Cleaning up the movies

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 50
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong> This is no different than when you burn a cd of songs from three cd's that you happen to already own. </strong>



    This is very different than me making a compilation disk from other disks.



    1) I am not editing the content, only arranging them on one disk.



    2) I am not distributing the end result, which is copyright infringement. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the copy is being distributed to 1, or 100 people. Read that blue screen sometime when you watch a movie. Even worse, they are making money doing it, which I am sure the studios and actors are not making a penny.



    <strong>They state quite plainly that they own a video for every single copy they edit or rent. If they were making unauthorized copies without compensation, or using studio marketing and promotion dollars in a manner not authorized by the studio then it would be copyright violation.</strong>



    See my last statement.



    <strong>Additionally they have tried to come to the table with the directors guild and even have them on board for the editing, compensate them appropriately etc. However the directors guild would have none of it.</strong>



    Mostly because this is probably illegal, and the movie studios are setting up to sue.



    How about Napster? They were just providing a forum for people to trade songs, no profits what-so-ever. They got sued and shut down for doing basically the same thing you said above about making compilation disks.



    This company is taking copyrighted material, editing it, then re-distributing it to their customers.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 50
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,043member
    SPJ:



    You are utterly hopeless. You obviously have no clue what censorship is.



    Someone doesn't have to be a riight wing nut to want scenes edited.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 50
    ENLIGHTEN ME. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 50
    [quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:

    <strong>SPJ:



    You are utterly hopeless. You obviously have no clue what censorship is.



    Someone doesn't have to be a riight wing nut to want scenes edited.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Hmm.. This comment reminds me of a recent post in Suggestions. It said something about <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=000261"; target="_blank">unwarranted personal attacks against SDW2001</a>. This must be one of those "do as i say, not as I do" situations :eek:



    [ 09-29-2002: Message edited by: Dallenb ]</p>
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 50
    I stopped reasoning with SDW since <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=001301"; target="_blank">My Statement to Nations that Hate Us</a>.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 50
    The funny thing is. The link I provide above, is a complaint against what SDW2001 just did in this post. To paraphrase: He complained that people would label him, and his posts rather than argue the points he had made. When people came foward with examples of him making personal attacks, he stated he would not get into a "he said, she said" argument. Now in this post, he has not argued any points, just slammed someone for their opinion.



    I don't know SDW, nor do I know you SPJ. I do however have a decent memory for people who play both sides of a debate



    I am sure I will be attacked now <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    ** I really need to start proof reading before I hit "post"



    [ 09-29-2002: Message edited by: Dallenb ]</p>
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 50
    (Yes, I think I posted once or twice in that thread, DB )
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 50
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>



    But it's not censorship. It's not censorship when someone chooses not to watch somethings. For example am I practicing censorship by refusing to read Ted Rall op eds? No. Censorship is when the government or maybe a private citizen censors content from other people. That's not the case here. Here people are choosing what they want to hear and see.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    From what I understand, and this may just be from SDW's rant about his future children, this is marketed towards people with kids. The parents are therefore censoring what their children see. I'm not saying that is necessairly a bad thing, so don't flame me. I believe that a parent has the right to choose what their children see (up to a point), but it is still censorship.



    Back to the question at hand: should they win? Perhaps. Once someone buys a video and turns it over to the company to edit, what happens to the original version? Does the edited version get copied over the original version? Does the owner get both versions back? Is the original version resold to someone else for them to purchase and have edited? If the first is what happens, then I don't think they are breaking copyright laws. If the second is what happens, they may be breaking laws, i'm not sure. If the third is what happens, then they are breaking copyright laws and should lose (obviously).



    Does this work only with VHS? Because if they are editing DVDs, then they are breaking the DCMA (or whatever it is called), I believe, in which case they should lose.



    On a side note, is there a standard level of editing, or does the consumer get to choose?

    "Sir, I'd like a copy of _______ with half the violence, none of the sex, and no ****s. Crap's ok. But no ****" <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 50
    [quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:

    <strong>



    YOU have not given much thought to the opposing arguments. It is not like skipping a chapter in a book because that chapter remains while the scene in question does not! Both involve skipping, but is it really your intention to make such a general point? It is still censorship whether one wants it or not, but it is NOT like editing movies yourself. Here, consumers rely on a COMPANY to censor objectionable scenes and then rent or sell at a profit. Just that fact clearly reveals that it is against the laws pertaining to personal copies, or it is at least against the intent of the law. Both ways, it's an ethically dubious way of dealing with (sometimes) immoral scenes in film. (not to mention the legitimate scenes that get censored)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It is exactly like skipping the chapter because the person must own the original in order to get the copy. The original movie including the original chapter is not destroyed nor missing. It is only on the copy that scene is edited.



    Needing a company to inexpensively fulfill that which you would do yourself is not copyright violation. The point is when you make your own greatest hits cd you are relying on a company to produce the cd burner and controlling software. Heck if you cut it out of a book you would still be relying on the company that made the scissors.



