It's how smart folks condescend (that means, talk down) to people like you, but it sure can leave you spinning if you don't keep your eye on it. Please try to keep up. I'll go slower.
Statistically speaking, based on IQ tests and standardized test scores, it's VERY unlikely that you are my intellectual equal, much less superior. In fact, you appear to be lacking in both logic and knowledge compared to the average person with whom I converse. So I'd suggest that you leave the "smart folks" techniques for those qualified to use them. And if you go any slower, I'll fall asleep since you are not even keeping up as it is.
Now go reread MY comments and do explain how your bible-thumpers comment is a supportable derivation of their warning.
It is not a derivation. It is my characterization of them based on their actions. It's what us smart folks refer to as an "editorial comment."
The company is a CO-OP.
No, they are not. The are a for-profit Limited Liability Company (LLC) that rents and sells movies without the trappings of a co-op. In fact, they don't even require membership. You can go to their web page and buy a movie outright: As your premier source for edited DVDs and Videos, we have over 400 titles available to buy online..
Everyone owns all the titles, and they all agree to have them edited.
So, if "everyone owns all the titles", what happens when I buy one online? Do each of the "members" get a fraction of a cent from the sale?
But you are intentionally blurring the line between an modified edition and a derivative work. One is primarily characterized by deletions made specifically in such a manner as to preserve the essence of the work, the other additions made specifically to alter that essence.
It looks to me like you are making things up again. Show me supporting evidence for your claim that deletion of multiple scenes and pieces of dialog makes it a "modified edition" but that the addition of a single scene makes something a derivative work. Why don't you ask the directors whose works have been "edited" by Clean Flicks if the "essence" of the movies has been preserved?
Interesting, so then, it's my fault for tricking you into making a wrongful assumption then...
Yes, it is. "Tricking" someone through intentionally implying something untrue is not a valid form of debate.
This is a very basic point. Every day people press the mute or FF buttons on movies. They must do so manually, and the effect is crude. All this company has done is make that process more efficient.
Untrue. When someone manually fast forwards or mutes dialog, they are aware of it. When Clean Flicks does it, they often are not. The viewer often has no way to know what he/she was missing or even that material was deleted.
You just can't seem to understand the difference between fair use and copyright infringement. Your rights to do something in the privacy of your own home does has nothing to do with what a for-profit company can do. For instance, I can make a compilation CD-R disk with MP3s that I encoded from my CD collection. But I cannot rent that CD out to the public or sell it -- even if I have destroyed all of the originals from which it was created.
Oh, so now, in addition to telling me what I should and shouldn't see, you're telling me what I have and haven't seen... ?
Still playing games, I see. Why don't you just admit that your comments were based on the incorrect belief that Clean Flicks only rented out DVDs?
All my posts got modded down when I wrote that I'm a Mensa member.
People probably did not believe you were a Mensa member when you could not even get the tenses of verbs to match in your sentences. Now go into your profile and edit the sig line so that it reads:
All my posts got modded down when I wrote that I was a Mensa member.
While you may still be a Mensa member, that has no bearing on a sentence that refers to something you wrote in the past.
You might find a similar problem of your posts being modded down if you write "I are a genius" in each of them.
I have a fundamental problem with the government using taxes as a form of behavior modification. That's not the role of government, never has been.
Says who? Reducing pollution, smoking, excessive fuel consumption, etc. while encouraging saving for retirement, purchasing a home, putting kids through college, and so on, benefits the country as a whole. And isn't the purpose of government to improve the lives of its citizens?
We used to throw things into the Boston Harbor over this.
No, that's quite true. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the Tea Act of 1773. That act allowed Britain's own "East India Company" to sell directly to the colonies without paying any of the taxes that were imposed on the colonial merchants. With these privileges, the company could undersell American merchants and monopolize the colonial tea trade.
The film could be easily rented uncut first... You are still missing the point.
"Could be" and "would be" are two different things. The vast majority of Clean Flicks' customers will never see the "real" version of a film as intended by the director, cast, and studio. And the reputation of all of those involved may be harmed by these amateurish edits.
Are you really concered for the well being and reputation of the director? Give me a break.
Yes. Because I am a writer (just a few magazine articles so far). I would not want my words mangled by some right-wing zealot with an agenda prior to being presented as my work. I see this as analogous.
I am also against editing works of art to make them comply with whatever notion each consumer has of "decency." War is indecent. What the Nazi's did in World War II was indecent. If Steven Spielberg wanted to portray this in "Schindler's List" to provoke thought, disgust, anger, or pity, it's nor right for some bunch of prudes at Clean Flicks to change that artistic vision.
If this were software, music or whatever, you'd be gung-ho for fucking whatever evil corporation was behind the creation of it in the first place.
Why is this confusing? Do you think that Clinton said the second line? Is my disclaimer somehow vague?
No. But you are making a gross oversimplification of all of this. In the case of Clean Flicks, they are removing dialog and scenes. The portions removed affect the artistic merit of the work.
In your example, you show the before and after messages. Clean Flicks does no such thing.
These people are renting these out as if they were the original unedited versions. It's clearly marked.
I assume you meant "not renting these..." And how is the viewer to know what was removed? Without that, it's impossible to know if a bad impression of a film was due to the work of the director or the unauthorized changes made by Clean Flicks. That is what hurts the reputation of a director. The people renting these movies will not go into work and say "Saving Private Ryan is a really bad movie, but the only version that I have seen is an unauthorized one in which all of the bad words, violence, and nudity were edited out by Clean Flicks, Inc." No, they'll just say "Saving Private Ryan was a really bad movie."
When? Did he cross the line when I paid him to sit in the corner and press the FF and mute buttons at his discretion?
