Moral Authority is alive and well in Colorado
- Thread starter LethalWolfe
- Start date
Would you mind pointing out the part(s) "worth reading"? It's not like these video stores are closing down the non-edited video stores, so why does this dumbass care?
Talk about morons...
Talk about morons...
A parent has the right to decide what their child may or may not watch.
As long as they're aware they're purchasing an edited version (which they are), I see nothing whatsoever wrong with it.
Parents would probably be better off just not watching the movie at all, but I suppose edited is a decent alternative.
...They're using their prudish editorial judgment to mangle the movies, and then selling them to like-minded wussies who think they know better than Hollywood's finest directors like Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Robert Redford, and 13 others named in their lawsuit. Clearly, if these revered filmmakers' names -- or any other names, for that matter -- are on the credits of a film, one whose name is not on those credits should not be allowed to tamper with the content and then sell it.
They aren't claiming to know better, they're saying "This material is not appropriate for my child, and while I cannot edit out the content I know someone who can." Are you suggesting that Steven Spielberg more about what's appropriate for your child than you do?
Some people really need to mind their own business.
Yes, if it's deemed a copyright violation then shut them down. But arguing the parents' right to restrict what their children watch is absurd.
Viper GTS
As long as they're aware they're purchasing an edited version (which they are), I see nothing whatsoever wrong with it.
Parents would probably be better off just not watching the movie at all, but I suppose edited is a decent alternative.
...They're using their prudish editorial judgment to mangle the movies, and then selling them to like-minded wussies who think they know better than Hollywood's finest directors like Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Robert Redford, and 13 others named in their lawsuit. Clearly, if these revered filmmakers' names -- or any other names, for that matter -- are on the credits of a film, one whose name is not on those credits should not be allowed to tamper with the content and then sell it.
They aren't claiming to know better, they're saying "This material is not appropriate for my child, and while I cannot edit out the content I know someone who can." Are you suggesting that Steven Spielberg more about what's appropriate for your child than you do?
Some people really need to mind their own business.
Yes, if it's deemed a copyright violation then shut them down. But arguing the parents' right to restrict what their children watch is absurd.
Viper GTS
I guess for me it's the principle of the thing... plus a personal pet peeve w/some basic American sentiment. Typicaly speaking when a group of American's find something objectional they try to censor it. They take it upon themselves to dicate what is "okay" for everyone else to see, hear, or read. In general we'd rather hide something or pretend it doesn't exist than discuss it and actually educate people. But I'm gonna shut up before both feet get on my "anti-censorship" soapbox. 
The mind set that fuels Clean Flicks is what disturbs me.
Lethal
EDIT:
The mind set that fuels Clean Flicks is what disturbs me.
Lethal
EDIT:
But if the parent doesn't want their children to be exposed to the violence in, let's say, "Saving Private Ryan" then they shouldn't rent it and watch it w/the kids. Problem solved.
the problem I have is that these movies as a whole are works of a creative process( well not all the stuff that comes out these days)
It would be like cutting sections of the constitution out and still selling it as a Constitution edit. Once you change a work of art, it is no longer what it was. The artist(s) were trying to get a message out and by changing that message it is no longer related to the original. In the same way much of the meaning and art that goes into poetry is lost in translation. Any translation will change the original message, and destroy the artists unique and specific message.
It would be like cutting sections of the constitution out and still selling it as a Constitution edit. Once you change a work of art, it is no longer what it was. The artist(s) were trying to get a message out and by changing that message it is no longer related to the original. In the same way much of the meaning and art that goes into poetry is lost in translation. Any translation will change the original message, and destroy the artists unique and specific message.
The networks edit movies before showing them. Radio stations edits songs before playing them. I haven't seen anyone go after any of these companies.
WHY NOT? They're not pirating them, they're not stealing them, they're not forcing anyone to watch them or in any way limiting people from getting the "normal" copies.
All you people taking your cars to any place to have it repainted or installing a body kit should all have your cars impounded
They're providing a service to what seems to be a viable market.
What step in the following process is illegal?
1)Buy 500 copies of Encyclopedia Britannica from Barnes&Noble
2)Tear out every page that refers to evolution
3)Sell your encyclopedias to Mormons.
A movie is a piece of property that can be bougt/modified/sold just like any other.
Will they also being selling versions that cut out all the boring dialog and get right to the boobies for us adults .
.Directors Guild says this:
Perhaps they are unaware that the United States Constitution directed Congress to pass laws to ensure that the creators of original works has the "exclusive right" to their work and prohibited their unauthorized exploitation by others for financial gain...
