A small victory, but a sweet one

[parallaxicality]

Two very good pieces of news appeared on IMDB's headline section this week, reinvigorating my deluded belief that it was actually possible to stand up to Puritanism and cultishness and not be pilloried in today's society.

First, the brilliant anti-Scientology episode of South Park, which was banned from ever being shown in the UK thanks to the "Church"'s highly effective manipulation of British libel laws, has recieved an Emmy nomination for "Best Animated Program."

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2006-07-10/#2

Second, a federal court has halted the sale of bawdlerized movies to Christian fundamentalists afraid to expose their children to the evils of the Godless world. Apparently, arbitrarily editing a movie to remove content you think is bad and then selling it on is a violation of copyright. I wonder why it took them so long to firgure that one out:

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-07-10/#3

Hm. I didn't know Michael Apted was president of the Directors Guild of America. He's a Brit. Anyone watch the 7-Up series? Brilliant piece of work that.

[space cadet]

It's not just Christian fundementalists who feel there's a lot of inappropriate stuff in today's movies. Most parents, regardless of religion, would agree that a lot of the content in todays movies are inappropriate for little kids. All they want to do is be able to watch the movie together as a family. Nothing wrong with that.

I personally don't see what the legal issue is. If you pay money for a video intended for your own private use, shouldn't you have the right to do whatever you want with it? I pay money for the daily newspaper, and no one pitches a fit when I use the copywrited material to line the bottom of my bird cage. If I buy a CD and later decide that most of it sucks, no one freaks out when I delete all but two or three tracks from my computer. TV stations edit movies for content. Why can't parents have their own videos edited so the whole family can watch them, especially after they've paid for them?

[Ronald Brak]

I personally don't see what the legal issue is. If you pay money for a video intended for your own private use, shouldn't you have the right to do whatever you want with it? I pay money for the daily newspaper, and no one pitches a fit when I use the copywrited material to line the bottom of my bird cage. If I buy a CD and later decide that most of it sucks, no one freaks out when I delete all but two or three tracks from my computer. TV stations edit movies for content. Why can't parents have their own videos edited so the whole family can watch them, especially after they've paid for them?

You can do whatever you want with it for your own use, but if you edit it and then sell copies to someone else that's a violation of copyright, same as copying it and selling it without editing it. (Full disclosure: I don't know anything about the details of the case.)

[Tog]

It's not just Christian fundementalists who feel there's a lot of inappropriate stuff in today's movies. Most parents, regardless of religion, would agree that a lot of the content in todays movies are inappropriate for little kids. All they want to do is be able to watch the movie together as a family. Nothing wrong with that.

I personally don't see what the legal issue is. If you pay money for a video intended for your own private use, shouldn't you have the right to do whatever you want with it? I pay money for the daily newspaper, and no one pitches a fit when I use the copywrited material to line the bottom of my bird cage. If I buy a CD and later decide that most of it sucks, no one freaks out when I delete all but two or three tracks from my computer. TV stations edit movies for content. Why can't parents have their own videos edited so the whole family can watch them, especially after they've paid for them?

There are alot of placed here in Salt Lake that offer this service. As far as I know, that was how they justified it. The didn't resell a movie, they just edited movies that people brought in. This has been an issue for several years. If the place made a copy of the tape at all, then they were in violation. That means that they can't do it to DVDs at all. There isn't a way to edit out the content without making a copy. For video, they can still cut and splice the original tape.

Some movies I can see where there might be a valid point, Editing out some of Titanic, for example. As I remember the arguements, the directors were claiming damages due to the fact that people were making money from the unauthorized editing of the movie. Doing it for free was no big deal, bit getting paid for it was the issue. For a while you could rent family versions of movies in video stores around here.

[Gillianren]

There are plenty of movies that can be watched as a family. You may consider it a bummer to have to pick from among them, but, say, Austin Powers was not intended to be a family movie. If you want to watch it as a family, wait until your kids are old enough to get it--at which point, of course, they probably won't want to watch it with you. I speak from experience, here--watching movies wherein the main jokes are about sex with your parents is just creepy.

However, taking out the bits you don't like is not, to me, okay. It reeks of censorship, for example the bowdlerization of Shakespeare. Yes, there are dirty bits in Shakespeare's plays. Many of them are integral to the plot or character development. That was his creative choice 400 years ago, and I don't feel you have the right to take that away from him. I'm not terribly happy about editing for time, though I don't find it actively offensive.

If you want to watch stuff with your kids, try Sesame Street. Try enormous amounts of the movies of the Walt Disney Company, especially those made when Walt was still alive. Ratings exist for a reason, you know. (The horrible women with the half-dozen children under eight in the theatre when I went to see Austin Powers, I'm looking at you.)

[Frog march]

Editing movies for family viewing and then selling them on is stealing in my opinion, not a very family orientated activity I would have though.

[captain swoop]

why not just zip past the bits u dont want the kids to see? What? u didnt watch it first? and u arent watching it with the kids? well its your own fault if they hear a sweary word or see something rude!

Why does violence and killing always seem to be ok though?

[Gillianren]

My daughter doesn't like scary bits, so she fast forwards through them. In fact, that's why she likes watching things over and over--she knows where the bits she wants to fast forward through are. She's eight. (I think it's one of the reasons she doesn't really want her adoptive mom and dad to get a DVD player; she understands how the fast forward works on the VCR.) Surely grown-ups can do the same. (And while they might not have seen the movie yet, if it's rated PG or PG-13 and they're having kids under about ten watch them at all, that's irresponsible parenting not to've watched the movie first.)

[farmerjumperdon]

There are plenty of movies that can be watched as a family. You may consider it a bummer to have to pick from among them, but, say, Austin Powers was not intended to be a family movie. If you want to watch it as a family, wait until your kids are old enough to get it--at which point, of course, they probably won't want to watch it with you. I speak from experience, here--watching movies wherein the main jokes are about sex with your parents is just creepy.

However, taking out the bits you don't like is not, to me, okay. It reeks of censorship, for example the bowdlerization of Shakespeare. Yes, there are dirty bits in Shakespeare's plays. Many of them are integral to the plot or character development. That was his creative choice 400 years ago, and I don't feel you have the right to take that away from him. I'm not terribly happy about editing for time, though I don't find it actively offensive.

If you want to watch stuff with your kids, try Sesame Street. Try enormous amounts of the movies of the Walt Disney Company, especially those made when Walt was still alive. Ratings exist for a reason, you know. (The horrible women with the half-dozen children under eight in the theatre when I went to see Austin Powers, I'm looking at you.)

What she said. It's not like there aren't any movies that fit their needs.

[farmerjumperdon]

I've changed my mind. I'd like to watch The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (latest version) with my kids. But I'm amgry because it has some objectionable bits. I demand a kids version - all 47 seconds of it.

Then I want a version of The Mummy without any scary parts. And Debbie Does Dallas in a G version.

[parallaxicality]

Excellent post Gillian. I get very riled when people, however well intentioned, try to defend censorship in the name of "decency" (What is decency, anyway?). However, I would, in future, suggest reordering your subordinate clauses:


watching movies wherein the main jokes are about sex with your parents is just creepy.

Might I suggest "watching movies with your parents wherin the main jokes are about sex is just creepy." The other order is open to misinterpretation :)

[Roy Batty]

The other order is definitely creepy:eek::)

[Matherly]

Yes, there are dirty bits in Shakespeare's plays. Many of them are integral to the plot or character development.

No! Surely something as classic as Shakespeare is pure and innocent!


KATHARINA
If I be waspish, best beware my sting.

PETRUCHIO
My remedy is then, to pluck it out.

KATHARINA
Ay, if the fool could find it where it lies,

PETRUCHIO
Who knows not where a wasp does
wear his sting? In his tail.

KATHARINA
In his tongue.

PETRUCHIO
Whose tongue?

KATHARINA
Yours, if you talk of tails: and so farewell.

PETRUCHIO
What, with my tongue in your tail? nay, come again,
Good Kate; I am a gentleman.

:eek:

Nevermind...

[Doodler]

No! Surely something as classic as Shakespeare is pure and innocent!

:eek:

Nevermind...

One of the things I actually appreciated about the MTV'd version of Romeo and Juliette is that it really did pull no punches in interpreting Shakespeare's story into modern imagery. The scenery changed, but the story was remarkably faithful.

[space cadet]

Personally, I think that the companies that edit out the bad stuff in R rated movies for mormon viewers are kind of hypocritical. The church councils its members to refrain from all R-rated movies. Editing an R-rated movie for content means that someone has to watch the bad parts, so isn't that kind of defeating the purpose?

Yet I can understand the reasoning of of people who opt to have PG or PG-13 videocassesttes edited (DVDs are another story.) I personally wouldn't pay money to have it done. But in some movies, such as Titanic, it's just a five or ten minute scene that can ruin an otherwise very enjoyable family film.

As far as the issue of censorship, of course I'm not against freedom of expression or free speech. But if you buy something for your own private use, what's the difference between fastforwarding through parts you don't like or just getting rid of them completely?

[ktesibios]

The term for what the company that got hammered in court was doing is "derivative work". The copyright laws are pretty specific about what you have to do to make and distribute a derivative work legally; if these guys were on the wrong side of that they're without an excuse.

I've read about another company that produces electronic guides to movies which make it simple to program a DVD player to skip over the dodgy bits. Since that doesn't involve making an altered copy of a work it should be A-OK as far as copyright goes.

[Demigrog]

Hmm, my favorite censorship run amok-- watching Demolition Man censored on some cable channel. One of the running gags in the movie is the automatic fine for violating the “verbal morality code”. The censored version dubs over the ‘immoral’ words, simultaneously ruining the joke and making its point all the more ironic.

[Gillianren]

Might I suggest "watching movies with your parents wherin the main jokes are about sex is just creepy." The other order is open to misinterpretation :)

Absolutely right. In my defense, note that it was something like 3 AM here when I wrote that post. Insomnia's a pain.

