Slashdot Mirror
EFF Supporting Home DVD Editing
cheesedog writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a brief in federal court in support of companies that offer software to edit violence or sex from a user's DVD. The full story can be found in this article from the Salt Lake Tribune."
From the article:
I have no problem with the violence or sex. What I want to edit out are the mandatory previews, FBI warnings, "The comments made are those of the individual and not the studio", kinds of things. Those bother me far more than the content of the video. Any word on if that's a possibility?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
To me this is like muting the TV when the commercials come on. The notion that "editing" content being wrong or illegal? Come on. What are they going to do next, tell you you can't cover your eyes during a scary part of the movie?
It's hard to tell the cool to chill, my favorite hotel room has a view to an ill.
This story, which I've heard of before (maybe on /.) and had mixed feeling about
1) If consumers purchase the product, they should be able to do with it what they want. This would be akin to backing up a cd, but leaving out a song or two that suck.
2) Since the artist/director released a version they see as fit. By altering it, you are taking part of the artistic integrity from the work. This would be like going to a museum and taking crayola's to a Rembrandt.
1)Joe Born Again watches a movie with the censor feature on.
2)The movie loses some of its meaning.
3)Joe tells everybody he knows that the movie sucks.
4)Joe decides to not rent anything else by that director.
If there are enough Joe Born Agains then this can become a problem. If the director on the other hand voluntarily edits the films, as they do already for television, then it has a better shot of not losing its quality.
Now I am not saying that I agree but this is one of the arguments against the censorship model.
I don't mind if they have these tools available, as long as you can still buy the unedited version.
People make something, it ought to be presented to the public the way it was envisioned, and not the way people would like to pretend it was. Imagine if classics from Huckleberry Finn to the Bible had this happen in the name of political correctness. Oh wait they already have. If it's wrong to censor books or newspapers, than it's equally wrong to censor out the parts of movies we don't like. In short this boils down to revisionist history, something that I find abhorrant and morally destitute.
Now waiting for icebergs in hell.
The argument I've heard is that the film's directors disapprove of their work being "altered" so as to change the artistic vision. This was in connection not with software for consumers but in the context of companies that were reselling modified discs to consumers, but if all copyright conditions are fulfilled (paying for each copy of the disc up front) I don't see why the cases would be different.
I for one don't recall hearing any directors or studios complaining about the damage to their artistic vision when their films get edited for TV audiences and they get a big royalty check...
My guess is the real motive for opposing this technology is that the implicit copying involved would be a step onto a slippery slope that undermines their draconian stance on copy control.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
are they going to let parents sit in front of the machine for 2 or 3 times the movie length just to go over some scenes and debate which part their children shouldn't be watching?
from the article it looks like the program will skip filth automatically, but what's automated and who sets the rules? parents or the programmer? do you have a drop down menu for 0/1/2 tits etc?
Personally, I am wholly supportive of an action such as this as it has the end result of empowering the end user to do whatever they wish with their content - and in many ways this is great for companies as well because their content is unaltered.
The BS I am reading in this thread already about this being a form of censorship is nonsense. If someone doesn't want to watch sex/violence - why should they? Granted, they could just not watch the movie but there are some films that hold great value that have objectionable material (Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, etc.). The scenes that would be deleted to add to the depth of the message but in no way is the message of the film based entirely in the questionable scenes.
In short, anything that empowers me as an end user I am in favor of. I honestly wish Hollywood would put a copy of their "airplane" version of the movie on the same DVD so I could watch it with my kids and not worry about the language/sexuality/violence etc... but in the meantime software like this or companies that provide a similar service are "a good thing"
While I do believe using someones else artwork, and changing it should be illegal, just as taking someones song and editing out parts you don't like and re-selling it.
But I also believe the consumer should have the choice to skip over any part. If they want to pay someone to do that for them, then its ok. Just as you buy black lists for email or websites.
Tough call, but I think I side with the Artists on this one if its a simple edit. If its a normal option to view both uncut/cut, then I would agree with the CleanFlicks.
As the DVD plays in a home computer, the program skips violent or sexual scenes.
so what about those who can't afford a computer/software? is this another plot for digital divide? people with computer are 'cleaner', those without are 'filthier'?
How is this different from some of the modified DVD players which allow you to skip/fast-forward through the annoying intros that take half an hour? If I paid for the DVD, I reserve the right to watch it in any order and at any speed I choose!
