Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control?

[Liesje]

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.

So, you've proved my point, they ARE making money. There's no WAY a for-profit business is only charging the cost of "services". How do they pay the employees?

You can't pay someone to purchase books, pre-print them without parts of the content, make a profit selling them publicly (which we have to assume since they aren't a non-profit), and think that's perfectly legal....

 

[BVS]

BVS,
Let's imagine you have a favorite photographer. He releases a big book full of his photos, and you buy a copy. Now let's imagine that one of the photos just bugs the crud out of you to the extent that you don't even want to see the photo while flipping through the pages.

Do you think that you should not be allowed to rip that photo out of your book and throw it away?

If you want to edit the movie yourself, that's fine. Just don't edit it then sell it.

I don't believe in third parties editing for distribution.

 

[nbcrusader]

Given that movies are edited and distributed regularly for television and airlines, does a contractual permission for such work really act as the deciding factor?

Or is the underlying political statement expressed by the work of Clean Films the true source of contention?

 

[BVS]

Given that movies are edited and distributed regularly for television and airlines, does a contractual permission for such work really act as the deciding factor?

Or is the underlying political statement expressed by the work of Clean Films the true source of contention?

Why are you making this political?

Of course if the editing is done with permission it's entirely different.

 

[Se7en]

Or is the underlying political statement expressed by the work of Clean Films the true source of contention?

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.

yup, what irvine said. this is a clear case of copyright infringement me thinks.

 

[nbcrusader]

My question was "is this the deciding factor"? Many artists do not retain such a degree of control that they could object to the specific edits that occur for television or airlines. Yet, if you follow the contracts, technically "permission" has been granted. The artistic integrity is degraded as contracts begin to water down the bundle of rights originally held by the artist.

 

[BVS]

My question was "is this the deciding factor"?

Deciding factor for what?

The artistic integrity is degraded as contracts begin to water down the bundle of rights originally held by the artist.

Dangers of the business.

 

[Irvine511]

My question was "is this the deciding factor"? Many artists do not retain such a degree of control that they could object to the specific edits that occur for television or airlines. Yet, if you follow the contracts, technically "permission" has been granted. The artistic integrity is degraded as contracts begin to water down the bundle of rights originally held by the artist.

i think you're confusing the rights of "artists" -- by which we would mean, in this instance, directors -- with the rights of distributors, which would be production companies like Universal, Warner Bros, etc.

depending upon the terms of the contract (i.e., only a handful of directors ever get "final cut" rights, for example, usually the final cut of a film you see is what the studio wants not necessarily what the director wants), permission is not for the director to give but for the studio to give. artistic integrity is beside the point. the finished film is a product to be distributed, and the studio determines in what form that product will be distributed.

you'll note that this isn't a new issue. for example, Blockbuster will not carry films rated NC-17. so, many studios go back and re-edit films themselves in order to get an R rating so that their films can be rented from Blockbuster. one example that leaps to mind is "Showgirls."

it's about $$$, not politics, at least from the perspective of a studio.

 

[nbcrusader]

If I understand the service correctly, the studio is still receiving its full share of $$ on each DVD sold by Clean Films. The editing is a service paid for separately from the price of the film.

I also understand the difference between the rights of the artist and the rights of a distributor. The initial objection to Clean Films was based on the artist retaining control over their work.

I would understand completely if Clean Films downloaded a movie and sold it after editing (no money for the studio).

 

[phillyfan26]

A company like CleanFilms should go to a Universal-type company, and say, "Look, these films have some things that could be edited out and distributed to those who want a cleaner viewing experience. We could team up. We'll do the work, you can still make some royalty on it, and everyone wins." It's not complicated. If they don't want to do it, then, well, you're out of luck.

 

[BVS]

If I understand the service correctly, the studio is still receiving its full share of $$ on each DVD sold by Clean Films. The editing is a service paid for separately from the price of the film.

How is this possible unless they have a deal with the studios?

They only need one copy to edit and then they distribute from that copy.

 

[nbcrusader]

If they are not paying for each copy of the movie, then they are no better than anyone who illegally downloads media.

For purposes of discussion, let's assume they do pay the studio for each copy. Remove the $$$ component.

 

[Muggsy]

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.

I'm an artist too and I would be really upset if someone take one of my pieces and change it just because it doesn't fit their values .

 

[80sU2isBest]

How is this possible unless they have a deal with the studios?

They only need one copy to edit and then they distribute from that copy.

In their FAQs, they state that they buy one original copy for each edited movie they sale. They maintain at least a 1 to 1 ratio. In fact, they send you the unedited original copy along with the edited DVD; they disable the original so that you are not receiving 2 copies.

 

[Muggsy]

In their FAQs, they state that they buy one original copy for each edited movie they sale. They maintain at least a 1 to 1 ratio. In fact, they send you the unedited original copy along with the edited DVD; they disable the original so that you are not receiving 2 copies.

Do they have a reproduction's right (and distribution right) contract with the studios? Because if they don't that's illegal

 

[Irvine511]

For purposes of discussion, let's assume they do pay the studio for each copy. Remove the $$$ component.

they are still altering a product without the studio's permission. they could even do this at cost and it would still be copyright infringement.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'm an artist too and I would be really upset if someone take one of my pieces and change it just because it doesn't fit their values .

