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?"
They who pay for the film and own the rights can do what they want with it. Everyone else involved were just employees.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
So does this mean they'll take on Blockbuster for only renting the censored version of a film?
Hopefully their first target will be George Lucas for his disgraceful "Greedo shot first" revision.
Next they'll tell us we can't skip ahead to the conclusion when we read a book. Jeez.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
Stephen
Fault loves the past, worry loves the future, but content enjoys the present.
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
Films are made by people who care passionately about what they do and what their work says
Oh, yeah? Then explain Armageddon to me.
But seriously, folks...
What 'consumer rights'? Who's got the right to see Titanic? What about the right not to see it? More importantly, the right not to hear Celine Dion singing that godawful song?
It could prove interesting, though. If it's is deemed acceptable, will people be allowed, for example, add their own scenes? Change the order of scenes? Imagine if someone were to take a copy of Star Wars and delete the second or so where Greedo pulls a gun. It'd completely change the character of Han Solo.
They've been doing this in Utah at least since Titanic was released. More here, though the editing issue is completely tangential to that particular article.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
What I've seen a lot of people do for movies is to buy it as is, and then either have someone personally edit out portions they don't like or just have some sort of electronic filter that has a set of edit points stored in memory. I frankly don't see how content providers are going to be able to stop this.
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
Ah, there is a difference. I bought the Sony Playstation and if I mod it for my use only, Sony shouldn't care. I'm not trying to sell my "modded" Playstation, just play with. On the other hand, if I want to mod my movie for my own uses, and don't want to sell or rent it to others that should be fine too.
I agree wholeheartedly with the directors. They directed. It's no one elses right to re-direct, unless it was specifically covered in the contract. It reflects on the director when the film has been hacked to shreds and "reads" like a 3rd grader wrote it. shortened scenes and broken stories make them look like they blew it.
Anything you say will be held against you.
I think what the article is getting at is that the director may have something called "Moral Rights" over the work. Essentially this means that the item is a work of art that was produced for a fee and that the author of the work has the right to object to derogatory treatment of the work (i.e. censoring scenes).
The idea being that once a piece of art has been created the author has his/her name attached to it, and thus any treatments of the work done later that do not fit the artist's vision taints the artist's reputation.
I don't know how this works with film, because there are limitations to this when an artists produces work for an employer.. so it may be that the studio owns the moral rights, and I'm also not sure how this works in the US, but the UK and Canada both have moral rights. I'm not entirely sure as IANAL.
But.. here is a link for my karma-whore points... Moral Rights .
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...
Film alternate scenes/dialog that conforms to the different levels of viewership.
That was one of the promises of DVD, we were supposed to have multiple ratings at our fingertips so the kids could see the PG version, the teens could see PG-13 and after the children were tucked in, the adults could see the R version.
That hasn't happened. They apparently don't see a market for it. Well if they don't and some consumers do, why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to pursue it?
All these whiney directors need to do is release an editted version themselves. Or are they going to prevent parents from fast-forwarding that one "bad scene" or muting an expletive-laden tirade?
I don't care how "important" the message in Schindler's List is. The scene where there is a nude woman in the German officer's bed is stimulating and sexual. If I had kids, I would want to skip that scene.
Here's what makes me want to puke on these directors...there are a lot of good good movies out there that had to add a single vile scene so they would be able to get the R rating their marketting folks said would sell better. Wasn't that compromising your artistic integrity?
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
it is the directors who are censoring derivative works. According to my definition, censorship is a prohibition on distibution due to content or lack thereof. The 'companies' in this case aren't prohibiting anything...though what they are doing may have questionable standing in the current legal environment on account of effective copyright laws.
First of all - since it was Disney who said in their ad "Own it [Tarzan] now on Video or DVD" - so if they can then change their mind that i don't actually own it, I can not give a crap.
Secondly - once I have given YOU the money - it IS mine - so if i want to paint the screen with white out, that's my business. With paint or with another device if i so choose.
I can see the DGA being upset with organized resale of modified DVD's and tapes - but once i buy it, i can - and will - do whatever the hell I want with it.... including burning it, using it as a doorstop, changing it, backing it up.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
close your eyes guys... don't look at it, it will be horrible.
TIMMY!
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Good luck to these guys.
-- Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
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?
For those of us who are younger and never saw the original theatrical release of Star Wars, could you clarify the Han Solo/Greedo example?
Legal issues aside, I understand the Directors feelings. Certainly when you get a competent director who make thoughtful stuff, like Stanley Kubrik or Dave Fincher or Quentin T., it's an insult to have people watching your movies under some sanitary cut. This isn't a plane or TV, where the audience will like the movie and then go to view the real thing. This is either really pathetic people not wanting to be offended, or parent's trying to show your art to children in a butchered manner. I think there is a difference, and 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.
Again, it's not the same as the TV or plane version, because the goal here is not to open the movie for a wider audience (who can then go and see the real thing), it's a viewer asking someone else to protect them permenatly from the scenes that often make the movie.
But I guess I am sort of a sadist when it comes to these things, and prefer movies that make me uncomfortable and show raw humanity at it's best and worst. Also, note that if you think Stanley's, David's, or Quentin's work sucks, pick another director - the point still stands.
_sig_ is away
The article also mentions a device you can use at home. That's fine, it's for personal use.
:)
It's only when they resell edited movies that I would cry foul.
This is an interesting issue, to be sure
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
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.
