, he's really not. But why doesn't Jack Valenti recognize that??
Author
Time
Post link
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the author of Peter Pan donate the rights to Disney before they became all evil and uber-powerful? Or was that just propaganda I remember hearing from some point?

I used to be very active on this forum. I’m not really anymore. Sometimes, people still want to get in touch with me about something, and that is great! If that describes you, please email me at [my username]ATgmailDOTcom.

Hi everybody. You’re all awesome. Keep up the good work.

Author
Time
Post link
I don't know. Hafta do some research.... Hear that? That's Google being fired up.
Author
Time
Post link
OK, it looks like Peter Pan is one of those big legal messes. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan_and_Wendy, near the bottom under 'Copyright status.' Very interesting.

The rights were assigned by Barrie (before his death) to Great Ormond Street Hospital.

In Canada and Australia, 'Peter Pan' is in the public domain.
Author
Time
Post link
That is interesting indeed. Thanks for the linkage!

I used to be very active on this forum. I’m not really anymore. Sometimes, people still want to get in touch with me about something, and that is great! If that describes you, please email me at [my username]ATgmailDOTcom.

Hi everybody. You’re all awesome. Keep up the good work.

Author
Time
Post link
Actually MeBeJedi, that’s not entirely true. There are several companies at the moment which take movies and edit out “offensive” content. They then take those modified DVD and ‘rent’ them back to the constitutents who are part of their lending library, so to speak. Yes that might sound a lot like selling an altered uncreatively editted movie but for some reason they can get away with it.

There was just a show on A&E with the help of ABCnews which discussed this issue and guess what came up, The Star Wars. I posted the SW: PE related quote in this thread:

Upcoming TV Thread
Here's the pertinent clip:
Bleep Clip

Lessig’s “Free Culture” (http://www.free-culture.cc/) is a great read, and besides being free, it’s a great way to understand how the situation we’re all in, came from and how we all need to think out of the box to make some form of progress. So companies don’t feel cheated and so creators can make new creations.

What’s great is he lays out how the US began as a pirate nation and how corporations like Disney used their form of pirating and plundering of the Public Domain to gain dominance, but now that they are in power, they are squelching for the rest of us the opportunities they we’re once granted. The book will make you question all the nonsense the major media puts out in relation to creative works and copyright control issues.

And as Karyudo says it is illegal to rip a DVD because of the DMCA. The most recent modification to copyright (Family Copyright Act: see Wired [last 5-6 paragraphs]) gives the power to those companies which make ‘non-offensive’ movie edits to get around the DMCA. I wish I knew how, but things like Deleted Magic should have some form of protection from over bearing copyright owners. I see DM as a fantastic creative work, and no one should have to be forced into bankruptcy after creating something similar to it. (crosses fingers)

If you’ve got the interest: http://www.willfulinfringement.com/ is a fantastic documentary on the issue. There’s a great case in the documentary about a Clown who makes balloon animals which TOOOO closely resemble a famous piece of copyright, as the clown made the balloon animal he was handed a Cease & Desist letter.

Anyway, it’s a wild and constantly transforming world, so I applaud those who create and have to deal with the nonsense which sometimes happens.

The great thing about Lessig, is he comes out with this fairly straight up approach. But the examples he tends to use in his lectures are forms of creativity which push (and sometimes quite hard) the current copyright boundaries.

So he’ll say that piracy is bad (and duh it is), but then give an example which most people would view as piracy. Also he often uses examples which are net based, and don’t adhere to the typical ‘for profit’ form of creativity which much of the public will only recognize. Like DJ Dangermouse’s “Grey Album” or the Jib-Jab debate over “This Land is Your Land” or the Outfoxed documentary made up of only Fox newscasts. These are forms of creativity which we’re not possible (to the lay person) a few years ago. But now we have to confront the issue because technology has brought what was once only possible by a corporation down to the hands of you and me. And as he says it’s time now to look at getting people to recognize this form of creativity as something we should cherish and support with some new form of regulations or control concepts, before these creations are locked away from sight by unrealistic regulation.