I don't believe so.
Did he cross the line when he automated the process of FF'ing and muting with a computer program?
I don't think so, but I don't know for certain. I am not a legal scholar.
Or did he only cross it when he REPLACED my legally purchased (and owned by me) copy of the movie?
That was definitely over the line. But it wasn't the replacement. It was the unauthorized alteration of a copyrighted work that was over the line.
If I own a copy of a movie, can't I edit it myself?
Yes. That falls under fair use.
If so, then can't I pay someone else to edit it for me?
Yes, you can pay someone to edit it for you. But that person/company must obtain the permission of the copyright holder.
Now, I answered all of your questions honestly and fully. I would like you to answer mine:
1. Do you believe that it is legal for Clean Flicks to edit out scenes and dialog based on consumer demand?
2. Do you believe that it is legal for a firm to record sex scenes, scenes of violence, and profane language and edit same into movies that did not have them? For example, could the hypothetical firm edit the Disney movie Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, inserting a new animated scene in which Snow White is gang-banged by the dwarfs, and offer it for rent?
I contend that both uses are analogous. They are taking an existing copyrighted work and editing it to turn it into a substantially different product.
I stand corrected, they should monitor/., you, and ZDNet. What was I thinking?
Apparently that you are the ultimate authority on the DMCA.
Note that a successful prosecution would have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that this is a non-infringing use
Non-infringing? Huh? I read that as saying that the only persons exempted were those who had a noninfringing use that would be adversely affected by the law. Why would the prosecution want to show that they had a legal noninfringing use? The whole point of this is my contention that their use infringes on the legal rights of the copyright holder.
The following, from an article on Findlaw, summarizes the anticircumvention provision of the DMCA rather well:
The studios invoked the "anticircumvention" provision of the DMCA. That provision states that "[n]o person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
What does it mean to "circumvent" under the Act? The Act defines it this way: "to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner."
And that's how the DeCSS case against 2600.com was won. That seems to sum up this use rather well, too. Clean Flicks is decrypting an encrypted work without the authority of the copyright owner. When you buy a DVD, you are authorized to decrypt the movie for viewing only, not for copying to your PC, making edits of same for profit, etc.
But I'm sure the DoJ, not having your keen legal intellect at their disposal
I don't know why you are so certain that you understand the DMCA better than I do. I've looked at your snippets, arguments, and interpretations and, frankly, I don't find them particularly compelling.
neglected to willfully ignore the laundry-list of exceptions to 1201(A).
I did not "willfully ignore" it. I read it and realized that it was irrelevent to this case.
If only all laws were 5 lines long... then you would make perfect sense.
And if all laws were interpreted as "rough paraphrase[s]", then you'd be on the Supreme Court.
per se: I bet XXX, meaning XXX. e.g. The fact that I bet means they have violated. That's what your statement says. What you intended is irrelevant. You've put it in writing in a public forum.
Yes, I saw my error, but I really don't care. They can sue me if they want. It was an obvious error made in an informal online discussion. It is not germane to this discussion, anyway, is it?
So lastly, instead of doing the latter myself, I pay someone to do it for me.
So where did I cross the line?
You did not cross the line. But the person who took the copyrighted film and edited it for profit, without the copyright owner's permission, crossed the line.
"Fair use" refers to your personal use of the film. It does not protect a for-profit venture that modifies films without the permission of the copyright owner.
I do believe the current administration should push more AFV, AND dig for oil in Alaska.
According to the most optimistic estimates, the oil that we might extract from Alaska might, in ten years, reduce our reliance on foreign oil by 2%
By then, we'll be wishing we were digging up some oil underneath those carabou in Alaska.
So you advocate using up our oil reserves rather than the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia? And how is this in our national interest?
The government can't aford to pay for it, so expect oil companies to become "energy companies" and find ways to work with coal, hydrogen, nuclear, etc. power as alternatives if you ever want to see significant improvement.
The government could give tax incentives to companies researching alternative energy sources. They could give tax credits to citizens that bought more fuel-efficient cars. They could put the gas guzzler tax on minivans and SUVs to combat the trend of people who would have been well-served buying gas guzzling behemoths instead.
We could use hemp as an energy source, but I think you're smoking all of it.
Let the ad hominen attacks begin!
In the interim, take your tax cut and buy yourself a tree to hug, it might make you feel better.
And the ad hominen attacks continue... What would make me feel better would be if that money had gone to paying down the national debt. Not only have we not paid down the debt, but the budget surplus built up under Clinton is history, too.
Wow, you're right. I did miss that. Thanks. What page was that on?
Blockquotes are indented. My comments are not. That's how Slashdot works. Now go reread the original message armed with that new knowledge.
Simple. I'm the customer. That gives me total, unbridled control over what I see.
I asked what gave you the artistic license to label scenes or language "irrelevent". I never disputed that you have a right to choose what you see. But before you twist that around, it does not mean that a company can legally alter copyrighted videos as a for-profit venture just because there is a market for it. Someone may want to see a version of Snow White in which she has sex with all seven dwarves, but that does not mean that a company called "Dirty Flicks" has a legal right to buy the Disney version, edit in such scenes, and rent the altered movie out to the general public.
So you presume that I want to see the nudity and hear the foul language too then?
You are the one that used kids as the explanation of why you needed edited versions of films:
Do you have kids?
There are a lot of good movies out there that you just can't show them and the reason you can't isn't because of the plot, but irrelevant nudity, language, etc.
No R-rated movies come into our house, but I've sure been wantin' to see that latest Arnold flick. Would be nice, since it is MY choice after all, eh?