As long as the uncut movie is still available, and the "censored" editions are very clear that they're edited, then why should there be any problem? Those who want to hear the cussing and see the sex scenes will buy the unedited version, and those who don't will buy the edited version. Seems like it's just a case of giving people what they want to see. I don't think it's violating the director's rights as long as the original version is still available. It only becomes censorship when you deny people access to the unedited version.
Greedo never pulled a gun on Han. In the 'update' Greedo drew first, thus making Han's shooting of Greedo an act of self defense, instead of cold blooded murder.
Best Slashdot Co
Hackers like the Phantom Edit(or) are engaging in fair use and/or creating derivative works by modifying the film/song/etc.
Blockbuster is not within its right to edit the film it offers to its customers, because that interferes with the creator's artistic vision.
Got it.
When Ted Turner colorized all those movie classics. Or the choice to release a movie in a foreign market dubbed (I'm talking about foreign films brought to the US and only released dubbed by the distributor).
The owner of the rights to the film can do with it what he choses. Simple.
Turner owned those reels of movies and he did what he wanted. Of course the public backlash stopped it in the end.
Similarly local distributors in a country count as the owner's proxy in those states. But the general dislike of dubbing has stopped them from releasing dubbed versions of Crouching Tiger and Life is Beautiful. Of course it has also limited the distribution of foreign movies (the assumption being people don't like dubbing but only film critics like to read subtitles so you can only release it in art houses).
Like an earlier poster said, anyone who doesn't own rights to a movie but works on it is just an employee.
A good example is Fox owning the original Star Wars. Lucas had to buy it back from them. Of course when he did he added in "Greedo shooting first."
Originally Fox could have stopped him from adding it. Later they couldn't. Neither could the LucasFilm employees or Harrison Ford.
Control of the final product is one of the benefits of being a big time director.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Interesing topic, but I would think it is moot. The DGA fought the same battle through the courts when the studios started colorizing and rereleasing black & white movies in the 80s. They lost the battle 100%. Hard to see how this is much different.
sPh
There is a large enough market here to justify the additional cost. There are a variety of companies in Utah that have sprung up to fill this need. The company in question has found people all over the country that want to see cleaned up movies. If Hollywood would simply provide the toned down versions that they have already made of these movies on DVD they could realize additional revenue.
This is not censorship. Censorship is when someone else decides what you get to watch. This is consumers deciding for themselves that they don't want to view particular content. I doubt that many /.ers can respect that, but they should be able to see the difference.
Certainly if I buy a book I am free to rip out any pages that I want. The magic of DVDs allows you to "rip out pages" without doing so permanently. Why hasn't this technology been supported by Hollywood?
Lasers Controlled Games!
Ok, very important. Read the article.
It is not about the right of the consumer to edit films.
It is about the right of the director to have some control over the final edit of films to avoid butchered versions of his vision.
So posts about The Phantom Edit are off topic.
What is music when you despise all sound?
tone them down so the mormon population can enjoy them
Well, I'm opposed to all forms of censorship, but I understand that they want to keep their self-dellusioned outlook.
Of course, the reason that I am opposed to censorship is that it is a form of thought controll enforced by small-minded "moral" people.
I would agree with "edited" movies if the original versions were free of the evil influence of the MPAA's censorship: in other words, let uschoose for ourselves dammit!
You can't take the sky from me...
I have the right to mutulate my book, to take pages out and freaking burn them, to draw on pages etc.etc.etc. becuase it is MY COPY now. I am not doing it to a library book, I am NOT reselling the book.
The same with anything. If I buy a Leonardo Davinci's Madonna for X millions of dollars, I can then freaking burn for all I care - but this is a more questionable deed since we agree there is only ONE Madonna, even though we can make copies of it.
However, when I buy a DVD I cannot make extracts of it? What if I want to use it for some critics class or for the sake of making a parody? What if I just want to copy a portion of this DVD to a tape and only watch that portion of the movie later because that is the only portion of the movie that I like and that is the only reason why I bought the freaking DVD on the first place?
I do not know much about Utah and why they do not like nude scenes in Titanic (mormons live there, don't they?) but I believe they have all rights to do as they will with their copies of DVD and if there is a company that helps them to custrate that DVD and make a different version of that DVD for their OWN use, then screw MPAA and all their lawyers, let them try and enforce it. If this is enforcable then noone should be able to take a newspaper apart and only read portions of it.
You can't handle the truth.
I dont have a problem with editing films for TV, as long as the fact that there are edits is clearly stated before the film is shown.
In the UK, they cut everything, including Star Trek (removing references to the IRA for example) and they do not state before a film or show is aired that they have made cuts.
This amounts to false advertising. If they advertise that a film is to be shown, this means the film as released by the studio / director. If any edits have been made, then this is NOT the same film, but a corrupted version, and it should be clearly marked as such.
If people in the UK knew just how many cuts were made to TV broadcasts of films and shows (by a simple "edited for television" at the beginning) they would be outraged.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
I have to say that anyone who requests censoring their owned art to remove the 'offending' parts is intolerant and probably doomed to be uncultured and ignorant. But whatever. Thats their perogative. Should we prevent people from 'splicing' their VHS tapes?
It's totally understandable that the artists in question would fight to ensure that their vision remains unedited for two reasons:
1) Control over product. It's understantable in an artistic medium - its not like a car, where if you can make the product go faster, after-market, good for you. Art is a message (even if its an uncomplicated, shallow message), and to fuck with it is to fuck with the message.
