MPAA Lawsuit Against Family-Friendly DVDs is Anti-Consumer, says CEA

[guns1inger]

Of course, you can always DIY - http://www.cuts.com/index

However anyone who promotes a product on the basis that Finding Nemo is too violent, really shouldn't be watching any movies or TV at all.

[thecoalman]

Walmart and K-Mart only sell "clean" albums.

They can do it because of the huge volume of discs they sell. Essentially forcing the copyright holders to bend to their wishes. Either give them an edited version or they won't sell it. Although I agree they should be able to sell or not sell a product at their discretion on the other hand Wal -Mart is entirely too powerful because they are dictating what the market is. Msuic is not the only thing they have done this too, do a search for wal mart and rubbermaid....

[NiteLite]

You choose to follow a set of beliefs. It is a personal choice. Hand in hand with that choice is a decision to forgo certain things as part of that life. You choose to become a vegan, you understand you will be giving up animal products. You choose to follow a particular faith, you understand that with it comes certain sacrifices. If you can't accept the cost, you have chosen the wrong thing to believe in.

Excellent!
This defines the 'wanting your cake and eating it too" very nicely. It's suppose to be about choices.

Of course, sometimes useless words or scenes are added to get the PG-13 or R ratings because that is what sells.
It's almost some kind of hidden voyeuristic attitude to want to see a movie and not see it at the same time.
Someone put it nicely above. If one doesnt like the original version wait for it to come on basic TV.
Again, nicely put guns1inger. It's about choices and people not wanting to submit to the sacrifices they chose to make.

Regards,
NL

[mats.hogberg]

A) My position is that a movie should be seen as it's intended to be seen, or not at all.
B) The edits seem most to involve masking dirty words like f**k, or a glimpse of a tit. Killings, murder and other violence is A-OK. That doesn't make any sense at all to me.

/Mats

[BJ_M]

A) My position is that a movie should be seen as it's intended to be seen, or not at all.
B) The edits seem most to involve masking dirty words like f**k, or a glimpse of a tit. Killings, murder and other violence is A-OK. That doesn't make any sense at all to me.

/Mats

exactly -- a bit of skin is taboo , when really there is nothing wrong with skin ... everyone has some ... but all kinds of other stuff is "ok"


not that I mind any of it ... but such a big deal is made of over the wrong things ....

[rkr1958]

One movie comes to mind that I watched recently, "The Wedding Crashers". Rated R and only suitable for my wife and me after our son was in bed. I thought the premise of the movie was funny and the movie itself at times was too. Defintely worth the price of a rental but I'm glad I didn't waste money on it seeing at a theater.

Anyway, there was one scene in there that really bothered me. The main guy and girl characters were having a causal conversation one evening and in that conversation they both used the f-word. They used it so causally. Call me old school but I was brought up that you don't talk like that in mixed company. Here you had two nice looking 20-somethings talking like that. What purpose do those words serve in that causal conversation? I didn't mind the sexual content and I didn't mind the language when it had real purpose ... but used for no other purpose that what? That in my mind was a perfect situation in which it was acceptable to edit movie. And if it were edited I in no way see how that could possibly change the "artistic" or "director's" intent of how one should see the movie.

What people do in the privacy of their own home to movies they own is their business.

[Supreme2k]

That's the problem with copyright. If you buy a copy of it, you don't actually own it. You only own the material it is on. (and so on)

But that's perfectly legit. Buying a disc doesn't mean that you starred in, wrote, produced or had any other part in creating that work. Someone else did, so it's not yours. That is completely profiting off a complete work of another. The example of the bolt is that you have used the bolt as intended, to repair or modify. Another difference with a car (or any other solid, physical object) is that is a complete entity rather than an electronic reproduction. By the same token, you cannot buy a car, slap a "Normcar Motors, Inc." sticker on it and sell it as your own creation. Also by the same token, copying a CD or other electronic media doesn't get you a Breaking & Entering or Burglary charge.

If your ancestor wrote something 100 yrs ago. What good reason do you have to keep the copyright?

Profit, maybe? If my great-great-great grandfather invented the typewriter, I'd certainly want a piece of that pie.

The copyright was created to protect people’s work(but only author’s work, not work you and I create at our employers). My work is not protected. I have to re-earn my pay every day.