We are appalled at the proliferation of companies that bypass the copyright holder and the filmmaker and arbitrarily alter the creative expression and hard work of the many artists involved in filmmaking," Soderbergh, who is DGA 1st VP, said in the announcement.
"
Perhaps they are unaware that the United States Constitution directed Congress to pass laws to ensure that the creators of original works has the "exclusive right" to their work and prohibited their unauthorized exploitation by others for financial gain...
We are appalled at the proliferation of companies that bypass the copyright holder and the filmmaker and arbitrarily alter the creative expression and hard work of the many artists involved in filmmaking," Soderbergh, who is DGA 1st VP, said in the announcement.
"
Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
WHY NOT? They're not pirating them, they're not stealing them, they're not forcing anyone to watch them or in any way limiting people from getting the "normal" copies.
All you people taking your cars to any place to have it repainted or installing a body kit should all have your cars impounded
They're providing a service to what seems to be a viable market.
Bad anology. I own a title to my car that says it's mine. Period. GM doesn't own the car, Honda doesn't own the car, I own the car, and I can do w/it as I see fit.
When you (the end user) purchase a movie the only right you have, basically, is to watch it in your home w/yer family and friends. You can't play it in a public place, charge admission, copy it, redistribute it or anything like that w/o getting permission from whomever owns the copyrights to the movie (this is basically what that FBI warning says at the front of every video tape and DVD).
Everything published (be it a book, movie, magazine, etc.,) has "all rights reserved" printed somewhere on it. That means that the
owner(s) of that piece of work retains all the control over that piece of work. No one else can use, distribute, recreate, modify, ect., that piece of work w/o the owner(s) permission. Another good example is pro sports. At the end of, lets say, an NFL game someone will say (basically), "This game is property of the NFL. You cannot use any footage of this game for any reason w/o the written permission of the NFL."
Now, of course lots of people sell used movies, or show them at the local bridge club meeting or something and they don't have lawyers knocking down their doors. That's 'cause the studio's, networks, and publishing companies really don't care about the small stuff like that. The rules are in place to keep people making a profit off of someone elses work.
Lethal
HomeBrewerDude
Lifer
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
if movie production houses were smart, they would be selling these 'cleansed' versions themselves.
Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
WHY NOT? They're not pirating them, they're not stealing them, they're not forcing anyone to watch them or in any way limiting people from getting the "normal" copies.
All you people taking your cars to any place to have it repainted or installing a body kit should all have your cars impounded
They're providing a service to what seems to be a viable market.
Bad anology. I own a title to my car that says it's mine. Period. GM doesn't own the car, Honda doesn't own the car, I own the car, and I can do w/it as I see fit.
When you (the end user) purchase a movie the only right you have, basically, is to watch it in your home w/yer family and friends. You can't play it in a public place, charge admission, copy it, redistribute it or anything like that w/o getting permission from whomever owns the copyrights to the movie (this is basically what that FBI warning says at the front of every video tape and DVD).
Everything published (be it a book, movie, magazine, etc.,) has "all rights reserved" printed somewhere on it. That means that the
owner(s) of that piece of work retains all the control over that piece of work. No one else can use, distribute, recreate, modify, ect., that piece of work w/o the owner(s) permission. Another good example is pro sports. At the end of, lets say, an NFL game someone will say (basically), "This game is property of the NFL. You cannot use any footage of this game for any reason w/o the written permission of the NFL."
Now, of course lots of people sell used movies, or show them at the local bridge club meeting or something and they don't have lawyers knocking down their doors. That's 'cause the studio's, networks, and publishing companies really don't care about the small stuff like that. The rules are in place to keep people making a profit off of someone elses work.
Lethal
Under copyright law which you obviously haven't read there are two principles you should be aware of. These are: The right of Fair Use and the right of First sale.
The right of fair use says that you can copy parts of any protected material for commentary, journalism or artistic value as long as the use does not devalue the original work. This means that you can copy paragraphs from books and comment on their meaning in book reports and be legal. This also means you can take screenshots of movies you own and use those images or even short clips to provide material for commentary. The right to fair use also grants you the owner of the material that was sold to you the right to make a single copy of that work for backup purposes or to transfer that work into another form that is more usuable to you. This would include taking a book down to a copy center and photocopying the entire book and blowing it up 8x11 so you can read it better. This isn't illegal as long as you retain the original work. This also means that it IS perfectly legal for you to take a movie and COPY it for your personal use.