2) Money. If I'm artist X, and I think most people who are seeing my work through word-of-mouth are seeing edited copies, I'd be upset that other people's editing of my product could be influencing potential customers' decision to purchase my movie. (After all, it's not too uncommon to hear somebody say things like, "Yeah, the movie sucked, but I own it cause of that scene where that chicks not wearing anything." or whatever. Sometimes the offensive bits sell the product.")
That being said, since people have always been free to splice VHS cassettes themselves, etc, I really think its a battle that should be fought only to present the issues directors have with it. I really do believe its unethical to edit art yourself, beyond editing that must take place for logistical reasons ('narrowed for TV' is a legit reason, 'took out bad language' is legit if it doesn't impact the artistic message).
I remain steadfast in my opinion that those who wish to edit their art should grin 'n bare the 'bad stuff', or look for new art altogether.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Who the hell is this guy to determine what should and should not be in a particular movie? I'd hate to see his version of Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut -- it'd be about half an hour long.
It's bad enough already that anything anyone could possibly consider objectionable gets cut out for TV broadcast. I'm sure this guy would love it if Walmart decided to start selling only his censored versions of movies in their stores, to avoid the inevitable objections of several random parents.
Get cable.
Seriously. Last night I spent over half an hour watching the Playboy channel before realizing it was actually Cinemax.
Yes, that is a good question. Though taking out scenes from a movie, and replacing swear words with obviously faked dubs just to put it on tv isn't really considered derivative work. But, what about things like the Phantom Edit? It basically changes the whole movie. Where does it begin and where does it end?
I personally think the artistic integrity of the director (yes, I do consider a small percentage of films today art) is very important whether it is derivative or not. Also, I dislike censorship. I live in Canada, and they show movies unedited with swearing and nudity (for example, The People Versus Larry Flynt (funny movie, but I do not consider it art)). I don't think that any movie should be censored at all. If you want to show something on tv, either show it from beginning to end unedited or show nothing at all. It is quite pathetic to watch channels like TBS (from the US) that have the runtimes reduced by 20 minutes on movies because of cut scenes.
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
I, for one, would like to see some heads roll for those who edit movies for TV or edit movies and resell them edited. This, to me, is a violation of the director's/writer's vision and intent. Edited LOTR for content? I convulse.
I am sick and tired of parents not taking good responsibility for their kids. You know what? Some movies are not meant for kids to watch. PERIOD. If you can't "get over" that fact, mommy, daddy, then learn to deal with the consequences.
I'm also tired of parents thinking that their children are naive. Where did this idea come in? That your children are virgin, clean, pure, and haven't ever heard the word, "fuck", at the age of 9? Like hell.
I watched lots of movies with questionable content when I was a kid. I didn't see a lot because my parents objected to them, so I didn't see them at all, not some farked up edited piece of dung. I had to wait till I was of a maturity level high enough to handle it properly. I was constantly reminded by my parents that, "This is not acceptable in our house or in public, no matter what the movies say." I understood, I followed.
Learn to be a good parent and quit blaming the depravity of society on the artists.
Blog,Twitter
Opening credits roll...
Flash of light, Samuel L. Jackson says "Hey, you..."
Closing credits roll...
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
But Coolidge and other filmmakers argue the films are the creative property of the filmmakers and cannot be altered without permission. A person who is troubled by the content of a film should simply not watch it. Censoring it even temporarily is not an option, she argues. "We are talking about a technology that obliterates the intention of a movie. Parents can control what their child sees by not allowing it in the house."
Here's an analogy for those of you who aren't as familiar with filmmaking. Suppose you develop a schnazzy new algorithm for sorting through your company's client database. You toil over this thing for months until you've tweaked it to the point that it will not run any faster. You go to lunch, celebrating the fact that the method is a good as it can be. When you get back from lunch, you find that the asshole intern the company hired has taken your code out of CVS, changed the display parameters, and made it look like it ran a few millis faster. Now he looks like a god and you look like the asshole.
Films are not things that spring up overnight. Essentially, from a director's view, these "editors" are amateurs who are detracting from the movie's message. Whether that message is "Elizabeth Berkley can't act, but she CAN be nude," or "Tom Hanks is a fine father and hitman." is completely irrelevant. Choosing one movie to edit and not another hurts ALL films.
"Goodness, how did you people live long enough to invent tools?" -Hobbes (the tiger, not the philosopher)
If someone wants to get a version of a film "edited for reactionary right-wing christian fundamentalists", so what. As long as it is clearly labeled that it is an edited version and is not "sanctioned" by the film makers, it shouldn't be a problem.
-- Will program for bandwidth
It's interesting that, at least in the music industry, the artists have appeased retail giants like Walmart and Kmart by offering versions of their CD's with alternate covers/lyrics. A common example is Nirvana's In Utero album, which the title listing for the track "Rape Me" was changed to "Waif Me".
I guess only when it involves sales, it's an issue with the record companies.
Perhaps movie companies don't care as much about editing movies for retailers because they usually premiere and make the big money in theaters?
Actually the publishers and film makers still get money, because the stores don't just make new copies, they still have to pay for original copies and then modify them themselves. I think the real issue is that the publishers and such don't want the companies to be able to change their works of art from the original form.
It's done all the time. Blockbuster's the biggest offender (in more ways than one). Really. Most all the movies there for rental are edited, in some it's subtle, some it's dramatic.
This is true. More than a few times, I've rented a movie from there, only to notice that a scene or two that I remembered, was not on the tape.
