Slashdot Mirror
Directors Guild of America is Fighting Edited Films
BoyPlankton writes "According to this article in the Salt Lake Tribune, film directors are gearing up to battle companies that are making a name for themselves selling/renting out edited films to consumers. The film directors claim that it's censorship and that it's morally, ethically, and legally wrong. The companies doing it claim that consumer rights trump the artists rights in this case, and that the artists don't have the moral ground to stand on because they already edit their films for T.V. and planes. Is this issue going to further erode our rights as a consumer, or will lawmakers take this opportunity to shore them up?"
I was a bit surprised to notice that the chain Blockbuster Video wasn't mentioned in that article; I seem to recall they've been bowdlerizing their videos for years. But OTOH, they're owned by one of the studios, aren't they?
IMO, there's a substantial difference between selling edited copies of a tape and using a system to overlay your own "edits" onto a full version you've bought. The former is an unauthorized motification, but the latter is within your personal rights for fair use, and not any different from simply hitting the mute or the fast forward button.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
The DGA is probably the only film industry body more fascist than the MPAA. They attempted to FORCE George Lucas to put his name at the beginning of Star Wars in 1978. He refused, they fined him, and he left the organization.
On the current issue, who do they think they're fooling? "Edited for television" has been around at least since I've been allowed to stay up that late. Studios chop scenes out against directors' wishes all the time. What's next, a fight against chapter menus because everybody skips to the Good Parts?
If people are willing to edit your movie to supply the demand for such a thing (ala The Phantom Edit) then why don't movie makers pick up on the demand themselves, and re-release the movies in the way that the audience wants to see them? I know that I'd glady pay another $20 for an official Phantom Menace DVD that had the bright yellow "New and improved! No Jar Jar!" sticker on it...
"Chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are exceedingly rare, but... you never know." - MIT Physicist Bob Jaffe
industry to see people making money and try to control the technology and sue the people, instead of releasing special edition releases.
sheesh.
Of course, if DVD technology was left to engineers, we would probably have the ability to do this on the fly with dvds.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Puh-lease. The travesty in all this isn't that directors are fighting our ability to buy edited copies of movies, it's that any idiot would try to take the swear words out of a film in the first place. Don't watch the goddam movie if it offends you so much. While we're at it let's erase all the footage of Elvis Presley's "obscene" hip gyrations and file the tits off the Statue of Liberty. Some people just have no sense...
What about the person who owns the rights to the movie, he or she that wrote it, what about the MPAA, the customer that is willing to pay for the edited rental, or how about the studio, or the television stations who purchase rights, etc... Nothing is simple with that many players. Everyong has different vested interests.
You really don't see the difference? This isn't about the individual consumer, it's about companies editing then selling the edited works. Directors and producers already have to put up with editing for theatrical release, TV release, airline release, etc., but at least they're able to get some input into the process. Here some people they've never heard of have taken it on their own to distribute edited movies because some people are too uptight to deal with (gasp) nudity and (gasp) violence. If you wrote a book, and your publisher told you to take out a sex scene because they wanted to sell it at Wal-Mart, you'd probably do it, even if you didn't want to. But wouldn't you be furious if someone out in Utah took out a bunch more stuff out then republished it, without your permission or even knowledge?
So, in order to get your sanitized version of "Where The Boys Aren't #27" or "Fisting Firemen #10" you need to go out and buy a regular copy and then have it edited. And the problem here is what? If these companies bought one copy, edited it and then sold copies as original purchases I'd have an issue with it. But making it possible for the ultra-squeemish to enjoy sanitized versions of their favorite films isn't a problem in my book. It's no different, IMHO, than taking a marker and blotting out the words you find offensive in your copy of "Huckleberry Finn".
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
You don't own the rights to a film just because you bought a copy. You own the right to view the film. This gets back to the whole license vs. purchase debate. Still I'd tend to think that this act in particular falls under fair usage; but I'd tend to think they should some sort of disclaimer like, "The movie you are watching is based on James Cameron's Titanic as reinterpreted by ClearPlay Inc".
Which IMHO should also be done on the outside of the box for the Blockbuster versions.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
This is the traditional American concept, but it is not true in most European countries, where there is a legally recognized "moral right" that cannot be sold, but that always remains with the creator of the work. For example, no matter how much money you pay in France for a classic work of art, you still can't deface it against the will of its original creator.
1.Because *gasp* they may acutally have other agendas in addition to making money on that one film.
2. Because producing an edited version weakens demand for the unedited version.
3. They're afraid that multiple versions of a tape may cause consumer confusion that weakens demand for videos in general.
4. Overall, the expense in trying to determine which 'other edits' to persue isn't worth it.
you bought a print of the original, unedited version.
If you bought 10,000 prints of the Mona Lisa, drew a mustache on all of them, and then resold them, The Louvre (or whoever owns the image rights to the Mona Lisa) would have a cease and desist in your face ASAP.
If you secured rights to edit the Mona Lisa and then sell it before you sold it, then you would be legal.
Same thing with movies. I can edit my own tape of Fight Club, but someone can't sell me an edited tape without Fincher's (or Fincher's production company's) permission.
Slashdot ought to be called News For Copyright Law Geeks. Stuff That Used To Matter.
Sure, you can rip your books to shreds, but doing that comes with the understanding that the book is no longer the same book.
For a fair comparison, you'd have to edit the movie yourself, which is not what we're talking about here.
Allowing this would allow others to become the director, thereby negating the director's role in the production of the film. Why not just let the cameras roll and let the actors do their thing, with no direction whatsoever? Then, some shmoe in Utah who I've never heard of can decide all of those pesky little nuances that make or break a film.
Get real. The director is there to direct. He has a certain vision of the film, and it should be seen as he intended.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
So let's say you want to see the unedited version of "Requiem for a Dream". If you live in one of those beige cube suburban sprawl trackhomes, then you only have one choice: Blockbuster, the monopoly. However, they only carry the edited version.
So who is getting fucked?
The corporation (Blockbuster) has decided to impose it's own moral code of ethics, but since they are the only game in town (unless you want to drive an hour to the nearest city), you don't have a choice but live under their ethical standards.
Do you get fucked because you have less choice?
Or does the corporation get fucked because they are being told they can't alter a movie?
So it's a lose-lose for the consumer: either Blockbuster wins or the MPAA wins.
What a fun time to be alive! 1/3 of the planet's population is starving and we're worried about our rights to see softcore porn. Not that I think we should have to do something about those billions of starving people -- I just think it is fascinating.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested