The W
Views: 99990648
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.07 1039
The 7 - Movies & TV - "Scrubbing" Movies Violates Copyright
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(652 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 91

Posts: 776/2266
EXP: 7349210
For next: 119731

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 7 days
#1 Posted on 10.7.06 0045.07
Reposted on: 10.7.13 0045.13
Axing sex, swearing from films violates copyright: court



    Deleting swearing, sex and violence from films on DVD or VHS violates copyright laws, a U.S. judge has ruled in a decision that could end controversial sanitizing done for some video-rental chains, cable services and the internet.
    ...

    The act of sanitizing films began in 1998 when one company, Sunrise Family Video, started deleting the scenes showing a nude Kate Winslet from the blockbuster Titanic.

    Several other companies, mostly in Utah, quickly sprang up to follow its lead and there are currently an estimated 90 film scrubbing companies in the United States.



So on the one hand, this favors the copyright holders, which I'm sure the MPAA loves. On the other hand, it prevents people from making a profit from sanitizing other people's work, which I think is good as well.

Personally, I'd *hate* renting something that's been edited... and in the very limited time I worked at Blockbuster back in the day (WAY back, at this point), there were all sorts of rumors about them editing films for specific content. I don't think we ever did a side by side comparison.
Promote this thread!
The Vile1
Lap cheong
Level: 80

Posts: 1501/1694
EXP: 4641908
For next: 141081

Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2013 days
Last activity: 1745 days
#2 Posted on 10.7.06 0052.21
Reposted on: 10.7.13 0052.24
Steven Spielberg shouldn't care about this. Since he sanitizes his movies himself. He should be on the side of people who want to sanitize and edit the racy footage out of movies.
Brian P. Dermody
Liverwurst
Moderator
Level: 69

Posts: 975/1205
EXP: 2779929
For next: 89829

Since: 20.9.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 938 days
Last activity: 361 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on 10.7.06 0117.48
Reposted on: 10.7.13 0118.06
So if it's on VHS or DVD, it's a copyright violation. If it's to broadcast it on basic cable or the Saturday Aftrenoon Movie then it's... to protect the children?

Man, I got a headache now.
Cerebus
Scrapple
Level: 108

Posts: 1823/3470
EXP: 13494787
For next: 25756

Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#4 Posted on 10.7.06 0301.48
Reposted on: 10.7.13 0302.01
Leroy: How is people making money off of someone elses property without authorization a 'good' thing. These 'video rapists' believe that just because they have a rental store, they can alter the pre made products and make money off it. There is no good in that. Also, speaking of Blockbuster, I know for a fact that thier video copies of TWO MOON JUNCTION were 2min & 32secs shorter then the regular video version at other rental stores. Blockbester got into a little trouble for editing film on thier own some years ago and this is partly why you see some movies with unrated and R rated versions now because they refused to carry unrated films for many years, but they've gotten somewhat better about that now. They decided making money was more important then a few seconds of blood and boobs.

Brian: TV Networks, generally, are given edited versions of films by the studios or they get the 'ok' to edit films for broadcast. They also pay out the ass for those versions.

oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 2403/3059
EXP: 11571870
For next: 290295

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1988 days
Last activity: 1922 days
#5 Posted on 10.7.06 0431.47
Reposted on: 10.7.13 0431.59
    Originally posted by The Vile1
    Steven Spielberg shouldn't care about this. Since he sanitizes his movies himself. He should be on the side of people who want to sanitize and edit the racy footage out of movies.


SO because Spielberg chooses to make family-friendly movies, he should be all for the censorship of other film-makers' works?

How backward.
Tenken347
Boudin blanc
Level: 93

Posts: 1019/2439
EXP: 7858903
For next: 193937

Since: 27.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#6 Posted on 10.7.06 0740.33
Reposted on: 10.7.13 0742.19
    Originally posted by Brian P. Dermody
    So if it's on VHS or DVD, it's a copyright violation. If it's to broadcast it on basic cable or the Saturday Aftrenoon Movie then it's... to protect the children?

    Man, I got a headache now.


Actually, I think the issue here is the studio and the artists' intent. When a film is edited for content to conform with broadcast standards, it is done with the full authorization and consent of the studios, and they are compensated for the rights to broadcast the material. What these guys out in Utah were doing, was they were just taking movies and cutting them without studio approval, then selling or renting them at their own discretion. It's like if you made a movie, then I edited it without your consent, and then sold it to someone else, maybe while pretending that what I was selling was your original artistic vision. That certainly violates the copyright, and I'm glad the courts came down on the side of the studios (this time).

Edit: This also applies somewhat to what you were mentioning, Vile 1. As much as I believe that when a film is released by the artist it belongs, at least in part, to the world, in reality it still belongs entirely to the artist. If Spielberg wants to change his own movies around we don't have to like it, but he has that right. He does not, nor does anyone else, have the right to change someone else's movies.

(edited by Tenken347 on 10.7.06 0544)
The Vile1
Lap cheong
Level: 80

Posts: 1502/1694
EXP: 4641908
For next: 141081

Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2013 days
Last activity: 1745 days
#7 Posted on 10.7.06 1110.52
Reposted on: 10.7.13 1110.56
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    SO because Spielberg chooses to make family-friendly movies, he should be all for the censorship of other film-makers' works?

    How backward.


No, because he goes back and censors his own movies, he should support full, complete, and utter censorship of everything. Because he replaces guns with walkie talkies, or the word "terrorist" with "hippie".
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 91

Posts: 777/2266
EXP: 7349210
For next: 119731

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 7 days
#8 Posted on 10.7.06 1116.06
Reposted on: 10.7.13 1121.09
    Originally posted by Cerebus
    Leroy: How is people making money off of someone elses property without authorization a 'good' thing. These 'video rapists' believe that just because they have a rental store, they can alter the pre made products and make money off it.


I think you have two separate points here - but I'll get the latter one out of the way first. I don't think what these self-imposed censors were doing has any artistic value whatsoever. I'm not going to feel an once sorry for them because their getting put out of business.

Personally - as a composer and musician myself (at least, at one time) - I think art tends to suffer when you restrict use. If you take classical music, for example, there is a history of taking ideas from other people's work and using it in your own - and sometimes improving on it. (Mozart's line in Amadeus when he first meets Salieri,"I did some variations on a piece of yours . . . a funny little tune, but it yielded some good things.")

Or jazz, where "stealing" others' riffs is part of common practice. Those genre's would have *greatly* suffered had composers and musicians not rampantly stole from others' ideas.

Unfortunately, the music and movie business are too profit oriented and not art oriented enough to allow such things to occur. ("Bitter Sweet Symphony" is a perfect example - how many people knew that orchestral loop was a Rolling Stones riff when they first that song?)

Sure, there is Fair Use - but that being challenged all of the time. And Fair Use really doesn't allow for the expansion of ideas. And if you're a post-Modernist...
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 2404/3059
EXP: 11571870
For next: 290295

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1988 days
Last activity: 1922 days
#9 Posted on 10.7.06 1128.54
Reposted on: 10.7.13 1129.01
    Originally posted by The Vile1
      Originally posted by oldschoolhero
      SO because Spielberg chooses to make family-friendly movies, he should be all for the censorship of other film-makers' works?

      How backward.


    No, because he goes back and censors his own movies, he should support full, complete, and utter censorship of everything. Because he replaces guns with walkie talkies, or the word "terrorist" with "hippie".


It's his film, he can change whatever the fuck he wants. That's not censorship. It's dumb, but it's not censorship.
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1970/2159
EXP: 6339895
For next: 52904

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2293 days
Last activity: 2290 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on 10.7.06 1207.23
Reposted on: 10.7.13 1209.17
    Originally posted by The Vile1
    and utter censorship of everything. Because he replaces guns with walkie talkies, or the word "terrorist" with "hippie".


I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Whether he should do that is another argument altogether, but the difference between he and the scrubbers is that it's his property and he would be the only one (along with the studio who also owns it, natch) with the legal right to do so, period.

And why should he or any filmmaker/studio care about this? Because when you make your living developing things that become copyrights and intellectual properties, those copyrights have to be protected at all times, or else they are worth nothing.