The first couple of times, I thought I was going crazy, then I heard of this odious practice.
~Philly
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.
Who the hell is this guy to determine what should and should not be in a particular movie?
He is someone that a large group of consumers have decided they trust. Large enough for him to make money by physically clipping and splicing back toghether their video tape. If this is censorship then it is self-censorship. A person has decided that they don't care to see certain things and has paid him to remove them.
I'm sure this guy would love it if Walmart decided to start selling only his censored versions of movies in their stores, to avoid the inevitable objections of several random parents.
Where do you get that idea? This isn't someone trying to determine what YOU can buy. This is a group of people who know what they want to buy. They have no interest in forcing you to buy anything. They are not trying to censor anyone. They want more fine grained control over what they watch in their own homes. Why is that objectionable?
Lasers Controlled Games!
I don't see how this is a problem IF:
1) For every modified video that is sold/rented, a copy of the original is bought. This is so that I cant go buy one copy of a movie, change it minutely, make 5 more copies of "my" changed version and sell it.
2) That it's a censored version is clearly marked
3) I don't think additions should be allowed. No advertisements that weren't supposed to be there, popups, annoying floating logos etc.
What these directors (and most likely the MPAA) would like to do is make it so people can only watch their material without making any changes to it, even for personal use.
This is like a book publisher trying to make it illegal for you to tear pages out of a book that you purchased. Mind you, reselling a book in that condition would be wrong, unless you informed the buyer that the pages were missing. However, it looks as if, in this case, there's no deception going on. Everyone purchasing these edited movies is totally aware that the scenes have been removed.
Whether or not you think censorship is stupid or senseless has absolutely no bearing on what other people, with their own opinions, should be able to do to their own property. I am vehemently opposed to mandatory censorship enforced by the government, but I am completely in favor of people being able to use their own property in the way that they want.
If the federal government wants to file the tits off the Statue of Liberty, it's their perogative. They own it.
I think it is fair to allow an artist to protect his work from mutiliation. An interesting example of this was the Monty Python troupe's suit against a broadcast network for cutting unwanted material that an American audience might be offended by. The case can be found here In sum, Gilliam didn't like some bonehead at a broadcast netword redoing his comedy. Ya gotta admit -- he had a point.
Editors: Isn't that censorship? Wouldn't that also be morally and ethically wrong?
Directors: Well, that's different. It's censorship if you're allowed to publish an edited version of our movie, and not censorship if you are forcibly unable to publish said edited version. Don't you even know the definition of censorship?
Editors: Do you?
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
It's the rental/sale of third-party edited videos that is most offensive here. That corrupts the artists' intent, and distributing such material (especially selling it) SHOULD be against copyright, if it's not already. Only the owners of the rights to that art should have the right to edit and redistribute it for revenue, period.
I for one would be very upset to get a copy of a movie just to find out somebody else besides the people involved in making the movie decided I didn't need to see a scene, so they cut it. That's real censorship at work, and I hope the MPAA nails them to the wall. Maybe that'll keep em too busy to bother the DVR owners :)
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
So,if I were to skip part of a book, would I be in violation of the artists 'moral rights?" Are works of satire now to be considered in violation of these rights? Do you have to listen to every song on a CD instead of cutting and pasting to make a CDR you like? What about my "moral right" to create a CD mix I like? Get real. The artist got their money from the sale, and they can ask no more. The person put up their money to buy it, and now has the right to do whatever they want with it.
I find it hilarious that moral relatavists are supporting "moral rights." What a pile of crap. They do not live or believe in principles of morality, but go about protecting "moral rights" that have nothing to do with morality.
Say what you will about copyright, but in this case I think it's on the side of right.
Most of the companies that do this sort of thing are essentially selling edited versions of copyrighted works. That is clearly prohibited by copyright law, and it most certainly does not fall under fair use.
The way these services have worked in the past is a person buys a videotape, then sends it to the service for editing. The service edits the video, essentially copying it in the process. Then they return the two videos back to the original purchaser for a fee. Essentially the original purchaser has bought another copy of the movie from a third party that spent no overhead obtaining the original in the first place. To me this is a clear violation of copyright and is dangerously close to pirating.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Damn I'm gonna miss that show.
Directors are as flawed as any humans, and plenty of them see no problem at selling out their particular "artistic vision", but I really gotta feel sorry for any of them who actually tries to stand up to a studio today.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
One problem I've got is that the directors are saying things like if you can't deal with the entire message, then don't view it at all. Who ever came up with this take it all or leave it proposition with regards to art? Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder?
Furthermore, I think it's deeply patronizing--they are saying that without sex scene x, violence scene y or cuss word z, whatever it is they are trying to convey to us we won't get. Sensitivities to messages are different from person to person, some people will get the idea in the first five minutes, others you need to show them the film/book 10 times plus kick them in the nuts (which if you do it once in a film automatically upgrades it from PG to PG-13--oddness of rating system) before they get the idea.
With regards to books, this idea already has standing. Often books sold in the US are edited in a way that books sold in Europe are not. There was much discussion about this I believe with one of the Hitchhiker books (me thinks The Restaurant at the End of the Universe) which had obscenities cut from it in the US edition, but not the UK edition. However, the US edition, in place of the obscenities, has a lot more innovative text, which Adams put in for the US version.
Some people have this hangup that somehow being able to swear is art, because of some sorta relation to free speech (or show boobies, or someone being killed in slow motion, et cetera.) I believe the reality is that all that may or may not better reflect reality, but it doesn't intrinsically enhance the art worthiness of it (especialy for most movies.)
