This seems insane to me. They bought the stuff and modified it for resale. It's not like scalping or price gouging. There's value in the modification.

There's definitely a difference between buying one (1) guitar and modding/upgrading/relicing/etc it and then selling that one (1) guitar for profit vs. buying a DVD of a movie, recutting it to take out all them naughty bits, then making hundreds (100s) or thousands (1,000s) of copies and reselling it for profit of that one (1) DVD purchase.

Oh, I remember CleanFlicks. I think I heard of them in a documentary about movies at some point.

tallchris wrote: There's definitely a difference between buying one (1) guitar and modding/upgrading/relicing/etc it and then selling that one (1) guitar for profit vs. buying a DVD of a movie, recutting it to take out all them naughty bits, then making hundreds (100s) or thousands (1,000s) of copies and reselling it for profit of that one (1) DVD purchase.

Aren't there odd ball rich people who buy new Les Pauls from a guy or shop who artificially ages them? That's been going on for a while, and is rather popular in certain circles.

tallchris wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:44 am There's definitely a difference between buying one (1) guitar and modding/upgrading/relicing/etc it and then selling that one (1) guitar for profit vs. buying a DVD of a movie, recutting it to take out all them naughty bits, then making hundreds (100s) or thousands (1,000s) of copies and reselling it for profit of that one (1) DVD purchase.

CleanFlicks bought a copy for every copy they modified and resold. They absolutely were not “making hundreds or thousands of copies and reselling it for profit of that one DVD purchase,” and I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea from.

Anonymous37 wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 11:39 am

tallchris wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:44 am There's definitely a difference between buying one (1) guitar and modding/upgrading/relicing/etc it and then selling that one (1) guitar for profit vs. buying a DVD of a movie, recutting it to take out all them naughty bits, then making hundreds (100s) or thousands (1,000s) of copies and reselling it for profit of that one (1) DVD purchase.

CleanFlicks bought a copy for every copy they modified and resold. They absolutely were not “making hundreds or thousands of copies and reselling it for profit of that one DVD purchase,” and I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea from.

If that's the case, then I'm definitely wrong. Can't morally support what they were doing, and the directors were right to be pissed at anyone editing their work without authorization, but legally does seem like way more of a grey area.

tallchris wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:44 am There's definitely a difference between buying one (1) guitar and modding/upgrading/relicing/etc it and then selling that one (1) guitar for profit vs. buying a DVD of a movie, recutting it to take out all them naughty bits, then making hundreds (100s) or thousands (1,000s) of copies and reselling it for profit of that one (1) DVD purchase.

For sure. This is a totally different kind of copyright, IMO. Shoes are utilitarian physical objects. Music/film/etc aren't. That's making a COPY, not modifying a physical object. Copying something and making a separate new physical item is more akin to making a knockoff design via a sweatshop.

I'm also okay with someone buying 600 guitars, adding a sustainer circuit (or a B-bender), and selling them as a modified thing without the original companies consent. The value is in the modified new thing. And they got their money for it already. You aren't taking money out of their hands.

I've never had the misfortune of watching anything modified by CleanFlicks, but I'd like to think any iniquitous scenes were replaced with a still of white Euro-Jesus.