http://www.msnbc.com/news/822999.asp?0dm=C14LT

http://www.startupjournal.com/ideas/services/20020720-buckman.html
Mr. Fawson is part of a growing cottage industry busily snipping out scenes from Hollywood movies and selling or renting the alternative cut, either on videocassettes and DVDs or through new Web-based software such as ClearPlay's

His aim is to preserve the plot, minus the sex and gore. CleanFlicks' version of Mr. Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan," for example, excludes chunks of the 25-minute opening scene depicting the Americans' landing on Omaha Beach. Its rendition of last year's "Monster's Ball" excises scenes in which the character of Oscar-winning actress Halle Berry has sex with her dead husband's jailer. Mr. Lines even deemed the children's movie "Shrek" too racy and cut out swear words and "sexual innuendo."

Movie censoring has a long history in Utah. Beginning in the 1960s, the Varsity Theater at BYU showed spliced movies to students anxious for a peek at mainstream cinema. But after a tussle over Mr. Spielberg's "Schindler's List" in 1994 -- the Varsity wanted to cut it and Mr. Spielberg objected -- the theater shut down its editing room. Sanitized movies reappeared a few months later. But the university got out of the business altogether in 1998 after a request from movie executives at Sony Corp. to stop cutting its films, a school spokeswoman says. Last year, the Varsity itself shut down. School officials say ticket sales fell off after it stopped screening edited R-rated films.

“These companies are illegally altering films without permission of the copyright holder,” charges Andrew Levy, a spokesman for the Directors Guild of America, which is seeking a court order to stop them. “They are violating copyright law without the input of any of the creative artists who were involved in making the film.”
According to Levy, the lawsuit has little to do with profits and everything to do with the protection of intellectual property.
“What they are doing is taking something that was created by others and owned by others and changing it without permission, then selling, renting, or in someway making a buck off of the derivative product. That is not only unethical, it is illegal.”

Hollywood has long allowed movies to be cleaned up for television and airplane viewing. Still, that editing remains controlled by Hollywood studios, which own the rights to the movies in question. This theme came up in another thread. Editing of movies.

I personally think it's wrong:

I compare it to a picture, Guernica. If I go in a Museum and then look at Guernica and I am shocked. Then I leave. That's the most normal thing of the world. But if the director of the Museum now would decide, he would make a copy of Guernica, which would be changed, so no one would be shocked anymore and more people would visit the Museum ? I think its plain wrong. The purpose of Guernica is to give an account of a shocking incident. If someone makes a "lighter" copy, which replaces Guernica, he has destroyed the meaning of it.

Now, I am aware, most movies have nearly no meaning. But some at least try to have. Like Schindler's List. For example, in a Library, there's a copy of Schindler's list, but it's an edited copy. Maybe only a minority of people would see the real film. I think that's bad.

I think it's very close to change words or whole passages in books. Like "nigger" in Mark Twain books. Those books where written in the 19th century. These books came out of a time, when this word was used and things were different then today. Changing the word, is like saying, bad things in the days back then didn't happen.

(Hope this makes sense in English).

Nice of you to move this to another forum -- I made an argument regarding this in SS. I agree to a point that censorship is problematic -- I'm an English teacher, for heaven's sake!) but I do not see the difference between what the cinema did and a network editing a film for broadcast. As long as people know that they are seeing an edited version, and the full version is not being suppressed (ie: people being barred by law from seeing the full version) then I don't see the big problem in terms of freedom of speech.

As I said in the other thread from which this sprang, though, I CAN see the copyright difficulties that could come from this.

I agree with Yago that it is wrong. (Wow. That's twice in one week. Soon, dogs and cats will start living together. Just wait, everyone. ;) )

I believe everyone has the right to read, see or hear what they want. But no one has the right to prevent others, at least free-thinking adults, from seeing, reading or hearing anything just because they find it offensive. Those who buy edited movies because they want to buy edited movies are still wrong IMO because they perpetuate the changing of someone else's art, idea and message. As Saving Private Ryan as an example, the point of the opening scene was not to show blood and guts. It was meant to show the brutal truth that is the reality of war. It successfully showed people the gritty truth about the wars we participate in that has never been truthfully shown before, especially to our generation.

What right does anyone have to strip that message away and make it their own? To suit their own personal moral fancy and impose it on others? I see it like this:

You make a pizza. You labor tirelessly to collect the best ingredients and perfect your recipe to make a pizza you're proud to put your name on. Your goal is for your pizza to be so good, it changes the way people think about pizza. This pizza is yours, your art, your soul. And once it's finished, people love it and you shine in your achievement.

