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?"

Comments

No mention of Blockbuster?

[Robotech_Master]

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.

Contradictions everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Obvious solution

[magicsquid]

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...

Just like a large

[geekoid]

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.

Eroding our rights?

[coupland]

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...

Re:Eroding our rights?

[Flamerule]

Heh. That reminds me of a story several weeks ago (which I've spent 5 minutes searching for, in vain) about a Japanese man who wanted to be buried with several extremely expensive Gaugins (or Renoirs, or something). The art world thought that was odd, but didn't make a fuss about it because they thought his family would just dig them up after he was buried.

Then he died, and it turned out he wanted to be cremated, along with the paintings! That stirred up quite a bit of outrage, since the paintings are, naturally, priceless.

Obviously, this is a different situation from the /. article, since an original artwork is irreplaceable. Actually, I'm not sure why there's no comparable type of object in film, or music for that matter.... Why doesn't the master print (or whatever) of a film have value comparable to an original painting?

Re:Well, I understand thier feelings...

[Frobnicator]

I'd be damn pissed off if I took the time to create A Clockwork Orange, Se7en, or Fight Club, or Pulp Fiction, only to have people stipping it's essense out and changing the experience.

They are shows with only a few scenes that many people find offensive, and where editing DOESN'T change the experience. They have a listing of the shows they edit, including things like Air Force One, Cast Away, The Mummy, Point Break, and Scream 3. They DON'T have on their list Pulp Fiction or Fight Club.

Re:This is an easy one.

[JoeBuck]

They who pay for the film and own the rights can do what they want with it. Everyone else involved were just employees.

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.

same old copyright ownership issue

[kin_korn_karn]

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.

Blockbuster

[Sebastopol]

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.