If you own them do you have the right to destroy them?
The question is who owns the rights to a copy of something original, and who owns the original? I'm talking about editing copies for personal use. Not censoring originals so that noone has access to them.
Personally I didn't think the Taliban should have done that. Now, if the Taliban were destroying little Buddha statues that they bought at a market for $20 a piece, personally I have no problem with that.
I can't tell you how surprised I was when I rented Clerks to show it to a friend, and found that they had censored the line: "What are you going to do for an encore, anally rape my mother with a ball-peen hammer while pouring sugar in my gas tank?"
The reason I was particularly surprised was that the only dropped a single word: ball-peen. Say it over once or twice, with and without the ball-peen. I think it makes it much more graphic to leave it out. It backs off from the original over-the-top version, and gives a sicker, more violent feel.
-Esme
I don't want to see it. My wife doesn't want to see it. And I sure don't want my kids to see it. It's not even worth it to fast forward through it, because you can't always get to the button fast enough. If the movie is rated R, you can almost guarantee there are sex scenes, excess language, or excess violence that I really don't care to have in my home (heck, there's a lot of PG-13 movies I won't watch either).
If I can't watch the movie without those scenes cut, I won't watch it. But if they offered a cleaned up version, that would be fantastic! Who could possibly be hurt by having a choice between a "smut" version and a "clean" version of the movie? How can anyone complain about giving the consumer the ability to see high quality movies and while following moral standards they set for themselves?
These companies are not trying to force movie makers from making movies with sleazy scenes, or prevent consumers from seeing what the directors intended (by the way, why do I have to see what the director intended? I'd much rather see what I like). They're just giving people the chance to see a movie that's been cleaned up a little, that they otherwise wouldn't be interested in seeing. They see a market, and they try to fill it. It sounds absolutely wonderful! It sounds like what capitalism is all about.
I can't figure out why so many people are complaining about having the choice to watch the original, uncut version and a cleaned up version of a movie. Get a life people.
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
Actually, you could technically define fast forwarding through a video tape as 'editing'.
You're manipulating the message of the delivered content.
No more FF and RW buttons on the VCR?
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
"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."
Did this guy fail to read the copyright laws in the US? Unless this company is given permission to make these new works, they are violating the copyright holders rights by creating derivative works and distributing the works illegally.
If they don't lke the movies coming out of Hollywood then he needs to start a movie company which panders to the tastes of his kind. He has no right whatsoever to alter these works, consumer rights is just a straw man being waved to around to stirp up some imaginary controversy.
Well, that's the first time that's happened. Thanks for clearing that up, everyone.
I think you mean 'Skinemax'
Enigma
Oh, my, yes! I'm a very big J.G. Ballard fan, and I thought the adaptation was very well done. Cronenberg captured the tone of the book , and I think was probably the only director who could capture that strangeness, like he did in "The Dead Zone" and "Dead Ringers."
"The Unlimited Dream Company" is an even more perfect example of an unfilmable book, I doubt anyone could get that made! :)
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
> Bambi was a boy
Well, he must be Irish, then.
If Mormons want to filter their copies of movies, it's nobody else's business. If I want to look at the pictures in Playboy and skip the articles, it's nobody else's business.
If I want to use a web proxy that modifies the pages that I see, and removes "objectionable content" (ads), it's nobody else's business. If I'm stupid enough to want my web browser to turn non-link words into "smart tag" links to advertisements, it's nobody else's business.
If I want to watch your movie while wearing glasses or nightvision goggles or on a black'n'white TV, it's nobody else's business.
I ain't changin' anyone else's perception of the movie. And my perception is mine alone.
Mormons, I don't get why you do these weird things to your movies, but I don't need to. You have the right, and I support you.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
So let me get this straight.
Slashdot is coming out in favor of a commercial interest taking an existing product, and for purely commercial reasons modifying it however they see fit, and reselling it.
So when MS releases MSLinux and doesn't release the source, or anything related, the editors here, will completely support MS in this decision I suppose?
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Given the amount of self-censorship and focus group re-editing that goes on, it's a bit hard to take DGA's cry of "censorship" seriously. At best, they can argue that those other compromises have to occur with the director's permission; the director still has some recourse if they can't come to a compromise. If they want to push some restrictions about this into their contract terms, then good for them, but I don't see why I should be particularly concerned about it, with the artistic integrity cat largely out of the bag and all. It wouldn't surprise me if they're just looking for directors to score some consultation dollars on those third party edits.
IANAL
If anything, an altered-redistribution ruling would affect copyprotected content that does not include a license, thereby being subjected to the default copyright/fair use rules.
Licenses exist to change these rules, overriding the default copyright/fair use rules, hence why software companies are able to insert all of those restrictions which take away fair use.
In other words, the GPL is like a contract. (I'm not sure of the effective differences between liceneses and contracts)
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
I predict that sooner or later, all movies will be customizable to the particular viewer. Since the industry already has all my viewing habits and preferences on file, it should be no problem for them to fine-tune a movie for me. For instance, in *MY* copy of Attack of the Clones, Anakin is killed in the first scene and the rest of the movie is one long lez scene between Amidala...and her clone.
It's interesting that they're trying to pursue this from a consumer rights angle. Unlike the US, Europe has had a long history of recognizing artists' moral rights as opposed to economic rights. Regardless of whether they purchased the right to create derivative works, they still have the responsiblity to clearly label that their work is altered from the original, just like in Pan and Scan home videos.