And I don't think James Cameron ever intended Titanic to be a family film; if he had, there wouldn't have been that scene in it in the first place. (Not that I've seen Titanic; I know how it ends.) Certainly my daughter would hate it. Just because it's history doesn't make lots of people dying less scary. If anything, the opposite is true.

[Frog march]

is all the fuss about Titanic about the bit where the woman is lying naked on a coach having a picture drawn of her? if so, that's bonkers!

[tofu]

Does anyone have a source that says they sold multiple copies of the movies? Since this is a science forum, shouldn't we hold ourselves to a high enough standard that we actually get the facts *before* we draw a conclusion?

What I want to know is, did these people:

1. Buy X copies of a movie
2. Sell X+Y copies of the movie

[farmerjumperdon]

Personally, I think that the companies that edit out the bad stuff in R rated movies for mormon viewers are kind of hypocritical. The church councils its members to refrain from all R-rated movies. Editing an R-rated movie for content means that someone has to watch the bad parts, so isn't that kind of defeating the purpose?

Yet I can understand the reasoning of of people who opt to have PG or PG-13 videocassesttes edited (DVDs are another story.) I personally wouldn't pay money to have it done. But in some movies, such as Titanic, it's just a five or ten minute scene that can ruin an otherwise very enjoyable family film.

As far as the issue of censorship, of course I'm not against freedom of expression or free speech. But if you buy something for your own private use, what's the difference between fastforwarding through parts you don't like or just getting rid of them completely?

Maybe they sacrifice them after the editing is done.

[parallaxicality]

As far as the issue of censorship, of course I'm not against freedom of expression or free speech. But if you buy something for your own private use, what's the difference between fastforwarding through parts you don't like or just getting rid of them completely?

If you do it to your own tape, that's fine; that tape's your property. If someone else does it and then offers to charge you for a copy, then he's distributing a version of a film which has not been accepted by its maker, which is a violation of his intellectual property rights.

Tofu: I just checked CleanFlicks's website. Apparently they offer two distinct services: one is to edit your videos for a fee (which is OK I suppose, since it's not for redistribution), the other is to sell the videos direct (which is not OK at all). I assume after this ruling the company will focus on editing videos already purchased.

[tofu]

the other is to sell the videos direct (which is not OK at all).

it's not ok IF they buy 1 video and sell 10 videos.

But I don't think that's what they are doing, otherwise this wouldn't be a case of, "the judge says you can't edit this" This would be a case of, "duh obviously you can't buy 1 video and sell 10 - again, big major duuuh"

Can we please get the facts before we debate this? Is there any place (other than this thread) where it is even alleged that they are selling more movies than they bought?

[Frog march]

I don't think that the "selling more movies than they bought" is the problem, the problem is that they are editing videos and then selling them on.

[Roy Batty]

it's not ok IF they buy 1 video and sell 10 videos.

But I don't think that's what they are doing, otherwise this wouldn't be a case of, "the judge says you can't edit this" This would be a case of, "duh obviously you can't buy 1 video and sell 10 - again, big major duuuh"

Can we please get the facts before we debate this? Is there any place (other than this thread) where it is even alleged that they are selling more movies than they bought?

No Tofu, I don't think that is what is being said in this thread at all. That obviously would be piracy. What is being argued is them taking an original, editing it in violation of copyright laws and then passing it on, on a one to one basis (ie not piracy). Sorry if i'm wrong but I don't see any claims of piracy in the original linked article or this thread at all:think:

[tofu]

Sorry if i'm wrong but I don't see any claims of piracy in the original linked article or this thread at all:think:

This is what was said eariler in the thread:

"if you edit it and then sell copies to someone else that's a violation of copyright, same as copying it and selling it without editing it."

ok, so we are agreed that this is NOT what's happening? We all agree that what they actually did was,

1: go into a walmart or whatever and buy three copies of Titanic
2: delete from those copies the nude scene (although if it was me, I'd delete every scene with decaprio)
3: sell three copies of edited Titanic

And you guys think that should be illegal in a free country?

[Demigrog]

This is what was said eariler in the thread:

"if you edit it and then sell copies to someone else that's a violation of copyright, same as copying it and selling it without editing it."

ok, so we are agreed that this is NOT what's happening? We all agree that what they actually did was,

1: go into a walmart or whatever and buy three copies of Titanic
2: delete from those copies the nude scene (although if it was me, I'd delete every scene with decaprio)
3: sell three copies of edited Titanic

And you guys think that should be illegal in a free country?

I think the counter argument is that the original copywrite holder has the right to produce a "family friendly" version and sell it--possibly for a higher price. By providing that service for potentially a lower price, a third party is harming the copywrite owner's ability to profit by their own works.

That said, I put this in the category of "don't tick off your customers". Negative publicity is bad for business, and I doubt they are losing substantial money from this.

[tofu]

ok demigrog, I just want to make sure that I fully understand your position by stating it in purely legal terms (though I'm not a lawyer). What your saying is:

AUTHOR creates work A
AUTHOR creates a copy of A designated A1
AUTHOR sells A1 to CONSUMER
CONSUMER makes a change to A1 designated A1a
CONSUMER sells A1a

You think that last step should be illegal without exception?

Anybody else agree?

[Doodler]

is all the fuss about Titanic about the bit where the woman is lying naked on a coach having a picture drawn of her? if so, that's bonkers!

Seriously, that's the only watchable part of the movie....

Well, then there's the Italian dude getting kiboshed by the falling stack, but its a distant second.

[Disinfo Agent]

Didn't the companies charge a fee for the editing? That might be the problem. Since they are effectively re-selling the product, it counts as a copy, even if there's only one of it.

[Demigrog]

ok demigrog, I just want to make sure that I fully understand your position by stating it in purely legal terms (though I'm not a lawyer). What your saying is:

AUTHOR creates work A
AUTHOR creates a copy of A designated A1
AUTHOR sells A1 to CONSUMER
CONSUMER makes a change to A1 designated A1a
CONSUMER sells A1a

You think that last step should be illegal without exception?

Anybody else agree?

Not exactly what I'm saying.

AUTHOR creates work A
AUTHOR may or may not produce work A1
AUTHOR sells A to CONSUMER
3RDPARTY buys A and alters it to A1
3RDPARTY sells A1 to RENTAL
RENTAL rents A1 to numerous CONSUMERS

I can give a common example of this process:

Work A is rated R, and some parents see it, love it, and would let their kids see it if not for the pointless nudity scene.

Studio that produced work A sells broadcast rights for the movie to a TV network. For the TV broadcast, they produce version A1 that is censored. Now the copyright owner has a valuable property-- a version of A that is appropriate for TV broadcast.

Suppose random 3rd Party already produced an A1 version and rented it out on DVD, 3 months prior to the TV premiere. By that time, many of the potential TV audience might have rented the 3rd party A1 from a movie store. Less people watch, and the property is worth less in advertising revenue. The network knows this, so they paid the copyright owner correspondingly less for the broadcast rights. Thus, the original copyright owner has been significantly hurt by the 3rd party.

In practice, no large company will produce their own "A1" and market it without approval because they know they would be sued. Small companies may risk it because their low profile means they might not be noticed or considered worthy of prosecution. The ability of small companies to harm the copyright holder is dramatically increased by the rental business, of course, plus sometimes the copyright owners may make examples of small businesses in order to maintain the precedent that they have the ultimate control of derivative works.

Edit: Oh, and sometimes a company will want to control alternative cuts for other reasons--like corporate image. Disney, for example, does not want a 3rd party to splice in a pornographic sequence into their movies, because the inevitable media coverage would be negative. Less extreme, some people would accidentally rent a censored version of a movie and assume the distributor made the cuts--negatively impacting the distributor's image.

[Gillianren]

Altering and selling someone's work is a violation of copyright. And you know, I as an artist am just fine with that.

[Frog march]

ok demigrog, I just want to make sure that I fully understand your position by stating it in purely legal terms (though I'm not a lawyer). What your saying is:

AUTHOR creates work A
AUTHOR creates a copy of A designated A1
AUTHOR sells A1 to CONSUMER
CONSUMER makes a change to A1 designated A1a
CONSUMER sells A1a

You think that last step should be illegal without exception?

Anybody else agree?

if you were a software engineer and you made some piece of software and I came along and bought a load and altered the code. Perhaps some religious group doesn't like the software using the number 81, so I add bits of code and remove bits of code to make it so the software doesn't use the number 81. The software is unreliable and keeps crashing but it works most of the time. I take this altered software and sell it with your name all over the front(Tofu software Ltd.), would you be happy with this even if I have not made pirate copies?

[snarkophilus]

AUTHOR creates work A
AUTHOR creates a copy of A designated A1
AUTHOR sells A1 to CONSUMER
CONSUMER makes a change to A1 designated A1a
CONSUMER sells A1a

You think that last step should be illegal without exception?

Anybody else agree?

Almost without exception. Look at it from the artists' point of view. They've gone and put years of their lives and potentially millions of dollars into producing this thing that says X. Now, someone else comes along and not only makes the thing say Y (thus defeating what the artists intended), but maybe makes a profit off it. Even if he sells at the price he paid for it, it's still taking profit from the artists, because the second consumer would otherwise have had to buy an unmodified copy. That's just plain wrong.

The only exception I can see is where it falls under fair use. That is, if someone is making a parody of the thing, and is very clear that their version is only a parody and is not the real thing, then that might be reasonable. However, it still doesn't mean that the person doing the parody can steal a substantial part of the original and profit from it. You can't just change it: most of the new work has to be your own.

As to the nudity in Titanic... seriously, people. It should not be a big deal. A lot of countries don't have this obsession with nudity, because it's really very silly. In Japan, even children's cartoons can have nudity, but no one cares, because everyone's used to it. Do you remember being a little kid? My friends and I saw each other naked all the time, boys and girls both. It only became a big deal when we were told (admonished, yelled at) that it was improper.

Finally, regarding finding good family movies: today, two of my favourite movies are the Little Mermaid and Lady and the Tramp. The funny thing is, I didn't even like them that much as a kid!

