Posted on 11/15/2010 8:11:19 PM PST by DemforBush
Hollywood is once again going to battle with the puritans.
A coalition of major studios including Paramount, Warner Bros., MGM, Disney, Universal and Fox has filed a lawsuit against a defendant who has taken movies, altered them to be free of objectionable content, and is distributing them to consumers as "family-friendly."
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.movies.yahoo.com ...
“Parents and all people should have the right to have things censored if that is what they want IF THE MOVIES are marketed to the masses and they promote illicit sex and illicit language. This intentional vulgarization of the masses is done intentionally by cultural Marxists who want to destroy the pillars of Western Civilization—the natural family and Christianity.”
Agreed. In my opinion, selling the software used to edit these videos for personal use only is a viable business model.
Then parents can hack away at their favourite films.
There are plenty of rogue video editors that already do this same work (see parody folks), and ‘personal cuts’ to restore hack jobs on the cutting floor.
More people could enjoy the movie if you could edit a little bit of sex or especially violence out.
You don’t have the right to alter a film and resell it.
What about copyright law do you not get?
You can’t do that, its the law, and no amount of cognitive dissonance on your part will change that, ever.
Next time you rent a film, read all the small print when they roll the credits, you don’t have the right to do that. Nor do you have the right to publish someone’s book with your own foreword.
Film is different than books. It takes experience and knowledge to digest what is inside a book. If there are no pictures, it is hard to corrupt a child with it. A little 5 year old can be corrupted very easily by what they hear and see that will impact their whole world view and thinking for the rest of their life.
Art should, of course, be censored. Ideas by perverts can easily be put inside the heads of children, especially with today’s technology. One teenage English boy in the late 19th century got ahold of a Marquis de Sade book and subsequently re-enacted the grisly, sexual tortures on a little girl and boy, who both were killed. He was inspired and sexually excited by the book.
Ideas matter. They are the most important part of a civil society. It is imperative for a moral society to control the stuff that is put inside the heads of the young. It determines whether they become moral people or not. Adults that constantly indulge in filth, do not become decent, productive human beings either. They do not treat human beings with dignity, nor do they treat themselves with dignity.
Don’t be frustrated. Just think a little more about it. Come back tomorrow, perhaps.
Wow, how Taliban of you. Congratulations on such an anti-American statement.
What if you buy the book, make 3000 photocopies of it, and then sell those photocopies for a profit without the permission of (or benefit passed on to) the original creators and copyright holders? Because you one one copy of the work, does that give you permission to create additional copies with the intent to distribute and sell for your profit, but not for theirs?
Uh, no. Please see my posts #20 and #35.
You still have no answer. Wishing you can do something that is clearly against the law won’t make it so.
Living in a free country is worth it it. If you don’t like it, there are several places in the world where the state theocracy will protect your kids and keep you from reading things objectionable to the state.
I’d rather live in America, copyright law exists for a reason.
(Ah, give me break...as Alex Murphy pointed out in this thread, Family Edited DVDS is Mormon owned...and if Mormon founder Joseph Smith can alter the KJ Bible...saying it needed to be "translated" from KJ English into KJ English-with-Smith-additions, deletions and corrections...then what's a few edited products by Hollywood script-writers and their producers/editors/actors, etc.???)
No, I live in the America where the rule of law is just that, not just when you agree with it.
You can’t take someone’s copyrighted creation and alter it and sell it, because you don’t own it. What if someone tried to sell your car or home and took all the money?
Its about rights and its about ownership. There are several directors who specifically do not allow their works to be cut or altered in any way, its their rights. America is about rights, its about ownership. If you don’t feel that way, then you really have some issues with the concept of freedom. Remember....people don’t censor things they agree with....
And if you were to mass produce the edited version of the book and put it for sale, you would have a dozen lawyers on your doorstep.
Hollywood is cutting off it’s nose in spite of it’s face. The whining about artistic integrity and original intent is mute when the original is easily available. Nobody is stopping anybody from buying the nasty original version.
If the altered version is clearly labeled as such and Hollywood collects the same royalty from the altered version they would have collected otherwise they are locking themselves out of a market that would have rejected them otherwise. Not only that but human curiosity being what it is, some of those kids will grow up and want to see what was cut out of the original!
You continue to prove your misunderstanding of the concepts of ownership and censorship.
My only objection would be if he ran off a copy of one video, and made a whole bunch of altered copies from that one video.
If he purchased a new video for each sale he made, I could care less. The studios get their slice of the pie, and the public gets a movie that isn’t so vile that a family can’t sit down and watch it.
The movie would need to be labeled for what it was. That way folks handling the movie would know it wasn’t the version published by the studio in question.
The guy doing this would buy it at the retail price. And families would buy it at that cost plus a fee for having chopped out the questionable parts.
If the studios want to capture this business for themselves, I say fine. Let them get back to producing wholesome content.
Otherwise, within these parameters, ST_U. They don’t want to produce wholesome material and someone else does.
EGGsactly right.
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.