...
Background info here: http://www.forests.com/digitfut.html#$$moral
Under Article Six of Berne, 102 countries agree to grant to an author of another member country, regardless of the ownership of economic copyright in the works,"the right during his lifetime to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other alteration...to the work which would harm his honor or reputation."
It was crafted in mid-19th century, when author Victor Hugo (Les Miserables, The Hunchback of Notre Dame) was exiled from France because of political conflicts with descendents of Napoleon Bonaparte. The thoughts Hugo sent home in his books were his virtual persona, cherished by the French, who fiercely defended Hugo's moral right to speak--and their moral right to hear-- his thoughts, unaltered by political authorities.
Coolidge's comments are Hollywood's first real response to the growing -- and lucrative -- trend;
and
The debate in Utah began four years ago when an American Fork company, Sunset Video, found a profitable business in clipping a nude scene from hundreds of video copies of "Titanic" brought to them by owners.
All the artistic crap aside, Cooldge and her cronnies are just out for the cash. Between the editied videos which is minor and the "shielding" which is where the big bucks will be, there is a ton o'cash to be made over the next 10-15 years. Think baby boomers and thier teenage children.
Now if Collidge can get a few bucks from every unit shielding sold or a few extra bucks from theaters that show a modifed version then she is on to something.
Are they gong to try to eliminate the FFWD button from all VCR/DVD units? It's pretty much the same thing. Someone is just paying someone else to push the friggin button for them.
You really don't see the difference? This isn't about the individual consumer, it's about companies editing then selling the edited works.
/.ed -- but I did try!*
Just like a band doing a cover version of someone else's song, and putting it on a CD for sale. (Ever heard the reggae version of "Stairway to Heaven"?) Or doing it in a film (such as Britney Spears' cover of "I love rock and roll").
Now, from the comments above (see disclaimer at the bottom), it seems like one difference might be that in my examples you'd have to license your use. But the principle is the same, and, in the music industry at least, well-established. Why else would there be so many recordings of Beethoven's Eroica?
*Disclaimer -- I haven't read the article yet because the site is still
Filmmakers are successful because their audience likes to watch their films. They can't run around alienating the viewers by making unilateral decisions about how the audience is to appreciate their art. If people are spending money and effort to edit content out of films, then this should come as a message to the filmmakers that they are producing content that people don't care to see. Successful filmmaking needs to involve both the filmmakers and the film viewers.
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
So this kind of thing was done in the days before digital technology.
Be who you are...and be it in style!
(x^2)^(1/2) != x
(x^2)^(1/2) = |x|
As long as the people make the movies get their money for the full product, this will not hold up in court. If a rental company purchases the movie at full price from the film distributors and then performs an edit, the movie director can't do a damn thing about it.
The problem is that there is a market for this sort of thing and instead of catering to this market, the producers and directors are claiming their art and is being maimed. However, people still have a choice to see the original film. Not everyone sees art the same way, nor should they. That is one of the things that makes art special. Eveyone sees a little something different. If that something different happens to be the deletion of some nude scenes or some foul language, who is to say that doesn't become some new art in and of itself?
This gets to the crux of the reform of so-called copyright law that I advocate.
- Eliminate all copy monopolies granted by current copyright law. Scrap it, completely.
- Replace it with a legal framework that encodes current academic citation and anti-plagerism standards
- This means the original artist(s) always get credit for what they create
- This also means any changes or edits by a third party must be clearly labelled as such, and clearly differentiated from the artits' original work
- Give the creating artist a Right of Creation, which essentially amounts to an economic advantage they are granted by law. This is not a monopoly that can exclude others (no clearing the playing field of all other participatns), but an advantage, perhaps in the form of a tax credit, perhaps in the form of a tax on unauthorized copies sold, some or all of which is passed on to the original creator, or what have you (tilting the playing field in favor of the creator).
- The important thing is that, while an artist could designate a publisher as their duly authorized publisher (who thereby shares the tax or other economic advantage granted the artist), they can never sell that right, anymore than they can "sell" the fact that they created the work. This means that if the artist is unsatisfied with their publisher they can find another, and the right to do so can never be sold away, contractually or otherwise.
The details of such approaches very, but the basic idea is sound: replace copyright as we know it with a regime designed to (1) benefit artists and (2) benefit society, by eliminating copy monopolies and replacing it with explicit artistic acknowledgement and economic support.The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I obviously am missing something. As a consumer, I now have the ability to purchase either the original version, or a version that has been edited in some fashion.
Doesn't that mean that I now have two choices, rather than one? Isn't that a good thing for consumers?
I'm no fan of the Moral Minority and their ilk, but just because I disagree with their edits doesn't mean that my "consumer rights" have been violated in any fashion.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
You mean the way Stanley Kubrick did with Eyes Wide Shut? There is a long orgy scene in EWS, that American censors said would have to go, because it was too explicit. In the version shown in American obstructions were digitally drawn in to hide the, um, "action".
But as to the deeper question, "why don't artists just give people what they want?" I am going to translate that to "why don't artists just give people what they are comfortable with, what won't challenge them?"
Well, many film-makers, writers, musicians, entertainers do exactly that. But there are great artists, like Kubrick, who feel they have a point of view that it is important to express. They think that they have an idea that it is important to present to the public even if it isn't completely comfortable at first.