[Tog]

When I was in Jr high we had an art teacher that would sow us movies in class. He used some strange special effects ar art justification to do it, but one movie we saw was Dragonslayer. In this movie there is very breif nudity. So breif that it was still rated PG. When that scene came up, he held up a big cardboard square in front of the screen and no one cared. No parents were called, nothing happened. The scene was important to the plot though because up to that moment, the gender of one of the characters was thought to be male. The fact that she was female meant that she had to have her name placed in the lottery to be sacrificed to the dragon. They couldn't have smootly edited it out, and it was important.

Films like the Terminator had nudity, but could be edited in a way that none was really shown. Not that that would make that film family friendly by any stretch.

The main points I recall (possibly incorrectly) from when this came out the first time was that the damages claimed by the directors wasn't a monetary one. It was that there was a version of thier work out there that was not approved by them. I recall Schindler's List being mentioned. Not having seen it, I can't say if there was nudity in it or not. But even if there was not, there is no way to edit out all of the objectionable content and still have it say what Spielberg wanted it to say. The fact that it was being resold with his name on it was what the objections were about.

The arguement that edited movied are taking some money from the film studio it probably true to some extent, but smacks of hypocracy to me. If Bob feels a film is not acceptable in the original form, and an edited version is available, he could get it. If no edited version is available, that does not make the origina version more acceptable. If Bob gets the original version, he has altered his standards to fit his desires. If the film were really so unacceptable the he wanted an edited version he should not get an unedited one regardless.

I agree that the US has really messed up standards when it comes to sex, nudity, and violence in TV and movies. Nudity in nealry any form is off limits for most broadcast TV, but shooting is okay if you only show two bullet impacts per victim.

As for Lady and the Tramp being family friendly... That is the ONLY movie to leave a lasting psychological scar on me. Stupid baby-eating siamese cats. Saimese cats freak me out to this day.

[HenrikOlsen]

Creating a derived work (unless done under fair use) without the permission of the original copyright holder is illegal.
Even when done with permission, unless otherwise specified in a contract, copyright for the derived work is still held by the original copyright holder.
Distributing said work, even if only in one copy, without permission, is a violation of the original copyright holders rights.

The problem with prosecuting is that in the us, it's civil law not criminal law that's violated, so to get any punishment for the offenders, the copyright holder has to show damages.
This does not mean that it's legal or morally ok to do if there's no profit, it just means they can't punish you for it.

Just as an extreme example of what we're talking about here, suppose someone makes a statement on camera that "I think abortion should not be free" and another person are offended and cuts out the "not" before letting his family see it. Would you think that would be ok? I don't.

My take on movies showing stuff not for kids, either don't watch, or watch it with the kid and explain what's going on.
It's not the things they know that'll get them hurt, it's the things they don't know or they do know which are false.

As for the US media's view on nudity, that's just plain insane.

[Gillianren]

I recall Schindler's List being mentioned. Not having seen it, I can't say if there was nudity in it or not. But even if there was not, there is no way to edit out all of the objectionable content and still have it say what Spielberg wanted it to say. The fact that it was being resold with his name on it was what the objections were about.

Yeah, there are two scenes that I remember with nudity, and in both of them, the nudity is far from the worst part of the scene. (Spoilers, but if you don't know that horrible things happened in the Holocaust, how are you posting to the board from a cave, with no contact with the outside world?) In the first, inmates of the Plaszow labor camp are being selected to see which ones live or die. In the same sequence, there are also children hiding from the roundups in the latrines as most of the other children are hauled off to their deaths. The other scene is in the showers at Auschwitz. It happens to be real showers, but the implication that it could just as easily have been gas is there--and what's a little nudity compared to human ashes floating in the air like snow?

[tofu]

Here's why I can't talk to you guys. Back on the first page, I specifically asked if they were making multiple copies. Roy Batty said, "No Tofu, I don't think that is what is being said in this thread at all."

ok, so we're not talking about unauthorized copying. So what are we talking about? I try to nail it down and demigrog comes back with, "RENTAL rents A1 to numerous CONSUMERS"

numerous customers? So we are talking about multiple copies?? And now we've added renting?

And to make things even better, Frog march adds yet another dimension: "I take this altered software and sell it with your name all over the front(Tofu software Ltd.), would you be happy with this even if I have not made pirate copies?"

But that isn't what this case was about either. Nobody who bought the boobie-less version of Titanic was under the false impression that it was the original work of tofu software ltd. You just added something to the discussion that did not happen in the real world. Stop that.


Even if he sells at the price he paid for it, it's still taking profit from the artists, because the second consumer would otherwise have had to buy an unmodified copy.

There's something wrong with your math there. There exists one copy of the work. The artist got paid for that one copy. Nobody got ripped off. If "the second consumer would otherwise have had to buy an unmodified copy" then the second consumer would have bought a second copy of the work. This discussion is about 1 copy (at a time) and 1 copy only. Since you require the second consumer to buy a second unmodified copy, your logic also applies to this:

Snarkophilus writes a book.
Tofu buys a copy for $10
Tofu sells THE UNMODIFIED COPY to ToSeek

by your logic, that should be illegal because the second consumer (ToSeek) should have had to buy a new copy from from you. Congratulations, you just made used book stores illegal. Is that really the world you want to live in?

Basically, I characterize this entire thread as straw-man argument after another. That's all I see here. I ask what exactly happened, and one of you guys throws out something that didn't happen and then proceed to argue against that. If you're all going to make things up, why not just go all the way and make up something really juicy? "omg! These people were going into video stores and erasing VHS copies of Titanic and then copying over it with Star Wars and then they would demand their money back from Blockbuster! Of course that's illegal! What is wrong with you tofu? Can't you see that this is illegal??"

Look, if anyone decides that they'd like to have a purely fact-based discussion about this, please let me know. I'm really tired of you guys making things up.

[Tolls]

ok demigrog, I just want to make sure that I fully understand your position by stating it in purely legal terms (though I'm not a lawyer). What your saying is:

AUTHOR creates work A
AUTHOR creates a copy of A designated A1
AUTHOR sells A1 to CONSUMER
CONSUMER makes a change to A1 designated A1a
CONSUMER sells A1a

You think that last step should be illegal without exception?

Anybody else agree?

Yep...I agree.

If I were a film maker I would be a little put out that you were creating a *******ised version of my film, and selling it as my film (the whole "asserting my moral right to be identified blah blah blah"). Now, if you want to create a new version and sell it as your film, then you can come and ask for my permission to do so. Until you have that permission you have no right to create a new version of my work and sell it.

Edit: and Tolls fails to notice there was a page 2, and a number of people had already made the same point...:)

[Tolls]

Look, if anyone decides that they'd like to have a purely fact-based discussion about this, please let me know. I'm really tired of you guys making things up.

Essentially it's what both I and Gillianren said. It is all to do with the rights of the copyright holder. Should you distribute a version of my film with edits (for a fee or not), then you need my permission.

[HenrikOlsen]

This discussion is about 1 copy (at a time) and 1 copy only. Since you require the second consumer to buy a second unmodified copy, your logic also applies to this:

Snarkophilus writes a book.
Tofu buys a copy for $10
Tofu sells THE UNMODIFIED COPY to ToSeek

by your logic, that should be illegal because the second consumer (ToSeek) should have had to buy a new copy from from you. Congratulations, you just made used book stores illegal. Is that really the world you want to live in?

Actually, apart from the acceptance that sale as a used book falls under fair use, it is actually in violation of the copyright, since you're distributing the book without permission by the coyright holder.

It IS the world we're living in, regardless of whether you want to or not.

[tofu]

It IS the world we're living in, regardless of whether you want to or not.

Which is why I'm trying to educate you about all the implications of the ideas that some of you are just nonchalantly throwing about. You don't even realize it, but you didn't arrive at those ideas on your own, you got them after being exposed to (for lack of a better word) indoctrination.

And now you are proposing laws that would make used bookstores and used music stores illegal. It's just a short hop from that to making libraries illegal. Some of you don't even realize what you're saying, because it's so deeply ingrained in your way of thinking. Be careful. Be very careful.

If I buy a book from you, it is my book. It's mine. I bought it. You have no right to tell me that I cannot rip pages out. How dare you presume to tell me what I can and cannot do with it. It's mine. You got paid for it, now leave me alone! What kind of a crazy fascist world would arrest someone for that?? If you didn't want me to tear pages out, then you shouldn't have sold it to me.

It I buy a book from you, it is my book. It's mine. I bought it. You got paid for it. You have no right to tell me that I cannot turn around and sell that book in a yard sale on my front lawn. How dare you presume to tell me that. What kind of crazy fascist government would have police driving around looking for yard sales where some old lady might be subverting society by selling her copy of Harry Potter.

Do I have the right put my name on it and claim that I wrote Harry Potter (as someone in this thread suggested)? No, of course not. But that's not what I'm doing. That's not what this thread is about. That is a straw man argument.

If I go through Harry Potter with a highlighter and highlight all the good parts or write of my undying love for Hermione in the margins, do I have the right to claim that those notations were in the original (as someone in this thread suggested)? No, of course not. But that's not what I'm doing. That's not what this thread is about. That is a straw man argument.

Do I have the right to make 50 copies of the book and sell those? Heck no, but that's not what this thread is about.

I do have the right to do anything that I want with my copy of the book. And I do have the right to sell my copy. And the only reason that any of you think otherwise is because:

a: this particular thread is about a particular religion that happens to be unpopular (take a look at the OP)
b: you guys are just echoing things you've heard, but haven't thought about all the implications of.

Oh, and here's another one. You know, the design of a car is a copyrighted work. Someone worked very hard to design that beautiful Corvette. The corvette that you bought is a copy of a copyrighted work. Do you have the right to set up a factory and start churning out copies? No, of course not. But you do have the right to paint it a different color. You do have the right to put one those ugly giant spinning rims that I know you like. And guess what, you do have the right to sell it.

