I'm sorry, this is not okay.

[Beefy]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/04/27/Arts/050427bush.html

You don't have the right to alter someone else's art.  You do have the right not to view it.

[Youphoric]

God I hate this crap.

[Jessie]

I heard about this on NPR, too.

If you don't like the music/movie/book/show, don't listen/watch/read/watch it.

Why is that so god damn difficult for people to understand.

If you don't want your kids to see it, DON'T LET THEM.

God fuck shit.  This pisses me off.

And apparently gives me Tourettes.

[cnamon]

WTF?  What happened to the days of "if you don't like it, don't look at it"?  Don't take away my right to violence and sex because you don't want to see it.

[ignom]

Not that I agree with it, but it is that different than a tv station editing a movie for broadcast?

[cnamon]

TV has to abide by the rules set by the FCC.

Movies that are paid for don't.  Think PPV TV or channels like HBO and Skinemax.  They can show boobs and say fuck because they are premium channels that people choose to have. 

The more access that the general public has, the less profanity and sex are allowed to be shown.

[Youphoric]

I guess, upon a 2nd reading, what I don't understand about this is, is this going to be mandated on EVERY DVD?  Or are parents having the ability to buy special DVD's that have been edited?

[cnamon]

I guess, upon a 2nd reading, what I don't understand about this is, is this going to be mandated on EVERY DVD?  Or are parents having the ability to buy special DVD's that have been edited?

I am thinking it is going to be like the Wal-Mart CD thing...you have the option of buying the Man's edit.

[ReBurn]

I don't believe that this issue is about an artist's right to not have their work altered.  For decades the studios have been altering movies before they were shown on broadcast TV and most cable channels, removing gratuitous nudity, sex and violence and dubbing over questionable dialog to make it more appropriate for general audiences.  The studios don't care squat about and artist's vision for a movie.  They routinely alter scripts and influence content through budget changes and other pressure measures in order to make the movies as profitable as possible.  The only way for an artists to have a movie produced that is that artist's complete vision is to finance it themselves.

This issue is about profit from intellectual property.  Companies that offer filtering technology are going to be making profits based on the intellectual property of others, and this is the heart of the issue.  I bet that if these companies were paying royalties to the studios this wouldn't be an issue.  

If the directors and studios were concerned about the changes to the movies then their DVD's would disable player features that allow viewers to skip chapters or fast-forward through parts they don't like.  And how many times is the director actually involved in the home release of a movie?  The special features of the re-release of Bourne Identity that included the alternate beginning and ending has commentary that states that the director was not involved in the changes.  In the special featured disc of the original Star Wars trilogy George Lucas talks about how his early efforts were bastardized by the studios, so he finances his own stuff now.

If people don't like the technology then they don't have use it.  Nobody is forcing sanitized movies on anyone.  DVD's aren't going to be altered, rather another layer is going to exist between the player and the TV that isn't doing anything different than when a person skips a scene or hits the mute button.

[ignom]

I think that every movie should be rated PG and involve talking animals. Bring back Milo and Otis, gosh dangit.

[Beefy]

This issue is about profit from intellectual property.  Companies that offer filtering technology are going to be making profits based on the intellectual property of others, and this is the heart of the issue.  I bet that if these companies were paying royalties to the studios this wouldn't be an issue.  

This is a valid point.

Hollywood is a business above all else.  That said, there are filmmakers who are artists, and their work could be affected by this.

Yes, consumers have a right to skip around with chapter markers or what have you.  Same with VHS.  But the consumer bought that movie.  The movie isn't altered or changed, it simply has parts ignored.  This is about third party companies altering the way art/product is perceived by the audience and not having to pay for the right to do so.  It's an insult to the art and to the artists who collaborated on the project.

[Bishamonten]

This issue is about profit from intellectual property.  Companies that offer filtering technology are going to be making profits based on the intellectual property of others, and this is the heart of the issue.  I bet that if these companies were paying royalties to the studios this wouldn't be an issue. 

This is a valid point.

Hollywood is a business above all else.  That said, there are filmmakers who are artists, and their work could be affected by this.

Yes, consumers have a right to skip around with chapter markers or what have you.  Same with VHS.  But the consumer bought that movie.  The movie isn't altered or changed, it simply has parts ignored.  This is about third party companies altering the way art/product is perceived by the audience and not having to pay for the right to do so.  It's an insult to the art and to the artists who collaborated on the project.

Someone wants to waste their money, I'm not going to stop them. 

[Beefy]

This issue is about profit from intellectual property.  Companies that offer filtering technology are going to be making profits based on the intellectual property of others, and this is the heart of the issue.  I bet that if these companies were paying royalties to the studios this wouldn't be an issue. 

This is a valid point.

Hollywood is a business above all else.  That said, there are filmmakers who are artists, and their work could be affected by this.

Yes, consumers have a right to skip around with chapter markers or what have you.  Same with VHS.  But the consumer bought that movie.  The movie isn't altered or changed, it simply has parts ignored.  This is about third party companies altering the way art/product is perceived by the audience and not having to pay for the right to do so.  It's an insult to the art and to the artists who collaborated on the project.

Someone wants to waste their money, I'm not going to stop them. 

The issue isn't whether the audience is wasting their money, it's the accountability of the third party companies offering the service.

[ReBurn]

But the consumer bought that movie.  The movie isn't altered or changed, it simply has parts ignored.  This is about third party companies altering the way art/product is perceived by the audience and not having to pay for the right to do so.  It's an insult to the art and to the artists who collaborated on the project.

I agree.  I think that companies the sell filtered copies of DVD's need to be held accountable for their piracy, and that's exactly what it is because the artist loses out totally on that deal.  That's why it is good that the measure doesn't offer them any protection.  But the filtering technology doesn't affect the artist directly, because they have still disseminated their work according to their vision.  Once they do that, even without the filtering, they have no control over how it is consumed, nor do they really have any right to.  Nobody can tell you how to interpret art.  If they did, would it still be art?

[VikingJuice]

Bush is doing like he always does, catering to the desires and whims of the relgious right.  If we had a president that wasn't so far up their asses he/she would have just laughed at such a proposal.  I guess if no one is losing money, and no one is being forced to watch a sanitized version of the film against their choice, then it all comes out in the wash and just makes W look like a slightly bigger asshat than before.

It's just another sign of the coming Monarchy of this country.

[Beefy]

Nobody can tell you how to interpret art.  If they did, would it still be art?

+5

[Dry then Catch]

I think that every movie should be rated PG and involve talking animals. Bring back Milo and Otis, gosh dangit.

i own Milo and Otis.  there are some tense scenes.  did you know several pugs were used for Otis.

[Dry then Catch]

this will make my copy of Chevy Chase's "Feltch" a lot shorter