Really? You write a song, then someone who legally buys the song edits out a bad word so that they can enjoy the song - you would be upset by that? Really? Why? Would you rather they not buy the song at all?

 

[BVS]

In their FAQs, they state that they buy one original copy for each edited movie they sale. They maintain at least a 1 to 1 ratio. In fact, they send you the unedited original copy along with the edited DVD; they disable the original so that you are not receiving 2 copies.

Good to know. But there's still the issue of rights.

The reason I don't agree with 3rd party editing is that there's no control.

What if someone edited the Passion of Christ to be anti-semetic and then distributed it?

 

[Muggsy]

Really? You write a song, then someone who legally buys the song edits out a bad word so that they can enjoy the song - you would be upset by that? Really? Why? Would you rather they not buy the song at all?

they HAVE to get my written permission to do that. Besides we are not talking about an individual who made a personal copy, we are talking about a big company who not only edits the material but sells it, making $$$ with that

I'm not a singer... I am painter and an Illustrator, so the only one who can edit my images is ME, or the person who I gave that power in a legal contract, and that's one of my rights as an artist. When I work as an illustrator I have to keep the ideas of my client in mind, but I know that my client liked my portfolio over others because they recognized my particular style and way to see things, they can suggest me things and we discuss our ideas so we both will be happy with the results. When I work in a totally artistic, personal piece... I don't really care if someone comes and say "hey I don't like to see boobs", because I have the right to express myself and be authentic with my art.

If I ever walk on the street and see a poster with an altered Illustration of mine, I can sue the people who ripped my art and sold it without my autorization.

 

[Irvine511]

What if someone edited the Passion of Christ to be anti-semetic and then distributed it?

true. i found all that violence to be offensive. i would much rather have seen it without all the ultra-violent historical inaccuracies and Shylocks hissing in the background.

 

[nbcrusader]

they are still altering a product without the studio's permission. they could even do this at cost and it would still be copyright infringement.

I understand the technical violation - my original question focused on whether we get 49+ replies to the story solely because there is a technical violation of copyright law?

 

[INDY500]

This is about money ($$$$) not artistic control. Only a handful of directors retain "final-cut." That's why you see a movie at the theatre and 6 months later when it is released on DVD you then often have the option of seeing an "un-rated", "extended" or "Director's Cut." WHAT!!!! Who's version did I see for 8 bucks a couple of months ago then?

From the 30's through the 70's it was common practice for movies to be trimmed of gore and sex by distributors or theatre operators to meet community standards. A film like LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) or I DRINK YOUR BLOOD (1971) would vary in running time depending on which part of the country you saw it in. The original FRANKENSTEIN (1931) and KING KONG (1931) had scenes removed after the initial release that were never seen again until restored for home-video in the 80's. Films were also cut for time so a drive-in could show more movies in a single night.

The original MPAA X rating also included movies such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY and CLOCKWORK ORANGE which had to be cut down to a R rating to play in many cities. Who did the cutting? The house projectionist using only his best judgement and a pair of scissors.

Isn't Clean-Films an improvement on that system since clearly there's always been a market for "sanitized" versions of current movies.

 

[BVS]

Isn't Clean-Films an improvement on that system since clearly there's always been a market for "sanitized" versions of current movies.

According to who's version of "clean"?

It isn't legal or right, period.

 

[Irvine511]

I understand the technical violation - my original question focused on whether we get 49+ replies to the story solely because there is a technical violation of copyright law?

perhaps the political biases and prejudgements of FYM have inflitrated this thread and it's become a discussion that's really another discussion, and the issue itself is actually devoid of politics.

the conservatives think the studios are preventing them from watching sanitized versions of their movies because the studios want to corrupt their holy minds, and the liberals think that the conservatives are employing fascist techniques through proxy-companies in order to destroy any non-Biblical thought.

is that the answer you were looking for?

 

[nbcrusader]

It isn't legal or right, period.

The legality appears to be a technical violation of copyright law. No theft is involved.

As for it not being "right" - please define the parameters of this principle. I like absolutes that are well defined

 

[nbcrusader]

is that the answer you were looking for?

Probably something more reasonable - but that will do for now.

 

[Irvine511]

Probably something more reasonable - but that will do for now.

i'm sorry you think that.

i really didn't think this was a liberal/conservative issue at all.

 

[BVS]

The legality appears to be a technical violation of copyright law. No theft is involved.

Technical violation?

As for it not being "right" - please define the parameters of this principle. I like absolutes that are well defined

I'm speaking purely from an artist's perspective. I understand not all artist have a final say, but they at least know who does, and they agree to that relationship. This just opens up the doors to anyone butchering any piece of art to their liking.

 

[nbcrusader]

Sorry I think what?

It is clear that there are plenty of thoughts on a broad subject. The true matter at hand is a very narrow legal issue. From response #1 it went beyond that. It need not be a conservative/liberal issue, but plenty are drawn to FYM threads for such discussions.

Frankly, I was surprised by the level of objection to the organization.

 

[indra]

The legality appears to be a technical violation of copyright law.

A violation, whether technical or not, is still a violation.