Please folks, stop and think about what you're suggesting in this thread. I know that Sony and Disney would love to make a world where the doctrine of first sale didn't exist. I know that all your life you've only been exposed to their point of view. I know that it's hard to get away from that. But please try. Just stop and think about this. Forget that this particular issue is about, to quote the parallaxical-the-tolerant, "Christian fundamentalists afraid to expose their children to the evils of the Godless world." I know that it's easy for us to get filled with righteous hatred for those crazy backwards idiots and just be happy any time they are foiled, but let's please try to have some objectivity.

[ToSeek]

I would think the nearest book equivalent would be something like the following:

- I buy a bunch of copies of the latest (bestseller of your choice) book
- I scan in the entire text
- I edit the text to remove stuff I find objectionable
- I print the same number of copies of books as I bought and sell them, clearly marking them as bowdlerized versions of (bestseller of your choice)

I need to think about this some more, but for now I have to come down on the side of this not being "fair use". This is selling a different edition of an author's book without the author's permission and should not be allowed.

[Roy Batty]

Making Libraries & used book stores illegal? Police hunting old ladies? Fascists?
And you talk about straw men?!

The case isn't about whether they are editing out sex, violence, the cost of cheese, whatever. Similarly it isn't about if they are then selling to fundamentalist Christians, Muslims or absolute atheists.

It's about breaching the copyright law & the rights of the original artists, whether it be the writer, director or the whole of the 'evil' Disney empire.

These copyright laws have served for quite sometime & I think for good reason and I think this particular case falls quite clearly within their scope.

If you disagree then what would you would replace the existing copyright laws with?
Also I'd suggest no more talk of fascists... it only serves to emote the issue beyond acceptable bounds for this forum.

[Tog]

If I buy a book from you, it is my book. It's mine. I bought it. You have no right to tell me that I cannot rip pages out. How dare you presume to tell me what I can and cannot do with it. It's mine. You got paid for it, now leave me alone! What kind of a crazy fascist world would arrest someone for that?? If you didn't want me to tear pages out, then you shouldn't have sold it to me.

It I buy a book from you, it is my book. It's mine. I bought it. You got paid for it. You have no right to tell me that I cannot turn around and sell that book in a yard sale on my front lawn. How dare you presume to tell me that. What kind of crazy fascist government would have police driving around looking for yard sales where some old lady might be subverting society by selling her copy of Harry Potter.

Do I have the right put my name on it and claim that I wrote Harry Potter (as someone in this thread suggested)? No, of course not. But that's not what I'm doing. That's not what this thread is about. That is a straw man argument.

If I go through Harry Potter with a highlighter and highlight all the good parts or write of my undying love for Hermione in the margins, do I have the right to claim that those notations were in the original (as someone in this thread suggested)? No, of course not. But that's not what I'm doing. That's not what this thread is about. That is a straw man argument.

Do I have the right to make 50 copies of the book and sell those? Heck no, but that's not what this thread is about.

snip
But what you said wasn't exactly what the suit is about either.

If you buy a book, that book is yours.
If you edit out passages of that book, that's fine.
If you edit out passages of that book, and sell it to someone that knows you edited it out (as an individual), that's fine.
If you buy 300 copies of the book and edit out some passages, then sell it from a store in a strip mall, the author is free to take issue with it as you are making a living altering a work for which you have no right over the intellectual property.
Also, this isnt a criminal matter. As was mentioned above, it's a civil matter. You can't be arrested, but under these changes the author can now sue to protect their intellectual property.

The other side of this is that if the people editing the films are the ones free to decide what is and what isn't objectionable. Let's say I decide that Like should be killed when he drops down the bottomless pit in the Empire Strikes Back, and re edit it to imply that was exactly what happened, then sell it out of a shop. Why would the director be okay with that? Should the director be okay with it? Where is the line to be drawn regarding what is offensive and what is not?

[tofu]

Just a couple of quick things to keep us on track.


I have to come down on the side of this not being "fair use".

no, it isn't fair use. Fair use allows for multiple copies. Under fair use, I can quote from Harry Potter and sell thousands and thousands of copies.

This isn't a fair use issue at all.


I print the same number of copies of books as I bought

ok. Since we have no established that no extra copies are generated, why do you need to add that little extra bit about scanning and printing out? Your example is functionally equal to ripping pages out - it's just that scanning and printing gives you finer control. Why not stick to the clearer example?

We are talking about buying a book and riping a page out. That's what this comes down to.

[Matherly]

Do I have the right put my name on it and claim that I wrote Harry Potter (as someone in this thread suggested)? No, of course not. But that's not what I'm doing. That's not what this thread is about. That is a straw man argument.

If I go through Harry Potter with a highlighter and highlight all the good parts or write of my undying love for Hermione in the margins, do I have the right to claim that those notations were in the original (as someone in this thread suggested)? No, of course not. But that's not what I'm doing. That's not what this thread is about. That is a straw man argument.


I understand your point, but I believe you are missing ours.

Let's say you purchased a Harry Potter book (Harry Potter and the Wizard of Fuu). Now, let's say you wanted to remove all of the 'offensive' bits (let say instances of drinking). In doing so, you remove all sections that are set in the Plugged Caldron Bar & Grill (including the pivitol scene where Harry learns that Voldemort is really his father despite what Obi-Wan had told him). Its your book, and you can do that if you want.

Now, lets say you have a yard sale. You decide to sell you copy of 'Harry Potter and the Wizard of Fuu'. Would Ms. Rowling take offense at your 'improvements' on the book? Most assuredly. Should Ms. Rowling have the right to have her work presented to others in the manner of her choosing? That is the argument before us.

[tofu]

If you buy 300 copies of the book and edit out some passages, then sell it from a store in a strip mall, the author is free to take issue with it as you are making a living altering a work for which you have no right over the intellectual property.

If you buy 300 copies of a corvette and edit out the ugly red paint, then sell it from a store, the author (Chevrolet) is free to take issue with it as you are making a living altering a work for which you have no right over the intellectual property.

See what I mean? We need to think about this stuff.

[tofu]

Should Ms. Rowling have the right to have her work presented to others in the manner of her choosing? That is the argument before us.

Yes I know that's the argument. I'm glad to see that this is what we are finally talking about. The first two pages of this thread were about illegal copying, which I call a straw man, because as far as I know, these people didn't make any copies.

So the question, should Ms. Rowling have the right to have her work presented to others in the manner of her choosing? Well let me ask you this, if you paint a painting, should you have the right to say that no one can ever paint over it? Should I be allowed to change out your ugly frame? It's seems incredibly draconian to me that you would have the power to stop me from putting paint over the top of your paint, or changing a frame. It's not your copy anymore. You asked a price that you thought was fair. You were paid that price. The idea that you can now follow me around to make sure that I don't do anything you disapprove of is just crazy.

Making unauthorized copies hurts the author. Claiming the author's work as your own, or changing the author's work and claiming it is original hurts the author. THAT is the reason we have copyright.

Personalizing a copy and selling that copy does not hurt the author.

[Tog]

If you buy 300 copies of a corvette and edit out the ugly red paint, then sell it from a store, the author (Chevrolet) is free to take issue with it as you are making a living altering a work for which you have no right over the intellectual property.

See what I mean? We need to think about this stuff.

But, a book or a film is a finished work. A car isn't. When you buy a book the bookseller doesn't ask what options you'd like. Who gets together, who lives, happy or sad ending. When you buy a car, there are lot of options that you can use to customize it. I really don't see how your car analogy applies at all.

Changing the paint would be like putting on a different dust cover. Also I don't think a car design would be considered intellectual property. If it were then a lot of 'kit car' places that have been around for years would have been sued by now. Best example. The black Ferrari 365GT Spider used in the first few seasons of Miami vice was really a Corvette with a body kit. Ferrari made a deal with them to supply a real Testarossa so the black one was destroyed on the show.

The places the sell body kits are many. All the after market air kits and horrid blue headlights on the market leap to mind. But even if I put 30,000 worth of air kits on an Astro van, it doesn't change the intent of the van. at least not enough for anyone to really care about.

[Roy Batty]

Every time we take censorship responsibilities further up the chain than the individual end user then I think we run the danger of eroding our civil liberties. Enough argument is already generated regarding the initial release ratings & censorship of films, games etc. Sorry, maybe a bit off topic, but found it ironic considering certain opinions:)
Btw just to emphasise, no one is proposing any new laws here, or changes to existing ones.

[ToSeek]

We are talking about buying a book and riping a page out. That's what this comes down to.

And then selling it again. And doing it as a business.

I used the more complicated example because it seemed closer to the movie example. If you edit a videotape or DVD, you can do so cleanly, i.e., there are no obviously cut-out bits. Not many people are going to buy books with pages torn out.

[ToSeek]

So the question, should Ms. Rowling have the right to have her work presented to others in the manner of her choosing? Well let me ask you this, if you paint a painting, should you have the right to say that no one can ever paint over it? Should I be allowed to change out your ugly frame? It's seems incredibly draconian to me that you would have the power to stop me from putting paint over the top of your paint, or changing a frame. It's not your copy anymore. You asked a price that you thought was fair. You were paid that price. The idea that you can now follow me around to make sure that I don't do anything you disapprove of is just crazy.

What if you're buying someone's paintings (or prints thereof) and adding glasses, a goatee, and devil's horns to all the faces in them, and then selling them again? I think that would be a closer example.

[Matherly]

Well let me ask you this, if you paint a painting, should you have the right to say that no one can ever paint over it?

That's not exactly what we are debating here. A closer analogy would be if I painted my masterpiece The Last Supper, and you painted over two of the three Jesuses ("The two thin ones balance out the fat one") and then tried to sell it as Matherly's The Last Supper, then yes I think that would be a violation of current copyright law.

(Dang! ToSeeked by a minute)

[Tog]

So then as long as I don't actually say you wrote this top paragraph, there is no probelm with me deistributing it?

Yes I'm glad to see that we are finally talking about illegal copying.

So the question, should Ms. Rowling have the right to have her work presented to others of her choosing? Well let me ask you this, if you paint a painting, should you have the right to say that no one can ever paint over your ugly frame? It seems that you would have the power to stop me from changing a frame. It's a price you paid to follow me around to make sure that I approve of crazy.