(edited by JoshMann on 10.7.06 1312)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 3061/6335
EXP: 33460375
For next: 659723

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 4 days
#11 Posted on 11.7.06 1718.42
Reposted on: 11.7.13 1718.42
I really dont see why people get SO offended when something is censored. If you want to see everything, you generally know where/when to rent it anyways, and if you knew somebody rented "family friendly" movies, you'd probably avoid that place anyhow.

I find it hard to believe somebody would REALLY have that big an issue with renting Titanic if thier ten year old wanted to see it, and KNEW that the one scene with boobies shown is cut out.


StingArmy
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 424/2095
EXP: 6208511
For next: 184288

Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 19 days
#12 Posted on 12.7.06 1017.02
Reposted on: 12.7.13 1019.53
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    I really dont see why people get SO offended when something is censored. If you want to see everything, you generally know where/when to rent it anyways, and if you knew somebody rented "family friendly" movies, you'd probably avoid that place anyhow.

    I find it hard to believe somebody would REALLY have that big an issue with renting Titanic if thier ten year old wanted to see it, and KNEW that the one scene with boobies shown is cut out.




The main parties taking offense to the scrubbing are the movie studios, not video rental customers. What if James Cameron and the makers of Titanic didn't WANT there to be a version of their movie that had been edited to be so-called family friendly? What if they feel that the nude scene with Kate Winslet was absolutely integral to the movie? They have a legally protected moral right (ironically named in this case, I suppose) to have their artistic vision preserved.

Way back in the day, the BBC allowed CBS (I think) to air episodes of Monty Python here in the States. Once CBS got the footage, it decided it had to cut out bits and pieces from each episode in order to fit in enough time for commercials and whatnot. The end result, in Monty Python and the BBC's opinions, was a product that was drastically different from what they created. They sued for violation of their moral rights (a violation of copyright law) and they won. This is the same issue here. By scrubbing movies, video rental stores could very well be mangling the movie studios' artistic visions.

- StingArmy
kingleo
Linguica
Level: 20

Posts: 48/73
EXP: 37522
For next: 4917

Since: 26.11.04
From: Logan, UT

Since last post: 98 days
Last activity: 70 days
#13 Posted on 12.7.06 1113.47
Reposted on: 12.7.13 1113.59
It's really not a big surprise. The companies that were doing this were making up their own loophole in copyright law to get away with it. They'd sell memberships and claim that it gave their members a share in the ownership of the original movies since it's not illegal to butcher up a movie that you already own. Of course you still had to pay rental fees on top of that so really it was just the companies making crap up to get away with violating copyright law.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 3062/6335
EXP: 33460375
For next: 659723

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 4 days
#14 Posted on 12.7.06 1400.16
Reposted on: 12.7.13 1400.32
    Originally posted by StingArmy
    The main parties taking offense to the scrubbing are the movie studios, not video rental customers. What if James Cameron and the makers of Titanic didn't WANT there to be a version of their movie that had been edited to be so-called family friendly? What if they feel that the nude scene with Kate Winslet was absolutely integral to the movie? They have a legally protected moral right (ironically named in this case, I suppose) to have their artistic vision preserved.

    They sued for violation of their moral rights (a violation of copyright law) and they won. This is the same issue here. By scrubbing movies, video rental stores could very well be mangling the movie studios' artistic visions.

    - StingArmy


I dont really think, and this is just MY personal opinion, that it makes a difference one way or another. Is Titanic not the same movie if the five seconds of Kate Winslet's breasts is taken out?

The studios have already gotten paid for the movies, whether they are scrubbed or not.

The 'artistic' aspect doesnt make sense to me, but than again, I dont always understand art.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 2410/3059
EXP: 11571870
For next: 290295

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1988 days
Last activity: 1922 days
#15 Posted on 12.7.06 1422.16
Reposted on: 12.7.13 1424.11
If you make something, and you put your name to it, you don't want someone editing it and changing it to suit their personal dispositions. To use an incredibly anecdotal example, I'm sure James Cameron found the nude scene in Titanic to be integral to the Jack/Rose romance. If he wanted it out of HIS film, he could do it. And by removing it and displaying his film, with his name on the credits, to people who will walk away thinking of HIM as its architect, they would be pretty much kicking him in the balls.