Is this a good thing? It depends how you feel about cultural and social change. American writer Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a book called Uncle Tom's Cabin. I believe the term "Uncle Tom" has a cultural meaning nowadays that it acquired in the last couple of generations. I believe that scholars such as those whose article you can read in the link I have pointed to, contend that UTC was an uncomfortable read for many, when it was published, because it put a human face on the effects of slavery for white American readers. So, yeah, I believe being open to letting artist's challenge our accepted views of things is worthwhile.
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
Now, I know this will be hard, but I want everyone to take a deep breath and think about the issue for a second.
Third-parties are editing creative works that are not their own to meet their particular standards. They want to screen out tits, Jar-Jar, whatever. The argument that seems to be pretty popular here is that "we bought, we can do what we want with it." This is true, to a point. If I want to watch my own 30-minute version of Eyes Wide Shut that's my own business.
Where it gets complicated is that people are making that edit and then selling it. Even if it's marked, under what right are they doing this? They didn't create it. Like it or not, a film is a work of art. The entire film is an expression of the artistic vision of the creator. To alter it is to alter the message, which does a gross disservice to the creator.
What would Lolita be without a 14-year old girl (never mind that she was 12 in the book)? Clockwork Orange sans violence. Armageddon with no asteroid?
A film is not just some montage of scenes pieced together for you viewing. It has a point, maybe a moral--it's going somewhere. At the very least it is telling a story that has certain nuances.
My point is simple: the art is being altered and then being sold. Even if it's marked as edited, it's being sold under the original title. Let's say that Titanic is edited to remove the lovemaking between Winslet and DiCaprio? Is it still a James Cameron film? Hard to say, really, because you aren't seeing what he intended. Think about that, for a second. Consumer rights this, consumer rights that--what about artistic rights?
~Chazzf
No statement is true, not even this one.
Additionally, this kind of supposed "crime" (modifying copyrighted works in the privacy of your own home) is unenforceable. You would need constant Big Brother-style invasions of privacy into every home in the country to make sure nobody was modifying a copyrighted work. What if I decided to throw it away, or rip it in half? Nope, I can't even dispose of it -- because that's a form of modification.
If I try to redistribute the work in certain ways, then yeah, he should have the legal power to stop me -- but what I do, privately, with my own physical property, is none of his business. Privately modifying such a work in no way harms him.
Now, the Constitution says that authors are reserved the "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Well, this presumably means that the author has, by default, *all* rights regarding his created work, and anyone else has none. You have no rights regarding someone else's copyrighted work, unless they specifically grant you those rights...
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
The point here is that they're not passing it off as the same movie. No one is being tricked into thinking they bought the original version - these versions are being specifically requested by the consumer.
Exactly. This just needs to be posted a few more times so that more people can see it.
These aren't derivative works, in that the other companies are claiming IP rights to the modified versions and selling them as "their own" movies. People (bashful, or maybe with wussie kids) seek out these companies who will modify the media they've already bought, or pay the companies specifically for the service of providing them with an edited version that does not contain the content they find objectionable. This is NOT censorship. Censorship would be one of these companies or the government blocking out the content in question without the knowledge/consent of the customers, and trying to pass it off as though this is the actual unmodified work. Nowhere does it say anything about people doing this. The movies are marked as edited, and are edited in specific ways as requested directly by the customer who is buying them.
This is just an even more absurd attempt to exercise power over the masses by the MPAA. And why don't they get it through their thick skulls that all these stupid things they're trying to do will only HURT their sales?? They actually fucking argued that "the films are the creative property of the filmmakers and cannot be altered without permission. A person who is troubled by the content of a film should simply not watch it. Censoring it even temporarily is not an option. ... Parents can control what their child sees by not allowing it in the house."
So they're basically telling people that, "instead of paying us full price for a product we made, and then paying somebody else to make it more convenient for you to skip past the parts you don't want to see, you should simply not pay us any money at all and not view any of the movie whatsoever." ...and thereby missing out on the all important 'artistic message' entirely. They're actually telling people to not buy their movies, instead of making simple modifications that would make them acceptable! But of course it's Napster's fault that movie sales are down...
And where the fuck are these people getting Blockbuster from?? It's not mentioned in the article at all! Nobody said Blockbuster was editing movies and renting them under the guise of being the original movies. Stop filling in the blanks with whatever pops up in your head people, and read the fuckin article!
Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
For instance, if somebody drew a mustache on Mona Lisa prints, and sold those, you could raise an entire generation of folks who threw out what was good about the Mona Lisa because Leonardo's mustache drawing abilities were clearly sub-par.)
What if you editted the moustache off of Marcel Duchamp's DaDa masterpiece L.H.O.O.Q? And can Duchamp's estate sue warhol's over his L.H.O.O.Q?
Thus, I think this would be fine if you labeled it something like "A Clockwork Orange- Cut Version", or "Censored Version", or something else to make it obvious that it's different. And this should be a part of the title, not some fine print text on the bottom of the box.
I don't like the idea of all these "uncut versions" of movies going around, because wasn't the "uncut" version the original movie to start with? The label should be put on the censored versions.
--
grep "xercist"
Walmart did carry an edited version of the computer game Sacrifice , the normal version was rated "M" and the Walmart version was rated "T." I believe it was an experiment. Of course, Sacrifice was a financial failure (though a critical success) and I noticed that the "M" version, packaged with Messiah was selling in Walmart as shovelware.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Amusingly enough, I got Messiah packaged with a video card... and it was a sanitized version.