However, someone decides that they find your use of tomato sauce to be very offensive, and they just don't like it. They claim that the way the tomatos were mercilessly ground up into the sauce goes against their religion and they won't stand for it. So they take it upon themselves to produce their own version of YOUR pizza, one with no tomato sauce whatsover. In fact, they replace the tomato sauce with plain yogurt, which has little flavor at all, but at least no tomatos will be offended. While this new pizza may be somewhat tasty to a few, your original vision has now been ripped from you, thereby depriving others from the wonderment and deliciousness of YOUR pizza. Your effort, message and art has been raped to serve someone else's agenda.

Is this right?

*tummy grumbles* Mmmm. Pizza. Hungry now. :p

I agree for the most part, but I don't see the imposing of someone's beliefs occuring here. I don't see anyone who wants to see these scenes being denied the chance to do so. I see copyright law maybe being violated, but not free speech if the full version is also readily available. Like I said earlier, it's just as if I fast forwarded a scene, right?

IMO? Wrong. You changing it for yourself is fine. You've purchased your copy of Saving Private Ryan or whatever and can do whatever you want with it, as long as it's in your own home, and you're not making any money or garnering any kind of recognition for your newly edited version.

Intellectual property doesn't just protect the money being made off the art, it protects the art as well. Any public display or distribution of an altered version of someone else's art, without the permission of the original artist, is wrong. Doesn't matter if you've changed it for moral reasons or whatever, you've still altered the artist's original vision without his permission. Buying or renting these kinds of movies perpetuates the abuse of intellectual property and devalues art in any form. It gives anyone the right to change your message and present it in a way they see fit. Like it or not, that's blatant cencorship, plain and simple, even if it's done by a normal citizen and not the government.

I think it's fine if they have permission to do it. As someone else pointed out, they edit movies for TV. They also edit songs for radio.
If a movie is otherwise entertaining and enjoyable, but has a topless woman in the shower for 30 seconds, what's wrong with removing that scene for viewers who don't want nudity?
Personally, I would like to see less violence in movies. Too much happens on screen and with a level of detail that adds nothing to the story. There are many movies that I would like to see but cannot simply because of the way that violence is portrayed.

what's wrong with removing that scene for viewers who don't want nudity? Nothing, as long as it's the artist who's doing the removing. It's the artist's prerogative to cater, or not to cater, to someone else's opinion of what is or is not appropriate for his message. If that choice is made for him, then he is being censored.

When they do it for a network, they don't ask the artist what he/she wants.

In any case, did you read my thing on cutting? I mean, if I want something out of a film I own, and don't know how to do it so I get someone else to do it for me, is it wrong? I figure that if it's going to be for my use, it really doesn't matter if I do the cutting or if soeone else does.

When they do it for a network, they don't ask the artist what he/she wants.
Actually, they do. Alright, let me rephrase.

Nothing is wrong with editing for television as long as the artist or owner of the copyright on said material gives permission to do so. All created art is property of the artist, once he copyrights his material. When the artist sells that material, it becomes the intellectual property of the buyer, who now holds the copyright. Unless there is an agreement within the contract between artist and buyer that states the artist will have a say in the use and representation of his art after handing over the copyright, the copyright owner has all the say.

In the case of television editing for content, they have to make arrangements with whomever owns licensing to that movie to edit for content so that it can be shown on TV according to the standards of that particular network. The FCC has it's own set of standards that networks must adhere to before their own, anyway. So because of this, if a copyright holder ever wants his material to be aired on network television, he must agree to allow the editing of that material's content, at least on a minimal basis. Furthermore, limits can be set by the copyright holder as to what can and can't be edited, but this is usually waved because from a business standpoint, it's more profitable to air a chopped up version than none at all.

In the case of a video store owner editing his movies, unless he is getting permission from the copyright holder to do so, he is violating the rights of the copyright holder. Whether or not the copyright holder chooses to persue legal action is entirely up to him. Though technically a law is being broken, the authorities won't get involved unless the copyright holder files a complaint. He, and only he, has the right to contest the uses of his copyrighted material.

As far as you getting someone to edit stuff out for you; it depends. Whoever edits the movie for you is breaking copyright law by doing so, technically. The owner of that copyright will probably never find out, and if he does, he won't waste his time persuing legal action unless that person is distributing, selling or taking credit for the altered product. So legally, yes it's wrong - but EVERYONE at SP has burned a CD or two, and to my knowledge, none of us are posting from prison. :D

Is it morally wrong to do this? It depends on your conscience, and the will of the creator of the material. If the creator doesn't care, no biggy. But if he does, and this is going to sound pretentious as hell, you're violating his rights as an artist. Had he wanted you to see a tamer version of his work, he would have made one. By changing his work against his will, you are effectively denying him his right to expression. If you could care less about that right, edit away. But his right still exists, regardless.

