Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Media Issues
 Copyright vs morality squad
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  07:42:09  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13784889/

Gee, guess they should have bought a license to do this sort of thing from the movie companies and artists.

Did they actually expect to win?

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  09:32:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see how it does any damage.

The companies purchase the movie then sell it to customers, just like any distributor would. They only difference is that they edit it by taking things out, and they tell the customer that they are doing it.

If people would rather purchase an edited version, why not let them? The Hollywood studios get just as much money, if not more as more people are buying their film who normally wouldn't because of the content in it.

I think that they need not worry about their "creative artistic expression" as I would imagine the majority of people would rather see the dirty stuff anyways. They would have a point if this was forced censorship, but it isn't. It's optional.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  10:05:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message
I think the copy/distribution thing is bigger than you think. They are buying one tape and burning copies and editing/selling/renting them against the wishes of the film makers, many of whom despise censorship in the first place.

Not cool at all in my book.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  10:23:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see how it does any damage.

The companies purchase the movie then sell it to customers, just like any distributor would. They only difference is that they edit it by taking things out, and they tell the customer that they are doing it.

If people would rather purchase an edited version, why not let them? The Hollywood studios get just as much money, if not more as more people are buying their film who normally wouldn't because of the content in it.

I think that they need not worry about their "creative artistic expression" as I would imagine the majority of people would rather see the dirty stuff anyways. They would have a point if this was forced censorship, but it isn't. It's optional.



There is some question that they had purchased copies for all the ones they edited.

Focusing solely on the contention that they edited and re-distributed the works and had a 1 to 1 purchase of movie to sale of edited movie. They would also have to prove that they destroyed the original copy to not fall afoul of the piracy laws.

For sake of example:

You make a movie which debunks the moon hoax believers using a format of their arguments intercut with your commentary and footage showing how it's wrong. Bart Sibrel purchases 100,000 copies of your movie which we will fictiously name "Moon Truth Believers". He then edits out your commentary and added debunking footage. He resells the edited copies with the disclaimer "Edited" on the box. He does not sell more than the 100,000 copies he bought.

The distributing company is beholden to the intellectual owner to not edit his vision without his approval. A third party making changes must obtain a license to do so from the intellectual owner.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  10:59:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
quote:
I think the copy/distribution thing is bigger than you think. They are buying one tape and burning copies and editing/selling/renting them against the wishes of the film makers, many of whom despise censorship in the first place.


If that's the case, then it is an obvious infringement. But I see that no where in the article.

quote:
Focusing solely on the contention that they edited and re-distributed the works and had a 1 to 1 purchase of movie to sale of edited movie. They would also have to prove that they destroyed the original copy to not fall afoul of the piracy laws.


Agreed.

quote:
For sake of example:

You make a movie which debunks the moon hoax believers using a format of their arguments intercut with your commentary and footage showing how it's wrong. Bart Sibrel purchases 100,000 copies of your movie which we will fictiously name "Moon Truth Believers". He then edits out your commentary and added debunking footage. He resells the edited copies with the disclaimer "Edited" on the box. He does not sell more than the 100,000 copies he bought.


I think that is a distortion. They are only taking out the "dirty" parts of the moive. They aren't changing the over all theme. A more reasonable example would be that I make such a film using the word "Bullshit!" a lot, and Bart Sibrel voices over the instances of "Bullshit!" with "Baloney!"

And again, I would have nothing wrong with that.

quote:
The distributing company is beholden to the intellectual owner to not edit his vision without his approval. A third party making changes must obtain a license to do so from the intellectual owner.


I agree. They have every legal right to sue. But I don't see why you would file a lawsuit in this case for taking out things like sex scenes. Is a producer really that offended that it is cut out?

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  12:16:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message
What if they are making a statement against censorship and someone comes along and starts bleeping the bleepables?

Still not cool.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  12:27:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
Well, first off that isn't the case.

When a person chooses themselves not to want to hear those words, I don't think you can call it censorship any longer. But that same person still wants to be able to see things like movies, without the words in them. Is that really wrong?

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  12:31:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky

Well, first off that isn't the case.