The second right is the right of first sale. What this means is that the person selling the movie can only be compensated from the first sale of the product. They can't reasonably be expected to collect a fee for every used CD or book sold. This means that the MPAA and RIAA can not tell anyone who can or cannot sell a movie after it was purchased. They have no rights accept those of the original copyright that makes them the sole distributer of NEW copies.
Try to understand copyright law and don't buy into the crap you are being fed these days that it is somehow illegal for you to excersize your rights to use of view the material in any way you choose.
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
WHY NOT? They're not pirating them, they're not stealing them, they're not forcing anyone to watch them or in any way limiting people from getting the "normal" copies.
All you people taking your cars to any place to have it repainted or installing a body kit should all have your cars impounded
They're providing a service to what seems to be a viable market.
Bad anology. I own a title to my car that says it's mine. Period. GM doesn't own the car, Honda doesn't own the car, I own the car, and I can do w/it as I see fit.
When you (the end user) purchase a movie the only right you have, basically, is to watch it in your home w/yer family and friends. You can't play it in a public place, charge admission, copy it, redistribute it or anything like that w/o getting permission from whomever owns the copyrights to the movie (this is basically what that FBI warning says at the front of every video tape and DVD).
Everything published (be it a book, movie, magazine, etc.,) has "all rights reserved" printed somewhere on it. That means that the
owner(s) of that piece of work retains all the control over that piece of work. No one else can use, distribute, recreate, modify, ect., that piece of work w/o the owner(s) permission. Another good example is pro sports. At the end of, lets say, an NFL game someone will say (basically), "This game is property of the NFL. You cannot use any footage of this game for any reason w/o the written permission of the NFL."
Now, of course lots of people sell used movies, or show them at the local bridge club meeting or something and they don't have lawyers knocking down their doors. That's 'cause the studio's, networks, and publishing companies really don't care about the small stuff like that. The rules are in place to keep people making a profit off of someone elses work.
Lethal
Under copyright law which you obviously haven't read there are two principles you should be aware of. These are: The right of Fair Use and the right of First sale.
The right of fair use says that you can copy parts of any protected material for commentary, journalism or artistic value as long as the use does not devalue the original work. This means that you can copy paragraphs from books and comment on their meaning in book reports and be legal. This also means you can take screenshots of movies you own and use those images or even short clips to provide material for commentary. The right to fair use also grants you the owner of the material that was sold to you the right to make a single copy of that work for backup purposes or to transfer that work into another form that is more usuable to you. This would include taking a book down to a copy center and photocopying the entire book and blowing it up 8x11 so you can read it better. This isn't illegal as long as you retain the original work. This also means that it IS perfectly legal for you to take a movie and COPY it for your personal use.
The second right is the right of first sale. What this means is that the person selling the movie can only be compensated from the first sale of the product. They can't reasonably be expected to collect a fee for every used CD or book sold. This means that the MPAA and RIAA can not tell anyone who can or cannot sell a movie after it was purchased. They have no rights accept those of the original copyright that makes them the sole distributer of NEW copies.
Try to understand copyright law and don't buy into the crap you are being fed these days that it is somehow illegal for you to excersize your rights to use of view the material in any way you choose.
I am aware of copyright law, and I didn't get into it cause I was trying to keep it simple. Fair Use is usually okay if you only use a portion of the original work (highlights of a football game on the local news, for example) and if it's for educational, academic, non-profit, or personal use (basically anything non-commercial). Neither of which applies to the Clean Flicks people since they use entire movies for commercial purposes.
Right of First Sale says you can sell, lend, or destory yer legally purchased personal copy. It didn't say you can purposely<sp?> alter the copyrighted work, then sell it. Loop hole? Maybe. You own the medium, you don't own the work. In this case you own the DVD or videocassette, you do not own the movie. You have the right to sell the medium, but do you have a right to alter the work and then sell/rent it commercially? Also, thanx to the DMCA, it is probably illegal for Clean Flicks edit DVDs (because they are digital and Clean Flicks is knowingly bypassing the copy protection), but videocassettes might still be fair game 'cause they aren't digital (digital really has turned everything upside down, hasn't it).
And end users do not have the right "to use of[sic] view the material in any way you choose." Like I said, you can't retelecast an NFL game, and you can't setup a minitheater in yer basement and charge admission to see the movie w/o the copyright holders permission (you could make it mandatory to buy popcorn and a drink though
. Of course if it's a rather large event you might into zoning issues (residentail vs. commercail) but that's for another thread...Honestly, I could care less if what Clean Flicks is doing is legal or not. I disagree w/it, and the mindset fueling it, on a moral level.