I would bet Deleted Magic would become part of his lecture series if he knew about it. Maybe I should send him a copy.

[rambling off]
none
Author
Time
Post link
"Actually MeBeJedi, that’s not entirely true. There are several companies at the moment which take movies and edit out “offensive” content. They then take those modified DVD and ‘rent’ them back to the constitutents who are part of their lending library, so to speak. Yes that might sound a lot like selling an altered uncreatively editted movie but for some reason they can get away with it."

I know what you are referring to, and last I heard, all the movie companies, and the directors of said films, were banding together to fight this in court. They may be "getting away with it" for now, but that doesn't mean it's legal, or that it's going to last.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
But why doesn't Jack Valenti recognize that??


Valenti retired not too long ago. I'll miss his "such and such device/technology is robbing the movie industry of income" speeches he had been giving since the 70's, when those pesky Betamaxes threatened to put the studios out of business.
Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Post link
Now that you remind me, I remember thinking "whoo-hoo!" when I heard Valenti was on his way out. Only to then have the thought, "they'll just have somebody younger, and worse," which sobered me up pretty quick.
Author
Time
Post link
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000900812

The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act was signed last week by Pres. Bush making obscenity free edits now perfectly legal in the eyes of the law.

Quoting:
"While the studios would rather have bottled up the legislation that effectively ends the legal action surrounding Utah-based ClearPlay, they ultimately decided to abandon their action because it gave them the camcorder bill and legislation that makes it easier for federal prosecutors to go after counterfeiters who make works available before their public release."

Happy editing!
none
Author
Time
Post link
You know this is one of the signs of the Apocalypse, right?
Author
Time
Post link
Don't forget it also allows penalties of up to 3 years in prison for sharing any unreleased media file-this is something that isn't touched upon much but it somehow was allowed to ride on this bill. Face it-copyright is DEAD, and no amount of legislation will ever deter infringement. It will simply force it further underground into the area of anonymous p2p apps.

Originally posted by: none
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000900812

The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act was signed last week by Pres. Bush making obscenity free edits now perfectly legal in the eyes of the law.

Quoting:
"While the studios would rather have bottled up the legislation that effectively ends the legal action surrounding Utah-based ClearPlay, they ultimately decided to abandon their action because it gave them the camcorder bill and legislation that makes it easier for federal prosecutors to go after counterfeiters who make works available before their public release."

Happy editing!
none


Author
Time
Post link
So, aren't we technically editing out "offensive" content, then? Or is my feeble attempt at justification just that - feeble?
Author
Time
Post link
3 years for digital media, i wonder how many 'examples' are going to be made with this one. Will a portion of the public outcry though? It's amazing that the numbers involved in napster didn't sway us towards a more open system. people will still buy even if they can get it for free.

What I love about this copyright revision though is that it actively promotes and gives legal backing to "uncreative" acts. This is a first. Copyright was suppost to be about promoting arts and sciences, you can debate the cam part but making it legal to remove what you think is obscenity or not family oriented, there's nothing "creative" about that kind of decision making is purely "destructive".

So when the next "destructive" work (like http://ni9e.com 's Explicit Content Only version of the classic NWA album) gets caught under the gun, maybe this copyright revision will work in their favor, and help revive the Fair Use clause in the process.

Well TR47, they could start by taxing the hell out your connection, instead of good legislation. I agree somewhat with what your saying but there's also the notion that works like some of the stuff mentioned around here, should be legal. they don't make these kinda laws to eliminate the problem entirely, as you say that's impossible, they are trying to figure out some inbetween which keep minds looking elsewhere. The problem is we have some really restrictive rules currently on the books and new forms of creativity pushing on those boundaries, and it's people like Lessig who are attempting to figure out patterns of thought or some kind of legal reasoning to show the value of these new things.

ChainsawAsh: Your on the same train of thought i'm on, let's go with it. Let's say we were attempting to legitimatize the Phantom Edit, you could say (as some reviewers did) that the Neimoidians promoted bad racial stereotypes of asians, so modifiying their voices is something we must do to protect the young'uns. As for Jar Jar....

