Thank heaven for small favors. The bowdlerizers will of course continue in their repressive efforts to make their pointy-headed version of reality a fact for the rest of us.
After a bitter three-year legal battle involving Utah companies that sanitize movies on DVD and VHS tape, a federal judge in Denver ruled Thursday that such editing violates U.S. copyright laws and must be stopped.
In a ruling in the case involving CleanFlicks vs. 16 of Hollywood’s hottest directors, U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch found that making copies of movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence hurts studios and directors who own the movie rights.
“Their [studios and directors] objective . . . is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies,” the judge wrote in a 16-page decision. “There is a public interest in providing such protection. Their business is illegitimate.”
No shit. Illegitimate and stupid. Either don’t watch at all, or be prepared for everything the creator of the art wanted to present the viewer. (The people in question could buy a regular copy for their personal use and fast-foward past the naughty bits, but we all know these wackjobs only really want to control the behavior of others.)
53 Yes, the news story butchered what CleanFlicks does…
I am shocked, SHOCKED… [grin]
My father was in law enforcement, and was often angered by the newspaper or TV News versions of incidents he had first-hand knowledge of…
“If they are getting it wrong in the stories I do know about, how often are they getting it wrong in the stories I don’t know about…?”
Smartalix: you don’t have to have anything to do with the “morality patrol” if you don’t want to. Don’t patronage the business. No one is forcing or asking you to if you aren’t interested.
But just as you don’t want anyone forcing their morals on you, don’t support the government in forcing society’s amorality on those of us who choose to possess morals.
“forcing society’s amorality’?
Leave the country then, you commie!
Seriously, though, you can control what you and yours watch without trying to create your own special distribution version of a movie.
63 …don’t support the government in forcing society’s amorality on those of us who choose to possess morals….
How is government “forcing” amorality on you by protecting copyright?
As the original story mentions: “…President Bush signed the Family Movie Act in 2005, which legalized technologies used by companies like ClearPlay.”
The same government you accuse of forcing “society’s amorality” on you is also providing legal protections for methods to avoid said amorality.
You just need to adopt the legal methods, and avoid the illegal ones… which shouldn’t be a difficult concept for someone who “chooses to possess morals:”
#42 Joshua
“#27 Glen
************repression leads to disfunction and obsessive compulsive behaviour, lack of knowledge or exposure to these perspectives, regardless of whether you like what is being shown or not, leads to a youth incapable of dealing with the real world***************
I was raised in a Christian household. I never saw movies with excessive violence, obvious sex, swearing etc., nor did I listen to much of the popular music that has been out since the 80’s when I was born.
When I went to college and on to University in England I chose to see what I wanted to see, I was an adult and that was my right. But, I am not repressed, obsessive/compulsive, dysfunctional, or incapable of dealing with the real world, and I’m sure as heck not lacking in knowledge. Try a little less generalizing(a clue given to me by a couple of wiser , and slightly older, people in this blog). Some of the most repressed, screwed up people I know had all the *advantages* of the last 20 years that I didn’t have.”
i would take that to mean you were not repressed or were raised in a liberal christian houshold… the thing which may escape most is that generalizations are “Generally” true… i’m glad you were a exception, but i refer to the seed or root of a family who would choose to shelter thier children from the woes of an actively violent and sexual civilization…
“with age comes wisdom” itself is a generalization… i am only speaking of probabilities… you show the hope of a person, regardless of upbringing being able to consciously absorb the impact of the world, regardless of preparedness… please don’t throw useless devaluations at a relevant observation… of course there will be exceptions, and i am glad you are one… but we are dealing with a prudish tight ass ruling class of the older (and supposedly “wiser”) people who are the very ones who would like to keep thier children from seeing such things…
all i’m saying is that when a person is raised with the awareness of realities violence and the true sexual nature of humans, they are less likely to have issues of dysfunction when faced with such realities, as opposed to one who has not been allowed that awareness, however tainted and distorted the hollywood engine would like it to be portrayed as (or even beautifully, since even tha would be considered obscene by the unenlightened) …
the points are valid… but society is a generalization of people… i applaud your ability to move beyond that which others cannot… especialy those without the benefit of higher education, i.e. “the masses” for which generalizations are exceedingly appropriate…
anyway, this isn’t about that… we choose to see what we want, we choose to expose our children to what we want… if you don’t want to see it, don’t buy it! as long as that censored movie stays an option to buy as opposed to a requirement, then all these arguments are pointless anyway… let them battle it out, and if “the law” finds it unlawful or lawful then so be it…
regardless, laws are for the irresponsible…
“#63 (the first ethan)
But just as you don’t want anyone forcing their morals on you, don’t support the government in forcing society’s amorality on those of us who choose to possess morals.”
well bravo the the person who has taken the time to and has separated themselves from the conditioning of thier past as to allow themselves the ability without influence to develop a moral standing of thier own…
it comes down to freedom… either it’s there or it isn’t… the days of copyright are in question anyway… i don’t support any form of censorship, however, if the choice is left to the consumer to buy and watch censored material, then that individual is the one making the choice for themselves… but again, it’s about money… so one person is free to create something, but it’s not legal to profit from an unauthorized redistributed and censored version of it… what if they were to release it without desire for monetary gain?
ahh who cares, this kind of argument is getting soo old… we’re free to express, but we’re not free to reinterpret what others have expressed… sure you lose a great deal of the context meant by the original creative intent, but it’s still your choice to purchase the damn thing!
Why they hell would you care if they want to have a “version” of a movie that is edited? It’s not keeping you from watching the regular version, they are not trying to force everybody to see their edited version.
I agree there are copyright issues that should prevent this form happening but why would you feel offended that they want to do this. Look at the comment from post #3.
“I sure as hell don’t need some group of idiots making decisions for me or my family”
They are not making this decision for you moron. They are making the decision for themselves. Wake up and realize you a BIGOT when it comes to Christians.
>how those posts demonstrate a philosophy counter
Music studios put a whole CD worth of tracks, but online downloads change their careful editing decisions in favor of letting viewers decide which tracks they will or won’t hear(plus the studios don’t get as much money that way unlike what’s happening here).