Posted on 07/08/2006 9:24:52 PM PDT by BenLurkin
The issue is permission.
Totally agree. These types of scenes and rough language don't bother me within context. Everyone has different tastes and different sensiblities. If you find something objectionalbe, then don't watch the movie.
Correct. These companies should have worked with the full cooperation of the filmmakers.
BTW, I wonder if Medved will waste an entire hour of his show (if he hasn't already) lamenting this decision.
Oh, really.
First it has to go thru the 9th circuit. And what SCOTUS judge did you talk to? And BTW, where did you graduate from law school?
Given your absurd statement about "more laws" I don't think you know anything about copyright law. All the details of copyright law, including the basis for this case, are based on congressional action and can be changed at will. No "new" laws need to adapted. Old ones need to be adjusted.
The rule of law argument is lame, see my earlier posts.
And finally, this is a matter of internal USA copyright law, and is not covered by international treaty. Or have the SCOTUS judges told you a different story?
t
I'll admit to liking Titanic. The breast scene might have been deeply offensive to some people. Likewise, Wings of Desire is a great movie, but again, there's a breast scene.
I TOTALLY AGREE.
I avoid R-rated movies because of the continual F-words and gratuitous sex and violence. I enjoyed "The Greatest Game Ever Played," and you didn't hear much about it.
http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/greatestgame/
It's simply a matter of intellectual property. If you were to produce a movie, you would likely copyright it. No one could change that movie without your permission, at least not for public distribution or sale. Perhaps you'd give permission to some outlets to make changes in your film if it would be to your advantage. If there was a TV outlet offering you big bucks to air your film, but they were worried about a couple of scenes that might be offensive to some viewers, you might give them permission to edit out those scenes. But you could also refuse to allow the editing, and they could, in turn, simply refuse to buy the rights to air it.
It might be in the interest of film companies to produce edited versions of their films that are more family friendly. There are lots of films that have only one or two brief scenes that aren't family friendly. I recently read a Roger Ebert review of PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES in which he noted that the film's R rating came from a single scene where the F word is used repeatedly. Take that scene out, or dub in a less provocative word, and you essentially have a G movie.
But the point is, it's up to the owner of any copyrighted film to make that decision. I can't take a copyrighted film and chop out the bad words and then offer it for sale as a family friendly product WITHOUT the permission of the copyright owner.
I own lots of old movies on DVD that contain scenes which liberals would probably like to edit out. I've even heard liberals gripe that the scene in GODFATHER PART II where abortion is described as unholy and evil should be chopped out.
I probably agree with you on the nature of a lot of current Hollywood product. Yes, Hollywood tilts to the left, has an element that hates traditional American values, and is often vulgar and crude. But copyright law is neutral, and I can't, without owner's permission, sell an edited version of a film that offends me anymore than an atheist can sell an edited version of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.
Give the fact that Congress has a record of strengthening copyright law, it seems unlikely that they'll reverse themselves. Disney, fer instance, had the copyright law extended to avoid having Mickey fall into public domain.
Trust me.
I actually have a friend that just resigned from the Supreme Court, I'll ask her. She was Rhenquist's and Robberts chief of staff.
You want congress to pass more laws based on your desire to legislate morality.
Face it, you can't accept the judgement and the law and you are frustrated. You want the law to be tailored to your own beliefs and bias. Ain't gonna happen.
I wish they had just said that it was illegal to sell copies instead of the following garbage:
"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection."
But I understand that there may be software that would "correct on the fly" even the original disks.
Any chance of switching the topic to what's going on in perfume copyright law? A judge in Holland recently upheld that perfumes can be copyrighted, reversing previous law.
You are correct.
With permission!!!
I think there's a dvd player on the market that does that.
That technology should not violate copyright, because it is not messing with the contents of the disc.
But I'm sure they'll eventually make the argument that people should be forced to view the material in its entirety, thus taking away our right to fast forward through parts that are boring or offensive!!!
But I'm sure they'll eventually make the argument that people should be forced to view the material in its entirety, thus taking away our right to fast forward through parts that are boring or offensive!!!
Famous lawsuit: Sony V. Universal. Universal claimed that the ability to record directly from television violated copyright law. The case was one of the most expensive in U.S. history and went to the Supreme Court. Universal got its butt kicked...
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sony_v_universal_decision.html
Huge difference there. When a movie is edited for television it's edited WITH the permission of the copyright holder. Cleanflicks et al are editing WITHOUT the permission of the copyright holder. It doesn't take a lawyer to discern a difference. After all, permission is the sole difference between making love and rape.
BS. The copyright holder has control of the work, it's that simple. If that wasn't the case, what would keep me from selling copies of Ann Coulter's books with different endings to the essays?
Airlines get permission. Therein lies your difference. Cleanflicks et al is likewise free to edit all they want providing they also seek and secure the permission of the copyright holder.
Exactly! I think Cleanflicks might be an okay idea, but they have to get permission of the copyright holders to make the edits.
Exactly! I think Cleanflicks might be an okay idea, but they have to get permission of the copyright holders to make the edits.
The key word being "permission," which equals money. I suspect they wouldn't survive very long by cutting six figure deals so they can sell 5,000 versions.
You're looking at it complete wrong. A copyright holder has the sole right to alter the material. A good example would be Ann Coulter's books.
Should I be able to sell edited copies of her books that take out the insults as long as I pay her royalties? No, of course not. Ann or or her publisher holds a copyright and that copyright gives them all the power over the work. I can't alter her works without her permission or the permission of whoever she's sold that authority to.
There is no reason at all why this should apply differently to movies. None at all. You might not like the language or nudity in a movie, but you can't alter it without the permission of whoever owns the copyright.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.