View Profile
View Forum Posts
Excerpt: "It will soon become legal to alter a motion picture so long as all the sex, profanity, and violence have been edited out, thanks to a bill called the Family Movie Act, an attachment to the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act approved Tuesday by the House. The Senate has already passed its own version, and the President is expected to sign it."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/20/congress_censors_dvd_content/
Once Bush signs this bill tonight, places like Walmart and the like can demand only "pure" movies be accepted for sales. We are heading into dangerous territory of copyright infringement and censorship.
Sorry, but this family viewing crap has gone way overboard.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 140
-
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
-
Yeah you got that right,who knows if we will ever see it the way it was meant to be seen.You know they wont tell you......Sorry, but this family viewing crap has gone way overboard.
-
Oh yeah, look at the disc. Pretty easy to tell if it says PG on it as opposed to R. Same w/ CDs. Either it has an explicit warning sticker on it or it doesn't.Originally Posted by canadateckYeah you got that right,who knows if we will ever see it the way it was meant to be seen.You know they wont tell you......Sorry, but this family viewing crap has gone way overboard.
-
I like this,,What Bull..
The bill does not address companies such as CleanFilms, Family Flix, and others, that produce sanitized versions of movie DVDs. These outfits claim that they do not violate copyrights because they buy a copy of the original each time they create a bowdlerized version. These claims amount to no harm no foul: the studios are selling just as many copies as they otherwise would, and perhaps more when one considers the number of people who would not buy the original versions.
The studios say that their copyrights are being violated whenever a company or individual re-distributes their work for profit. The Director's Guild is especially incensed because the outfits doing the censoring are re-working the movies however they see fit, which the directors claim can make a mess of their work. (Although there are bowdlerized editions of movies for broadcast and for exhibition on airplanes, in those cases the directors themselves produce the edited versions, and the production companies and studios are compensated for these performances through a licensing scheme.)
-
I know what you are saying.and I do agree,BUT,what ever the market wantes the market gets.It doesnt say this one is PG BUT there is one that is Rate R.Know what I mean? There are many thing that "DO SELL" but only to the "Money making market"...Originally Posted by HatchetManOh yeah, look at the disc. Pretty easy to tell if it says PG on it as opposed to R. Same w/ CDs. Either it has an explicit warning sticker on it or it doesn't.Originally Posted by canadateckYeah you got that right,who knows if we will ever see it the way it was meant to be seen.You know they wont tell you......Sorry, but this family viewing crap has gone way overboard.
-
Look at the TV version of halloween,I hated it,But many would buy it,Because it is Cut.
-
True. Like a full screen version, an edited version should have to say something along the lines of "The film has been modified from it's original version. It has been edited to be made suitable for family viewing."Originally Posted by canadateckI know what you are saying.and I do agree,BUT,what ever the market wantes the market gets.It doesnt say this one is PG BUT there is one that is Rate R.Know what I mean? There are many thing that "DO SELL" but only to the "Money making market"...Originally Posted by HatchetManOh yeah, look at the disc. Pretty easy to tell if it says PG on it as opposed to R. Same w/ CDs. Either it has an explicit warning sticker on it or it doesn't.Originally Posted by canadateckYeah you got that right,who knows if we will ever see it the way it was meant to be seen.You know they wont tell you......Sorry, but this family viewing crap has gone way overboard.
-
I agree,,,Thats why you are the HatchetMan...Originally Posted by HatchetManTrue. Like a full screen version, an edited version should have to say something along the lines of "The film has been modified from it's original version. It has been edited to be made suitable for family viewing."Originally Posted by canadateckI know what you are saying.and I do agree,BUT,what ever the market wantes the market gets.It doesnt say this one is PG BUT there is one that is Rate R.Know what I mean? There are many thing that "DO SELL" but only to the "Money making market"...Originally Posted by HatchetManOh yeah, look at the disc. Pretty easy to tell if it says PG on it as opposed to R. Same w/ CDs. Either it has an explicit warning sticker on it or it doesn't.Originally Posted by canadateckYeah you got that right,who knows if we will ever see it the way it was meant to be seen.You know they wont tell you......Sorry, but this family viewing crap has gone way overboard.