Everything you could kill was a cyborg - they leaked oil, they didn't bleed. Nudity covered up, etc, etc.
From a showing of "Gone with the Wind" at the Springfield Retirement Castle:
Scarlett O'Hara: "Oh, Rhett! Rhett! Oh, Rhett! Where will I go? What'll I do?"
Rhett Butler: "Frankly, my dear, I love you, let's remarry!"
THE END
(Edited for Seniors)
From "The Old Man and the C Student," 1999.
~Philly
How is the ability to edit a film different than the right to fork? It seems that as long as I'm selling/giving my modification to someone who already has a copy of the original work (or I buy an extra copy so that they do) then I don't see why I shouldn't be able to distributute my modifications. Should copyright law be so strong as to stop this "right of fork?" Admittedly, the modification should probably be clearly marked as such... but this is a detail.
European law has broad "moral right", but U.S. law does is much narrower. This is probably good. It gets rid of the argument that removing commercials violates the moral right of the corporate author of the derived work of a TV broadcast.
Just a quick comment on Eyes Wide Shut.
Kubrick is dead. He died before post-production was completed on that film. I think that Eyes Wide Shut isn't a good example here for two reasons relating to this.
The first problem is that Kubrick was not around to defend himself. The studio saying "Kubrick would have wanted it this way" is nowhere near as powerful as Kubrick himself making the same claim, especially in the face of commercial pressures of an expensive film featuring two of the hottest actors in the business at the time.
Second is that I don't think Eyes Wide Shut was edited quite the way he would have wanted it regardless. I know that when I first saw it (international version, without the "Austin Powers" version of the orgy scene), I had worked out the big secret half an hour before it was revealed, and was almost literally looking at my watch in the intervening time. That's never happened to me with my first viewing of a Kubrick film before. I suspect that if some of the trademark "nothing time" had been edited down a bit more, my brain would have been sufficiently occupied that the ending would have affected me better. I further suspect that Kubrick knew this, and filmed too much because he didn't know which bit of "nothing time" was best to cut down until he saw it in situ. (All screenwriters and directors know this, by the way. Average-length shooting scripts are almost always 20 pages too long, which gives the editor some room.)
Having said that, I agree with the rest of your post. :-)
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I've heard that most of these cases are NOT companies "offering" censored videos/cds to consumers, alongside an offering of the uncensored video/cd, and people choosing the censored one. I honestly have never heard of someone choosing a censored copy over an uncensored one.
Most of these censorings seem to be (according to my film class' teacher) places like Blockbuster and Wal-Mart who for (their own) ethical reasons choose to only offer censored videos, with little or no indication that the product being offered is not the REAL product. Blockbuster would, for instance, cut out long scenes from movies, including dialogue quite important to the plot, because a booby happened to be showing in the scene.
And of course Wal-Mart just censors everything, offers no uncensored copies, and for a lot of people it may be the only vendor around to buy CDs from after a wal-mart-on-every-corner drives all the local record stores out of business.
You have the consumer right to censor any video you purchase. Feel free. (well, then again, DMCA...)
There is no "consumer right" about forcing artists to censor their works. Offering both a censored and uncensored copy is perfectly fine by me, but offering only censored copies is both bad business and immoral in regard to the artist's work.
The painter of the Mona Lisa is long dead, and and moral rights went with him.
Are moral rights for life, or for life plus 70?
Pick something a little newer.
How about Sonny Bono, patron saint of excessively long copyright terms, who died in the 1990s?
Will I retire or break 10K?
This is not a monopoly ... but an advantage ... perhaps in the form of a tax on unauthorized copies sold, some or all of which is passed on to the original creator
For some works (such as a songwriter's work used on a recording), this is already done, in the form of compulsory licensing, but how do you know that Disney won't lobby to have this tax set at $150,000 per copy for motion pictures?
This means that if the artist is unsatisfied with their publisher they can find another, and the right to do so can never be sold away, contractually or otherwise.
What about those people who collaborated on an audiovisual work but contributed less than 1% because there were 300 people working on that work? What rights will they have?
I agree with your modest proposal. Let me phrase it in different, more concise terms that somebody familiar with the law would understand: "Copyright, with guaranteed credit, and with compulsory royalty-based licensing for all exclusive rights of all works, and no permanent contractual assignment of royalty rights." I'd support such a scheme, but good luck getting it past any country that has signed the Berne Convention.
Will I retire or break 10K?
During the "golden age of film" 1920-1950 or so
More precisely, 1923-1950 or so. I'll explain the change later in this comment.
Today I'm guessing that the originals are tightly guarded, and well preserved.
No, they're not well preserved. Movie studios would rather see those old films DIE. They sit on the copyrights of old films and do not issue reprints on VHS or DVD because they would compete with box office and rentals of the newest $100 million blockbuster. Film preservation societies often have trouble getting the rights from the studios because of good ol' Sonny Bono.
Now about that 1923 bit: that's Sonny Bono's fault. All works first published in the United States on or after January 1, 1923, are under a perpetual copyright. To go around the Constitution's requirement of "limited Times", the US Congress sets only a limited term at any one time, but there seems to be a tacit agreement between Congress and The Walt Disney Company to pass a 20-year extension law every 20 years. There was a 19-year extension in 1978 and a 20-year extension in 1998; are you beginning to get the picture?
help (e)
Will I retire or break 10K?
GPL == General Public License I have no idea what "GPL" you are talking about but it is something different from what everyone else on this board has been talking about.