Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-27-2006, 05:37 AM   #16
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 05:04 PM
it sounds to me that Clean Film doesn't have a right to do this
you can't just temper with someone elses work

it would make sense for the movie companies with the director to release clean versions of the films themselves since there is a market for it out there

it sets a strange precedent when you can edit films at will without input of the artist be it in film or music
otherwise I will have a go at the The Passion of the Christ and will turn it into something more akin to The Sound of Music because I like mountains and singing
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 07:56 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Re: Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control?

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
What is your take on this?

Personally, I side with Clean Films. I bought the 2005 version of King Kong from them because I didn't want to hear the frequent use of the Lord's name in vain.

I think that Hollywood just wants undue control over their product. They want you to see it just the way they created it, and no way else.

Not only are they hurting families who want to see the film without being offended, but they are actually even hurting themselves. They are turning away good money, which I just don't understand. There are people out there who won't buy certain movies because of objectionable content, but will if they can get someone to edit that out for them.

With music CDs, you are legally entitled to make one backup copy for yourself, in case you lose the CD or damage it.

I think the DVD industry is rather greedy. With the newer DVDs having copy protection, you can't make a backup copy.
Welcome to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. With music CDs, you have "fair use" rights--as long as the CD in question does not use copy protection. To circumvent the copy protection is to violate the DMCA, and fair use is pretty much eliminated for digital media.

However, the issue with "Clean Films" actually has less to do with the DMCA and more to do with copyright law, in general. You do not have an unabated right to alter/modify copyrighted work for whatever purpose you want. You have to get permission from the copyright holder. If the copyright holder flat out says "no," you have no choice but to stop. "Clean Films" goes beyond the intent of fair use by altering works for commercial distribution--a big no-no even by the old, pre-DMCA standards. And if they are getting their source footage from ripped DVDs, they are not only violating copyright law, but also violating the DMCA. They do not even have the precedent of "fair use" on their side either.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 08:47 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Sounds like copyright infringment to me.

If the studios wish to edit their product and resell it at a premium for this service, fine, all the better for them.

But if somebody made something and imagined it one way, then I don't think a third person party has a right to change it AND on top of that profit off it.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 09:26 AM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:04 PM
As an artist, I wouldn't want my work changed because it offended someone. I do use self-censorship. I don't take certain paintings out of the studio because I'm afraid they'll offend someone. Last year I abandoned a piece with too much blood and guts. I don't do sex scenes. This has alot to do with me being a lousy figure drawer, but it also had alot to do with my personal values. I don't think I would want someone to rip off a piece of a painting because they didn't like it. I understand movies are different, but as anitram and melon pointed out there are copyright and other legal issues involved.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 09:59 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Re: Re: Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control?

Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Welcome to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. With music CDs, you have "fair use" rights--as long as the CD in question does not use copy protection. To circumvent the copy protection is to violate the DMCA, and fair use is pretty much eliminated for digital media.
Speaking of CD copy protection, it sure came back to bite `em in the butt on the Neil Diamond CD. There was a massive recall on his latest CD because, upon loading the CD in a PC CD drive, it installed software that was very difficult to uninstall, and that software had something to do with copy protection.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 10:01 AM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Sounds like copyright infringment to me.

If the studios wish to edit their product and resell it at a premium for this service, fine, all the better for them.

But if somebody made something and imagined it one way, then I don't think a third person party has a right to change it AND on top of that profit off it.
Agreed.

80s, it's not the same as ripping out a photograph from a book of art. That would be comparable to watching a film with your family and fast-forwarding the unappropriate parts.

If someone's making money compromising and re-selling another person's property, that's illegal. Hollywood is not "reaching for a an unprecedented level of control", they're defending the rights they already have under the law.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 10:09 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:04 AM
The whole DVD issue confounds me, to be honest. I don't understand the studios on this one. As Angela and I have pointed out, they can only gain money by allowing companies to edit out bad language and gore. Some families just wouldn't buy it otherwise. I find it odd that their desire to control how you view their movie outweighs their greed for more money.