-
It's probably not all that big of a deal. I suspect it'll just be like hip-hop music sales are done now ... with a CD marked as edited or explicit. If someone wants a watered down version of a movie, with characters saying "Aw, shucks" instead of "Jesus F&^%ing Christ," let them have their way. Hollywood already butchers novels in such a way that some movies don't even resemble the original work. This is just taking the butchering to a different level ... which, as the article says, has already been done with films shown on airlines or on broadcast TV.
But ... as long as I can rent and buy films as the filmmaker intended them to be seen, it's OK by me.
-
^^ But, you'd probably have to first look it up on the IMDB to find out which version was the one the filmmaker intended, like runtime and rating.
-
Not if the DVD was "marked" ... which is what I'm assuming the law is going to provide for. It'll just be one more marking to look for. I'm already a bit pissed off at Hollywood for doing the "version" trip on a lot of videos. When "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" came out, I saw it in theaters eight times. And, to my knowledge, not one of the versions available on home video today is the theatrical version. They've all edited out part of that scene where residents meet with the Air Force after the sighting ... and added in that cutesy crap at the end, showing Neery walking inside the spacecraft.Originally Posted by HatchetMan
If anything, moviegoers should call for a requirement that Hollywood always keep a "theatrical" version available ... and clearly marking non-theatrical versions with disclaimers like "scenes cut" or "deleted scenes added" ... or even "language and/or graphics modified for prudes and other squeaky wheels." -
I remember seeing some thing on TECHTV or G4 about a RCA DVD player that you had to load a special DVD into to edit out R movie to make them PG.
-
Originally Posted by AlecWest
A final version of "Close Encounters" was released to video in 1998 (and then on DVD in 2001) as "The Collector's Edition". It is basically Speilberg's final 137-minute re-edit of the original version plus five sequences from the 1980 "Special Edition". It contains.....
* The Neary family's alternate longer introduction.
* The 5-second flyover of the power company truck.
* The scene where Roy Neary argues with his wife and goes crazy is included.
* The shot of a UFO scanning a roadside McDonald's sign is not included.
* The Air Force base press conference scene has been restored from the original version.
* The scene where Roy throws dirt, plants and bricks through his kitchen window has been restored.
* This version does not contain the mothership ending from the "Special Edition", and retains the original 1977 end title music.
The original production of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" was plagued with schedule and budget problems. Speilberg originally wanted to release the film in the summer of 1978, however, Columbia Pictures (who were undergoing financial troubles at the time) insisted that Spielberg have it ready by November 1977. Therefore many scenes Spielberg had scripted couldn't be filmed as he originally intended due to time constraints. After the movie's huge success, Spielberg asked Columbia to allow him to recut the picture and to shoot additional sequences; the studio agreed at the condition that he included new scenes showing the inside of the alien mothership (to entice audiences into the theater again). Spielberg was given a budget of $1.5 million and seven weeks to shoot the new sequences (some of which were shot while he was also directing 1941 (1979)). He had to use a different director of photography (Allen Daviau) because Vilmos Zsigmond was unavailable, and he was able to convince most of the original cast to re-appear, with the exception of director Francois Truffaut (who played French scientist Lacombe) who was on location shooting a film at the time. For years, Steven Spielberg considered the Special Edition the only "real" version of the movie and dismissed the original as an inferior "work-in-progress". According to Columbia, all prints of the original version have been destroyed"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
The new law is specific to ClearPlay type technology where a DVD player or other device, at the option of the user, automates the fastforward or muting function whenever material is encountered that the user deems objectionable.
It does not apply to CleanFlick type editing where a third party purchases unedited movies and sells edited ones.
Here is the applicable text from the statute:
SEC. 202. EXEMPTION FROM INFRINGEMENT FOR SKIPPING AUDIO AND VIDEO CONTENT IN MOTION PICTURES.
(a) In General- Section 110 of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9), by striking `and' after the semicolon at the end;
(2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and';
(3) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following:
`(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology.'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`For purposes of paragraph (11), the term `making imperceptible' does not include the addition of audio or video content that is performed or displayed over or in place of existing content in a motion picture.