When a person chooses themselves not to want to hear those words, I don't think you can call it censorship any longer. But that same person still wants to be able to see things like movies, without the words in them. Is that really wrong?



Yes, it is without obtaining the artist's permission.

When a person doesn't want to hear those words, then they shouldn't see the movie if it bothers them that much. You just don't change someone's work because you object to part of the message.

It is censorship. Unauthorized censorship.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  12:40:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Yes, it is without obtaining the artist's permission.

When a person doesn't want to hear those words, then they shouldn't see the movie if it bothers them that much. You just don't change someone's work because you object to part of the message.

It is censorship. Unauthorized censorship.
I agree 100%.

Taking out undesirable or "dirty" scenes from movies is akin to painting clothes on The Birth of Venus. It's sacrilegious to deface an artist's work, even if you don't consider the movies in question to be particularly artful. It's the principle of the thing.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  12:41:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
quote:
You just don't change someone's work because you object to part of the message.


But you aren't objecting to part of the message or changing someones work (meaning the overall theme). You just object to how that work and message is presented.

quote:
It is censorship. Unauthorized censorship.


Unauthorized? Yes. Censorship? Well, maybe. I think the phrase "Choosen Censorship" represents it better, as it is not forced upon people which most censorship is. But I still can't understand why someone would file a lawsuit over a few bleeped out words or cut sex scences. That is, of course, assuming that the controversy is not over the sale of unpurchased copies.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  12:44:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
But you aren't objecting to part of the message or changing someones work (meaning the overall theme). You just object to how that work and message is presented.
Ricky, how a message is presented is part of the message. Have you never heard the oft-repeated truism The Media is the Message?

You cannot alter a work without changing its intended meaning any more than you can measure a quantum particle's position without changing its momentum.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/10/2006 12:45:54
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  13:14:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky

quote:
You just don't change someone's work because you object to part of the message.


But you aren't objecting to part of the message or changing someones work (meaning the overall theme). You just object to how that work and message is presented.


And sometimes the particular word represents the rawness of the subject matter or is used to underscore a particuler point.

quote:

quote:
It is censorship. Unauthorized censorship.


Unauthorized? Yes. Censorship? Well, maybe. I think the phrase "Choosen Censorship" represents it better, as it is not forced upon people which most censorship is. But I still can't understand why someone would file a lawsuit over a few bleeped out words or cut sex scences. That is, of course, assuming that the controversy is not over the sale of unpurchased copies.



I could. It is part of the tapestry of the movie. The whole tapestry shows the story the director wants to tell. Removing anything would change it ever so slightly or majorly depending if the scene or word was integral to the plot.

It is censorship as sections of a complete work are removed by a third party. It isn't government censorship, but it is censorship.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26001 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  13:22:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Ricky, do you think that Kate Winselt got naked for Titanic just for kicks, or was it part of the story itself?

From another angle, film distributors don't often purchase the rights to make changes to the films they distribute.

From a third angle, copyright laws grant some exceptions for the purposes of criticism, education and/or parody, but these people are doing none of those things, and even - with the "David and Goliath" comment - misrepresenting the legal conflict.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  13:46:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
quote:
Removing anything would change it ever so slightly or majorly depending if the scene or word was integral to the plot.


Ok, so I am now aware that I was assuming before that by taking out the sex scenes, it meant like cable T.V. does. Eliminates the good nudity parts and pretty much leaves the rest in.

If that isn't the case, you have a valid point.

quote:
Ricky, do you think that Kate Winselt got naked for Titanic just for kicks, or was it part of the story itself?


I don't know, my mind was a bit distracted during that part of the movie. What was that scene about anyways?

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  14:41:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
quote:
Dave:
Ricky, do you think that Kate Winselt got naked for Titanic just for kicks, or was it part of the story itself?

What story?

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 07/10/2006 :  15:54:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
I'll just weigh in by saying that in my opinion, it's wrong to change any work without the permission of the creator of the work. (I might even sometimes question it if the artist/author gave such permission.) I think/hope that copyright protection legally supports Hollywood on this one. I really hate any attempt to Bowdlerize works of art or fiction.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.17 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000