Axing Sex, Swearing From Films Violates Copyright: Court

CBC ^

[Paperdoll]

Either it is a sad statement that film makers make more money promoting the lascvicious, and are intent on influencing young people adversely, or they are convinced they cannot make as much money appealing to clean family viewers.
The devil with freedom of speech, and in this instance, he has alot to do with it!

[IamConservative]

In the vast majority of Hollyweird products, sex, violence, and fowl language serves no purpose in plot.

Once you cut out the sex, violence and language, most movies would only last 15 minutes.

[Borges]

would that law make it OK for books too? And all other products for that matter. Can't just single out movies.

[Hendrix]

"The bottom line is that if it is illegal to scrub movies, we should change the law to make it legal. I bet it would be very easy to get the public to back a change to the law that would allow companies to edit out bad language and scenes from movies. How many people do you know that would be against it? Republicans should jump on this ruling with new law and watch the democrats try to block it (and paint the democrats as anti-family, homo loving, ant-religion, which is hurting the deomcrats now). This is the perfect opportunity for republicans to further paint the democrats as anti-family."

Karl Rove are you listening?

[AmericanDave]

Funny, Speilburg doesn't mind editing his own stuff: like taking the guns off the people in the ET redoo, and giving them cell phones on their belts by computer magic! Get rid of those nasty guns, but don't touch the foul language!

Can you say ORWELL, Truthspeak, 1984...? "We have always fought Eurasia, we always will fight Eurasia..."

[subterfuge]

How does this square with Spielburg sanitizing his own movies long after the fact? Like taking the guns from the cops in "E.T." and digitally replacing them with radios.

[Hendrix]

"would that law make it OK for books too? And all other products for that matter. Can't just single out movies."

Absolutely. People are free to buy either the original or the sanitized edition. There is no breach of freedom here.

[TChris]

Perhaps you would consider it conservative if someone took the movie "Passion of the Christ" and removed every reference from the movie that showed Jesus rose from the dead.

Once a customer has bought a legal copy of the movie, I believe he has the right to modify it in any way he chooses, or to pay someone else to modify it for him.

Would you defend someones right to do that? You can't have it both ways. Copyright owners either have the right to control what they copyright or they do not.

I don't want it both ways. I want the legal owner of a legal copy of the material to have the right to modify it if they so choose. I want to have the right to tear pages out of the book I just bought, or to draw a line through a sentence and replace it with my own. ...or to black out all the bad words.

Or, I want to be able to pay someone else to black them out for me before I read it. I have paid for the book, I should be able to do whatever I want with it after that, shouldn't I?

Now, if editing my own copy of a book is legal, and if paying someone else to edit my copy of a book is legal, then why isn't it legal to have the book store that sells the books edit my copy of the book when I purchase it?

The book would not be edited for all readers, just those who want the edited version. The editing service would be obviously performed by the book store, not confusing anyone that the author's original work had no offensive language.

All we're talking about, when you get to the essence of it, is the performance of two legal services: the sale or rental of legal copies of movies, and the editing of those legal copies for content in such a way that it is clear that the content is not the original work, and both services being performed at the same time, by the same business.

[lepton]

[...]it appears to be the right decision. To me, the sanitizing service is an obvious violation of copyright laws.

Regardless, the copyright owners are shooting—or, at least grazing—themselves in the foot, as there are some people who absolutely will not buy the non-sanitized versions of their films.

Dead on right. ...even if I did edit your post. :)

[discostu]

I would be. Copyright holders should make the determination of what versions of their material are out there. I also would want to have to filter through a dozen different edits of a movie to make sure I was getting the one I want, it's annoying enough with the special expanded editions muddying the waters.

[Hendrix]

What you state is logical, but the moonbats don't deal in logic.

[AmericanDave]

Yeah this week on a flight a flight attendant asked me, don't we use cleaned up versions of movies? This one has foul language still in it?

Now, I understand; the supplier got sued. So now our airline can only show kiddie movies, or expose children to foul language.... what a choice!

[lepton]

That's all these businesses do. You buy a legal copy of the movie and they perform the service of removing the offensive content for you.

Is that was this is about?

If they are selling this service, but not the movie, then this seems fine.

[FreedomOfExpression]

So, I return to my original question: Why is the combination of two ostensibly legal activities under one roof illegal? Selling legal copies of movies is legal. Editing a legal copy of a movie for the owner of that legal copy is, presumably, a legal service. Why do they get twisted up in knots when both are done together by the same company?

The article states that the companies were RENTING OUT the movies, not selling them. That may be one reason for this ruling. Your argument makes perfect sense to me. However, I am not a highly paid copyright lawyer.

[Hendrix]

"I would be. Copyright holders should make the determination of what versions of their material are out there. I also would want to have to filter through a dozen different edits of a movie to make sure I was getting the one I want, it's annoying enough with the special expanded editions muddying the waters."

You would be in the small minority with your view. Most of the public will go for this. You would not have to filter though anything. If you want the original, it will be there. If you want a sanitized version, then you would have a choice of which version you wanted.

[AmericanDave]

That's one of my Cardinal rules: never paint clothes on a nude!

[SerpentDove]

>>

In the vast majority of Hollyweird products, sex, violence, and fowl language serves no purpose in plot.<<

You said it. Has anyone seen The Aviator?

At one point, every third word is "G-D-". And I mean, for a LONG time, and it is meant to make a point of some kind.

Somebody really had an axe to grind, it would seem.

[linda_22003]

And note your own phrase, which says why he can do it: "editing HIS OWN STUFF".

[orionblamblam]

"Bad Touched By An Angel" starring Michael Jackson.

[brytlea]

:)
susie