I can also edit out the coming attractions, Pepsi commercials, stupid music videos and other forms of 'coordinated marketing'...
...and therein lies the rub.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
I was just getting ready to post something about this. DVD's with their branching and different audio tracks were going to allow us to have the "made-for-tv" version and release version on the same disc.
:)
My daughter likes Ghostbusters - she likes Slimer. But I have to be fast on the remote otherwise after the ballroom scene, with the "we came, we saw, we kicked it's ass", my little tape recorder will be walking around saying that.
The claim that a director wants his work represented properly is bull. With a few exceptions here and there in comedy punch lines, shit can always be replaced by something else without losing a "vision" (which is usually shit anyway
If you feel that this is a just and good thing, then please don't yell at studios and directors for cutting new versions of classic films.
While it may be quite unreasonable (as Lucas has done, and as Turner did before him) to remove a film from distribution entirely after you have made a change, and only distributing the new version, I can't say that anyone has the right to tell such a studio or director to NOT be unreasonable. Certianly as fans, we can voice an opinion, but I've heard some people try to claim that there's some "right" that we have to old movies in the form in which they were released... that's just silly.
I might mourn that I can't get the old version of a film, but I have no right to expect Hollywood to BE the collectables market or an archive for such....
As for companies that do this sort of modification, I respect them. They provide a service that people want, and while I do not think that people should rely on such a service to shelter themselves or their children, I can see the point of letting your kids see The Matrix: Reloaded while not keeping the "She wasn't kissing your face, love" sceene.
You know, once upon a time, we used to be able to tell a story without unnecessary sex and violence.
You'd be surprised how many movies have good stories that survive without the sex and violence.
Some movies only need "stylized" violence rather than blood and gore. In fact, TV and older movies seemed to work quite well this way.
Now granted, some movies need the sex and violence. Some movies are nothing but.
In fact, I worry much more about the violence than the sex. I forget who once said: I can't show a woman's breast on TV, unless I hack it off with an axe, then I can show that.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
What I don't understand is this: Hollywood already spends a great deal of time and money to make "airline" versions of most of their major films. I saw Witness on a flight to Japan when I was 13. It was a couple years before I saw it again (at home, on vhs) and found out there was a topless scene. As a young teenage boy, I felt robbed. :) But the point (yes, I have one) is that since the movie studios have already paid the cost of editing a version which is theoretically acceptable to everyone, why not just release that version for rent/sale, much the same way you can buy "radio edit" albums. There's obviously a market for them, and they can provide an edited version far superior to a "scene-skipper" version of an off-the-shelf tape or dvd. There's no way CleanFlicks could compete.
I just don't see how the movie studios would lose on that one.
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. But when life gives you crap, please don't make a beverage out of it.
Why are so many people defending the 'auteur' image of directors? It ignores the input of the scriptwriter, actors, editors, cinematographers, etc, etc, etc. Show me a mainstream movie where the director did all of that. Yes, the director has a very heavy hand, but he is not the end all, be all.
Perhaps most of all, it ignores the audience. Trust me, as funny as 'Friday' was, nothing beat seeing it in a theatre where my brother and I were the only white guys in attendance. Would scary movies be as scary without a bunch of other people jumping at the scary bits?
I remember when the format was first released. One of the things touted was the ability to show different versions on the same disc. All you were supposed to have to do was tell it to play 'clean', and the violent and sex bits would automatically be skipped.
The question isn't why are the MPAA and the DGA fighting this. The question is: why are they leaving this market untapped? How far could Cameron get without $100 million + in studio backing? Screw him. And after Godfather III, I could care less what Coppola (or his daughter:) have to say on the subject.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I know I'm too late to the discussion, but:
1) If I turn around and sell the sex and violence parts ONLY do I have to pay for the original twice or just once?
1(b) I wonder if CleanFlicks will make me a deal for all those unused bits they edited out. Imagine the compilation CDs!...
2) Does this set an upper limit for the cost of original works when making derivative works. For example, if I make a great version of Star Wars by re-editing and even adding scenes, and it sells like hotcakes, does this say that the *most* I have to pay Lucas is the cost of the original DVD (per DVD I sell obviously). (And obviously this would probably be more than I would pay if I could go to Lucas and say "hey this thing is great, let's make a deal", etc etc etc - like I said - it's an upper bound.)
---
I type this every time.