`Nothing in paragraph (11) shall be construed to imply further rights under section 106 of this title, or to have any effect on defenses or limitations on rights granted under any other section of this title or under any other paragraph of this section.'.
(b) Exemption From Trademark Infringement- Section 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1114) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(3)(A) Any person who engages in the conduct described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of title 17, United States Code, and who complies with the requirements set forth in that paragraph is not liable on account of such conduct for a violation of any right under this Act . This subparagraph does not preclude liability, nor shall it be construed to restrict the defenses or limitations on rights granted under this Act , of a person for conduct not described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of title 17, United States Code, even if that person also engages in conduct described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of such title.
`(B) A manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible as described in subparagraph (A) is not liable on account of such manufacture or license for a violation of any right under this Act , if such manufacturer, licensee, or licensor ensures that the technology provides a clear and conspicuous notice at the beginning of each performance that the performance of the motion picture is altered from the performance intended by the director or copyright holder of the motion picture. The limitations on liability in subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall not apply to a manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that fails to comply with this paragraph.
`(C) The requirement under subparagraph (B) to provide notice shall apply only with respect to technology manufactured after the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Family Movie Act of 2005.
`(D) Any failure by a manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology to qualify for the exemption under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not be construed to create an inference that any such party that engages in conduct described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of title 17, United States Code, is liable for trademark infringement by reason of such conduct.'.
(c) Definition- In this section, the term `Trademark Act of 1946' means the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.). -
The bill does say that if the movies are altered it would have to be noted clearly and conspicuously.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1788120,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532
It is in the last paragraphThe real answer lies in completely understanding the question! -
On Tuesday, April 26th at 10PM (most places), the AMC channel will feature a special titled "Bleep" ... co-produced by AMC and ABC ... dealing with the sanitizing of films. Might be interesting to watch.
-
AMC is guilty of sanitizing.
I miss the films of the 70's and 80's when an R was watchable by an adult.
Now an R is full of kiddie bullshit.
What is left to sanitize from a kiddie film?
What will be watchable?
I'm so sick of the nanny state. -
Member
- Nov 2002
- Jacksonville, FL
That's for sure! I put The Good, the Bad and the Ugly on once and they'd butchered it worse than I'd ever seen. Even non-offensive scenes, like when Tuco finds the cemetary and runs around looking for Arch Stanton's grave, to the great Ennio Morricone score, was nearly all gone, among others. I finally gave up on it.Originally Posted by EvilWizardGlick
This new thing should be referred to by its initials, FECA. Feel free to add an "L" on the end.... -
I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking that.Originally Posted by JohnnyCNote
ara:
Nothing can stop me now, 'cause I don't care anymore. -
Member
- Nov 2002
- Jacksonville, FL
-
One of those great minds think alike moments....
-
...and...Originally Posted by EvilWizardGlick
Maybe AMC is sick of it, too ... as well as ABC. Most people go out of their way to avoid a sanitized film (except the minority that "prefers" them). This must cut into the profit margins of sanitized networks.I'm so sick of the nanny state.
-
I agree about not editing movies on cable,I pay for the damn channels and it's past 10pm....I want to see and hear the movie UNEDITED!
As for this new law:I think it's a good idea,this way you can watch the DVD edited for the little ones and when they're asleep you and the misses can watch it unedited. -
They make an edited version of Debbie Does Dallas?Originally Posted by MOVIEGEEK
Nothing can stop me now, 'cause I don't care anymore. -
On it's face, the new law seems like a good idea ... until you take demographics into consideration. A law like this would make perfect sense during a baby-boom. But, we're moving into a period of history when a rising number of households will be "mature" households. I've not seen actual census figures from the U.S. government ... and a quick search at census.gov didn't turn up a table I could refer to. But, I have seen state figures that put the current average everywhere between 20-30% of all households being childless. Add to that this comment from American Demographics magazine:Originally Posted by MOVIEGEEK
The first-place holder in growth??? Mature childless households.The fastest growth will be among married couples headed by people aged 35 to 54 with no children at home. This market will double in size, and it will surpass the current second-place-holder, middle-aged couples with young children.
