Posted on 07/09/2006 8:58:37 PM PDT by wouldntbprudent
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - A federal judge in Colorado has handed the entertainment industry a big win in its protracted legal battle against a handful of small companies that offer sanitized versions of theatrical releases on DVD.
The case encompasses two of Hollywood's biggest headaches these days: the culture wars and the disruptive influence of digital technologies.
Senior U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch came down squarely on the side of the Directors Guild of America and the major studios in his ruling that the companies must immediately cease all production, sale and rentals of edited videos.
(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.com ...
I'm not so sure this is so cut and dry. Does this mean my home builder can sue me for changing the floorplan of my home and selling it for more?
Because it persuades people actually to look at the stuff. Fifty years ago, the movie industry made films for people of all ages and all classes. For twenty years or more films were made with a general audience in view. I dare say that the movies made between 1932 and 1962 were as good artistically as the ones made in the last twenty years. Now they make them for a limited clientele, the young and "hip." The liberal use of the "F" word and gratitious nudity is pandering to a narow audience. Potentially there is a much wider audience, but they do not care to attract that audience.
Don't TV networks routinely do this? They call it, "edited for television". Even more often, they simply "bleep" words.
As to "no right", does that mean I should be sued for blacking out certain words or phrases in a book I buy and give to a (ahem!) 'person of tender (y)ears'?
What about custom paint or other after-market modifications to "the copyrighted work" of the auto designers/companies? Tell me that THAT doesn't "alter" another's work! Or, is it only entertainment copyrights that count, under this 'no right to alter' doctrine of yours?
One of the popes ordered many of the nude figures in Michelangelo's "The Last Judgment" in the Sistine Chapel to be painted over with fig leaves and loin cloths.
As long as it isn't stealing intellectual property, shouldn't people be allowed to get edited movies--though technically the editors would need to get approval from the original makers of the (copyrighted) movie.
I say let the buyer be ware…..
You don’t want you or your family to hear the F-bomb or see some titty? Do some research first, preview and make an informed choice. Don’t like what you see? – don’t watch it. But don’t expect your retailer do your censorship for you and know better than the writers and director on what makes sense for their artistic creation – whether you agree it is good or not and it could very well be crap in my opinion too.
I saw my first R-rated movie when I was in the third grade when my Dad took me to see Patton. He explained to me ahead of time that I’d hear very bad language and see some violence and disturbing scenes but that what I would see was true to history and what he experienced as a WW2 vet. I was not scarred by seeing that movie and I think it made me a better person. I also saw the Green Barets at about the same time.
I concede that Patton did not have “gratuitous” sex, violence or bad language and was a good and patriotic film but then some people would have been happier if the General said things like, gee golly gosh instead of what he actually said. BTW – while we are at it, let’s take the cigarette out of Bogart’s mouth in Casablanca – after all cigarettes are now known to be bad and children could be influenced and after all any censorship is good if “it’s for the children”….
Appointed by Nixon.
Hung Timothy McVeigh.
OK, you have now completely reversed my thinking on this one... If Jar-jar is on the table, I am 100% pro-sanitizing.
Gads! It's starting all over again! Same arguments, same answers. You'd think that one 500+ post thread with the same 4 questions and the same 2 answers repeated over and over would be enough.
The depths of ignorance are constantly remeasured.
Good for them. Now the thousands that were for this just will not buy them at all.
Your analogy doesn't work at all, a home builder doesn't own the house after he sells it to you. The studios still own the films.
They've been doing it for years. You should see the crummy vhs copy of "Death Wish 2" that I bought, and is missing about seven minutes. Other action/slasher movies like "Exterminator" and "Exterminator 2" from less pc days also are missing huge chunks.
Hollywood edits their own films all the time. They just don't want anybody else doing it.
Don't TV networks routinely do this? They call it, "edited for television". Even more often, they simply "bleep" words.
Absolutely right. How come the networks have the right to sanitize the movies, but private companies don't? Perhaps what they objected to was the SELLING of these versions, rather than just the rental.
I own the DVD, they own the copyright.
Does the same logic apply to books?, can I be prosecuted for ripping a page out one that is copyrighted?
Can I be prosecuted for ripping the tag off my mattress?
If anyone who wished could see the original, why should I care.
The movie moguls will have to deal with the sanitization houses in one manner or other. The latter will, of course, begin to point out problems with every one of these precious Hollywood films to audiences who still care, mostly religious Catholics and evangelicals. So Hollywood can only lose. If Hollywood were smart rather than willful, it would farm out sanitization to the people who know what the audiences would rather miss hearing and seeing.
Here's the legal way to handle this, rather than making illegal copies of movies:
http://www.clearplay.com
Props to Politicalmom who gave the heads up on this device on another thread.
50 years ago, movies were one of very few inexpensive entertainment options. The advent of TV - and its ever increasing popularity - changed the movie business forever. Coupled with the replacement of the original visionary, story-loving moguls of the studio era, with the corporate drones and ultra-libs of the modern era, the movie audience shrank. It continues to shrink. Home theaters, 500 channels, cable, etc. All of these are factors. But - if you give 'em what they want - they still turn out: "The Passion," "DaVinci Code," "Pirates of the Caribbean."
"Don't TV networks routinely do this?"
No. The filmmaker prepares a TV version, selecting the cuts himself. It's part of the DGA contract. What these other companies have done is unilateral, and a violation of copyright law.
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.