If you created something unique (not just everyday work, spreadsheets, docs, etc.), then you shouldn't do it under the roof of your employer. I actually created many macros and database engines for companies and either got a lump sum from them buying it, or I receive residuals continuously. Writers suffer the same thing if they don't have a clause in their contracts. If someone is writing a column for a magazine, the writing becomes the property of the magazine and the writer cannot create a compendium later for resale, unless he protected himself in the "work product" contract.

The copyright was originally used to help people get the profits for themselves, not to create a publishing empire of different works by different people, which is what the studios do.

That is exactly what Cleanflicks would be doing. The studios actually have that right.

Is a dead person going to have any incentive to produce more work? The incentive and financial ability to produce more work was the original design, which has been corrupted.

I agree with you there. This "death plus 70 years" is complete and utter bullshit.

Fair use needs to be expanded because of new forms of media, so you don't have to buy (but you don't actually own) the same product over and over. I don't buy my car over and over, I buy a newly produced car, with a new design, new tires, new seats, new everything. They don't sell me the same car I already have, that would be stupid. If you don't own the copyrighted material it should be a license, and then you should be allowed to move the license to different media, as long as you don't use more than one at a time. But it is better for them to resell you (but you don't own it) over and over again.

Actually, much of this site is about that grey area, making backups. If you wreck your car and don't have insurance (your "backup"), then you have to buy the car again. Same with a disc (even though normal wear and tear on a disc is much less and, theoretically, it should last "forever").

If they take your money for a product, but you don't own it, isn’t that called stealing?

No, it's called licensing.

[Supreme2k]

What people do in the privacy of their own home to movies they own is their business.

NSFW

[normcar]

Buying a disc doesn't mean that you starred in, wrote, produced or had any other part in creating that work. Someone else did, so it's not yours. That is completely profiting off a complete work of another. The example of the bolt is that you have used the bolt as intended, to repair or modify. Another difference with a car (or any other solid, physical object) is that is a complete entity rather than an electronic reproduction. By the same token, you cannot buy a car, slap a "Normcar Motors, Inc." sticker on it and sell it as your own creation. Also by the same token, copying a CD or other electronic media doesn't get you a Breaking & Entering or Burglary charge.

If your ancestor wrote something 100 yrs ago. What good reason do you have to keep the copyright?

Profit, maybe? If my great-great-great grandfather invented the typewriter, I'd certainly want a piece of that pie.

The copyright was created to protect people’s work(but only author’s work, not work you and I create at our employers). My work is not protected. I have to re-earn my pay every day.

Is a dead person going to have any incentive to produce more work? The incentive and financial ability to produce more work was the original design, which has been corrupted.

I agree with you there. This "death plus 70 years" is complete and utter bullshit.


Actually, much of this site is about that grey area, making backups. If you wreck your car and don't have insurance (your "backup"), then you have to buy the car again. Same with a disc (even though normal wear and tear on a disc is much less and, theoretically, it should last "forever").

But a minor scratch during normal operation (taking the DVD in and out of the DVD player) can make the disk unplayable. A simple scratch will not make the car useless.

Actually I can change the brand name on the car. That is legal. I can do anything I want to the car as long as I do not do an illegal thing such as run someone down. Your saying that I did not star in or write, etc the movie. Well I didn't write the specs, produce the parts, or assemble the car, but I still own it. I can disassemble my car and sell it for parts, but I cann't disassemble the DVD, and sell it for parts. I can use the car for profit (a taxi), but I cann't use the DVD material for profit.

Movie stars have no rights under the law for the work they star in. That right comes from the individual contracts, or the union labor contracts.

You should not necessarily economically be allowed to profit 100 yrs later from a copyright etc for something someone did earlier. It does not benefit society economically to allow you to make money, it only benifits you. It also does not conform to the original intent of the copyright/ etc laws that you should benfit from your own work, so you have incentive to do more, and the money to sustain you while you produce more. That is the original intent of the laws. Big money has allowed that original intent to be corrupted, and long term profit is now the only benefit. Many times the profit goes to someone who is not even in the business of producing more of the product. i.e. your great grand children.