Making unauthorized copies hurts the author. Claiming the author's work as your own, or changing the author's work and claiming it is original hurts the author. THAT is the reason we have copyright.

Personalizing a copy and selling that copy does not hurt the author.
I edited out the text that was not in bold from the quote below, becasue I like it better this way.

Yes I know that's the argument. I'm glad to see that this is what we are finally talking about. The first two pages of this thread were about illegal copying, which I call a straw man, because as far as I know, these people didn't make any copies.

So the question, should Ms. Rowling have the right to have her work presented to others in the manner of her choosing? Well let me ask you this, if you paint a painting, should you have the right to say that no one can ever paint over it? Should I be allowed to change out your ugly frame? It's seems incredibly draconian to me that you would have the power to stop me from putting paint over the top of your paint, or changing a frame. It's not your copy anymore. You asked a price that you thought was fair. You were paid that price. The idea that you can now follow me around to make sure that I don't do anything you disapprove of is just crazy.

Making unauthorized copies hurts the author. Claiming the author's work as your own, or changing the author's work and claiming it is original hurts the author. THAT is the reason we have copyright.

Personalizing a copy and selling that copy does not hurt the author.

[tofu]

But, a book or a film is a finished work. A car isn't.

Wha? A book and a car are exactly the same. Both are copies of a copyrighted work. In both cases, if you set up an operation churning out copies, they will sue your pants off. They are exactly the same!

The difference is entirely in your way of thinking. The companies that make intellectual property have done this great little bait and switch. They held up something that was obviously wrong (making copies) and they had to beat it into us that that was wrong, but then they stepped back and let that thinking bleed over into other areas, and now it has severely eroded the doctrine of first sale.


When you buy a book the bookseller doesn't ask what options you'd like.

you mean options like hardcover or paperback, audio book, what language you want it in

[ToSeek]

Well let me ask you this, if you paint a painting, should you have the right to say that no one can ever paint over it? Should I be allowed to change out your ugly frame? It's seems incredibly draconian to me that you would have the power to stop me from putting paint over the top of your paint, or changing a frame. It's not your copy anymore. You asked a price that you thought was fair. You were paid that price. The idea that you can now follow me around to make sure that I don't do anything you disapprove of is just crazy.


I'm getting back to this after some thought. Painting over a painting is not a valid analogy. I'm sure no Hollywood studio would mind if you bought videotapes from them and taped over them. The essence of the situation consists of buying a work of art, modifying it without the originator's permission, and then reselling that modified work of art.

The painting analogy to the original situation would be something like buying prints of an artist who paints nudes, painting clothes on the nudes, and then reselling the paintings. Again, I think this is something the original artist would have a legitimate (and legal) objection to.

[Tog]

Wha? A book and a car are exactly the same. Both are copies of a copyrighted work. In both cases, if you set up an operation churning out copies, they will sue your pants off. They are exactly the same!
If I set up an operation that built a Corvette using Corvette plans, then yes. That is why there are manufacturing licences given out to companies that want to make things like cars and airplanes. If I set up a plant that builds a car that only looks like a corvette then no, Look at all the Harley Davidson Clones that Honda, and Yamaha turn out. Honda's knock off line even has a different name. But making a car and turnig out copies of it are not what this is about. As you said yourself, this isn't about illegal copies.


The difference is entirely in your way of thinking. The companies that make intellectual property have done this great little bait and switch. They held up something that was obviously wrong (making copies) and they had to beat it into us that that was wrong, but then they stepped back and let that thinking bleed over into other areas, and now it has severely eroded the doctrine of first sale.
I agree that making copies of somethig is wrong. I dont agree that books/movies/and music are in the same class of protection under copyright law as cars. I wonder if places that do mass customization of a particualr type of car, Seabring for instance, have to have a licene from the original makers to do the operations on a large scale.

Even if the line between them is much more gray than I think, and the no editing rule would apply to cars. Since it's a civil matter, not a legal one, it's up to the copyright hoilder to choose whether or not to enforce it. A guy that does coustom work on a car may be seen by the auto company as good advertising. 'He chose OUR product for that'. But an author would have a much different reaction.

(RE the statment that books dont come with options like happy or sad endings and so on)

you mean options like hardcover or paperback, audio book, what language you want it in
None of those alter the actual story, only the look of the container and shape of the text. Hard or soft cover the words are the same. It's the changing of the words themselves that this is about.

[Roving Philosopher]

When you buy a book, you basically only gain ownership of the paper and ink used to create the book (as a physical object). The story remains the property of the author. If you were to buy a hundred books, rip out a bunch of pages, and sell them as damaged, you probably wouldn't have a problem. However, if you sell them as "G-rated" versions of the original, you are now attempting to assert ownership of the story itself, which you do not have.

I don't know much about the auto industry, but it certainly is possible that such restrictions also apply to cars, but, as a matter of course, manufacturers consider it in their best interest to relinquish portions of those rights.

[Donnie B.]

The companies doing the bowdlerized versions of the movies are selling the modified versions at a profit.

I think this is a prima facie case that they are, in fact, depriving the original copyright holder of (potential) profit, since he could have done the same thing if he so chose. (By he, of course, I mean the person or corporate entity that holds the copyright.)

Now, the fact is that he may not choose to do so, for any of a number of reasons -- artistic, practical, cost/benefit analysis, sheer cussedness, etc. However, that does not make it legal for the third party to move into the vacuum. It's the copyright holder who is, and should be, in control of the work.

I like the "clothed nudes" analogy. If Vargas wants to distribute his pinups in two versions, well and good. But if he doesn't choose to do so, nobody else can sell un-naughty versions.

Can somebody explain how an automobile can be copyrighted? I don't think that's even possible, is it? You can trademark the brand and marque, and you can get design patents on the product's appearance, but you can't copyright a physical object.

[tofu]

I think this is a prima facie case that they are, in fact, depriving the original copyright holder of (potential) profit, since he could have done the same thing if he so chose. (By he, of course, I mean the person or corporate entity that holds the copyright.)

Now, the fact is that he may not choose to do so, for any of a number of reasons -- artistic, practical, cost/benefit analysis, sheer cussedness, etc. However, that does not make it legal for the third party to move into the vacuum. It's the copyright holder who is, and should be, in control of the work.

ok. so I buy a copy of the Donnie B. Autobiography (I Was a Teenage BAUTer) and since you and I are bestest buddies, I get you to sign it. Normally you don't do that, so it turns out that I have the one and only autographed copy of "I Was a Teenaged BAUTer." Being that you're famous, I sell my signed copy on ebay for 1 million dollars.

I think this is a prima facie case of depriving the original copyright holder (that would be you) of potential profit, since you could have done the same thing if you so chose. Now, the fact that you may not choose to do so for whatever reason does not make it legal for me to sell my copy. You should be in control of the work.

Don't you think it's a little over the top to follow someone around and make sure they don't sell something that they own?

[Frog march]

I don't think living in a free country entitles you to deprive an artist of his rights to freedom of expression, by altering his work.

[Gillianren]

But, Tofu, if you sell your signed book, you are not, in fact, the one who made the alterations. Donnie B agreed to do that.

James Cameron didn't agree to release a "no naughty bits" edition of Titanic. As copyright holder (I'm guessing), that would be his decision, not yours. He, as artist (used strictly as a technical term, here) gets to make that decision, because the concept and content belong to him. While many, many people may own copies of Titanic, the original work is his, and only he has a legal right to alter the original work. That original work is the entire storyline. You can do what your want to your physical copy, but if you do anything to the original work aspect, you are in copyright violation.

Yard sales, used book stores, and the book section of my local Goodwill are selling the copy, something they are legally permitted to do once someone's paid money for it. However, again, changing the artists' intent and reselling is changing the work, it is illegal, and it is--in this case, at least--censorship.

[tofu]

James Cameron didn't agree to release a "no naughty bits" edition of Titanic.

*sigh*

Donnie B. didn't agree to release a signed copy of his book.


look, I'm sorry that when I make up one example it doesn't cover every dimension of the issue. I'm not smart enough for that. Donnie specifically said that he had a problem with someone making a profit, so I thought up an example where somebody makes a profit.

Do you understand why I did that?

It's like, if you said that you didn't believe Apollo happened because the astronauts would be fried by the van allen belts, so I make up an example of someone surviving more radiation than what's in the VA belts, but then you reject my example saying, "yes but that didn't happen in space"

I'm sorry, I can't make examples for everything at once. Donnie said you shouldn't be able to make a profit off of someone else's work. So I made up an example of making a profit from someone else's work.

Are we now saying that it's ok to make a profit from someone else's work? If so then we can go back to talking about altering someone else's work.

[tofu]

oh and btw this:


it is--in this case, at least--censorship.

is kind of ridiculous. Nobody was being censored. Anyone who wanted the original Titanic could buy it. People who wanted the boobie-less version went way out of their way to buy that one.

Censorship would be if no boobie-filled Titanic was available.

Yeah, this is censorship like getting banned from BAUT would be censorship. That is to say, not at all.

[Frog march]

I think it is worse than censorship- it is actually a kind of slander, saying this is a film by such and such when in fact it has been edited.

[ToSeek]

I agree with tofu here - I don't think Donnie B.'s analysis is relevant. The key issue is altering the artistic elements of a work of art and then reselling it, effectively as an involuntary collaboration with the originator. Putting a painting in a new frame is not an appropriate analogy nor is selling an autographed book because neither involves changing the work of art itself.

And I wouldn't call it censorship, either. Only governments can censor.

[Frog march]

And I wouldn't call it censorship, either. Only governments can censor.

there was a good advert here in the UK for cakes(Kiplings), Mr Kipling(a fictional character) had directed a Christmas nativity depicting a very realistic birth scene(of Jesus), with grunts and screams at the end of the advert the camera pans to someone eating a cake and the narrator says something like "but Mr Kipling does make exceedingly good cakes"(which is the catch phrase of that brand of cake). It was a brilliant advert on many levels but religious people complained and the ad got taken off, so no, non-government censorship does exist.