I've had 2 informed, non-flamming discussions in the same week. What is ATOT coming to?
Lethal
Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
I am aware of copyright law, and I didn't get into it cause I was trying to keep it simple. Fair Use is usually okay if you only use a portion of the original work (highlights of a football game on the local news, for example) and if it's for educational, academic, non-profit, or personal use (basically anything non-commercial). Neither of which applies to the Clean Flicks people since they use entire movies for commercial purposes.
Right of First Sale says you can sell, lend, or destory yer legally purchased personal copy. It didn't say you can purposely<sp?> alter the copyrighted work, then sell it. Loop hole? Maybe. You own the medium, you don't own the work. In this case you own the DVD or videocassette, you do not own the movie. You have the right to sell the medium, but do you have a right to alter the work and then sell/rent it commercially? Also, thanx to the DMCA, it is probably illegal for Clean Flicks edit DVDs (because they are digital and Clean Flicks is knowingly bypassing the copy protection), but videocassettes might still be fair game 'cause they aren't digital (digital really has turned everything upside down, hasn't it).
And end users do not have the right "to use of[sic] view the material in any way you choose." Like I said, you can't retelecast an NFL game, and you can't setup a minitheater in yer basement and charge admission to see the movie w/o the copyright holders permission (you could make it mandatory to buy popcorn and a drink though
Honestly, I could care less if what Clean Flicks is doing is legal or not. I disagree w/it, and the mindset fueling it, on a moral level.
I've had 2 informed, non-flamming discussions in the same week. What is ATOT coming to?
Lethal
Clean Flicks is making the arguement that they are selling the work to the individual and in the process selling an editing service whereby they duplicate the disc and edit it to remove objectionable material. Fair Use rights entitle any owner of the movie to copy and edit the movie to their hearts content as long as they don't distribute. Editing services are legal, copying movies for personal use are legal and that is all clean flicks is doing, offering new movies and an editing/burning service to customers. See maybe that is what you don't understand, clean flicks includes the original DVD with every edited copy they sell. The studio is losing nothing and no copyright laws are being broken.
Personally I don't care what clean flicks is doing, I wouldn't frequent their business and actually the one locally went out of business. But that doesn't change the fact that I do support the rights they are advocating. Movie studios are on a warpath to eliminate rights because rights impede profits. The MPAA and RIAA have both proposed mandatory royallties on used purchases, they have both created formats that are uncopyable without breaking the law. They are trying to take our rights and I will stand on the side with clean flicks in defending our rights to do with movies what we want even if I don't particularly care for what they do. See I guess I respect other peoples rights to be closed minded in the privacy of their own home.
Why on earth would this bother any of you people on a "moral" level. You are not being asked to buy the product or even watch the edited version. What exactly are your morals?
Kadarin
Lifer
- Nov 23, 2001
- 44,303
- 15
- 81
I'm finding myself agreeing with rahvin on this: While I find their business distasteful and would never purchase their product/service, I don't disagree with what they're doing from an economic standpoint. If they purchase the product legally, and sell an editing service, providing the end customer with the original dvd plus an edited dvd, I don't see what's wrong with it. It's the equivalent of selling the service of editing customers' own dvds.
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
I am aware of copyright law, and I didn't get into it cause I was trying to keep it simple. Fair Use is usually okay if you only use a portion of the original work (highlights of a football game on the local news, for example) and if it's for educational, academic, non-profit, or personal use (basically anything non-commercial). Neither of which applies to the Clean Flicks people since they use entire movies for commercial purposes.
Right of First Sale says you can sell, lend, or destory yer legally purchased personal copy. It didn't say you can purposely<sp?> alter the copyrighted work, then sell it. Loop hole? Maybe. You own the medium, you don't own the work. In this case you own the DVD or videocassette, you do not own the movie. You have the right to sell the medium, but do you have a right to alter the work and then sell/rent it commercially? Also, thanx to the DMCA, it is probably illegal for Clean Flicks edit DVDs (because they are digital and Clean Flicks is knowingly bypassing the copy protection), but videocassettes might still be fair game 'cause they aren't digital (digital really has turned everything upside down, hasn't it).
And end users do not have the right "to use of[sic] view the material in any way you choose." Like I said, you can't retelecast an NFL game, and you can't setup a minitheater in yer basement and charge admission to see the movie w/o the copyright holders permission (you could make it mandatory to buy popcorn and a drink though
Honestly, I could care less if what Clean Flicks is doing is legal or not. I disagree w/it, and the mindset fueling it, on a moral level.