In short, our laws are attempting to provide protection for children at a time when the number of childless households is on a sharp rise! If anything, this should be a reason to dismiss ideas of even having such laws ... yet provide for specific channels (like a "Prude Channel") to cater to the dwindling niche of households with kids and, of course, households with adult prudes. Forcing an entire nation to play down to this dwindling niche is both silly and, marketing-wise, an unsound business practice. If anything positive comes of this law, it will be an increased profit-margin for uncensored cable networks and video rental stores. I see nothing positive in the realm of networks that sanitize (until the next baby-boom). -
i just let my kids watch anything - never censor what they want to see ..
exept some cartoons and the family guy ......"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
What does purity have to do with wartime?
Your miserable life is not worth the reversal of a Custer decision. -
hummm, wot they should do, is have an option in the dvd menus to watch a sensored version, i mena ur only cutting things out!!!!
sensorship is shit i do agree but it is anoying when you watching a film and there only one sex scene in it, and all the rest of the film is ok to watch with family (violence & swearing is ok btw...),
before with vhs you could foward it with screen being a bit fuzzy but with dvd everything i mean everything is crytal clears!!! god damn it .....
sorry!
as for tv, well there always gona show cut version so they can show them earlier, you can't stop 'em!!!!COOKIEEE!!! -
I hope you wre joking. I really,really hope you were joking.Originally Posted by the * dude
No wonder society is so screwed up
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those that understand binary... -
I find the title of the article misleading. With this bill, congress has not censored anything. Nothing in this bill forbids anyone from producing any type of film with any type of content that they want. It also does not prevent anyone from purchasing any type of film with any type of content that they want. It doesn't even force the producers to create a "clean" version of their film. I'm not for congress passing a law everytime someone has a complaint, but I don't see how this puts undue burden on anyone, and I don't understand why so many people are upset.
"Shut up Wesley!" -- Captain Jean-Luc Picard
Buy My Books -
I'm an adult.
I pay through the nose for programming.
I want ADULT oriented movies on during the day. Screw that 10 pm shit.
I know EXACTLY what my children watch. I don't need to use a V-Chip or have the nanny state dictate to me what I should and should not be doing.
Just because some dickwad incompetent parents can not communicate with or spend time with their own offspring should NOT impact my life.
Instead those people should never be allowed to breed again. And if they do breed, they should be kept in a totally sanitized environment without access to ANYTHING public that the majority of responsible adults pay taxes on.
They can watch JEEESSSSUUUUSSS tv all ******* day long. There are enough channels beaming at them they should never tire of fundie fun.
They can listen to Clear Channel and Right Wing radio as well.
If they choose NOT to live that way then they should be taxed double and muzzled.
Finally R-Rated films should have nudity and feature real adults. There should never be teenyboppers pretending that the girl of their dreams is their first crush. Or that they will get rich right out of high school. Hell ******* llo, most of the little shits will be working at Burger King until they are old and grey! R-Rated films should have real NUDITY not this artsy clothed writhing around. People get brush burn from that shit!
You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. please watch the language and also NO Religion --
/ Moderator BJ_M
Quote
Visit Homepage
Similar Threads
-
Entertainment Centers
By christopherbford in forum Media Center PC / MediaCentersReplies: 1Last Post: 6th Jul 2010, 19:21 -
Secret Copyright Treaty Leak: ISPs Worldwide to Become Copyright Cops
By joepic in forum Latest Video NewsReplies: 17Last Post: 5th Nov 2009, 10:05 -
Home Entertainment Interface
By bmorgen in forum Media Center PC / MediaCentersReplies: 0Last Post: 1st Oct 2008, 22:31 -
PC to entertainment center
By bbrown in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 3Last Post: 22nd Sep 2008, 19:34 -
Canada's Version of The Millenium Copyright Act
By Tom Saurus in forum Latest Video NewsReplies: 20Last Post: 18th Jun 2008, 06:58