Topic awaiting preservation: Copyright violation?

I saw a story on an evening show last night. It was about these (somewhat) new video stores editing all your favorite hollywood block busters to make them more family friendly.
the particular store they featured, 'Clean Hits', is in washington state.
one of the owners said:

quote:

---

"Well, the Lord's name in vain comes out. It's one of the ten commandments, you know. So everything on up, we all know what a swear word is,? said Emily Hannah, Clean Hits Video. ?Nudity. Everyone knows what nudity is. That?s out. And sexual references and violence.?

---

they have a bit of an interview blip with spike lee...of course he's not thrilled about it. he said:

quote:

---

"I think it's fascism! I don't think it should be left up to some censor,"

to which, the other store owner replied:

?Don't sell your art if you don't want somebody to mess with your videotape,?

---

there are lawsuit pending (of course)....but i was just curious as to what you all thought.
i personally think it is a violation. One director says "chopping up films and rerenting them is no different than a bookstore ripping pages out of books and reselling them." i would say i totally agree with that.

Evening Magazine : show i saw the story on. you have to sign up to read the damn thing. i don't think it's worth the bother.
Article from another place from last year.

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

[This message has been edited by Lacuna (edited 04-30-2003).]

Not that I support this, but Walmart does it with their music CD's. So why can't a place do it with movies?

hmm..i didn't know that. i thought that they just put the 'explicit lyrics' warning on them. is that done with the artists permission??
this video tape editing, isn't.

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Because it's far easier to not carry that movie or CD then to edit the work of someone else.

I don't think Walmart should be doing that. If they ask for and get permission... then sure, otherwise...

in the attempt to make something that was/is deemed to not be 'good' for certain age groups they are changing the dynamic of what the director/producer/artist made.

The FBI copyright screen does say... 'not duplicated in any part or in full' to paraphrase. Sounds like a violation to me.

[EDIT] Dangit Lacuna... beat me to it.[EDIT]
[EDIT2]Stupid fingers[EDIT2]

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-30-2003).]

Imagine watching pulp fiction without violence, language, and the famous "I said... God Damn..."

Personally, I think it's wrong to edit the original movies, no matter how gory they are.
But I also know that some people get offended by what they see or hear on the TV, so I guess it's a good thing for them. Movies should be available in "clean" and "completely uncut" versions : )



[This message has been edited by asptamer (edited 04-30-2003).]

Censorship of art is just plain wrong. I know that Wal-Mart has been doing it for years, and I don't buy their cds for that reason. If you don't want to hear it, don't listen to it. If you don't want to see nudity, hear explicit language or see sex scenes, don't watch the movie. Taking that stuff out of the movie destroys the movie. How can you take violence out of an action flick? Can you imagine, say, True Lies or Die Hard without all the violence? You might as well have not made the picture! How 'bout Highlander? And I noticed they sell a "clean" copy of The Tuxedo - how the hell can you take violence out of a Jackie Chan movie? It's all about the stunts and fighting!
As for explicit language, your kids are gonna be exposed to that anyway. In school, with their friends... whereever.
And you cannot shelter your children from sex. It's a natural part of life, and they need to understand it fully so that they can be responsible about how and when and where it occurs in their lives. You know that if they don't hear about it from you - they'll hear about it somewhere else. And see the movies somewhere else... Let's be real here...
I thought that making people aware of the content of movies was the reason for the rating system in the first place. So that if they weren't interested in watching those things, they could avoid the movie. I know I won't watch it if I don't want to see it.

edit - I believe that Wal-Mart does get permission to edit the CD's they carry. I think that if they do edit them, they have to place a disclaimer on the package. And movies that are edited like that carry the "This film has been formatted to fit this screen, it may not appear in it's original form" comment at the beginning. You thought that was just because they slice the outside edges off the letterbox version, didn't you... It's their loophole for slashing what they don't want to sell...

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 04-30-2003).]

as Bradbury says, 'there's more than one way to burn a book'

this is an extremely negative trend, and will only hurt society.

quote:

---

There you have it Montag. It didn't come from the government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics, the good old confessions, or trade journals.

---

quote:

---

Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don't feel good about Unvle Tom's Cabin. Burn it. Someone's written a book about tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet, into the incinerator.

---

{{from Fahrenheit 451 of course}}






[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-01-2003).]

quote:

---

Censorship of art is just plain wrong.

---

Exactly what I was thinking as I read this thread. Freedom is good. Censorship is bad.

While I have to admit that I abhor censorship and while this may in fact be illegal, I don't have a large issue with this.

I have to note that this service and the likes of Clean Flicks I don't consider censorship. These are services for parents and those with specific moral standards to use. They are not forcing their choice on anyone.

I don't mind people adopting their own values as long as they don't impose them on me.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

OK, I can buy that. And this may not be censorship, per se. But you can't deny that it's at least a step in that direction.

Yes, it's a very big step in a very bad direction.

Don't like movies that have profanity or naked people? Don't watch them! All movies carry a rating and a reason for that rating.

Movies are made with specific language or specific imagery for a specific reason.