You claimed that kids were the reason for the "no R-rated movies" rule in your house and then when I address that, suddenly the kids are not the reason. If you are offended by profanity, nudity, and violence in movies, too, then I suggest that you rent something from Disney since it seems like movies made for an adult audience really won't be your cup of tea.
Umm... does your mouse have a button (or have you found it yet)? Let me know if you don't get that. I can explain it for you more slowly later.
Instead of pretending you were talking about a mouse button, just be a grown-up and admit that you were wrong when you wrote:
all the movies features in the stories I've seen were DVD's, so basically, when you play the DVD, you select the version you want to see: unedited, PG-13'ized, PG'ized, G'ized, etc. [...] It's more like, "Here's a movie, press this button for the unedited version, and this for the one that we edited for your 16 year old, and this for the one that we edited for your 12 year old..."
I really don't want to waste my time playing semantics games with you. You know what you wrote. I do, too. They rent out VHS tapes, too, and those don't have unedited versions that the user can choose.
Yes, they did. From a ZDNet article on the DeCSS decision:
The DMCA, passed in 1998, prohibits the circumvention of copy protection and the distribution of devices that can be used to bypass copyrights--even if people using the devices don't do anything illegal once they've broken the security. Software makers, Hollywood and the music industry make up the core proponents of the law.
The actual wording of the DMCA Section 1201 is:
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.-(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
CSS "effectively controls access" to the work, limiting playback to authorized, Macrovision-equipped devices and preventing the work from being copied to a computer hard drive.
Now consider section 1204 of the DMCA:
1204. Criminal offenses and penalties5
(a) In General.-Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain-
(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and
(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.
It appears to me that Clean Flicks is violating section section 1201 for the purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
is your bet admissable as evidence? If not, be careful. Because if you're wrong, you've just accused them of criminal misconduct without a shred of evidence. That's simple libel.
If you are going to play Perry Mason on Slashdot, do some research and get your terms correct. Libel is not an accusation made without evidence. It is a written, false accusation. But I never accused them of anything. I expressed my belief (as in "I bet") and did not state it as fact.
I've seen news stories on this. I don't know if this is exclusively so, but all the movies features in the stories I've seen were DVD's
So Clean Flicks takes a copyrighted DVD, runs DeCSS (or its equivalent) on it to circumvent the encryption, and then edits the DVD. I bet that the DVD they write does not include region coding, meaning that they have violated the DMCA twice!
Well, for certain we shouldn't gut the economy because of unproven theories and speculation.
It won't "gut the economy" and I defy you to show otherwise. The only thing that's gutting the economy is the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy.
Global warming is accepted by the majority of mainstream scientists as being scientific fact.
Would you rather reduce pollution and learn that it was unnecessary or keep polluting and then realize that global warming has spiralled out of control and will devastate the planet in the coming decades?
You remind me of the people that claimed regulation of automotive pollution and fuel economy would spell the end of the auto industry and make cars so expensive that only the rich would be able to afford them.
I know, I know. It feels good to ride on your bicycle and Mother Earth smiles down on you when you do. ..
I almost certainly own more fossil fuel vehicles than you do, so don't go there. But my primary commuting vehicle is a VW Golf TDI (diesel) that gets forty-something miles per gallon in rush-hour commuting.
I've seen news stories on this. I don't know if this is exclusively so, but all the movies features in the stories I've seen were DVD's, so basically, when you play the DVD, you select the version you want to see: unedited, PG-13'ized, PG'ized, G'ized, etc.
Then "find out what's going on before making a fool of yourself in public." Read on.
Do you have kids?
No, and it's kind of scary that you do since you can't seem to understand the following from the CleanFlicks web site:
IMPORTANT: Although edited for content, MyCleanFlicks' edited movies may contain subject matter that may be inappropriate for younger viewers. Parents please use discretion.
These edits aren't for children. They are for bible thumpers that want to pretend that they are part of mainstream society when everyone at work is discussing movies.
There are a lot of good movies out there that you just can't show them and the reason you can't isn't because of the plot, but irrelevant nudity, language, etc.
What credentials do you have to decide what scenes and language are "irrelevent." Have you ever directed a film? Are you a respected film critic?
No R-rated movies come into our house, but I've sure been wantin' to see that latest Arnold flick. Would be nice, since it is MY choice after all, eh?
If you can't control your children well enough to allow you to watch a movie in private, then you should have used birth control.
That's just flat stupid. That's not at ALL what these folks are doing. Why don't you go find out what's going before making a fool out of yourself in public?
You just made a fool of yourself. Go to www.cleanflicks.com and you will find that they rent both VHS and DVD movies that they have edited. So how do you just press a button on a VHS deck to choose the version you want to see?
Actually the efforts date back to Republican President's Nixon and Ford, and to a lesser extent Democratic President Carter.
I never said that Clinton/Gore were the first to ever advocate AFVs. I just contrasted them to the oil tycoons that now occupy the White House.
The term "spurred on" refers to encouraging and accelerating something that is already taking place. It's a horse racing term. When one says that the horse was "spurred on" to victory, it does not mean that the horse was motionless prior to being kicked with the spurs.
First one must post something intelligent to debate. Sorry, but ignorant political propoganda fails to qualify.
Learn to spell "propaganda" before calling me ignorant.
What you posted was just a lame attempt to keep from addressing the issues of CAFE, government funding for AFV research, world pricing of oil, potential contributions from Alaskan drilling, etc. I'm guessing it is because you were in over your head.
Red Herring. Do we know that Clean Flicks is doing this? That is, have you watched a Clean Flicks film where you felt the themes of the film was significanlty changed or lost because of the editing?