If you created something unique (not just everyday work, spreadsheets, docs, etc.), then you shouldn't do it under the roof of your employer. I actually created many macros and database engines for companies and either got a lump sum from them buying it, or I receive residuals continuously. Writers suffer the same thing if they don't have a clause in their contracts. If someone is writing a column for a magazine, the writing becomes the property of the magazine and the writer cannot create a compendium later for resale, unless he protected himself in the "work product" contract.

For most people, and most kinds of work, they cannot get any additional money for work that they have produced. i.e. someone installing a roof on your house. They have 0 potential to get additional money for the same roof over and over, even though it protects your house not just from 1 rain storm, but for many dozens or hundreds of rainstorms. Yet the studios would love to (and probably will if they can ever make actually copyless DVD or other medium) make you pay per view of your dvd. They certainly are trying to get you to pay per device. I hope the car manufactures do not start selling cars that you have to pay them again to drive your car on different types of roads.

Writers of orginal material have many more rights. The writers the studios hire, usually only rewrite or create a 'film version' of someone elses' material. They rarely produce new work. Even those who produce new work for TV shows, are really only building on somelse's work.

As for the studios profiting from different works. They can buy the rights to someone elses work, and make profit on it. Anyone can do this, and some people (Turner) actually bought studios only for the rights to the films. They produced no new material, but profitted from prior work. This again produced only profit, not an incentive to make more.

Most people do not know that the big studios and other companies have gotten congress to actually extend the time allowed for copyrights, brand names, etc. much longer than the length of the original laws. Profit is now the only driving force. The orginal intent of the laws has become lost. The incentive to produce more of the same material has been largely lost. This intent was reason for the law, not the other way around.

[adam]

Back to the article... I think its worth mentioning that the Cleanflix lawsuit is already over, because its not clear from the article. Cleanflix lost and is appealing. The article is just talking about how the case was referenced in a hearing before Congress.

Here's the gist of the Court's ruling:

The Court rejected CleanFlicks' fair use defense, finding that CleanFlicks' edits were non–transformative and that public benefits were not outweighed by "the intrinsic value of the right to control the content of the copyrighted work which is the essence of the law of copyright."

I think its also worth noting that the MPAA was not a party to the suit. The plaintiffs were a specific group of directors and studios.

[CubDukat]

Congress Should Not Tolerate "Copyright Abuse" That Denies Parents Freedom to Make Positive Family Choices

Families who want more control over what their children see and hear should not be denied by a narrow reading of the copyright law as urged by the big movie studios, Consumer Electronics Association (CEA®) Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Michael Petricone argued, referring to testimony submitted today before a congressional subcommittee.

"We commend Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky and the Subcommittee for looking into these critical issues," Petricone said. "The Hollywood lawsuit against CleanFlicks is a perfect example of the copyright law run amok. There is simply no reason why parents should not be able to use new technologies to shield their children from graphic sex and violence."

Written testimony was submitted on behalf of CEA and the Home Recording Rights Coalition (HRRC) to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection for a hearing exploring, "Editing Hollywood's Editors: Cleaning Flicks for Families."

"Copyright protection is already at a historically high water-mark. Unfortunately, the big studios are now using their power to restrict reasonable and legal options for families," Petricone continued. "We think it is important for Congress to give parents the freedom to make positive choices. Entrepreneurs should be empowered to provide them with the tools to make those choices. That is one of the reasons we have been so supportive of H.R. 1201, sponsored by Congressman Boucher (D-VA).

"H.R. 1201 allows consumers who have lawfully acquired movies, albums and other content the ability to use them for personal and noncommercial purposes. H.R. 1201 would also empower parents to better control access to inappropriate content on DVD movies, to help their children use technology to prepare multimedia reports for school presentations and to otherwise enhance their freedom to use content they have lawfully acquired."

HRRC is urging concerned consumers to visit its web site, www.HRRC.org, to send a message to Members of Congress about the importance of fair use rights in the digital age.

Parents already do have a choice. It's called "exercising parental responsibility." But then again, in this allegedly enightened, anal-retentive age of moral inferiority, I suspect that that may be too much to ask.

So, once again, we hear from the Bizarro world that the MPAA seems to be living in, where protecting artistic integrity is anti-consumer.

