Well, I'm glad we all got around to finally acknowledging the "subtext" that's been here from the very first post. This isn't really about legal and illegal. . .as some have already pointed out, most of us have engaged in copywrite violation actions at leat once especially in regards to music. I find that in general, those with actual working ties to the arts (like BVS for example) tend to take the legalities the most seriously because it hits home for them. Many of us tend to, wrongly or rightly, write off these issues as "not a big deal." So I understand why nbc questioned so many people suddenly becoming concerned with the "letter of the law."
Here's what I think is really going on:
I think Hollywood has an issue with Clean Films, not just because of the failure to gain permission, but because they would not have been granted permission even if they asked. Hollywood is willing to allow a certain amount of editing for the needs of companies like the airlines and TV stations. The studios, as much as they like to make a buck, are not going to want to work with an organization like Clean Films that I'm going to guess takes the editing process to what they view as extreme levels. Case in point is the King Kong movie that 80's bought. This movie edited out all uses of the Lord's name in vain. I think the studios as well as the writers/directors would object to this level of editing. I think so because as an aspiring writer myself, I can understand the objection. I, personally, don't use God's name as a curse word. Ever. I'm more likely to use standard obscenities than to ever use God's name. However, in writing fiction, I have occasionally used God's name in this way when it would best reflect my fictional characters. For me, my stories have to be real and sometimes that involves language, actions etc that I myself do not use or endorse. As a writer, I would object to someone taking out those words, and thus sanitizing and making less real a character I hadn't intended to sanitize.
My hunch is that the level of editing that Clean Films is beyond that which the studios would authorize, not least because the artists that work for the studios would raise a great hue and cry about the extent to which their work was being mangled. They already have to accept a certain amount of mangling with the studios final edit and then the TV/airline versions. I don't think they'd be eager to accept more.
I think Muggsy has done an excellent job of articulating the artists point of view. Her point is a good one. If you don't like the artists vision, why on earth would you buy the artist's product? What Clean Films does may be viewed as a disrespect to the artists (legalities aside). And I think she's right. If Christians don't like what Hollywood is putting out (and I'll say that I don't like a lot of what they put out) then you have two choices. You can either not watch movies at all (that was the traditional standard of my denom. When I was a kid, going to movies was like a sin!). Or start working to put out movies of your own that meet your standards instead of screwing up someone elses. Heck, the Mormons have done it--and even successfully (see "The Other Side of Heaven" and "Napoleon Dynamite"). Evangelical Christians can do the same. I'm trying to do it myself with the film and TV projects I'm pursuing (though I'm not sure that all of my visions would fit with all conservative Christians view of what's appropriate. I take what I call the "Biblical" approach to sex and violence. I don't have a problem with either per se. I do have a problem with the exploitation and sensationalization of both).
