> This is distinct from VidAngel, which admitted that they did, in fact, have to have copyright-violating master copies of movies they were "patching" in order to stream the bowdlerized versions.
Yeah but they purchased one DVD per streamer, so each streamer was "virtually" modifying their copy. Otherwise the FMA is incompatible with modern video technology such as streaming. The real reason VidAngel got in trouble was because studios do not want users to have the ability to remotely buy/sell/stream DVDs - even if they technically owned them at the time of streaming. To do so would circumvent their lucrative streaming licensing.
> You don't get to produce a "derivative work" from Kismet without my explicit approval
Agreed, but that depends on the definition of a "derivative work".
> Well, let me rephrase that: that combination absolutely creates an unauthorized derivative work
Not necessarily. Does using a game genie on a Super Nintendo game create a "derivative work" if you use it to completely modify the game at run time? The courts ruled that it didn't since it didn't create a new copy[1]. Hence if I could modify your book at run time such that I didn't create a new copy, it could be considered the same. This is sometimes known as the kaleidoscope effect (i.e. looking at a proprietary painting through the lens of a kaleidoscope doesn't create a new painting and thus doesn't create a derivative work).
Or, even more generally, what's to stop me from building two physically overlaid screens - one that displays your original work and one that overlays alterations? That doesn't create a derivative work anymore than drawing on my television screen with a sharpie while a movie is playing creates a derivative work.
Again, I understand your desire for users to consume your work as you intend. But extend that desire too far and you turn into a strong DRM proponent. I'm a DRM opponent, and I respectfully assert my right to modify my copy of your work as I please - and I invite you to do the same for my works - be they software, novels, or whatever.
Yeah but they purchased one DVD per streamer, so each streamer was "virtually" modifying their copy. Otherwise the FMA is incompatible with modern video technology such as streaming. The real reason VidAngel got in trouble was because studios do not want users to have the ability to remotely buy/sell/stream DVDs - even if they technically owned them at the time of streaming. To do so would circumvent their lucrative streaming licensing.
> You don't get to produce a "derivative work" from Kismet without my explicit approval
Agreed, but that depends on the definition of a "derivative work".
> Well, let me rephrase that: that combination absolutely creates an unauthorized derivative work
Not necessarily. Does using a game genie on a Super Nintendo game create a "derivative work" if you use it to completely modify the game at run time? The courts ruled that it didn't since it didn't create a new copy[1]. Hence if I could modify your book at run time such that I didn't create a new copy, it could be considered the same. This is sometimes known as the kaleidoscope effect (i.e. looking at a proprietary painting through the lens of a kaleidoscope doesn't create a new painting and thus doesn't create a derivative work).
Or, even more generally, what's to stop me from building two physically overlaid screens - one that displays your original work and one that overlays alterations? That doesn't create a derivative work anymore than drawing on my television screen with a sharpie while a movie is playing creates a derivative work.
Again, I understand your desire for users to consume your work as you intend. But extend that desire too far and you turn into a strong DRM proponent. I'm a DRM opponent, and I respectfully assert my right to modify my copy of your work as I please - and I invite you to do the same for my works - be they software, novels, or whatever.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Genie#Legal_issues