    The fact that technology is necessary to insure fair use under copyright law does not mean the company providing or fulfulling the need for that technology is wrong. This has been gone over with blank cassettes, photocopiers, you name it. You can also bet that those companies profited from the creation and selling of those products as well.



    The question here, plain and simple is fair use and ownership of something you have purchased. If you buy the book, do you have the right to burn it? Of course you do. Can you buy it for the express reason of burning it? Yes you can. You cannot reproduce the book and sell it to others or take the characters and write a different book about them, but you can do whatever you want with the original media and call it enjoyment for personal use.



    The fact that the studio wants to control what you do with the movie after you buy it is the worst form of big brother I can think about. The studios will lose big on this one and I for one am glad.



    Nick
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 50
    [quote]Originally posted by Dallenb:

    <strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by trumptman:

    [qb] This is no different than when you burn a cd of songs from three cd's that you happen to already own. </strong>



    This is very different than me making a compilation disk from other disks.



    1) I am not editing the content, only arranging them on one disk.



    2) I am not distributing the end result, which is copyright infringement. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the copy is being distributed to 1, or 100 people. Read that blue screen sometime when you watch a movie. Even worse, they are making money doing it, which I am sure the studios and actors are not making a penny.



    <strong>They state quite plainly that they own a video for every single copy they edit or rent. If they were making unauthorized copies without compensation, or using studio marketing and promotion dollars in a manner not authorized by the studio then it would be copyright violation.</strong>



    See my last statement.



    <strong>Additionally they have tried to come to the table with the directors guild and even have them on board for the editing, compensate them appropriately etc. However the directors guild would have none of it.</strong>



    Mostly because this is probably illegal, and the movie studios are setting up to sue.



    How about Napster? They were just providing a forum for people to trade songs, no profits what-so-ever. They got sued and shut down for doing basically the same thing you said above about making compilation disks.



    This company is taking copyrighted material, editing it, then re-distributing it to their customers.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>



    Dallenb, not to be rude, but you don't seem to have read the articles pertaining to this. They are not taking the movies and reproducing them ad-infinitum for sale. What they are doing is taking purchased originals, and creating an altered copy. You do have the option of purchasing the original from them and they do make a profit just like any other store from which you would buy a video would make. However you cannot get an edited copy without owning the original. The studio, director, and everyone else get all they were ever going to get when you purchase the original.



    With regard to the compilation, don't you think the artist wanted those songs around the other songs? Don't you think thought went into the style and order of those songs? Don't you think the record companies want you to wait and purchase the legally sactioned official greatest hits cd?



    Of course they do, but they are talking out there butt because you have the right to do this since you own the original, and so do people using this service.



    The reason they have tried to bring in the director's guild is not because they are doing something illegal. It is because they wish to have them supervise the editing to insure their artist vision, but also match the needs of their customers.



    This is just like when you ask an artist to produce a radio friendly version of their hit song. You might go to them and suggest an alternative word or phrase. The artist decides whether to use it or not, and if not then the word gets digitally scrambled when played.



    The point is that all the technology to do this is there and the fact that the studios won't is simply because they wish to limit consumer choice and be offensive. They obviously produce versions of these movies for different ratings. Just as I can go to my DVD player and select a language, I would be able to select a rating.



    In the end if the studios did this it would likely create even MORE money for them because they adults could buy family friendly DVD's and simply change the setting on the same DVD depending upon whether the young ones are in the room. They likely could even charge more for these special DVD's and again make more. The fact that they won't is again pure stubborness and reflects the fact that what they really want to do is not entertain us, but control and mold us.



    As for this being like Napster, if you don't see the difference between me doing something with an original I own, and using a service to get media that I never owned, well then there is really nothing I can say to help your understanding.



    Nick
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 50
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>However you cannot get an edited copy without owning the original.</strong><hr></blockquote>No, you just give Clean Flicks a membership fee for the "co-op" and then you can rent whatever you want. You don't buy the original individually and then rent a separate edited version. [quote]This is just like when you ask an artist to produce a radio friendly version of their hit song. You might go to them and suggest an alternative word or phrase. The artist decides whether to use it or not, and if not then the word gets digitally scrambled when played.<hr></blockquote>But in this case they DON'T have the artist's permission. Clean Flicks is doing it on their own, and the film makers don't want them to do it.

    [quote]In the end if the studios did this it would likely create even MORE money for them because they adults could buy family friendly DVD's and simply change the setting on the same DVD depending upon whether the young ones are in the room. They likely could even charge more for these special DVD's and again make more. <hr></blockquote>You're probably right, and I'm sure that whether they get a PG or R rating is very important to the marketing divisions of the movie companies. But that of course is not a valid legal defense of Clean Flicks.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 50
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>

    They are not taking the movies and reproducing them ad-infinitum for sale. What they are doing is taking purchased originals, and creating an altered copy. </strong><hr></blockquote>





    AND selling/renting those copies that are meant for PERSONAL USE ONLY. They attempt to get around that fact by saying that everyone owns each video. But really, what they are doing is illegally distributing legally edited personal copies, a practice which has to be against copyright laws. IANAL, but I think that much is fairly obvious.



    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>

    This is just like when you ask an artist to produce a radio friendly version of their hit song. You might go to them and suggest an alternative word or phrase. The artist decides whether to use it or not, and if not then the word gets digitally scrambled when played.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Buddy, who edits the material in each case? THINK about that- though there's no reason to since that point has been previously discussed.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 50
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:

    <strong>For the second time, consumers do not decide what material is inappropriate. Clean Flicks, the company, decides that. There is no individualized system of deciding what material is appropriate and for whom. Consumers pay for this company to censor movies according to the COMPANY's guidelines- not their own. So, this is censorship for sale.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Not it's not. You can buy the full version on Amazon (or anywhere else) if you want. You don't have to buy what Clean Flicks is selling.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 50
    How does that in any way respond to my post?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 50
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>



    Dallenb, not to be rude, but you don't seem to have read the articles pertaining to this. They are not taking the movies and reproducing them ad-infinitum for sale. What they are doing is taking purchased originals, and creating an altered copy.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    And they are taking that altered copy, which was altered without the manufacturers permission, and distributing it to their customers for a profit. Regardless of whether they are distributing to 1 person, or 100,000 people, it is copyright infringement to re-distribute it.



    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>

    You do have the option of purchasing the original from them and they do make a profit just like any other store from which you would buy a video would make. However you cannot get an edited copy without owning the original. The studio, director, and everyone else get all they were ever going to get when you purchase the original.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Regardless of whether you have to own the copy first, an edited copy is being sold/redistributed without authorization from the movie studio/producers/etc. This alteration is censoring because you are changing the original material. If the customer took a DvD, altered it without re-distributing it for a profit, there would be no copyright infringement, nor censoring.



    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>

    With regard to the compilation, don't you think the artist wanted those songs around the other songs? Don't you think thought went into the style and order of those songs? Don't you think the record companies want you to wait and purchase the legally sactioned official greatest hits cd?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Think of each song, as material in itself. I am not altering the material as it was originally distributed. Nor am I selling my compilations to other people. This company is both changing the original content, and redistributing for profit.



    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>

    As for this being like Napster, if you don't see the difference between me doing something with an original I own, and using a service to get media that I never owned, well then there is really nothing I can say to help your understanding.



    Nick</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This statement was taken out of context. Whether what Napster was doing was illegal doesn't matter. They provided a service where-by people could download songs from other people to make compilation CD's. Basically they were re-distributing copyrighted songs by proxy. My reference was being made to the fact they did this for no profit, got sued and shut down.



    This company is taking copyrighted material, altering it, then redistributing it for a profit without permission. If Napster got shut down, I bet this company will as well
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 50
    [quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:

    <strong>

    For the second time, consumers do not decide what material is inappropriate. Clean Flicks, the company, decides that. There is no individualized system of deciding what material is appropriate and for whom. Consumers pay for this company to censor movies according to the COMPANY's guidelines- not their own. So, this is censorship for sale.</strong>[quote]



    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>



    Not it's not. You can buy the full version on Amazon (or anywhere else) if you want. You don't have to buy what Clean Flicks is selling.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Regardless of whether you can buy an original copy wherever you like. Clean Flicks is altering copyrighted material, then re-distributing it for a profit. Napster got shut down for distributing copyrighted songs by proxy (software they provided), and made no profit.



    Who is to say that Clean Flicks view of what the movie's content should have is correct? They are imposing their views, by censoring the contect of the movie
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 37 of 50
    DB further explains that CleanFlicks indeed engages in censorship.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 38 of 50
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    <a href="http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/hilden/20020903.html"; target="_blank">Here's</a> a decent legal analysis of the Clean Flicks case. It presents both sides and the possible arguments they will use.

    [quote]The chain has emphasized its First Amendment rights. But the government is not a party to the case, as is generally required under the First Amendment; it is the directors, not the state, who the chain anticipates will try to stop its editing practices. Accordingly, the chain's best defense probably does not come directly from the First Amendment. Rather, it derives from the First-Amendment-inspired "fair use" exception to the copyright law, and similar exceptions to related laws under which the directors can sue. <hr></blockquote>Clearly, this is not government censorship, because neither Clean Flicks nor the movie studios are the gov't. So the First Amendment argument they're trying to make seems kinda dumb.



    I have to admit, I wouldn't mind seeing the movie studios lose. But it seems the case could go either way.



    This also reminds me of the hoopla over Turner colorizing films many years ago.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 38 of 50
    [quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:

    <strong>DB further explains that CleanFlicks indeed engages in censorship.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No...it seems i'm beating a dead horse. It seems noone has been able to argue my points yet. I guess I will start pointing to my posts, instead of re-typing it every time <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 40 of 50
    She knew a few legal concepts but didn't really apply them that well... Decent indeed.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.