[normcar]

So, once again, we hear from the Bizarro world that the MPAA seems to be living in, where protecting artistic integrity is anti-consumer.

Artistic integrity? The writers of most films rewrite most of the original script several times. Many times because the studio wants something different, something shorter, etc. Sometimes the original work is a book, and another writer writes the screenplay. Some of the screenplays are so different from the original book, the author actually disavows themselves from the movie. So where is the artistic integrity there?

Also I said in prev post, which version of the movie has the artistic integerity? Is it the original filmed version, the pan and scan version, the version edit for TV, the version with updated special effects, is it the directors cut, or the extended version?

The only reason the studios care about this small niche market, is because once they do not enforce copyrights, then eventually, they will not be able to enforce copyrights for something they really don't want. Artistic integrity of the film has nothing to do with it, only money. Because if artistic integrity was important, why did the studios start negotiatiions with the company before suing them. They were hopeing to get a lot of money for letting the company do what is wants. But they were probably too greedy, and the company knew it couldn't sell the new version for the extra license fee the studios wanted, and therefore the 2 sides never made a deal. Do you think the studios would care about artistic integrity if they could have made a lot of $$$$. They would have sold the artistic integrity down the river in a second.

[thecoalman]

Yet the studios would love to (and probably will if they can ever make actually copyless DVD or other medium) make you pay per view of your dvd. They certainly are trying to get you to pay per device. I hope the car manufactures do not start selling cars that you have to pay them again to drive your car on different types of roads.

The solution to both is simple, don't buy it. The car example would never happen because no one would buy them. I laways here people crying and complaining about the disc they just bought and how they can't legally copy it and DRM music, etc... ad nauseum. My question is why buy it in the first place? The market is driven by the consumer not by the people producing it, if the consumer chooses not to buy the product it will change to fit what they will buy.

[adam]

Artistic integrity? The writers of most films rewrite most of the original script several times. Many times because the studio wants something different, something shorter, etc. Sometimes the original work is a book, and another writer writes the screenplay. Some of the screenplays are so different from the original book, the author actually disavows themselves from the movie. So where is the artistic integrity there?

Assuming the story comes from a book, it is licensed to the studio. The screenwriter is an employee of the studio, thus their work is owned by the studio. All of this is a means to create the final MOVIE which is what is protected by the copyright that we are talking about. The studio owns it and it is their interests that are at stake when they release the film.

The rights and artistic integrity of a book's author or of a screenwriter's script are protected in negotiating the license with the studio in the first place. They can contract for control of the treatment of their work or choose to not license their work at all. The ultimate movie is a completely new work protected by its own copyright.

Also I said in prev post, which version of the movie has the artistic integerity? Is it the original filmed version, the pan and scan version, the version edit for TV, the version with updated special effects, is it the directors cut, or the extended version?

All of them because they are all authorized by the copyright holder. The CleanFlicks version is not.

Because if artistic integrity was important, why did the studios start negotiatiions with the company before suing them.

Because they tried to get them to shut down the business voluntarily without having to resort to the courts. Its called a cease and desist demand and its done before all copyright suits. Your allegation that they even considered going into business with CleanFlicks is not supported by any of the facts.

Regarding the intent of copyright law and how it may have changed over the years. There's no doubt that copyright law around the world has evolved into something completely different, but then again so has the nature and use of artistic works, technology, and everything else in the world for that matter. But you keep saying that the original intent of copyright was to inspire new works, and to promote an artist's continued contributions. But this is only one aspect of copyright law. Go all the way back to the Statute of Anne (1st copyright law) or look at it when copyrights were provided for in the Constitution, or when copyright law was wholly codified in '76. Look at the language of both the statutes and its writer's. Every single one of these sources has always mentioned two purposes of copyright law. One is to generally benefit society and the arts, which includes promotion of new works. The other is to protect and artist's CONTROL of their original works, which includes the right to profit from them. Copyrights have always been largely about control, and that includes the right to control how the work is NOT to be used. This is not some modern perversion of copyright law. If CleanBooks took novels, edited out the naughty words, and resold them without the permission of the author than they would have been in violation of the Statute of Anne as well.