No, I don't support companies that illegally tamper with artists' copyrighted material. And it's far from a "red herring." Directors spend hundreds of hours per film perfecting the subtle nuances in scenes, dialog, etc. to convey a message. You can't just lop off all the 'dirty words' and sexual content and end up with the same film. If you can't recognize that, then you lack the artistic judgement to contribute to this discussion.
More than a Red Herring -- this implies deception on the part of Clean Flicks, where NONE EXISTS.
Bullshit. When the film says that the director was Scorcese, the viewer has no way to know what Clean Flicks removed from the movie. The viewer normally does not have both the edited and unedited versions in front of them for comparison.
How many viewers of a Clean Flicks butchered movie will go to a party and say "I hated that movie -- but the only version I saw was edited by Clean Flicks to remove profanity, violence, and sexual content"? Answer: None. The work of the director, actors, and film crew will be maligned by people who have never seen the actual work.
That's your best bet for a good telecommuting job. You sit around the house in your underwear all day telling callers that you are sitting around in your underwear.
Does removing these things detract from the story? Very possibly, in many cases.
Does removing these things conflict with the director's/producer's vision or expression? Undoubtedly.
But it does this for one copy of a movie, to be viewed by one person or group of people. The majority of movie watchers will still be able to choose to watch the unadulterated movie. This just gives an alternative to the few who, for various reasons, don't want to view certain types of entertainment.
I guess what we finally get down to is how much control a director should have over his own work. I believe that the director has a right to determine what edits may, and may not, be made to his work. His films are his legacy. They define his vision, art, and even views.
Some films are made to upset people and stir the emotions. Taking that emotional impact away runs completely counter to the desires and rights of the artist. If Steven Spielberg wants you to be horrified by the atrocities you see in Schindler's List, then Clean Flicks has no right to edit it into a pseudo-Disney movie and distribute it with Steven Spielberg's name attached to it.
Your analogy is slightly off, the movies have already been released, and these arn't designed as replacements, but rather alternatives.
Not true. The people renting the "alternatives" will probably never see the originals, leaving them unable to tell whether the bad movie they saw was that way because of the edits or because the original director did a poor job.
You should have said, "Then I think that I should be allowed to edit your posts AFTER they appear on Slashdot."
I think that's perfectly acceptable, after all, I just did it to you....
No, you did not. You suggested what you believed I should have said. You did not try to pass it off as my words.
I regularly rent movies from Clean Flicks because I don't like vulgarity. I just get mad when they edit out scenes of child molestation. Sybil had some really hot bondage and sexual torture and I was really sorry to see that edited out in the Clean Flicks copy.
Dude, that's sick! But I'll have to think some more about your claim that others should be able to edit works attributed to you.
The Kyoto Accord would be very expensive, but worse is that for all its cost it would be completely inadequate to actually halt the buildup of greenhouse gases.
So you don't believe that slowing the buildup is worthwhile? Either halt it completely or just throw in the towel?
Doing the latter would be outrageously expensive and probably not worthwhile.
Right. We should just let the greenhouse gases build up until almost the entire surface of the Earth becomes uninhabitable, the ice caps melt, and countless species disappear from the biosphere. Because none of those things is as important as your precious money.
The American car buyer in particular will be a tough sell. American's aren't interested in diesel engines.
So American car buyers were interested in pollution controls and that's why they are on cars now?
America's perception of diesel engines is that they are loud and noisy.
But that perception is wrong. VW TDI diesel Golfs, Jettas, and Passats certainly aren't "loud and noisy." I know. I own one and people are constantly amazed to find out that they are riding in a diesel-powered car -- that gets forty-some mpg in traffic. The fact that Ford diesel engines sound like 50lbs. of marbles in a clothes dryer doesn't mean that sophisticated diesels from VW, BMW, and other respected automakers are like that.
I encourage you, and anyone reading this, to try a VW TDI-powered car if you have not already. I bet it surprises a lot of you. It may not be the car for you, but it might give you a better appreciation for where modern diesels are today.
The battle of perception is key to moving people over to alternate fuel vehicles. People are only going to start buying alternate fuel vehicles en masse when buying one of those vehicles doesn't compromise the vehicle's utility and their pocket book.
So why isn't the government...:
1....providing more tax incentives and grants for research into AFVs? 2....providing tax incentives to consumers who purchase fuel-efficient AFV's? 3....mandating economy and pollution limits that force manufacturers to invest in AFV development?
You have a catch-22 situation now. People won't buy many AFV vehicles because of the current crop's lack of sophistication and performance. Automakers don't invest enough to improve the breed because not enough people buy them. That's a perfect role for the government: To spur on development of technologies that will strengthen our country in the decades ahead.
I think it should be acceptable to make changes like this.
Then I think that I should be allowed to edit your posts prior to them appearing on Slashdot. I can take out anything I find offensive and then put the messages back together in such a way that it changes the entire tone and meaning of them. But I'll need your user ID so that people think that you wrote the edited version.
An artist's reputation is based on their work. What right does some born-again-Christian-flat-worlder have to take out words and scenes that the director, producer, and actors felt were critical to the movie? That harms the reputation of all involved.
If a director feels that having a character scream "fuck" is key to expressing the magnitude of the situation, it should not be changed to "fudge!" or deleted in its entirety by some luddite. The people at "Clean Flicks" should be strung up by their thumbs for what they are doing.
Economists from the Clinton White House now concede that complying with Kyoto's mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases would be difficult -- and more expensive to American consumers than they thought when they were in charge.
Well if anything is difficult or expensive, then it must not be worth doing, right?
This is the typical Republican BS. Find a dissenter from the prior administration and then portray that as proof, beyond question, that the prior administration's policies were flawed. So, does Senator James Jefford's switch to the democratic party mean that the Republican party platform is "wrong"? Does Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott's (R) opposition to military action against Saddam prove that Bush is is wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
First, language is about communicating first and foremost.
;-)
Why does that sentence remind me of Spinal Tap's song Tonight I'm Gonna Rock You Tonight?
Second, I find absolutely nothing wrong with the tenses as used in the original.
Your inability to recognize the error does not mean that it does not exist.
I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of mensa, so judge me as you will
I won't judge you, but rather what you write.
Mensa is a circle-jerk for wanna-be-intellectual tools.
That is my feeling, too. That is the reason that I turned down an invitation to join after attending one meeting as a guest.
It's how smart folks condescend (that means, talk down) to people like you, but it sure can leave you spinning if you don't keep your eye on it. Please try to keep up. I'll go slower.
.
Statistically speaking, based on IQ tests and standardized test scores, it's VERY unlikely that you are my intellectual equal, much less superior. In fact, you appear to be lacking in both logic and knowledge compared to the average person with whom I converse. So I'd suggest that you leave the "smart folks" techniques for those qualified to use them. And if you go any slower, I'll fall asleep since you are not even keeping up as it is.
Now go reread MY comments and do explain how your bible-thumpers comment is a supportable derivation of their warning.
It is not a derivation. It is my characterization of them based on their actions. It's what us smart folks refer to as an "editorial comment."
The company is a CO-OP.
No, they are not. The are a for-profit Limited Liability Company (LLC) that rents and sells movies without the trappings of a co-op. In fact, they don't even require membership. You can go to their web page and buy a movie outright: As your premier source for edited DVDs and Videos, we have over 400 titles available to buy online.
Everyone owns all the titles, and they all agree to have them edited.
So, if "everyone owns all the titles", what happens when I buy one online? Do each of the "members" get a fraction of a cent from the sale?
You just don't seem to get it. They don't "[own] all the titles." Want to see who owns the titles? Look for the © symbol and that will give you a good clue. The only thing that Clean Flicks owns are copies of the movies on DVD or VHS.
But you are intentionally blurring the line between an modified edition and a derivative work. One is primarily characterized by deletions made specifically in such a manner as to preserve the essence of the work, the other additions made specifically to alter that essence.
It looks to me like you are making things up again. Show me supporting evidence for your claim that deletion of multiple scenes and pieces of dialog makes it a "modified edition" but that the addition of a single scene makes something a derivative work. Why don't you ask the directors whose works have been "edited" by Clean Flicks if the "essence" of the movies has been preserved?
Interesting, so then, it's my fault for tricking you into making a wrongful assumption then...
Yes, it is. "Tricking" someone through intentionally implying something untrue is not a valid form of debate.
This is a very basic point. Every day people press the mute or FF buttons on movies. They must do so manually, and the effect is crude. All this company has done is make that process more efficient.
Untrue. When someone manually fast forwards or mutes dialog, they are aware of it. When Clean Flicks does it, they often are not. The viewer often has no way to know what he/she was missing or even that material was deleted.
You just can't seem to understand the difference between fair use and copyright infringement. Your rights to do something in the privacy of your own home does has nothing to do with what a for-profit company can do. For instance, I can make a compilation CD-R disk with MP3s that I encoded from my CD collection. But I cannot rent that CD out to the public or sell it -- even if I have destroyed all of the originals from which it was created.
Oh, so now, in addition to telling me what I should and shouldn't see, you're telling me what I have and haven't seen... ?
Still playing games, I see. Why don't you just admit that your comments were based on the incorrect belief that Clean Flicks only rented out DVDs?
Your sig line (with highlights added by me):
All my posts got modded down when I wrote that I'm a Mensa member.
People probably did not believe you were a Mensa member when you could not even get the tenses of verbs to match in your sentences. Now go into your profile and edit the sig line so that it reads:
All my posts got modded down when I wrote that I was a Mensa member.
While you may still be a Mensa member, that has no bearing on a sentence that refers to something you wrote in the past.
You might find a similar problem of your posts being modded down if you write "I are a genius" in each of them.
I have a fundamental problem with the government using taxes as a form of behavior modification. That's not the role of government, never has been.
Says who? Reducing pollution, smoking, excessive fuel consumption, etc. while encouraging saving for retirement, purchasing a home, putting kids through college, and so on, benefits the country as a whole. And isn't the purpose of government to improve the lives of its citizens?
We used to throw things into the Boston Harbor over this.
No, that's quite true. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the Tea Act of 1773. That act allowed Britain's own "East India Company" to sell directly to the colonies without paying any of the taxes that were imposed on the colonial merchants. With these privileges, the company could undersell American merchants and monopolize the colonial tea trade.
The film could be easily rented uncut first... You are still missing the point.
"Could be" and "would be" are two different things. The vast majority of Clean Flicks' customers will never see the "real" version of a film as intended by the director, cast, and studio. And the reputation of all of those involved may be harmed by these amateurish edits.
Are you really concered for the well being and reputation of the director? Give me a break.
Yes. Because I am a writer (just a few magazine articles so far). I would not want my words mangled by some right-wing zealot with an agenda prior to being presented as my work. I see this as analogous.
I am also against editing works of art to make them comply with whatever notion each consumer has of "decency." War is indecent. What the Nazi's did in World War II was indecent. If Steven Spielberg wanted to portray this in "Schindler's List" to provoke thought, disgust, anger, or pity, it's nor right for some bunch of prudes at Clean Flicks to change that artistic vision.
If this were software, music or whatever, you'd be gung-ho for fucking whatever evil corporation was behind the creation of it in the first place.
Don't presume to know what I think or would do.
Why is this confusing? Do you think that Clinton said the second line? Is my disclaimer somehow vague?
No. But you are making a gross oversimplification of all of this. In the case of Clean Flicks, they are removing dialog and scenes. The portions removed affect the artistic merit of the work.
In your example, you show the before and after messages. Clean Flicks does no such thing.
These people are renting these out as if they were the original unedited versions. It's clearly marked.
I assume you meant "not renting these..." And how is the viewer to know what was removed? Without that, it's impossible to know if a bad impression of a film was due to the work of the director or the unauthorized changes made by Clean Flicks. That is what hurts the reputation of a director. The people renting these movies will not go into work and say "Saving Private Ryan is a really bad movie, but the only version that I have seen is an unauthorized one in which all of the bad words, violence, and nudity were edited out by Clean Flicks, Inc." No, they'll just say "Saving Private Ryan was a really bad movie."
Idiot.
Thank you for signing your message.
When? Did he cross the line when I paid him to sit in the corner and press the FF and mute buttons at his discretion?
I don't believe so.
Did he cross the line when he automated the process of FF'ing and muting with a computer program?
I don't think so, but I don't know for certain. I am not a legal scholar.
Or did he only cross it when he REPLACED my legally purchased (and owned by me) copy of the movie?
That was definitely over the line. But it wasn't the replacement. It was the unauthorized alteration of a copyrighted work that was over the line.
If I own a copy of a movie, can't I edit it myself?
Yes. That falls under fair use.
If so, then can't I pay someone else to edit it for me?
Yes, you can pay someone to edit it for you. But that person/company must obtain the permission of the copyright holder.
Now, I answered all of your questions honestly and fully. I would like you to answer mine:
1. Do you believe that it is legal for Clean Flicks to edit out scenes and dialog based on consumer demand?
2. Do you believe that it is legal for a firm to record sex scenes, scenes of violence, and profane language and edit same into movies that did not have them? For example, could the hypothetical firm edit the Disney movie Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, inserting a new animated scene in which Snow White is gang-banged by the dwarfs, and offer it for rent?
I contend that both uses are analogous. They are taking an existing copyrighted work and editing it to turn it into a substantially different product.
Apparently that you are the ultimate authority on the DMCA.
Note that a successful prosecution would have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that this is a non-infringing use
Non-infringing? Huh? I read that as saying that the only persons exempted were those who had a noninfringing use that would be adversely affected by the law. Why would the prosecution want to show that they had a legal noninfringing use? The whole point of this is my contention that their use infringes on the legal rights of the copyright holder.
The following, from an article on Findlaw, summarizes the anticircumvention provision of the DMCA rather well:
And that's how the DeCSS case against 2600.com was won. That seems to sum up this use rather well, too. Clean Flicks is decrypting an encrypted work without the authority of the copyright owner. When you buy a DVD, you are authorized to decrypt the movie for viewing only, not for copying to your PC, making edits of same for profit, etc.
But I'm sure the DoJ, not having your keen legal intellect at their disposal
I don't know why you are so certain that you understand the DMCA better than I do. I've looked at your snippets, arguments, and interpretations and, frankly, I don't find them particularly compelling.
neglected to willfully ignore the laundry-list of exceptions to 1201(A).
I did not "willfully ignore" it. I read it and realized that it was irrelevent to this case.
If only all laws were 5 lines long... then you would make perfect sense.
And if all laws were interpreted as "rough paraphrase[s]", then you'd be on the Supreme Court.
per se: I bet XXX, meaning XXX. e.g. The fact that I bet means they have violated.
That's what your statement says. What you intended is irrelevant. You've put it in writing in a public forum.
Yes, I saw my error, but I really don't care. They can sue me if they want. It was an obvious error made in an informal online discussion. It is not germane to this discussion, anyway, is it?
So lastly, instead of doing the latter myself, I pay someone to do it for me.
So where did I cross the line?
You did not cross the line. But the person who took the copyrighted film and edited it for profit, without the copyright owner's permission, crossed the line.
"Fair use" refers to your personal use of the film. It does not protect a for-profit venture that modifies films without the permission of the copyright owner.
I do believe the current administration should push more AFV, AND dig for oil in Alaska.
According to the most optimistic estimates, the oil that we might extract from Alaska might, in ten years, reduce our reliance on foreign oil by 2%
By then, we'll be wishing we were digging up some oil underneath those carabou in Alaska.
So you advocate using up our oil reserves rather than the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia? And how is this in our national interest?
The government can't aford to pay for it, so expect oil companies to become "energy companies" and find ways to work with coal, hydrogen, nuclear, etc. power as alternatives if you ever want to see significant improvement.
The government could give tax incentives to companies researching alternative energy sources. They could give tax credits to citizens that bought more fuel-efficient cars. They could put the gas guzzler tax on minivans and SUVs to combat the trend of people who would have been well-served buying gas guzzling behemoths instead.
We could use hemp as an energy source, but I think you're smoking all of it.
Let the ad hominen attacks begin!
In the interim, take your tax cut and buy yourself a tree to hug, it might make you feel better.
And the ad hominen attacks continue... What would make me feel better would be if that money had gone to paying down the national debt. Not only have we not paid down the debt, but the budget surplus built up under Clinton is history, too.
Blockquotes are indented. My comments are not. That's how Slashdot works. Now go reread the original message armed with that new knowledge.
Simple. I'm the customer. That gives me total, unbridled control over what I see.