[ToSeek]

It depends on how strict you want your definition to be. I only call it censorship if you face legal penalties for expressing something. ITV choosing not to air ads because people don't like it doesn't meet that (admittedly high) standard.

[Demigrog]

Here's why I can't talk to you guys. Back on the first page, I specifically asked if they were making multiple copies. Roy Batty said, "No Tofu, I don't think that is what is being said in this thread at all."

ok, so we're not talking about unauthorized copying. So what are we talking about? I try to nail it down and demigrog comes back with, "RENTAL rents A1 to numerous CONSUMERS"

numerous customers? So we are talking about multiple copies?? And now we've added renting?


No, I'm referring to what was actually happening in the specific lawsuit referenced in the OP. Four companies were selling edited-for-content versions of movies. Some of these were sold to individuals, some to rental stores, and some to public and church libraries. Even if these four companies were not making a profit, they'd still be undercutting the value of the movies to the copyright owners, albeit in a small way.

Edit to add: So it is actually irrelevant to the question of IP rights whether the companies were making multiple copies-- that would be a much more obvious crime.

[space cadet]

I see your point about how altering movies could potentially harm movie producers, but do people really have to make fun of all Christians in the process? Yes, many Christians are offended by and try to avoid nudity and profanity in their entertainment, but so are a lot of other religions and cultures. When someone's standards are different, there's no reason to ridicule them.

Christians who make a conscious effort to avoid sex or profanity in the media shouldn't automatically be lumped in with the extremists who try to censor everything or oppose evoloution being taught in public schools. That's just not fair.

Many companies occasionally alter their standard manufacturing processes to make their food Kosher. That way, Jewish customers can enjoy their products, too. The movie industry apparently didn't take any steps to make certain movies "kosher" for Christians, so a few well-meaning people decided to take things into their own hands.

Now that you've pointed out the possible financial and reputational damage that could be done to movie producers by this process, I can understand the other side's concerns and can empathize with their objections. However, I don't see the need for all this eye-rolling and snide remarks about the cultural and religious standards of people who don't want to see naked bodies or hear profanity in their entertainment.

[Gillianren]

You know, I don't remember having made fun of Christians. Then again, I told my Catholic mother that she'd really enjoy The Full Monty--and I was right. My problems with this transcend religion. I don't care what religion you are; it doesn't give you the right to violate copyright laws.

And not all foods are made Kosher, either. For example, the bacon cheeseburger, which is about as far from Kosher as it gets. So if you're Jewish, don't eat one.

[Tog]

You know, I don't remember having made fun of Christians. Then again, I told my Catholic mother that she'd really enjoy The Full Monty--and I was right. My problems with this transcend religion. I don't care what religion you are; it doesn't give you the right to violate copyright laws.

And not all foods are made Kosher, either. For example, the bacon cheeseburger, which is about as far from Kosher as it gets. So if you're Jewish, don't eat one.

I live in Salt Lake City and work about a hlaf mile from a CleanFlicks store. The where I used to work would rent movies that had ben edited. This was 6 or 7 years ago. It's been a local issue for a very long time here, off and on. This was never about religion to me either. If the chains doing this were all affiliated with a specific religion, and catered to that group exclusively, then maybe. But as it is, this is about the storytellers being alowed to tell the story they want, they way they want, without changes from a person or group that have no investment in the work other than trying to make a buck from a niche market.

[Disinfo Agent]

Nothing wrong with making a buck from a niche market, as long as it's legal.

Look, let me say one thing. I find editing out "naughty" bits from movies kind of repulsive. If it's not censorship, it's up there with it. I think you should either accept a movie as it is, uncut, or reject it fully. I don't agree with the comparison to kosher food. This is more like a vegetarian who goes to a barbecue, but wants every bit of meat removed from his plate. Still, this is just my own opinion.

On the other hand, I guess I can understand that parents are busy working all day, there are certain things they feel their kids are too young to be exposed to, but they (perhaps) don't have the time to watch every movie before their children see it. I can see how it would be convenient for them if there were versions of the movies which they knew were "safe" without having to wade through them.

[parallaxicality]

I'm sorry I brought the whole "religious" element into this in my OP; I guess the words "Utah-based" ignited certain prejudices I wouldn't otherwise have.

My main problem with this whole issue is simply this: who decides what material is offensive, or inappropriate? What codes are followed, what standards adhered to? When a movie is cut for television or airplanes, there are official standards set that the editor knows to follow. This is a series of private organisations, each operating to their own set of principles. The odd thing is that the opposing side speaks of "parental choice," when really the parent has no choice. The parent doesn't scan the film and decide which scenes are inappropriate, the process is done by someone who has never met him/her, or his/her children. The editor might remove scenes that he/she finds offensive, but the parent s/he's selling to does not.

[Tog]

There is another service offered in Utah. I'm not sure it's still around, but I saw the news story on it a few years ago. It's an internet surfing service that has a real person go to a website you enter, and if it meets the standards, they allow your computer to go to it. People got paid to watch other people surf the net all day.

[pghnative]

It's hard for me to make up my mind on this one.

I certainly agree (and I think everyone here does too) that it should be illegal for me to buy a copy of Titanic, edit it, and then sell to multiple people.

But I also agree with Tofu that I should be allowed to buy a copy of Titanic, and edit myself (assuming I could) for my own viewing pleasure. And if I can do it myself, I should be allowed to pay someone to do it for me. It seems we all agree that this can be done for physical objects (e.g. the Chevy, or videotape), but if you can do it for the videotape (e.g., splicing), why not the DVD?

One way of looking at it is that if Person A pays Person B to edit the naughty bits on a videotape, and then Person C asks Person B to do the same for them, then clearly Person B has to repeat all of the work. But if Person A pays Person B to edit the naughty bits on a DVD, and then Person C asks Person B to do the same, Person B won't bother to re-do the work. Instead, Person B would just burn another DVD. This blurs the line between performing a service (editing, which seems to me to be legal) and distribution of multiple copies, which seems to me to be illegal.

[tofu]

this is about the storytellers being alowed to tell the story they want, they way they want, without changes from a person or group

ok, I'll try a different tack here. Do I have a right to use my fastforward button? Have you ever pressed the fastforward button?

Wait wait! When you fast forward, you are not allowing the storyteller to tell the story they want, the way they want. Shame on you!

Or how about this, what if I go into Blockbuster Video and pick up a copy of A.I. and they clerk tells me, "hey man, after the little kid freezes, TURN YOUR VCR OFF. Do not watch any more of the movie. If you turn your VCR off then you'll be happy, but if you keep watching you're going to hate the movie."

Well it turns out that I really respect the clerk's opinion, so I follow his advice. Should that be illegal?? ILLEGAL? The clerk has set things up so that the storyteller doesn't get to tell the story the way he wanted. Should that be illegal? Isn't it a little harsh to make that illegal? The clerk is doing basically the same thing that the mormons did to Titanic. They said, "hey look, you're going to fastforward the boobie parts anyway, so we'll just save you the trouble." And if you respect their opinion, then you get that version of Titanic. If you don't respect their opinion, then you get the original version.

I know what you're going to say, "no it's not illegal what the clerk did because he didn't change the work." But see, the result is the same. Fastforward button or clerk's advice, it fits the standard that YOU set up, it results in me not seeing the work in the exact way that the storyteller intended. That is your standard. You said that is wrong.

Or maybe you're going to say, "it's not illegal because I still have the option of watching the whole thing." Well guess what. No seriously, guess. I want you to guess what my reponse to that is going to be. A shiny penny to the person who guesses what my response would be. Hint: read two paragraphs above this one.

[Tog]

ok, I'll try a different tack here. Do I have a right to use my fastforward button? Have you ever pressed the fastforward button?

Wait wait! When you fast forward, you are not allowing the storyteller to tell the story they want, the way they want. Shame on you!

Or how about this, what if I go into Blockbuster Video and pick up a copy of A.I. and they clerk tells me, "hey man, after the little kid freezes, TURN YOUR VCR OFF. Do not watch any more of the movie. If you turn your VCR off then you'll be happy, but if you keep watching you're going to hate the movie."

Well it turns out that I really respect the clerk's opinion, so I follow his advice. Should that be illegal?? ILLEGAL? The clerk has set things up so that the storyteller doesn't get to tell the story the way he wanted. Should that be illegal? Isn't it a little harsh to make that illegal? The clerk is doing basically the same thing that the mormons did to Titanic. They said, "hey look, you're going to fastforward the boobie parts anyway, so we'll just save you the trouble." And if you respect their opinion, then you get that version of Titanic. If you don't respect their opinion, then you get the original version.

I know what you're going to say, "no it's not illegal what the clerk did because he didn't change the work." But see, the result is the same. Fastforward button or clerk's advice, it fits the standard that YOU set up, it results in me not seeing the work in the exact way that the storyteller intended. That is your standard. You said that is wrong.

Or maybe you're going to say, "it's not illegal because I still have the option of watching the whole thing." Well guess what. No seriously, guess. I want you to guess what my reponse to that is going to be. A shiny penny to the person who guesses what my response would be. Hint: read two paragraphs above this one.

Skipping through the tape is no different then taking a magic marker and going over the bad parts in a book. It's yours because you bought it, and you can do that. If the clerk tells you to stop after a cretain point, and you, again it's yours and you can do that. That fact that you chose to not see or read it all is out of everyone's hands except yours, but the story is still unchanged. the fact that you chose not to see part of the movie didn't remove it from the tape or the book. It's still there and if you loan it to me, I can still see all of it if I choose to do so.

This issue here isn't about that. It is about Bob at the video store removing bits of the story that are objectionable to him. Maybe those bits are not that bad to you, maybe he left stuff in that you didn't like. In any case, unless his name is in the official credits of the move, he is not authorized to make changes for redistribution.