The frightening aspect of this is that it *will* become more of a forced issue if we let it, and before long you'll no longer be able to find the original form of the film, and then you'll forget that there 8was* an original form of th efilm, and before you know, films won't be made unless they fit the guidelines these people use...

It scares the hell out of how quickly we could go down that path.

IMHO, rather than recutting others' films, these people should be pressuring studios -- through their purchasing habits; hey that's the beauty of free enterprise -- to release more enhanced versions of DVDs that automatically remove the "bad" words and scenes.

I've heard these Clean Flicks people speak before; they talk as if they have a right to watch a film without its landguage and violence. Sorry, no such right exists. If you don't want to see the movie because of its content, don't watch it. You have no entitlement to watch any commercial work on your own terms.

Again, if you want another version, make your voice heard through your dollars.

[Edit: I'm just acknowledging that I misspelled "language." I won't fix it because it's funny.]




[This message has been edited by Wes (edited 05-01-2003).]

To add to what bitdamaged said..

It's pretty easy to get the original. I mean just because a couple of stores offer this, doesn't mean you have to go to them. I would never buy a CD from Walmart, not that they would have anything I liked, but the point being that there are certain people, Mormon's for example, who would love this because then they could watch movies that they ordinarily could not watch due to their religion. I mean, yea, the people who rent these edited movies are not going to get the full understanding of the movie, but maybe it will open their closed minds a little more.

And that's true, DL it is a step in the wrong direction, but I remember people saying the saying the same thing when Tipper Gore started that Parental Advisory sticker on CD's. And people in America don't seem to follow any sorts of standards now, there is no way that some film maker is going to say, 'hey this group says I shouldn't put violence in my film, I better listen to them'.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 05-01-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 05-01-2003).]

But just because we don't have to buy bowdlerized CDs or DVDs doesn't give people the right to screw with copyrighted works. I just find this quote from Lacuna's first post to be absolutely amazing (the store owner's reply to cries of censorship):

quote:

---

"Don't sell your art if you don't want somebody to mess with your videotape,"

---

So selling your art means you give up all rights to it? What is up with that, really? This person has a severely twisted grasp on reality. I can only vehemently agree with what DL and Wes said directly above.

DVD players have parental locks on them so that parents can lock out certain ratings from playing without entering a code. Granted it's only a four digit code... but it's an extra layer of protection.

The problem I'm having with this is that... even with all of the violence, sex, and language taken out of the movie... it probably contains situations and inuendoes that STILL don't conform to their moral strictures. It isn't just the 'bad' stuff that makes movies inappropriate for some people.

And GN - It isn't some producer we're worried about, it's this group making it possible to tell the producer what he can and can't make. Funny thing is... Clean Hits would be against that because then they'd be out of a job.

These are the sort of people whose children learn nothing about how life really is and whose children are in trouble at a very young age because they don't have the faculties to defend themselves.

I say, let them see it and ask questions of you, or you ask questions of them. Answer them truthfully and they'll actually get something out of it instead of the violence, sex, and language.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

actually, suho, that's the exact comment that ticked me off. i hollered at the tv, just what i thought of it, but the guy, for some reason, didn't hear me. which is probably for the best

i realize that, no, i don't HAVE to go to the store and rent these tapes. like suho said, that's not the point.
and, it's not that they are beeping out 'bad' words. they are taking out whole chunks of film because they don't like it. like bodhi pointed out, how do you watch a gorie movie without the gor?? what would be the point. I can appreciate that they'd like to have more family friendly movies...but disney makes lots of them.
as wes said, they can use the power of the almighty dollar to pressure studios to make more wholesome movies....that don't have to be edited.

*also, airlines edit the movies they show, for roughly the same content that these stores do...they asked for permission to do so. these people haven't even asked permission to do this...they just do it!

[edit] bugger! GD BEAT me to it![/edit]

quote:

---

These are the sort of people whose children learn nothing about how life really is and whose children are in trouble at a very young age because they don't have the faculties to defend themselves.

---

i don't know that i'd go quite that far! they may be a little more nieve about things.... but i'd have a problem with people letting the tv teach their children life lessons. granted, yes, it does induce questions that parents should answer... but then again, it also may not be the right time for that child to be asking those particular questions.
as a parent, i don't really restrict what my son watches...too much. i don't let him watch scary movies, but that's only because he spends the next week sleeping with me and turning every light in the house on at dusk. there have been one or two films that i haven't let him watch because they were TOO sexual and i didn't feel they were appropriate at the time. (i can't think of what they were now...grrr).


__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

[This message has been edited by Lacuna (edited 05-01-2003).]

GN - of course you don't have to go to these stores to buy your movies.

And this doesn't necessarily mean that the issue will snowball into something more dangerous as I alluded to.

But it is a *very* real and dangerous possibility that these types of issues are the ones that will very realistically push us towards a totalitarian society. "political correctnes" - or...what would we call this - mock-puritanism? - is a foundation for censorship and the gradual decay of civil liberty.