I asked what gave you the artistic license to label scenes or language "irrelevent". I never disputed that you have a right to choose what you see. But before you twist that around, it does not mean that a company can legally alter copyrighted videos as a for-profit venture just because there is a market for it. Someone may want to see a version of Snow White in which she has sex with all seven dwarves, but that does not mean that a company called "Dirty Flicks" has a legal right to buy the Disney version, edit in such scenes, and rent the altered movie out to the general public.
So you presume that I want to see the nudity and hear the foul language too then?
You are the one that used kids as the explanation of why you needed edited versions of films:
You claimed that kids were the reason for the "no R-rated movies" rule in your house and then when I address that, suddenly the kids are not the reason. If you are offended by profanity, nudity, and violence in movies, too, then I suggest that you rent something from Disney since it seems like movies made for an adult audience really won't be your cup of tea.
Umm... does your mouse have a button (or have you found it yet)? Let me know if you don't get that. I can explain it for you more slowly later.
Instead of pretending you were talking about a mouse button, just be a grown-up and admit that you were wrong when you wrote:
all the movies features in the stories I've seen were DVD's, so basically, when you play the DVD, you select the version you want to see: unedited, PG-13'ized, PG'ized, G'ized, etc.
[...]
It's more like, "Here's a movie, press this button for the unedited version, and this for the one that we edited for your 16 year old, and this for the one that we edited for your 12 year old..."
I really don't want to waste my time playing semantics games with you. You know what you wrote. I do, too. They rent out VHS tapes, too, and those don't have unedited versions that the user can choose.
Yes, they did. From a ZDNet article on the DeCSS decision:
The actual wording of the DMCA Section 1201 is:
CSS "effectively controls access" to the work, limiting playback to authorized, Macrovision-equipped devices and preventing the work from being copied to a computer hard drive.
Now consider section 1204 of the DMCA:
It appears to me that Clean Flicks is violating section section 1201 for the purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
is your bet admissable as evidence? If not, be careful. Because if you're wrong, you've just accused them of criminal misconduct without a shred of evidence. That's simple libel.
If you are going to play Perry Mason on Slashdot, do some research and get your terms correct. Libel is not an accusation made without evidence. It is a written, false accusation. But I never accused them of anything. I expressed my belief (as in "I bet") and did not state it as fact.
I've seen news stories on this. I don't know if this is exclusively so, but all the movies features in the stories I've seen were DVD's
So Clean Flicks takes a copyrighted DVD, runs DeCSS (or its equivalent) on it to circumvent the encryption, and then edits the DVD. I bet that the DVD they write does not include region coding, meaning that they have violated the DMCA twice!
Finally, a good use for the DMCA!
Well, for certain we shouldn't gut the economy because of unproven theories and speculation.
.
It won't "gut the economy" and I defy you to show otherwise. The only thing that's gutting the economy is the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy.
Global warming is accepted by the majority of mainstream scientists as being scientific fact.
Would you rather reduce pollution and learn that it was unnecessary or keep polluting and then realize that global warming has spiralled out of control and will devastate the planet in the coming decades?
You remind me of the people that claimed regulation of automotive pollution and fuel economy would spell the end of the auto industry and make cars so expensive that only the rich would be able to afford them.
I know, I know. It feels good to ride on your bicycle and Mother Earth smiles down on you when you do. .
I almost certainly own more fossil fuel vehicles than you do, so don't go there. But my primary commuting vehicle is a VW Golf TDI (diesel) that gets forty-something miles per gallon in rush-hour commuting.
Then "find out what's going on before making a fool of yourself in public." Read on.
Do you have kids?
No, and it's kind of scary that you do since you can't seem to understand the following from the CleanFlicks web site:
These edits aren't for children. They are for bible thumpers that want to pretend that they are part of mainstream society when everyone at work is discussing movies.
There are a lot of good movies out there that you just can't show them and the reason you can't isn't because of the plot, but irrelevant nudity, language, etc.
What credentials do you have to decide what scenes and language are "irrelevent." Have you ever directed a film? Are you a respected film critic?
No R-rated movies come into our house, but I've sure been wantin' to see that latest Arnold flick. Would be nice, since it is MY choice after all, eh?
If you can't control your children well enough to allow you to watch a movie in private, then you should have used birth control.
That's just flat stupid. That's not at ALL what these folks are doing. Why don't you go find out what's going before making a fool out of yourself in public?
You just made a fool of yourself. Go to www.cleanflicks.com and you will find that they rent both VHS and DVD movies that they have edited. So how do you just press a button on a VHS deck to choose the version you want to see?
Actually the efforts date back to Republican President's Nixon and Ford, and to a lesser extent Democratic President Carter.
I never said that Clinton/Gore were the first to ever advocate AFVs. I just contrasted them to the oil tycoons that now occupy the White House.
The term "spurred on" refers to encouraging and accelerating something that is already taking place. It's a horse racing term. When one says that the horse was "spurred on" to victory, it does not mean that the horse was motionless prior to being kicked with the spurs.
First one must post something intelligent to debate. Sorry, but ignorant political propoganda fails to qualify.
Learn to spell "propaganda" before calling me ignorant.
What you posted was just a lame attempt to keep from addressing the issues of CAFE, government funding for AFV research, world pricing of oil, potential contributions from Alaskan drilling, etc. I'm guessing it is because you were in over your head.
Red Herring. Do we know that Clean Flicks is doing this? That is, have you watched a Clean Flicks film where you felt the themes of the film was significanlty changed or lost because of the editing?
No, I don't support companies that illegally tamper with artists' copyrighted material. And it's far from a "red herring." Directors spend hundreds of hours per film perfecting the subtle nuances in scenes, dialog, etc. to convey a message. You can't just lop off all the 'dirty words' and sexual content and end up with the same film. If you can't recognize that, then you lack the artistic judgement to contribute to this discussion.
