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 ...
So, would you be OK with someone buying James Dobson videos, recutting them to make it a satanic video and selling them and pocketing the money?
Pretty dramatic example, but same issue. Of course you can’t do that, that is why there is copyright law. If you don’t like the film or object to something in it, you have the right NOT to buy it, you don’t have the right to alter it in violation of copyright law and profit from that.
Hmmmm... perhaps the solution to this is to write media player software that enables a programed mute of video/sound at appropriate times in playback.
That way, the media isn’t altered - but the user is able to control the experience and see/hear only what THEY want, and not everything the propaganda ministr.. err, um, media company, wants them to consume.
Just an automated mute button.
There, fixed it.
You don’t own the rights to alter the film! Its in the copyright law. You can’t be for the rule of law one day, and not the other day.
You are thinking emotionally, not logically, you either follow the law, or you break the law, its black and white.
As long as James Dobson got paid and it was clearly marked as altered I have no problem with that. In fact that is the essence of satire when you think about it, the difference being with satire the original does not get paid!
When you can’t make your case, just keep repeating it. At least, that’s been your tactic tonight. May I suggest the CAPS-lock?
If Dobson was against it and wanted it stopped, according to copyright law, he would be 100% right.
Well, the studios who own these films are against it, and want its stopped according to copyright law, and they are 100% right.
You can’t sell what you don’t own. How hard is that for you all to understand. If you buy a DVD, you don’t own the rights to the film, read the credits, examine copyright law, its there, in black and white. Last time a company tried to do this, they lost. There is no gray area on this, you can’t be for censorship because you agree with it, because...next time when you don’t agree it, then it will be too late.
The rule of law, either you follow it 100% of the time, or you just have anarchy. Your choice, but when its your ox being gored, don’t expect any sympathy.
I think I’d be more inclined to agree with you, if I didn’t suspect that Hollyweird simplye didn’t care about children, and wanted to corrupt as many minds as possible.
(Yeah, I know, it’s paranoid to assume the worst of people, but these days, it seems to me a pretty safe bet. And this is coming from somebody who actually likes his movies unedited.)
Please, tell me how this is allowed under copyright law. Show your work. Show me how previous ruled cases support your opinion.
You keep dodging the issue. Is censorship something you are for, but only when you agree with it?
That is hypocrisy.
I will show you once you have demonstrated that the concept of censorship is at play here.
Yes, if I own the copyright to my work, and you alter it and I don’t agree with it, I can call it censorship because you are altering, without my approval, my copyrighted work.
Its about copyright infringement, its about the law, either you are for the law or you are against it. Its cut and dried, ask the other companies that did this and lost in court. Read the fine print, understand the law, its actually the law, not just a suggestion, its the law.
Wrong. Censorship involves a government. This is a private transaction between two willing parties. There is already a device on the market that strips objectionable content from movies as they are being played. The courts have upheld the legitimacy of this device. The rest is just splitting hairs, and it’s only a matter of time before we can all pick the level of filth we’re comfortable with in our entertainment— a right we’ve been deprived of for too long.
So change the law! Copyright is about promoting the arts. Altered versions mean more art not less, provided the owner is paid and the alteration is clear.
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?
A faulty analogy. They are taking a COPY of your home or car and altering it, after you have been paid and the change noted!
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....
Censorship would be burning the originals. The original is still out there for whoever wants to see it. In fact putting out clean versions will increase market demand and put extra money in the pocket of its maker. More people will actually end up seeing the original version because of the interest the altered version will generate. It's a win win situation even if the offended liberal can't understand why.
We are talking about people who WANT the editing done and are willing to pay for it. They should have that right once they buy the item. If they don’t want some vulgar words or ideas put into their children’s heads, they should certainly be able to choose what ideas their children should have. It is the most basic of all rights.
Since the movie studios are so pervasive with their marketing and inject their product into every corner of the marketplace, then the public who is subjected to their constant propaganda, should be able to alter it to meet their standards—if they purchase the item.
That 24/7 marketing and injection into the popular culture by use of public airwaves, roadways and internet, change the dynamics since they target everyone in a culture. Therefore, everyone has a right to consume the product and should have the right to make it conform to their religious standard, which is the freedom of religion and also their freedom to raise their children in their own beliefs.
Doesn’t matter if you want the editing done...you don’t own the right to do so.
If you want your kids to see it, don’t buy it. How hard is that? Read the copyright law, its the law, and you can’t break that law just because you want to...in this case....
Laws exist for a reason, you can’t just ignore them because you want to. You don’t own the right to do this, call up a copyright lawyer. Better yet, read the past cases where this kind of enterprise lost when they were sued. Its not rocket science. You don’t have the right to alter a film because you don’t own the rights to do it, nor do you have consent of the owners to do it. Its black and white. You are trying to emotionally justify what you don’t have the right to do.
So you think child pornography should be allowed? How about snuff films? Oh, so Taliban of me! I am so anti-American to want censorship!!! The Founders were pro-American and they thought obscenity should be censored, along with sodomy and a whole list of other things, they had NO PROBLEM with censoring.
Do you think?
Definition of CENSORSHIP 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship
Where in there does it say its a government act?
Strawman argument, not germane to this case. And a rather hyperbolic, but empty argument.
Child pornography is against the law, same with snuff films. Its a valid law, and I agree it it.
This is about commercial films that are owned by studios and sold and distributed and shown by the studios that OWN the copyrights to them.
Focus, don’t try to create logical fallacies by bringing in non germane issues. That is really pathetic argumentation, you should know better.
Funny, you are for the law one minute and against it another, hypocritical.
You’re not very good at looking up the meaning of a word, are you?
I use a Clearplay DVD player. The movies aren’t altered, the DVD player is programmed to do the editing.
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.