And as far as altering the vision of the artist, I don't think it does. I now watch Kong curse-free, but when I saw it in the theatre, it had the curse words in there. Those swear words didn't affect the story line at all, so taking them out altered nothing, except that my enjoyment level was increased.

There are films that would be altered by taking out swear words and gore and sex, and Clean Films actually has a list of movies that they won't sell, because editing the movie would render it useless, basically.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 10:13 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Agreed.

80s, it's not the same as ripping out a photograph from a book of art. That would be comparable to watching a film with your family and fast-forwarding the unappropriate parts.
No it wouldn't. By ripping out the photograph and throwing it away, you are altering their body of work. They intended that photo to be included in that body of work.

Fast Forwarding, on the other hand, doesn't remove the scene from the movie. It doesn't alter the product itself, just the way you view it.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 10:15 AM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:04 AM
I understand what you're saying, and on one level, I agree. But for me, it's the larger principle at stake. If it's OK for anyone to get a DVD, change it, and then sell it for a profit, imagine the precedent that sets. It's not possible to say "well, in this case it's OK because we just removed curse words." You're altering someone else's product and making your own profit, period. Not cool.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 10:16 AM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
The whole DVD issue confounds me, to be honest. I don't understand the studios on this one. As Angela and I have pointed out, they can only gain money by allowing companies to edit out bad language and gore. Some families just wouldn't buy it otherwise. I find it odd that their desire to control how you view their movie outweighs their greed for more money.

And as far as altering the vision of the artist, I don't think it does. I now watch Kong curse-free, but when I saw it in the theatre, it had the curse words in there. Those swear words didn't affect the story line at all, so taking them out altered nothing, except that my enjoyment level was increased.

There are films that would be altered by taking out swear words and gore and sex, and Clean Films actually has a list of movies that they won't sell, because editing the movie would render it useless, basically.

it would be one thing if the studio did it themselves.

it is quite another for Clean Films to do it for them.

write a letter to Universal and tell them that you'd like to have cleaned-up versions of their movies.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 10:17 AM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


No it wouldn't. By ripping out the photograph and throwing it away, you are altering their body of work. They intended that photo to be included in that body of work.

Fast Forwarding, on the other hand, doesn't remove the scene from the movie. It doesn't alter the product itself, just the way you view it.
OK, fair enough, but my point was the issue here is that people who have not been granted lisence are altering and selling the property of others.

I can't take a U2 album, remove the two songs I dislike, and sell if for profits over the Internet.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 10:19 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
I understand what you're saying, and on one level, I agree. But for me, it's the larger principle at stake. If it's OK for anyone to get a DVD, change it, and then sell it for a profit, imagine the precedent that sets. It's not possible to say "well, in this case it's OK because we just removed curse words." You're altering someone else's product and making your own profit, period. Not cool.
But Clean Films would say that they are not making the profit on the original DVD, but on the service of editing.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 10:34 AM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


But Clean Films would say that they are not making the profit on the original DVD, but on the service of editing.
Are they a non-profit? How do they stay in business? I don't buy it. My friends have made me DVDs and altered them and all it costs is the price of a blank DVD.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 10:39 AM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Are they a non-profit? How do they stay in business? I don't buy it. My friends have made me DVDs and altered them and all it costs is the price of a blank DVD.
I didn't say that they are non-profit. I am saying the profit they make is on the editing services.

You may have not paid your friend, but do you really think all it costs is the price of a blank DVD for your friend? He had to buy the software and equipment and he probably spent hours editing it; time is money.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-27-2006, 10:43 AM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


But Clean Films would say that they are not making the profit on the original DVD, but on the service of editing.
Which they don't have the right to do!

Since when did it become reasonable to profit off something that violates copyright laws?
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com