I've had 2 informed, non-flamming discussions in the same week. What is ATOT coming to?
Lethal
Clean Flicks is making the arguement that they are selling the work to the individual and in the process selling an editing service whereby they duplicate the disc and edit it to remove objectionable material. Fair Use rights entitle any owner of the movie to copy and edit the movie to their hearts content as long as they don't distribute. Editing services are legal, copying movies for personal use are legal and that is all clean flicks is doing, offering new movies and an editing/burning service to customers. See maybe that is what you don't understand, clean flicks includes the original DVD with every edited copy they sell. The studio is losing nothing and no copyright laws are being broken.
Personally I don't care what clean flicks is doing, I wouldn't frequent their business and actually the one locally went out of business. But that doesn't change the fact that I do support the rights they are advocating. Movie studios are on a warpath to eliminate rights because rights impede profits. The MPAA and RIAA have both proposed mandatory royallties on used purchases, they have both created formats that are uncopyable without breaking the law. They are trying to take our rights and I will stand on the side with clean flicks in defending our rights to do with movies what we want even if I don't particularly care for what they do. See I guess I respect other peoples rights to be closed minded in the privacy of their own home.
Hmmm... interesting position Clean Flicks has made itself. Guess I coulda researched Clean Flicks a bit more...
I respect other peoples rights to be closed minded in the privacy of their own home too (hell, I'll even let them be close minded in public too), but that doesn't mean I won't be vocal about disagreeing w/their choice to be close minded.
lethal
I can just see this taking off. Next we'll have book stores selling Bibles with all mentions of God and Jesus edited out as to not offend the athiests.
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
I am aware of copyright law, and I didn't get into it cause I was trying to keep it simple. Fair Use is usually okay if you only use a portion of the original work (highlights of a football game on the local news, for example) and if it's for educational, academic, non-profit, or personal use (basically anything non-commercial). Neither of which applies to the Clean Flicks people since they use entire movies for commercial purposes.
Right of First Sale says you can sell, lend, or destory yer legally purchased personal copy. It didn't say you can purposely<sp?> alter the copyrighted work, then sell it. Loop hole? Maybe. You own the medium, you don't own the work. In this case you own the DVD or videocassette, you do not own the movie. You have the right to sell the medium, but do you have a right to alter the work and then sell/rent it commercially? Also, thanx to the DMCA, it is probably illegal for Clean Flicks edit DVDs (because they are digital and Clean Flicks is knowingly bypassing the copy protection), but videocassettes might still be fair game 'cause they aren't digital (digital really has turned everything upside down, hasn't it).
And end users do not have the right "to use of[sic] view the material in any way you choose." Like I said, you can't retelecast an NFL game, and you can't setup a minitheater in yer basement and charge admission to see the movie w/o the copyright holders permission (you could make it mandatory to buy popcorn and a drink though
Honestly, I could care less if what Clean Flicks is doing is legal or not. I disagree w/it, and the mindset fueling it, on a moral level.
I've had 2 informed, non-flamming discussions in the same week. What is ATOT coming to?
Lethal
Clean Flicks is making the arguement that they are selling the work to the individual and in the process selling an editing service whereby they duplicate the disc and edit it to remove objectionable material. Fair Use rights entitle any owner of the movie to copy and edit the movie to their hearts content as long as they don't distribute. Editing services are legal, copying movies for personal use are legal and that is all clean flicks is doing, offering new movies and an editing/burning service to customers. See maybe that is what you don't understand, clean flicks includes the original DVD with every edited copy they sell. The studio is losing nothing and no copyright laws are being broken.
Personally I don't care what clean flicks is doing, I wouldn't frequent their business and actually the one locally went out of business. But that doesn't change the fact that I do support the rights they are advocating. Movie studios are on a warpath to eliminate rights because rights impede profits. The MPAA and RIAA have both proposed mandatory royallties on used purchases, they have both created formats that are uncopyable without breaking the law. They are trying to take our rights and I will stand on the side with clean flicks in defending our rights to do with movies what we want even if I don't particularly care for what they do. See I guess I respect other peoples rights to be closed minded in the privacy of their own home.
I don't understand your argument so help me out. The way you defined Fair Use and First sale earlier... seem to me to contradict each other. You seem to argue that the Clean Flicks people are using both copyright laws together which doesn't make any sense:
How is the argument made that reselling an edited copy to OTHER people is "personal use" I'm not seeing the loophole there. How do they argue that by editing the material and reselling it, they are not in violation of Fair Use because it is still personal use? How is that personal use? Help me out, thanks.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter