|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 07/10/2006 : 07:42:09
|
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 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 10:05:21 [Permalink]
|
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 |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 10:23:23 [Permalink]
|
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 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 12:16:31 [Permalink]
|
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 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 12:31:04 [Permalink]
|
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 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 12:40:52 [Permalink]
|
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 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 12:44:15 [Permalink]
|
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 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 13:14:43 [Permalink]
|
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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 13:22:31 [Permalink]
|
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. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 14:41:05 [Permalink]
|
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 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 15:54:05 [Permalink]
|
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. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