The problem with this of course, is that these we're not the reasons the Editor did what he did. There are 'valid' reasons, i believe in the work done to the films, but they won't seem to fly. But Lucas hasn't done anything, so maybe he's ok with it in a way. Depends on how big you get, sometimes. Curious how tfn is mentioning the edits now. Has anyone heard the commentary version tfn was talking about?

none
Author
Time
Post link
Forbes.com

"There's a proven market for these kinds of edits; witness what happened to George Lucas' Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace. In 2001, an alternative version of Lucas' unloved sequel, called Episode 1.1--The Phantom Edit, created a sensation among fans of the 1970s original. Created by a fan, the edited version cut 20 minutes from the film. The excisions all but deleted a dopey character (Jar Jar Binks) and got rid of several other annoyances, like Anakin Skywalker's shouts of "Yahoo!" and "Whoopee!" during the movie's pod-racing sequence.

Lucas went from amused to horrified. And the edit-happy fan--no doubt worried about getting sued--later apologized. If the Family Movie Act had been in force then, he could have been rolling in dough instead.

Aho admits the law "doesn't discriminate" about what kind of filters you would create. "As long as it was purely subtractive, the law supports it," he says. He believes the market for family-type filters is around $100 million, "but I don't think there's much of a market for filters [that aren't] family-friendly." "
Author
Time
Post link
Jabba out of ANH --> subtractive
Greedo doesn't fire at all --> subtractive
No Praxis ring around Alderaan/Death Star --> subtractive
Jawa/Ronto tomfoolery gone --> subtractive

Hey, all of a sudden I think I like this law!
Author
Time
Post link
"While the studios would rather have bottled up the legislation that effectively ends the legal action surrounding Utah-based ClearPlay, they ultimately decided to abandon their action because it gave them the camcorder bill and legislation that makes it easier for federal prosecutors to go after counterfeiters who make works available before their public release."

Well, as I said before, the studios did not want this, but I can see why they went with the compromise. That being said, I am not surprised that Bush signed this law, since most of the companies I know of that want to edit content are owned and operated by religious groups.

That being said, it would appear that this law, at face value, doesn't apply to us (unless one can legally prove that the content one is editing out is offensive. )

"Aho admits the law "doesn't discriminate" about what kind of filters you would create. "As long as it was purely subtractive, the law supports it,"

I guess that pretty much spells it out.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Ops there's one other caviot we've missed. From the 4th paragraph:
"Just don't create a "fixed copy of the altered version.""
We're still screwed...
But the theory of the edits could be translated by some program, but then we're trampling on Clearplays patents...
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: none
Ops there's one other caviot we've missed. From the 4th paragraph:
"Just don't create a "fixed copy of the altered version.""
We're still screwed...
But the theory of the edits could be translated by some program, but then we're trampling on Clearplays patents...


Then again, the format of DVD is by no means *fixed*, as some day they are prone to degenerate. So therefore.... given time.... the burden of proof should be on the shoulders of the copyright holder to prove what a truly *fixed* copy is....

(if it wasn't broken in the first place it wouldn't need to be fixed)
Author
Time
Post link
Oh, I think you'd get hammered pretty quickly on that one. I think if it's on any permanent media, rather than generated via some set of instructions, you're busted.

However, I don't think a huge AviSynth script that started with the DVD as its source would either be illegal or violate any patents. So you could do all the colour correction, re-editing, etc., you liked, put it in an AviSynth script, and sell that. I'll bet you could even sell the mattes and other differences between the frame you want and the frame you've got, since you'd be creating those works yourself. I would guess that you can't copyright the differences between one copyrighted work and another, just by owning the copyrights on the two works at either end.
Author
Time
Post link

Lawrence Lessig was a candidate in the 2016 US presidential election.

Do they not see the birds controlled in the atmosphere of the sky? none holds them up except Allah. Indeed in that are signs for a people who believe. – Quran (16:79)

Author
Time
Post link

“You can’t polish a turd. But you can shape it to look like candy.”