Techdirt Gets Something Wrong

This is such a rare occurrence that it deserves a headline, and I hope the folks at Techdirt feel complimented -- not insulted -- by the headline.

What they've got wrong is this -- a story headlined Judge Says You Can't Edit Movies You've Bought.

The case at issue involves some Utah companies that were editing DVDs on religious grounds, then re-selling the edited DVDs to rental shops.

Yes, these companies bought the DVDs in question. But they weren't enjoined for editing them. They were enjoined for re-selling the edited copies.

See the difference? It's legal under the Betamax decision for you to tape TV shows. But it is illegal under the same decision for you to change those shows, then sell them, especially when consumers may think they're the originals.

Grey Album, fine by me. Grey Album that is re-sold as White or Black album -- bad. Grey Album that has all the f-bombs taken out of it, and is then re-sold as the original, by a third-party -- worse.

Here's where Mike gets it most wrong:

 

Copyright law is designed to prevent someone from undercutting the market for the content -- which clearly isn't the case here. The people buying these movies are unlikely to have bought the movies otherwise. In other words, this expands the market, as each purchase involves purchasing the actual movie as well.

Actually, no. The complaint and the ruling is that the people "buying" these edited movies are not buying the movies themselves, but a bowdlerized version of them.  And the market is not being expanded because the editor is taking a cut -- the edited version costs the same as the original.

Like I said at the top, this is an unusual occurrence, a real man bites dog story. If it were dog bites man, we'd call Techdirt The Washington Post.