Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control?

[Irvine511]

Sorry I think what?

sorry that you think that the replies to the original post were motivated by liberal/conservative subtext.


[q]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.[/q]

but those who have spoken out in defense of the studios have said the same thing over and over.

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

who's objecting to the organization? people are objecting to a specific practice -- just as i'd object to any company that sought to add in more violence, naughty words, boobies, etc., to a film -- and not the practice of the company itself. it has been noted that blockbuster does this to a certain extent, though they simply refuse to carry objectional material, they do not change the material itself.

also, many who have voiced strongest opposition are, themselves, artists. i'm sure it hits home for them.

 

[verte76]

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

I don't think this has anything to do with liberals and conservatives. It's a matter of respecting what the artist has done and not butchering it to keep it from offending Person X. You can't please everyone.

 

[anitram]

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.

Oh please, you are looking for something that isn't there.

There are multiple posts on this thread by people like myself or A_Wanderer or LivLuv, for example, that made no mention of anything at all apart from copyright infringement and made no value judgment on this company.

 

[INDY500]

What about when a film is redubbed for foreign distribution. Besides being edited for violence (but sometimes nudity actually added in) and altered by translation, aren't they also often stripped of "culturally sensitive material" Of coarse they are, and Hollywood makes a ton of money because of it and "artistic control" takes a backseat to profit.
So why all the fuss if some Americans would like the same option given to them?

 

[BVS]

What about when a film is redubbed for foreign distribution. Besides being edited for violence (but sometimes nudity actually added in) and altered by translation, aren't they also often stripped of "culturally sensitive material" Of coarse they are, and Hollywood makes a ton of money because of it and "artistic control" takes a backseat to profit.
So why all the fuss if some Americans would like the same option given to them?

How do you add nudity if wasn't ever filmed in the first place?

All of which you talk about isn't done by a third party, it's done within the umbrella of company that owns the rights.

 

[80sU2isBest]

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

To do that would require additions to the film, not ommissions such as taking out swear words or violence.

To edit out the use of the Lord's name in vain in King Kong does nothing to alter the movie's plot.

 

[nbcrusader]

There are multiple posts on this thread by people like myself or A_Wanderer or LivLuv, for example, that made no mention of anything at all apart from copyright infringement and made no value judgment on this company.

Great

Why did my observation draw such a response? I'm not sure it is helpful to project my intent and then criticize the projection.

Frankly, this issue has been around for quite a while. The tenor of the discussions go well beyond technical violations of copyright law.

The issue could be resolved with the answer to this question: how much more money does a studio want from Clean Films per DVD?

 

[BVS]

To do that would require additions to the film, not ommissions such as taking out swear words or violence.

To edit out the use of the Lord's name in vain in King Kong does nothing to alter the movie's plot.

The magic of editing is a powerful thing, you could easily do this.

 

[Muggsy]

To do that would require additions to the film, not ommissions such as taking out swear words or violence.

To edit out the use of the Lord's name in vain in King Kong does nothing to alter the movie's plot.

You are deffending that company's actions because they are doing things for your convenience, although they are doing something illegal and unethical. If that company where doing movies even more violent and profane, I think your opinion would be different

 

[BVS]

The issue could be resolved with the answer to this question: how much more money does a studio want from Clean Films per DVD?

If there is truly a profitable reason, the studio will do so. There are edited versions on DVD, On Demand, and the examples listed before of many movies, done by the studio, or with permission of the studio.

 

[Irvine511]

Why did my observation draw such a response? I'm not sure it is helpful to project my intent and then criticize the projection.

why did you suggest subtext in the first place?

 

[Irvine511]

To do that would require additions to the film, not ommissions such as taking out swear words or violence.

To edit out the use of the Lord's name in vain in King Kong does nothing to alter the movie's plot.

actually, i'd argue that to make "passion" not anti-Semetic, you'd have to omit things.

 

[Liesje]

Oh please, you are looking for something that isn't there.

There are multiple posts on this thread by people like myself or A_Wanderer or LivLuv, for example, that made no mention of anything at all apart from copyright infringement and made no value judgment on this company.

Thanks, I support laws that protect other peoples' property. I couldn't care less what is actually being censored from the DVDs - or even what media is being subjected to censorship. I thing it's legally wrong to do such a thing and I find that arguing in favor of it sets a dangerous precedent across the board.

Like Muggsy said, it sounds like some people's opinions are based on the actual content being altered. The way I'm looking at it is, in general, altering someone else's property and then selling it for profit is ethically and legally wrong.

 

[nbcrusader]

Thanks, I support laws that protect other peoples' property. I couldn't care less what is actually being censored from the DVDs - or even what media is being subjected to censorship. I thing it's legally wrong to do such a thing and I find that arguing in favor of it sets a dangerous precedent across the board.

Is this violation of copyright law worse than things like downloading movies?

 

[Liesje]

Is this violation of copyright law worse than things like downloading movies?

Who cares? Violating is violating, IMO. Personally, yes because they are selling the products, but technically, no it doesn't matter which one we think is "worse", they are both breaking the law.

 

[nbcrusader]

If there is truly a profitable reason, the studio will do so. There are edited versions on DVD, On Demand, and the examples listed before of many movies, done by the studio, or with permission of the studio.

I think that is part of the story we are missing or that is yet to come.

As with many things, objections soon disappear when a dollar figure is offered. Unlimited music downloads became acceptable when the proper rights were purchased.