Sure the original version is still out there and available, no one is disputing that. But just like when I edited your post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=782743&postcount=55) a ways back to read something different than what you wrote, someone that wasn't you changed the meaning of your work without your consent, then passed it on as a derivative, thus implying you were okay with it.

[space cadet]

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was accusing people on this board of making fun of Christians. I didn't mean it like that at all.

The subject reminded me of a recent situation that really upset me. I chose to (subtlely) walk out of a university play that was getting kind of racy, and some members of the cast who noticed used the opportunity to point me out and whoop it up.

Anyway, I suppose this issue hit a little bit close to home and I'm sorry for getting defensive. :(

By the way, I don't think they should have made a "cleaned up" version of the play for Christians, nor do I think movie companies should be obliged to provide clean versions of every movie they produce. The comments about food companies catering to Jews by making Kosher versions of certain products (such as hot dogs) was made only with the intention of pointing out the logic behind some people's decision to take movie editing into their own hands.

edited for clarification

[tofu]

This issue here isn't about that. It is about Bob at the video store removing bits of the story that are objectionable to him.

That doesn't make any sense at all! How exactly do you think that such a video store would stay in business?? How long would a restaurant stay open if the owner just decided to take all the ice out of the drinks? Duh.

Obviously Bob at the video store is removing bits of the story that his customers want removed. Obviously, people who don't want bits removed do not rent from Bob. Obviously, people who do want bits removed either rent from Bob or do the removing themselves. Either way, every customer is getting what they want. This is not a censorship issue.


That fact that you chose to not see or read it all is out of everyone's hands except yours, but the story is still unchanged.

This requirement is still met when Bob edits the video. I choose to see it or not read it when I choose to rent from Bob!

[tofu]

Hypothetical. What if, instead of editing the video, what if Bob includes along with the video a piece of paper that says, "at 30:45 into this movie, press the fast forward button for ten seconds"

Should that be illegal?

Ok what if, instead of a piece of paper, Bob includes along with the video a shiny robot that will push the fastforward button for you

Should that be illegal?

So now what if, instead of taking the robot home, Bob just let's you decide when you rent the video if you want the fast forward option or not?

Should that be illegal?

[Cookie]

Let me see if I understand this correctly...

Let's say that my Dad buys an original (un-altered) DVD of Titanic from an authorized retail store.

Let's say he removes a few things, like the 'painting' scene, and then burns his edited version to a DVD.

Let's say that after he's done, the whole family sits down and watches his edited version together.

Let's say he puts the Original DVD in storage, and puts the Edited Version he made on a shelf in our home.

Even though he did buy an original (Legal) DVD, never sells it or the edited version to anyone, and the Edited Version is only for in-our-home viewing, and we all know that it is an Edited Version, does he have to worry about legal prosecution?

Could there someday be a headline in a newspaper that reads something like the following:
"Local Man who Edits DVDs for his immediate family for free is being sued by the MPAA"?

[Roy Batty]

Could there someday be a headline in a newspaper that reads something like the following:
"Local Man who Edits DVDs for his immediate family for free is being sued by the MPAA"?

I'd say no. Which is one of the points I made earlier ie lets keep this within the power the of individual owner. As far as I'm concerned the less tampering further up the chain the better.

Tofu, I get your points, I believe I really do, but we seem to have a fairly fundamental disagreement about what is best. I say keep the rights of what is to be shown totally within our powers as owners (nobody is trying to eradicate this in this case so I don't understand why you keep bringing up certain analogies that seem like straw men to me).

Like I said before, you seem to be wanting a complete re-write of the existing copyright laws. I'm not sure what they'd be replaced with. Sounds like you want a 'land of do as you please' as far as editing (not multiple copying!) & reselling is concerned?

[Matherly]

Even though he did buy an original (Legal) DVD, never sells it or the edited version to anyone, and the Edited Version is only for in-our-home viewing, and we all know that it is an Edited Version, does he have to worry about legal prosecution?

One thing to note:

The matter at hand is civil suit. Nobody is facing prosecution, they are facing a lawsuit. Therfore under this ruling, your hypothetical family would not be prosecuted.

Now then that said, I suppose it is hypothetically possible for someone to be sued in the above situation (heck, it hypthetically possible to sue anybody for anything), but without a monetary damage to the copyright holder it would be impossible for the copyright holder to recover any damages.

(Note: I am neither a lawyer nor do I play one on T.V.)

[tofu]

does he have to worry about legal prosecution?

Oh don't even get me started on this! This whole issue is framed as being about "protecting the poor poor artists" but it's really entirely about control. That's all it is. James Cameron is thrilled that you bought Titanic because he got his $1.50 in royalties. It's the distribution companies (represented by the MPAA) that are absolutely terrified that you might be able to edit it - because editing it gives you power, and there's just no telling what kind of horrible things that you might do with that power.

Let me tell you a little story - and this is a true story. Every commercial DVD that you own is encrypted. Did you know that? Yep, it's true. All movie DVDs are encrypted. Why do you think that is? Well according to the big media companies, it's done to fight piracy.

Think about this for just a second. How exactly does encrypting something prevent it from being copied? Here is a super secret encrypted message: DFA3 003C C9AF Does that encryption prevent you from copying it? No! Of course not! The encryption prevents you from *reading* it.

So why are DVDs encrypted? For two reasons, 1: so that media companies can license the decryption algorithm to companies that make DVD players. It's not enough that they make money selling you the DVD. They also make money selling the algorithm. 2: it's so that media companies can deny movies to certain audiences.

Isn't it great how they claim to be on this righteous mission to stop those evil meanies who copy their hard work - when in reality, they are just securing a more lucrative business model for themselves? It would actually be kind of funny except that people (and courts) take them at their word.

None of the media companies ever got around to licensing the decryption algorithm to a company that makes DVD player software for the Linux operating system. So if you use linux, for whatever reason, you are out of luck. Bummer. Well, it turns out that linux people are pretty smart, so a few of them sat down and figured out the decryption algorithm. Hooray, now you can watch Titanic.

The MPAA sued these guys, and here's the punch line - the government raided his home! Yes, jack-booted thugs broke down his door, tackled and handcuffed him and his family, seized his property (a computer), arrested him, and held him for 6 hours. He was 17 years old at the time.

His crime? Did he make it possible for anyone to copy a DVD? Nope. You can copy an encrypted DVD. His crime was, he threatened the revenue stream of a large corporation.

I'm not making this up folks. Here is a link to info on the encryption algorithm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content-scrambling_system

This is the guy who was arrested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lech_Johansen

This is the statement he made following the arrest:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/Johansen_DeCSS_case/20000124_johansen_statement.html

Here is a story about the aftermath (a lawsuit against an american company that put the encryption algorithm on their website - note this quote: "The movie industry claims the widespread availability of DeCSS will encourage DVD piracy")
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40226,00.html


See folks, here's the thing. A media company took an obviously and unquestionably morally wrong thing - namely making illegal copies of a DVD - and they used that as a cover to build a business selling an algorithm. It's a bait and switch. And if I hadn't explained to you that the encryption doesn't actually prevent copying, and you had just read in your newspaper that "some kid charged with DVD piracy" you probably would have sided with the media companies.

It's the same situation going on here. It's a bait and switch. Don't take their side automatically. Think about it.

[Roy Batty]

Oh I'm sure we are thinking about it. I am aware of these issues, and yes they are very worrying. But it seems apparent your agenda is rather larger than the facts of the OP links.

[Tog]

That doesn't make any sense at all! How exactly do you think that such a video store would stay in business?? How long would a restaurant stay open if the owner just decided to take all the ice out of the drinks? Duh.
The bits he removes becasue they are objectionable to him, are also objectionable to many others, so he stays in business. THey are not neccissarily objectionable to everyone, and certainly not to the director who but his name on the original version.

I stopped eating at a cretain restaurant when they switched to Blank Angus Beef. Black angus tastes like it's about 3 weeks past it's time. I seem to be in the minority on that one. FOr those who like it, the place stays open.


Obviously Bob at the video store is removing bits of the story that his customers want removed. Obviously, people who don't want bits removed do not rent from Bob. Obviously, people who do want bits removed either rent from Bob or do the removing themselves. Either way, every customer is getting what they want. This is not a censorship issue.
Correct, it's an ownership issue. I may own the tape, and the case, and the box it all came in, but the production company, producers, deirector and writers own the story. WHat I bough was a method to view that story. Your argument seems to be that if 10,000 peole buy a copy of a movie, that all 10,000 people own equal shares in that movie. I bought Jurassic Park, where's my royalty check? What if those 10,000 people said you know it was a good movie, except for this part and signed a petition for the director to change it? what if a million did? WOuld the director be required to? No. And as proof, Greedo still shots first, and Jar Jar lived. Lucas has creative control over the story. What you do with it in your own home is up to you, but when the story is altered then placed out for public comsumption with the actual creator's name still on it, the creator should have the rigt to say. "that's not my story" and take legal action.


This requirement is still met when Bob edits the video. I choose to see it or not read it when I choose to rent from Bob!

The question isn't your right to choose. It's the artist's right to have their works available in the form they indended. If you don't like that painting scene in Titanic, take it out OF YOUR COPY. Purchacing multiple copies then altering them for resaletakes it out of the private use category.

For your little robot pressing fast forward, it's fine. The story is unchanged. It's only how it's being viewed that is being affected. If I don't use the robot, I can still see the entire thing. Again, it that altering of the STORY, not the media or method that is being protected by this.

Here's a hypothetical for you. Let's say I write a book and it gets a first run of 100,000 copies. Of those 100,000, 500 are bought by Bob and edited for the three dirty words and one graphic description of violence. Is that okay?

The ironic part is that if all 100,000 sell out the first day, there will be more printed and Bob will have to buy up those too. I'll get rich becuse he, and his customers don't like my whole story. If he just leaves it alone it may not even sell the first run and fade away. But then, if I can show that people had to buy his altered versions because those were all that were available, I could show monetary damages eevn though he actually paid for all the copies, because MY story is not available. only HIS VERSION of my story is.