Big Brother won't come in and take over...the poeple will build big brother themselves and take their own rights away without ever realizing the consequences of their actions.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not hailing this as a sign of the apocalypse. But I think people *need* to realize that it is exactly this type of thing that will happen bit by innocuous bit and reduce us to living in mental slavery to the lowest common denominator.

It is most definately censorship. It is limited in scope right now, but it censorship all the same.

</rant>

{{edit: Lacuna - I think the implication that GD is making is further reaching than just what the child will learn from the TV. The bigger point that I see is that a household in which everything is so strictly monitored and censored and no view of the real world out there is ever given is an environment which in many cases will not provide the guidance children will need to cope with the real world. Nobody wants their children to learn about life from the TV, but you have to be able to discuss the negative or controversial topics of life with your children...or eventually someone else will, and most likely without the positive influence that a parent will offer. The type of people who promote this type of censorship are often also the type who will not discuss the issues in any real way. }}



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 05-01-2003).]

DL: yeah, i thought that i had missed the point after i posted and re-read everything. but am too damn lazy to go back and edit it again
thank you for sticking me back on the path though

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

The way I look at it, we are already living in mental slavery, I mean it's against the law to drive with no shoes!! What's up with that.

But basically, I still think this is a free country. And if people want the freedom to watch edited movies so they can maintain their little bubble of a life, than fine by me. I don't really see how this could snowball seeing as how the number of people involved in this and the number of people who would actually watch these stupid ass edited movies is probably so low.

What Lacuna quoted from GD. I mean this is something I fully support. I would never censor my kid or tell him stupid lies just to make reality seem like a nice and happy place, I just think that if people want to have the freedom to do this, that is fine by me.


Ozone Quotes

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 05-01-2003).]

Thanx, DL. I saw that but couldn't fix it while at work.

That was my point exactly.

No shoes + car = Brain in chains

Nope, don't understand that one, GN.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

GN: That's a dangerous line of thinking--"Well, I'm not going to concern myself with it because it doesn't affect me directly." Well, maybe not yet. In fact, by the time it gets around to affecting you directly, it may be too late to do anything about it.

And yes, we are to some extent living in mental slavery. There is no doubt that we are already on the slippery slope.

Yup, what they ^ said.

needing to wear shoes to drive a car is something I can't manage to work into this equation...

However, more important is Suho's point - just because we're on the wrong path already means we shouldn't bother to fight against the wrong things?

As far as snowballing....well, that's the one and only concept behind the term 'snowballing' - it starts small. And it grows.

Again, I'm not saying this is the 'big issue'. It's simply one more step in a very negative trend, and we need to be careful. Censorship starts with things that are 'offensive'. As things progress, and the offensive things are erradicated, things that were ok are no longer ok, and become censored. Things progress. Things snowball.

Society is fragile.

I'm with DL on this one...it's hideous.

The journey begins, not with one large step, but with many small ones...and it's hard to turn back...

I think this is one great example, of why P2P file sharing is important...it's one of the only ways to maintain original copies...in the face of such.

I see it has already begun...

Fox9News Story

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

^That^ reminds of a situation that just came up here where I work.

Ok, some background: I work for a state university. We all know how state governments are about making sure their employees aren't breaking any laws/rules or crossing any lines... Ok:

A guy in the next office over, apprently had downloaded a couple of mp3's onto his hard drive for the purpose of listening to them while he was working. Using something like Kazaa, I guess. Anyway, his supervisor received a notice regarding the presence of those files, and while they may not be pushing for legal recourse, they have informed him that he must meet with these "copyright" people and sign a document stating that he will never download music files from the internet again.

I'm wondering, in light of this report, whether or not these folks can legally require a person to sign such a document. And, because we're a state institution, can our administration legally require us to sign such a document on grounds of possibly losing our jobs? Anyone have any thoughts on that one?

edit - it occurs to me now, that I should possibly have started a new thread for that questions - my apologies for hijacking this one... If I have a chance, I'll start that new thread on that topic a little later. (it's almost time for me to go home!)

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 05-02-2003).]

hahah by all means bodhi...hijack away!!
i feel they are related

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Well - since the person who started the thread doesn't seem to mind... I'll abort the other thread I was just starting...

Respond away - to either issue!

Bodhi - Cell 617

bodhi: that paper that they want the guy to sign... do they just want to prevent him from downloading mp3s from work or NEVER EVER downloading mp3s again?? if it's the former... i can understand that, and i would assume that it would probably be held up in a court of law. if it's the latter...i don't think they could do that, but you never know. i would think that it would be impossible for an employer to dictate what an employee does or doesn't do while not at work.... but with it technically being illegal, there may be some loophole somewhere.
of course, it's all just assumptions on my part, as i've got no experience with anything like that. it is definately interesting.

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

^ yeah, exactly the question I was going to ask.

And who are these 'copyright people'??


Scary prospects...

If it is strictly a work related thing, then by all means they are entitled to do such things. If this is a merging of employment and record industry issues, and is meant to span into this person's life beyond the workplace, then this is a *huge* line that is being crossed and my eralier exageration is no exageration at all...big brother is being built as we speak...

as for walmart they just release the edited version of records that are given to them by the record companies