[normcar]

Regarding the intent of copyright law and how it may have changed over the years. There's no doubt that copyright law around the world has evolved into something completely different, but then again so has the nature and use of artistic works, technology, and everything else in the world for that matter. But you keep saying that the original intent of copyright was to inspire new works, and to promote an artist's continued contributions. But this is only one aspect of copyright law. Go all the way back to the Statute of Anne or look at it when copyrights were provided for in the Constitution, or when copyright law was wholly codified in '76. Look at the language of both the statutes and its writer's. Every single one of these sources has always mentioned two purposes of copyright law. One is to generally benefit society and the arts. The other is to protect and artist's CONTROL of their original works, which includes the right to profit from them. Copyrights have always been largely about control, and that includes the right to control how the work is NOT to be used.[/quote]

But why "control", because it is almost exclusively about money not about artistic integerity, which can be bought from the "artist" for enough money. Most actual arguments have to do exclusively with money which comes from control, they have little to do with artistic integrity. These statements are even stronger when applied to the present cases of the music and movie industries.

Most of my argument in your quotes of me has to do with artistic integrity. The different versions of the movies are made to make more money. Do you really think Lucas would have would have updated the Star Wars special effects, if he wasn't going to make money from doing so? He is very rich, and could have made the changes for his own use, but you know he wouldn't have made the changes without the $$$ incentive. Yes he has the right to change the movie, but if the original artistic product is soooooo important, the no changes should ever be allowed for any 'artistic' work. But we know that that argument is so much BS when money becomes involved.

The copyright, patent, etc laws have all been changed over the years to enable the owner of the work, which is very rarely the artist, to just make more money from the product, not to enhance the public good or for the good of the artist. Indeed, the changes to the laws have most certainly decreased the public good, by making goods more expensive, and providing less incentive for the artist to create new works. Unfortunatly, people with lots of money have the ear of congress, and make most of the laws to enhance their own pockets. Except for a very few instances, where public opinion is against some issue, the polititions rarely do what is for the public good, except by accident. (I am someone who follows politics very closely.) Even those few who go into politics for good reasons end up being corrupted by the reality of it.

[lordsmurf]

"Don't buy it" is false logic. That's the devil's advocate ad nauseam. That sort of advice only lands you sitting in a cave in the desert. It's like telling a fat person to quit eating, or an asthmatic to quite breathing.

Part of being human is the ability to create and enjoy art and culture. That's what separates us from monkeys swinging on vines. Because a few ******** want to be greedy and controlling whoremongers over art and culture, you would have a human give up his right to what makes him human? I think not.

This is a war worth fighting. Consumers v. Media Empires and Purchased Laws
The laws for copyright were originally made to advance cultural integrity, not to be used as a whore for making wealthy media empires and raping society en masse.

Also remember that artists have no rights. All this talk of "not selling" is also worthless. You often have no choice, and the monopolistic entities will squeeze you out of your rights. If we really wanted to protect artists, we'd pass laws that an artist owns his art indefinitely, and it cannot be sold at all. It can only be distributed, and that's how they make money. That might make a real difference. As it stands right now, artists either starve to death, or they sell their soul for whatever they can get from the greedy media empires.

Let's stay grounded in reality, not this make-believe utopian of our minds where not buying and not selling solves all problems. Stuff like this often makes me think the Internet is populated by fools.

[InXess]

But why "control", because it is almost exclusively about money not about artistic integerity, which can be bought from the "artist" for enough money. Most actual arguments have to do exclusively with money which comes from control, they have little to do with artistic integrity. .

The key here is author's permission, consent. Money is a separate issue. Integrity is not about personal taste of the buyer but the shape of the artist's work at the moment of release.

[thecoalman]

Part of being human is the ability to create and enjoy art and culture. That's what separates us from monkeys swinging on vines. Because a few ******** want to be greedy and controlling whoremongers over art and culture, you would have a human give up his right to what makes him human? I think not.

You don't have to give up culture and I would suggest the "culture" being propogated in the mainstream isn't anything more than what is being forced upon you. You do have many alternative choices especially for music. There's literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of bands that give their music away for free.

Also remember that artists have no rights. All this talk of "not selling" is also worthless. You often have no choice, and the monopolistic entities will squeeze you out of your rights. If we really wanted to protect artists, we'd pass laws that an artist owns his art indefinitely, and it cannot be sold at all. It can only be distributed, and that's how they make money. That might make a real difference. As it stands right now, artists either starve to death, or they sell their soul for whatever they can get from the greedy media empires.

