Censorship is wrong. When you censor a movie, song, book, ect you are destroying an artists vision. If an artist didnt want a sex scene or graphic language in their work then they wouldnt put it there. To take an artist work without their permission, and pervert it is against everything that I beleive in. There are plenty of internet sites that tell you exactly what is "objectionable" in a film. Parents need to decide what their kids should and shouldnt see or listen to. Leave an artist work as is and then choose whether or not to partake in their creation. Just because you might not agree with the things that they do doesnt license you to f**k up their work.
Censorship is wrong. When you censor a movie, song, book, ect you are destroying an artists vision. If an artist didnt want a sex scene or graphic language in their work then they wouldnt put it there. To take an artist work without their permission, and pervert it is against everything that I beleive in. There are plenty of internet sites that tell you exactly what is "objectionable" in a film. Parents need to decide what their kids should and shouldnt see or listen to. Leave an artist work as is and then choose whether or not to partake in their creation. Just because you might not agree with the things that they do doesnt license you to f**k up their work.
:Gets down off soapbox:
Thank you for your time, and attention</strong><hr></blockquote>
So we should send the police to arrest people who do that. If I go to the Art Insitute of Chicago and hold my hand up to look at half a painting should I be arrested? Is it the government's job to protect "artistic vision" and if so who decides if the artist vision has been violated? The creator of the art? The owner of the art? The attorney general? How involved do you want the government to be in your art? None for me thank you!
So we should send the police to arrest people who do that. If I go to the Art Insitute of Chicago and hold my hand up to look at half a painting should I be arrested? </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but you should be arrested for making this comparison
If you are being sarcastic, very funny
If you are being serious, well you are not altering the painting, only your perception of the painting. This is neither censorship, nor ruining the artists concept. It is also, not altering what other people could see in that painting, which is censorship.
No, but you should be arrested for making this comparison
If you are being sarcastic, very funny
If you are being serious, well you are not altering the painting, only your perception of the painting. This is neither censorship, nor ruining the artists concept. It is also, not altering what other people could see in that painting, which is censorship.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clean flicks isn't altering the movie for others either. Just people who want to buy the cleaned up version. You don't want clean don't buy it.
If I buy a poster from AIC and rip the parts I don't like out should I be arrested? Some artists make collages from other works of art. Is that okay? Why not? Send the cops to their door? I bought a painting about 12 months ago. Am I free to saw it in half? It's mine, I own it can't I do what I want with it. Can't I?
Should people be allowed to alter the bible? With your reasoning no they should not. What about works that are out of copyright? What then?
Where's the freedom we once had to do what we want with what we won?
As to whether CleanFlicks is violating copyright law, the answer is yes. That has nothing to do with the ridiculous set of restrictions the movie studios attempt to place on DVDs by various means. It has to do with the concept of derivative works.
Until the legal abortion known as the DMCA, no-one had any problem with works being copied, chopped up and rearranged every which way, as long as it met the conditions of fair use, e.g.: personal use (no distribution), archival, educational use, non-profit use, comment, criticism, and what I call the "dull roar" proviso, de minimus "violations" like a grandmother making 5 photocopies of a newspaper article to send to her children, which fall under fair use by being inconsequential, innumerable and (pragmatically) unenforceable. (The DMCA all but abolishes fair use, at least for digital content.)
However, the minute you leave the limited haven of fair use, things change: Outright copying becomes piracy, and altered works become derivative: That is, they are recognized as new works and copyrighted to the person that made them, but they are so dependent on a prior, copyrighted work that the prior work's rights holder also has copyright on the new one. So it's shared: In order to be published legally, both (or all!) copyright holders have to agree. And that's where CleanFlicks is wrong. They are making their derivative works (the cleaned films) available to any number of people (since the number of people who can join the co-op is effectively unbounded) without the permission of all of the copyright holders.
The idea of derivative works is relatively new (as in, 20th century). Personally, I consider it a poisonous idea in implementation, especially given the lengthy duration of copyright protection, but it's the law.
Ahh, so things are not exactly as originally implied. If it's a co-op where you don't actually have to buy a copy of the original work, it's a little different. Either way the nasty DCMA brands you a criminal.
From an ethical standpoint I see nothing wrong with ammending a work to suit your tastes FOR YOUR OWN USE, or for that matter, paying someone to do it for you (again, for your own use). But, as usual, the law has penetrated this matter more as a mechanism for keeping litagators wealthy than setting ethical standards.
As a matter of taste, I don't see how censorship could do anything but degrade a film. This is not to say graphic violence, sex, or vulgarity are needed to realize an artistic vision, but without a sufficient supply of alternative footage, you'll never convincingly re-make the original. Everybody knows what goes in place of that beep, or what happens between the longing look and the softly lit spooning. We've seen blood spatter and guts spill. Films that embrace these images as a theme (for better or worse) will still allude to all the uncomfortable bits strongly enough so as to make their removal pointless. If you're a prude, you won't enjoy a sanitized "Last Tango in Paris" any better than a dirty version. I guess I'd like to know, why bother?
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>
How can I tell if I'm a right wing nut, then? If I can delete a scene that would cause my children at their current age to have bad dreams, for the time being, how is that a right wing nut assertion?
Comments
Censorship is wrong. When you censor a movie, song, book, ect you are destroying an artists vision. If an artist didnt want a sex scene or graphic language in their work then they wouldnt put it there. To take an artist work without their permission, and pervert it is against everything that I beleive in. There are plenty of internet sites that tell you exactly what is "objectionable" in a film. Parents need to decide what their kids should and shouldnt see or listen to. Leave an artist work as is and then choose whether or not to partake in their creation. Just because you might not agree with the things that they do doesnt license you to f**k up their work.
:Gets down off soapbox:
Thank you for your time, and attention
" Y E A H B A B Y ! "
<strong>:stands up on soap box:
Censorship is wrong. When you censor a movie, song, book, ect you are destroying an artists vision. If an artist didnt want a sex scene or graphic language in their work then they wouldnt put it there. To take an artist work without their permission, and pervert it is against everything that I beleive in. There are plenty of internet sites that tell you exactly what is "objectionable" in a film. Parents need to decide what their kids should and shouldnt see or listen to. Leave an artist work as is and then choose whether or not to partake in their creation. Just because you might not agree with the things that they do doesnt license you to f**k up their work.
:Gets down off soapbox:
Thank you for your time, and attention</strong><hr></blockquote>
So we should send the police to arrest people who do that. If I go to the Art Insitute of Chicago and hold my hand up to look at half a painting should I be arrested? Is it the government's job to protect "artistic vision" and if so who decides if the artist vision has been violated? The creator of the art? The owner of the art? The attorney general? How involved do you want the government to be in your art? None for me thank you!
You people are like Gulliani.
<strong>
So we should send the police to arrest people who do that. If I go to the Art Insitute of Chicago and hold my hand up to look at half a painting should I be arrested? </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but you should be arrested for making this comparison
If you are being sarcastic, very funny
If you are being serious, well you are not altering the painting, only your perception of the painting. This is neither censorship, nor ruining the artists concept. It is also, not altering what other people could see in that painting, which is censorship.
<strong>
No, but you should be arrested for making this comparison
If you are being sarcastic, very funny
If you are being serious, well you are not altering the painting, only your perception of the painting. This is neither censorship, nor ruining the artists concept. It is also, not altering what other people could see in that painting, which is censorship.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clean flicks isn't altering the movie for others either. Just people who want to buy the cleaned up version. You don't want clean don't buy it.
If I buy a poster from AIC and rip the parts I don't like out should I be arrested? Some artists make collages from other works of art. Is that okay? Why not? Send the cops to their door? I bought a painting about 12 months ago. Am I free to saw it in half? It's mine, I own it can't I do what I want with it. Can't I?
Should people be allowed to alter the bible? With your reasoning no they should not. What about works that are out of copyright? What then?
Where's the freedom we once had to do what we want with what we won?
As to whether CleanFlicks is violating copyright law, the answer is yes. That has nothing to do with the ridiculous set of restrictions the movie studios attempt to place on DVDs by various means. It has to do with the concept of derivative works.
Until the legal abortion known as the DMCA, no-one had any problem with works being copied, chopped up and rearranged every which way, as long as it met the conditions of fair use, e.g.: personal use (no distribution), archival, educational use, non-profit use, comment, criticism, and what I call the "dull roar" proviso, de minimus "violations" like a grandmother making 5 photocopies of a newspaper article to send to her children, which fall under fair use by being inconsequential, innumerable and (pragmatically) unenforceable. (The DMCA all but abolishes fair use, at least for digital content.)
However, the minute you leave the limited haven of fair use, things change: Outright copying becomes piracy, and altered works become derivative: That is, they are recognized as new works and copyrighted to the person that made them, but they are so dependent on a prior, copyrighted work that the prior work's rights holder also has copyright on the new one. So it's shared: In order to be published legally, both (or all!) copyright holders have to agree. And that's where CleanFlicks is wrong. They are making their derivative works (the cleaned films) available to any number of people (since the number of people who can join the co-op is effectively unbounded) without the permission of all of the copyright holders.
The idea of derivative works is relatively new (as in, 20th century). Personally, I consider it a poisonous idea in implementation, especially given the lengthy duration of copyright protection, but it's the law.
As for the nature of the "cleaned" films themselves, a more correct term than censored would be <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=bowdlerize" target="_blank">bowdlerized</a>.
[ 09-30-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
From an ethical standpoint I see nothing wrong with ammending a work to suit your tastes FOR YOUR OWN USE, or for that matter, paying someone to do it for you (again, for your own use). But, as usual, the law has penetrated this matter more as a mechanism for keeping litagators wealthy than setting ethical standards.
As a matter of taste, I don't see how censorship could do anything but degrade a film. This is not to say graphic violence, sex, or vulgarity are needed to realize an artistic vision, but without a sufficient supply of alternative footage, you'll never convincingly re-make the original. Everybody knows what goes in place of that beep, or what happens between the longing look and the softly lit spooning. We've seen blood spatter and guts spill. Films that embrace these images as a theme (for better or worse) will still allude to all the uncomfortable bits strongly enough so as to make their removal pointless. If you're a prude, you won't enjoy a sanitized "Last Tango in Paris" any better than a dirty version. I guess I'd like to know, why bother?
<strong>
Clean flicks isn't altering the movie for others either. Just people who want to buy the cleaned up version. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Um...this is a major contradiction. How can they not be altering the movie for others, but do for people who want the cleaned up version
I think you are confused
<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>
How can I tell if I'm a right wing nut, then? If I can delete a scene that would cause my children at their current age to have bad dreams, for the time being, how is that a right wing nut assertion?
Regardless, I dont' give a damn what you call it.