How about if Bob does it with 25,000? 50,000? All but 3? Where is the right place to draw the line?

[SeanF]

But then, if I can show that people had to buy his altered versions because those were all that were available, I could show monetary damages eevn though he actually paid for all the copies, because MY story is not available. only HIS VERSION of my story is.
I don't think that works. What if Bob buys up the entire 100,000 run and sticks 'em in his basement and does nothing with them? You could make the same "monetary damages" claim there, but I don't think it would be illegal. It certainly doesn't seem to be a violation of copyright.

The only justification for this being the law is to point to the potential problem of customers' incorrectly assuming the bowdlerized version is "yours."

And tofu, there are all kinds of laws and requirements that you have to follow to sell something as a livelihood that don't apply when you're reselling a single item on a garage sale. Even if we take it as a given that it's perfectly okay for you to sell your own home-made edited copy of Titanic (along with the original, of course) to your neighbor, that doesn't mean it must be okay for you to do it en masse as a business. The concept of "first sale" applies to end-users, not resellers.

[Gillianren]

The comments about food companies catering to Jews by making Kosher versions of certain products (such as hot dogs) was made only with the intention of pointing out the logic behind some people's decision to take movie editing into their own hands.

But it's still the choice of the person providing the food, not the choice of the person buying it. The only way the Kosher analogy is remotely comparable is if, say, someone buys pepperoni pizzas from a store, takes off the pepperoni, and resells them as Kosher. And that still isn't comparable really, because a pizza is not a copyrightable item. The car analogy isn't comparable because most of the car is protected not by copyright but by patent, which has a very different set of laws.

If the studio chooses to release a "no naughty bits" version of a movie, such as the many movies "edited for content" that appear on TV, that is the choice of the studio and whoever officially holds the copyright. Perhaps if people petitioned to get such versions available on DVD, the studios might acquiesce to that--it's more likely than Lucas killing of Jar Jar, anyway. However, that decision is legally in the hands of the holder of the copyright.

DVD encryption is irrelevant. Any control the DVD production industry might have over the DVD player industry is irrelevant. What is relevant in this discussion is that, like it or not, people altering the content of videos and DVDs for profit is a violation of copyright, and I don't think anyone has suggested that these people weren't doing it for profit.

[Frog march]

Is this encryption business the reason that you can't watch some of the videos from the USA(from amazon.com) on UK videoplayers? That doesn't seem right but the motivation of the distributers is not quite what this thread is about.

[tofu]

The concept of "first sale" applies to end-users, not resellers.

hmm, I hadn't thought of that.


DVD encryption is irrelevant.

The question was asked, "can I got to jail for this" and the answer given was, "no way, this is a civil matter." I brought up the DVD encryption issue to refute that.

[Tog]

But then, if I can show that people had to buy his altered versions because those were all that were available, I could show monetary damages eevn though he actually paid for all the copies, because MY story is not available. only HIS VERSION of my story is.

I don't think that works. What if Bob buys up the entire 100,000 run and sticks 'em in his basement and does nothing with them? You could make the same "monetary damages" claim there, but I don't think it would be illegal. It certainly doesn't seem to be a violation of copyright. Yeah, that's true. I guess in my head was thinking that if Jill wanted a copy of the book and Bob had edited them all, she would have no way to get an original, whereas if Bob was only storing them, he could still resell the original version, and would be free to set any price. The monetary claim from the the editing version woud be that Bob had removed the originlal and was charging people for his altered version while preventing others from getting the original. Not sure if it would really play oiut that way or not though.

[Tolls]

The question was asked, "can I got to jail for this" and the answer given was, "no way, this is a civil matter." I brought up the DVD encryption issue to refute that.

Gillian's quite right, though. DVD encryption is irrelevant. Like MP3, the algorithm is (someone'll pick the right one for me here) copyrighted/patented (I think the latter). This is why there was all that hoo ha about MP3 players, and the company that created the algorithm wanting (quite legitimately, though stupidly belatedly) royalties for it. The DeCCS thing is no different.

This has no relevance to the current discussion.

And, by the way, it was not the studios that took this to court, but the directors. The studios backed their action, but it was the directors that made the move.

Quoting Michael Apted (I worked with his nephew a few years ago...what a rubbish claim to fame) from here: (http://news.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/Entertainment/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CBC-ARTS-V2&newsitemid=film-scrubbing-ruling&showbyline=True)

"These films carry our name and reflect our reputations. So we have great passion about protecting our work ... against unauthorized editing," said Apted in a statement on the guild's website.

"Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor."

[Roy Batty]

From the end of that article:

"We're disappointed," said Ray Lines, the head of CleanFlicks. "This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight."

Somewhat ironic him saying that Hollywood rewrote the ending :)

[Matherly]

From the end of that article:

"We're disappointed," said Ray Lines, the head of CleanFlicks. "This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight."

Somewhat ironic him saying that Hollywood rewrote the ending :)

<Matherly falls over laughing>

[mugaliens]

Agreed that much content is inappropriate for kids.

Wasn't one of the big draws of DVD the ability to have two versions?

[Gillianren]

Not that I ever heard. I always heard the big draw of the DVD being that you got a better-quality version of the movie in a medium that was less absolutely guaranteed to wear out than VHS.

[Tog]

I do recall that being said before DVD really hit the market. Part of the draw was separate audio tracks, and the ability to edit out some bits, making an R movie a PG on the fly. The article I read was a Popular Science or Mechanics one and it was mostly about how the technology would work and what could be done with it. I recall the first DVD I saw I was sort of disappointed that this wasn't a feature.

[Roving Philosopher]

Don't know if it was necessarily a big draw, but the ability to have both the widescreen and full screen versions is a nice feature (particularly in a household where preferences differ). Although, to be honest, I don't see this feature very often.

One of the first DVDs I saw was "Seven" (or "Se7en", if you prefer). It was really odd, because the DVD stopped about half of the way through the movie. It just faded to black. We flipped the DVD over, and sure enough, the movie picked up right where it left off.

[Sam5]

It's not just Christian fundementalists who feel there's a lot of inappropriate stuff in today's movies. Most parents, regardless of religion, would agree that a lot of the content in todays movies are inappropriate for little kids. All they want to do is be able to watch the movie together as a family. Nothing wrong with that.

I don’t understand why there is so much cussin’ in modern movies. It started mainly in the ‘70s. I remember “The Bad News Bears” was a whole long film about a baseball coach cussin’ to kids all through the movie. If a guy acted like that today, anywhere outside of California, he’d be fired.

I’ve lived all over the country and the most cussin’ I’ve heard in real life was when I lived in New Orleans. Other than that, most people I knew didn’t cuss in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc., etc. But the cussin’ started in the movies in the ‘70s and then they started having kids cussin’ in the movies. I don’t get it. The only time I’ve heard kids cussin’ like that was among a few boys in the coal mining towns of West Virginia back in the early ‘60s.

Why do Hollywood people think this will help sell a film?

[Tog]

The same reason they think people will flock to see the 9th remake of the marginal film of the week. Somethig worked once so it will work always.

Originally, the R rating was a warning that some things are just too over the top for kids to see. But then more people started going to see the movies, to see what was so shocking. Now, there are some films that have to add a scene that serves no purpose other than to get an R rating, in the hopes that the 'OOOHHH it must be bad if they want to stop kids from seeing it" mentality will prevail.

This is one of the things I think they really need to fix. By they I mean the movie industry. Two big examples I like to use are James Bond and M. Night.

There has never been a Bond movie with an R rating. Sure, the last few have been horrid, but they've been PG or PG-13. This, to me, is proof that a movie can be marginally suitable for kids while still not upetting the MPAA. Looking at all the violence, adult themes, and thinly screened sexual content, it's hard to believe there are no R ratings. But if you look a little closer, there has never been any real nudity. Even when people are shot or killed there is no real gore;and rarely ny blood. And the dialog isn't overtly sexual, but usually done in the form of a double entendre or innuendo. So it passes.

M. Night's movies, after Sixth Sense, have been met with largely mixed reviews with many people not liking them at all. But, even with the gaping plot hole in Signs, the rushed ending of Unbreakable, and the...well... what ever it was that went so far off track in The Village, at least they were original. No sequels. How easy would it have been to follow up Sixth Sense with the kid as an adult going around helping the dead find peace? Oh wait the Ghost Whisperer does that.

I think they are trying so hard to get people to go to movies that they are largely forgetting WHY people go to movies. Home theaters are coming down in price to the point that most people have them or know someone that does. A DVD in a good home system is just about like the theater, except there is no obnoxious kid kicking the back the chair becasue he's bored. No teen texting his friends two rows in front of you. (And if there is, he's probably yours and you can get him). No $5 bag of stale popcorn with some sort of 100% 'natural' butter flavored ooze coating the top 5% to go along with that 100 oz Bladder Buster soda that you had to get because it was only a qurater more than the 16 oz that you couldn't see yourself paying 4 bucks to get. So they wonder why people don't go to the local 24 plex that has a total of 5 movies, all being shown on multiple screens. How can they fix it? Well people in the 60's seemed to like Car 54 where are you?, let's make a big budget version of that with lots of explosions and loud noises and shiny things to keep the ADD generation intersted.

What do you mean the ADD generation never heard of Car 54, Where are You?, it's was a classic.

They need to dump the gimicks and go back to what movies are supposed to be. Good stories told visually. Umm [/rant off]:shifty:

[parallaxicality]

I actually like "The Village." It didn't go off track; it's just not a horror movie. "Unbreakable" was a bit of a letdown. It tried too hard to be scary, and scariness doesn't really work in a superhero context. The way to combine horror and superheroes is to make horror movies into superhero films, not the other way around. I will not talk about "Signs." Ever.

[Frog march]

I thought "signs" was an 'out of the box thinking' movie, a bit strange but worth the attempt at something different.
"Unbreakable" made superhero idea seemed feasable and possible, also a good film.

[Gillianren]

I don't think Unbreakable is really supposed to be a horror movie, or even particularly scary. There are a few eerie moments, but by and large, not.