Although I can't agree witht the part about them not being able to sell their work I can agree with most of that. One of the resons they have to "sell their souls" is because you the consumer continues to support the monopolies. They buy whatever the monoply has made the latest trend at the moment, being led around on a leash like a dog. Yet there are many alternatives but are largely ignored because they don't have a publicity that the deep pockets the monopolies can bring. Consumers have to break out of that mold and explore other options.

[guns1inger]

Claims of knowing better than the directors or studies are bunkum. If you are so sure you can do it better, go and become a director, make the films you want to see in the way you want to see them. After you have put that much effort into the creation process, see if you feel different about the value of the work. I can gurantee you will.

As for analogies to cars - apples and oranges. A closer match would be going to see a play. If you don't like it, do you just get up and start directing the actors to make it suit what you want ? No. You either sit through it, and complain afterwards, or you get up and leave - effectively not buying the product.

I don't like the studio system, the MPAA, the lobbying for ever more restrictive copyright laws. However I also understand that the days of the truely independent filmmaker never existed, and that while some self-financed films have gone on to make a ripple from time to time, they have only done so because a studio has picked them up and run with them. Most of the so-called auteurs have been restricted in some way by the financing required to get their vision made, be it having to put in some T&A to get a higher rating to be in the money making market, or to cut scenes out for the same reason.

However the truely scary thing isn't someone with a PC removing a glimpse of nipple or a few swear words because they are offended by the little things. It isn't even, god forbid, cutting ends of the screen so they can "see more of the film" on their TV. It is that the slowly growing power of the religious right, in the US especially, could ultimately result in the "cleanflicks" version becoming the only version. And that should be stopped.

[lordsmurf]

However the truely scary thing isn't someone with a PC removing a glimpse of nipple or a few swear words because they are offended by the little things. .....It is that the slowly growing power of the religious right, in the US especially, could ultimately result in the "cleanflicks" version becoming the only version. And that should be stopped.

This is why I chose my words carefully. Nipples and "****" are not the only edits.

There are some films where they put in brutally violent short scenes, total bloodbaths, that do not need to be there for any reason other than to boost a rating from PG to R. Other times, they show full autopsies on screen, or a person vomiting, or urinating/defecating. Why do we have to see these things? Off-screen noises or other methods can quite adequately get the point across. A perfectly good movie is ruined by a few minutes of crap.

If the TV stations have the ability to remove this excess crap, why not the consumer at large? Would a studio rather your record it off tv for free, or buy a DVD of it?

Once again, they really shoot themselves in the foot. For as much as they whine about losing profits, they ignore so many avenues of distribution to reach said profits.

These studios make no sense.

[guns1inger]

Have you seen De Palma's The Untouchables ? It has two scenes that are very brutal in their impact, and brief in appearance (one of them is only a few frames long), yet they are integral to the feel of the film. Without them, the film would be diminished greatly.

I grew up in the era of Modified for Television Version films - Dirty Harry, Deliverance - all cut to within an inch of their respective lives. Thankfully we seem to have grown up beyond this in Australia. It wasn't until I saw Deliverance on VHS that I could work out what was actually happening in some scenes because it had been cut so much and so badly. That isn't preserving artist integrity while making something family friendly. That is making something unwatchable. Some films are for grown ups, no matter which way you cut them.

[InXess]

Some films are for grown ups, no matter which way you cut them.

My thoughts exactly. I'm personally not impressed with the abundance of unnecessarily foul language that some directors (like Kevin Smith among others) seem to specialize in.

[Huxley]

Just seen Bleep! Censoring Hollywood
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117926894?categoryid=32&cs=1

[tonyp12]

Just to make you think:

Say you sell brand new DVD movies,
but also offer the service of a back-up copy of it to be included.

Now the owner have two discs, so that could be legal problems

Say you offer you service as an editor, and the back-up
copy will have "bad" parts taken out "just for you".

One original and one cleaned up backup, still two discs.

You include the orginal but with a drill hole, rendering it useless.
So the owner only have one back-up that is "cleaned up"