Axing Sex, Swearing From Films Violates Copyright: Court

CBC ^

[stands2reason]

"You missed it by THAT much..."

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

"In declining states the leadership intuitively choses the most harmful course of action." -A Great Historian 1888

[stands2reason]

You shouldn't change the law to make stealing legal.

[-YYZ-]

"I guess my high school AP English teacher was committing a crime then, when he showed us "Clan of the Cave Bear" and kept fast-forwarding through the sex scenes."

But, that was the only redeeming aspects of that movie! Darryl Hannah was Ayla, IIRC (I only know that because I read the book - the movie was quite forgetable).

[antiRepublicrat]

why then the regularization of the spelling of words can be both copyrighted and patent.

Words and the spelling of them are facts, and facts can't be copyrighted (see Feist v. Rural Tel. Service Co., 1991). Creative organization and layout, plus comments and the specific wording of definition go into a dictionary, which make the work as a whole copyrighted.

Patents don't apply unless you have a specific unique method for creating a dictionary.

[bvw]

The regularized spelling of words is a business process. Patenable.

Moreover just as Kleenex and Jello were nonsense words before their invention as brand names, so too was spelling so irregular prior to Wabster's artifact that the regular use of a particular spelling was no "fact".

[antiRepublicrat]

The regularized spelling of words is a business process. Patenable.

Then patent it, but that's completely separate from copyright. You can usually tell someone who doesn't know IP law at all by the way they mix up patent, copyright and trademark.

[bestiq]

We have used Clean Films for some time and I just got this reply to an email I sent to them.

---

Hello Tom,

Thank you for contacting CleanFilms.

Since you have sent back the Monster-In-Law DVD already, we have now just removed it from being checked out to your account. Unfortunately, we are not sure if we will be able to continue doing business at this point. We have just lost a legal battle against several Hollywood producers and may be forced to stop doing business. Our attorneys are talking with the Hollywood Studios and hope to reach a mutually beneficial understanding. We still are not sure what the outcome of this will be, but we will likely not be able to continue providing content edited movies.

Thank you for using CleanFilms.

Sincerely,

Customer Service

---

I will miss their service if they have to fold.
I will not watch the filth from Hollywood... but there are a lot of older films that contain good morals and no perversion or profanity that our family can enjoy.
Hollywood is next to worthless today for creating good films that appeal to our "higher calling".
There are a few exceptions, but not nearly enough!

[linda_22003]

UH-oh.... you just admitted you watched a Jane Fonda movie! :)

[bestiq]

yeh and it was just as bad as we thought it would be even though they cleaned it up.

[Stone Mountain]

As long as you get paid the full amount for the DVD, why should you care?

The same reason I would care if I were an artist, and someone bought one of my paintings and painted over parts of it.

[Stone Mountain]

Hollywood isn't particularly liberal on the business side. It's a straight up business. No different than any other business.

You would be surprised at how many people here don't believe that. They honestly believe that Hollywood is less focused on profits than they are on changing the culture of this country for the worse. Quotes just from this thread:

"Why is Hollywood so hell bent on forcing sex and profanity on our kids. Bunch of perverts."

"They are not doing it for the money. Almost everything Hollywood puts out is put out to influence and change minds, and making money is a secondary reason."

Hollywood could sell more DVDs if it made sanitized versions, but it refuses to do so based on principal (that no one dare change their art).

I don't see any PG versions of R rated movies. They could easily do this and make a ton of money, but it shows that the business reasons are outweighed by other reasons. Hollywood does not make movies just for profit--they do it for other reasons as well. In other words, the profit motive is not there primary concern.

It's amazing to me how many people don't believe that Hollywood is in it for the money.

[durasell]

It's amazing to me how many people don't believe that Hollywood is in it for the money.




As it should be. The business part is among the least interesting aspects. Do people really care about ancillary rights in South America or broadcast rights in Finland?

[bvw]

The two have come to overlap. Yes, I despise current "IP" law, so I don't know it. I like the older concepts. Call me "retro", but I make no demands on others that fall in category hypocritical -- such as one who freely borrows from Noah Webster's IP with a song and dance as payment.

[antiRepublicrat]

such as one who freely borrows from Noah Webster's IP

Even if your absurd claim were true, his works are in the public domain now, so no possibility of infringement.

[bvw]

Then so too *should* be Mickey Mouse. More than 14 years since Stemboat Willie left the inkwell of Walt Disney.

[Stone Mountain]

Yes, I have. I guess I did not make myself clear. My point is that there does not have to be a graphic display of violence. For example, I have never seen a performance of "Hamlet" in which the deaths in the final scene featured blood squirting everywhere. We know that there are deaths, but we are spared the realistic portrayal of guts and gore.

I have to believe that this is because the medium he was using (medieval stage) doesn't allow for the realistic portrayal of guts and gore. From what I understand about Shakespeare - wrote for the common man - liked to explore relationships, violent and otherwise - plays full of intrigue - that if Shakespeare were alive today, he would be doing those exact things.

[Bigg Red]

..if Shakespeare were alive today, he would be doing those exact things.

&&
Well, we'll never know that for certain. But it is quite clear that his writing skills were sufficient to make gory scenes unnecessary. The same cannot be said for the hacks that call themselves writers today, which is why I see, onn average, only one motion picture per year.