 

[80sU2isBest]

ou are deffending that company's actions because they are doing things for your convenience, although they are doing something illegal and unethical. If that company where doing movies even more violent and profane, I think your opinion would be different

I do not consider it unethical at all.

Illegal? I don't know at this point. I'd need to read a whole lot more on the subject than what has been presented on this thread before I am convinced.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

I think that is part of the story we are missing or that is yet to come.

As with many things, objections soon disappear when a dollar figure is offered. Unlimited music downloads became acceptable when the proper rights were purchased.

The main point people have been focusing on in this thread is the lack of rights to edit.

 

[80sU2isBest]

As with many things, objections soon disappear when a dollar figure is offered. Unlimited music downloads became acceptable when the proper rights were purchased.

But to me, this situation is not about money. They only stand to lose money by shutting down Clean Films and the like.

 

[INDY500]

How do you add nudity if wasn't ever filmed in the first place?

It was done often in the early days of home video and before. Brand new footage of nudity or violence was shot and inserted into the film by the company then owning the rights to give it a more modern look or to appeal to a different audience. Jess Franco's 99 WOMEN being a good example. In addition, many movies made for drive-in double features often had additional footage (shot up to a year later) added to them solely to pad out their running time when sold to TV. Monte Hellman got his start doing this. All perfectly legal and all done without the permission of the original director.

Offered for those of you interested in putting this topic in historical perspective.

 

[nbcrusader]

Who cares? Violating is violating, IMO. Personally, yes because they are selling the products, but technically, no it doesn't matter which one we think is "worse", they are both breaking the law.

Given the prevalence of downloading unlicensed material, why is this "breaking of the law" unacceptable while downloading does not meet the same scrutiny?

 

[INDY500]

I think that is part of the story we are missing or that is yet to come.

As with many things, objections soon disappear when a dollar figure is offered. Unlimited music downloads became acceptable when the proper rights were purchased.

Exactly. Go back 25 years and read how home video was going to be the demise of Hollywood in their eyes. That is until they learned how to make money from it and now home video has, in many ways, been their salvation.

 

[Muggsy]

I do not consider it unethical at all.

Illegal? I don't know at this point. I'd need to read a whole lot more on the subject than what has been presented on this thread before I am convinced.

It is unethical because:

* they are selling ripped material. It is like selling an stolen car without a different painting to make the car look less ugly
* In some way the are taking benefits of the success of the (original) movies, selling altered versions of them. They aren't selling "family" original movies, they are selling blockbusters with a sugar cover on them. also, they found a market and they are exploiding it at expenses of the original film makers

I've been searching in that web page any kind of moral argument supporting their actions... I haven't found it yet. In my eyes they are just exploiding a market. If they were serious about this issue they would be for example, a non proffit organization looking for the studies to edit their own family versions.

 

[Irvine511]

It All perfectly legal and all done without the permission of the original director.

but the director doesn't matter; it's the studio's call because the studio financed the movie in the first place and they own distribution rights.

movies are also a vastly different business than they were 30 years ago. once movies started making hundreds of millions of dollars, thanks first to "Godfather" and followed by "Jaws" and "Star Wars," the lawyers got far more aggressive in protecting the product.

 

[verte76]

Just because something was done in the past doesn't make it ethical or legal today.

 

[BVS]

I think that is part of the story we are missing or that is yet to come.

As with many things, objections soon disappear when a dollar figure is offered. Unlimited music downloads became acceptable when the proper rights were purchased.

The dollar figure doesn't matter, IT'S ILLEGAL!

Why is this so hard for some to swallow?

 

[BVS]

I do not consider it unethical at all.

Illegal? I don't know at this point. I'd need to read a whole lot more on the subject than what has been presented on this thread before I am convinced.

It is unethical and illegal, hence the judge stopping the selling and renting.

Just because it suits your needs doesn't make it right.

 

[80sU2isBest]

It is unethical because:

* they are selling ripped material. It is like selling an stolen car without a different painting to make the car look less ugly

No it's not like that. Clean films bought 1 copy of the original for each edited copy that they sell. How is that like a stolen car? There is no theft involved whatsoever.

* In some way the are taking benefits of the success of the (original) movies, selling altered versions of them. They aren't selling "family" original movies, they are selling blockbusters with a sugar cover on them. also, they found a market and they are exploiding it at expenses of the original film makers

What expense is it costing the original film makers? They aren't out any money at all. As I said above, Clean Films bought 1 copy of the original for each edited copy that they sell. In fact, the studio will lose some potential money by shutting down Clean Films. Many people who buy from Clean Films will not buy if it's not edited.

 

[80sU2isBest]

It is unethical and illegal, hence the judge stopping the selling and renting.

Just because it suits your needs doesn't make it right.

You think it's unethical, but that doesn't necessarily make it unethical. I see nothing unethical about paying someone to edit out offensive material from a movie I legally bought the original unedited version of, as long as I don't show the movie in publicor give or sell it to someone else.

What I do consider unethical is sneaking irreverant use of the Lord's Name into movies like Batman Begins and King Kong, which will definitely attract large numbers of families.

Illegal, I'm not even sure about. I would need to read more about the law and what Clean Films is actually doing.

 

[Salome]

I tend not to like discussions too much that deal with "precedents being set"
but if the movie studios are going to allow people editting their movies without having any say in it
and then these movies get sold then copyrights just become worthless

completely worthless