Okay, how's this: you build a house, then some real estate broker snaps it up for sale and paints one room a FUGLY shade of lime green. Oh, and he knocks several walls thorugh. Then he puts a sign outside stating "StaggerLee's New House Design!". Wouldn't that piss you off?
The Vile1
Lap cheong
Level: 80

Posts: 1503/1694
EXP: 4641908
For next: 141081

Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2013 days
Last activity: 1745 days
#16 Posted on 12.7.06 2010.17
Reposted on: 12.7.13 2011.04
No it really wouldn't. ET: Special Edition pissed me off though.
DJ FrostyFreeze
Knackwurst
Level: 108

Posts: 2280/3380
EXP: 13440136
For next: 80407

Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA

Since last post: 47 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#17 Posted on 12.7.06 2256.05
Reposted on: 12.7.13 2256.22
    Originally posted by The Vile1
    No it really wouldn't. ET: Special Edition pissed me off though.
So if someone else censored a movie you made it wouldnt piss you off, but if someone censors their own movie it does piss you off?
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 3065/6335
EXP: 33460375
For next: 659723

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 4 days
#18 Posted on 12.7.06 2320.10
Reposted on: 12.7.13 2320.14
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    If you make something, and you put your name to it, you don't want someone editing it and changing it to suit their personal dispositions. To use an incredibly anecdotal example, I'm sure James Cameron found the nude scene in Titanic to be integral to the Jack/Rose romance. If he wanted it out of HIS film, he could do it. And by removing it and displaying his film, with his name on the credits, to people who will walk away thinking of HIM as its architect, they would be pretty much kicking him in the balls.

When they showed it on network TV, and it was edited, I am quite sure James Cameron still cashed the check the network sent him. Not sure how that is different, if he is still getting PAID, and its reaching a broader audience, isnt it beneficial to him?






    Okay, how's this: you build a house, then some real estate broker snaps it up for sale and paints one room a FUGLY shade of lime green. Oh, and he knocks several walls thorugh. Then he puts a sign outside stating "StaggerLee's New House Design!". Wouldn't that piss you off?


I am not an architecht though. I wouldnt care eihter way. I can see where people might get bent because thier own personal vision wasnt held 100%, but in hollywood, how many movies really ARE the directors vision, one hundred percent of the time? I would venture to say 'not many' is the answer.

The Vile1
Lap cheong
Level: 80

Posts: 1504/1694
EXP: 4641908
For next: 141081

Since: 4.9.02
From: California

Since last post: 2013 days
Last activity: 1745 days
#19 Posted on 13.7.06 0458.31
Reposted on: 13.7.13 0458.33
    Originally posted by DJ FrostyFreeze
      Originally posted by The Vile1
      No it really wouldn't. ET: Special Edition pissed me off though.
    So if someone else censored a movie you made it wouldnt piss you off, but if someone censors their own movie it does piss you off?


No. If "I built a house, then some real estate broker snaps it up for sale and paints one room a FUGLY shade of lime green. Oh, and he knocks several walls through." That wouldn't piss me off.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 2411/3059
EXP: 11571870
For next: 290295

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1988 days
Last activity: 1922 days
#20 Posted on 13.7.06 0506.08
Reposted on: 13.7.13 0506.27
And plasters your name all over the house advertising. Did you miss that part?

Film-makers have made something and put their names to it. They're not happy that people without the authority to do so hack and slash at their work when if they don't like the film-maker's artistic vision they could simply not watch. Plus, I'd be might pissed-off if someone whose moral beliefs didn't match my own co-opted something I'd worked hard on and reshaped it to their moral code to make money.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: NBC goes to the Bravo well to try to spike Monday ratings
Next thread: Rocky Balboa - the trailer
Previous thread: The Prestige
(652 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Related threads: What are this week's movie icons? - How many @#%$* movies is Vince Vaughn in? - MOVIE NEWS!!! - More...
The 7 - Movies & TV - "Scrubbing" Movies Violates CopyrightRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.198 seconds.