More than a Red Herring -- this implies deception on the part of Clean Flicks, where NONE EXISTS.
Bullshit. When the film says that the director was Scorcese, the viewer has no way to know what Clean Flicks removed from the movie. The viewer normally does not have both the edited and unedited versions in front of them for comparison.
How many viewers of a Clean Flicks butchered movie will go to a party and say "I hated that movie -- but the only version I saw was edited by Clean Flicks to remove profanity, violence, and sexual content"? Answer: None. The work of the director, actors, and film crew will be maligned by people who have never seen the actual work.
That's your best bet for a good telecommuting job. You sit around the house in your underwear all day telling callers that you are sitting around in your underwear.
Does removing these things detract from the story? Very possibly, in many cases.
Does removing these things conflict with the director's/producer's vision or expression? Undoubtedly.
But it does this for one copy of a movie, to be viewed by one person or group of people. The majority of movie watchers will still be able to choose to watch the unadulterated movie. This just gives an alternative to the few who, for various reasons, don't want to view certain types of entertainment.
I guess what we finally get down to is how much control a director should have over his own work. I believe that the director has a right to determine what edits may, and may not, be made to his work. His films are his legacy. They define his vision, art, and even views.
Some films are made to upset people and stir the emotions. Taking that emotional impact away runs completely counter to the desires and rights of the artist. If Steven Spielberg wants you to be horrified by the atrocities you see in Schindler's List, then Clean Flicks has no right to edit it into a pseudo-Disney movie and distribute it with Steven Spielberg's name attached to it.
Your analogy is slightly off, the movies have already been released, and these arn't designed as replacements, but rather alternatives.
Not true. The people renting the "alternatives" will probably never see the originals, leaving them unable to tell whether the bad movie they saw was that way because of the edits or because the original director did a poor job.
You should have said, "Then I think that I should be allowed to edit your posts AFTER they appear on Slashdot."
I think that's perfectly acceptable, after all, I just did it to you....
No, you did not. You suggested what you believed I should have said. You did not try to pass it off as my words.
I regularly rent movies from Clean Flicks because I don't like vulgarity. I just get mad when they edit out scenes of child molestation. Sybil had some really hot bondage and sexual torture and I was really sorry to see that edited out in the Clean Flicks copy.
Dude, that's sick! But I'll have to think some more about your claim that others should be able to edit works attributed to you.
The Kyoto Accord would be very expensive, but worse is that for all its cost it would be completely inadequate to actually halt the buildup of greenhouse gases.
So you don't believe that slowing the buildup is worthwhile? Either halt it completely or just throw in the towel?
Doing the latter would be outrageously expensive and probably not worthwhile.
Right. We should just let the greenhouse gases build up until almost the entire surface of the Earth becomes uninhabitable, the ice caps melt, and countless species disappear from the biosphere. Because none of those things is as important as your precious money.
The American car buyer in particular will be a tough sell. American's aren't interested in diesel engines.
...providing more tax incentives and grants for research into AFVs? ...providing tax incentives to consumers who purchase fuel-efficient AFV's? ...mandating economy and pollution limits that force manufacturers to invest in AFV development?
So American car buyers were interested in pollution controls and that's why they are on cars now?
America's perception of diesel engines is that they are loud and noisy.
But that perception is wrong. VW TDI diesel Golfs, Jettas, and Passats certainly aren't "loud and noisy." I know. I own one and people are constantly amazed to find out that they are riding in a diesel-powered car -- that gets forty-some mpg in traffic. The fact that Ford diesel engines sound like 50lbs. of marbles in a clothes dryer doesn't mean that sophisticated diesels from VW, BMW, and other respected automakers are like that.
I encourage you, and anyone reading this, to try a VW TDI-powered car if you have not already. I bet it surprises a lot of you. It may not be the car for you, but it might give you a better appreciation for where modern diesels are today.
The battle of perception is key to moving people over to alternate fuel vehicles. People are only going to start buying alternate fuel vehicles en masse when buying one of those vehicles doesn't compromise the vehicle's utility and their pocket book.
So why isn't the government...:
1.
2.
3.
You have a catch-22 situation now. People won't buy many AFV vehicles because of the current crop's lack of sophistication and performance. Automakers don't invest enough to improve the breed because not enough people buy them. That's a perfect role for the government: To spur on development of technologies that will strengthen our country in the decades ahead.
I think it should be acceptable to make changes like this.
Then I think that I should be allowed to edit your posts prior to them appearing on Slashdot. I can take out anything I find offensive and then put the messages back together in such a way that it changes the entire tone and meaning of them. But I'll need your user ID so that people think that you wrote the edited version.
An artist's reputation is based on their work. What right does some born-again-Christian-flat-worlder have to take out words and scenes that the director, producer, and actors felt were critical to the movie? That harms the reputation of all involved.
If a director feels that having a character scream "fuck" is key to expressing the magnitude of the situation, it should not be changed to "fudge!" or deleted in its entirety by some luddite. The people at "Clean Flicks" should be strung up by their thumbs for what they are doing.
From your link:
Economists from the Clinton White House now concede that complying with Kyoto's mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases would be difficult -- and more expensive to American consumers than they thought when they were in charge.
Well if anything is difficult or expensive, then it must not be worth doing, right?
This is the typical Republican BS. Find a dissenter from the prior administration and then portray that as proof, beyond question, that the prior administration's policies were flawed. So, does Senator James Jefford's switch to the democratic party mean that the Republican party platform is "wrong"? Does Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott's (R) opposition to military action against Saddam prove that Bush is is wrong?