[ April 30, 2003, 23:59: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

I hate to sound pedantic, but what you are saying is that if I FF a scene or skip a chapter in a book, I'm violating the creator's rights. Doesn't that seem a little extreme?

No, what I'm saying is skip ahead or FF all you want. As long as you don't alter the material in any way, you're not doing anything wrong.

You do have the right to view or not view any or all aspects of a particular material, but you do not have the right to alter that material. Once changed, it then ceases to be what the artist or copyright holder intended.

[ May 01, 2003, 01:18: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

You guys are missing something, and Mr. Fawson has it all wrong! :D

This is an economic opportunity. Mr. Fawson is providing a service, that while technically illegal, is in demand. But he is missing a business opportunity. He should prepare a business plan, present it to the major studios, and try to sell them on the market that he has been providing these edited materials to. If he does it right, the studios get to sell more of their product and Mr. Fawson turns his cottage industry into a legitimate service. :cool:

If he can't present a compelling business plan, he needs to knock it the hell off! He has no right to be altering copyrighted material without consent of the copyright holder! :mad:

Just my 2 cents :angel:

And a 2 cents worth twenty bucks, if I do say so. :thumb:

Fawson doesn't stand a chance, unless he works out a deal with the various copyright owners and big movie studios. This isn't realistic, because the CH's could easily do this themselves through Blockbuster or whoever.

And he won't just be knocking it the hell off, he'll be charged with potentially countless violations of copyright law and tossed in the clink. :D He had no right to do what he's done, demand or not.

Yago makes a good point: that of maintaining the artistic integrity of a work, while tailoring it for a specific audience.

IMO it is ok to edit a work for younger audiences but if the artistic meaning of a work is lost then there is little point. To diminish the impact of a work for the sake of good business serves no artistic purpose either. Perhaps it is good business but not much else is accomplished. But as Yago says, there is little meaning in Hollywood's output these days anyway. And I agree with that opinion.

With a work like _Huckleberry Finn_, which is set in the American past, revealing the fullness of its attitudes and the social climate of its times, the artistic meaning must be preserved by editing that is sensitive to the artistic intention of the author. Even if it means leaving in a word like "nigger."

@Death Rabbit
You partially quote my response:
what's wrong with removing that scene for viewers who don't want nudity? And go on a mini-rant about artists rights and it's only okay if they are the ones doing it.

You conveniently ignored the FIRST line in my reply:
I think it's fine if they have permission to do it If you are going to single me out for rebuttal, at least get it right.

Copyrighted material is what it is and should not be altered and RE-SOLD without the permission of the owner.

Besides, this is topic is not about copyrights, it's about censorship. IMO, this is not censorship because the audience is aware that it has been edited and desires the editing.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

In its original sense censorship is the use of state power to control freedom of expression. Censorship criminalizes certain expressions of thought or the communication of such thoughts. In a modern sense censorship consists of any organized attempt (and not by the state alone) to suppress information, points of view, or method of expression such as art, or profanity. The purpose of censorship is to maintain the Status Quo, to control the development of a society, or to stifle dissent among a subject people. For this reason, censorship is very common among, perhaps even essential, to organized religions, clubs, social groups and governments.

Besides, this is topic is not about copyrights, it's about censorship. IMO, this is not censorship because the audience is aware that it has been edited and desires the editing. any organized attempt to suppress or method of expression such as art. -> the audience desires the editing -> Yes, but the desire of the audience does not matter. What matters is the opinion and the will of the one who has created the film (=art). The audience can't demand that a creation be changed, as it sees it fit.

@ Jack Funk

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I fully understood your post. The point I was trying to make was that there's nothing wrong with editing content. I feel there are alot of movies out there that should be edited for content that aren't. Furthermore, I agree that studios should make available a tamer version of their products to facilitate the demand there obviously is for edited movies. But it's not a video store owner's decision to make whether or not it should be tamed down, demand or not.

This is how I see the use of the word 'censorship.' Merriam Webster Dictionary defines the word 'censor' as: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable."

IMO, this IS precisely censorship because it's not up to the video store owner or his customers to edit that material, regardless of demand. Copyright isn't just about the right to reproduce material - it protects that material from being altered in any way. Copyright is precisely what protects intellectual property from being reshaped into someone else's idea of what it should be. In other words, copyright law is in place to prevent censorship.

The fact that there is a demand for edited movies and that the people who want them know they're edited is irrelevant. They still don't have the right to do so. You can edit the movie yourself for use in your own home and that's fine, if you ask me. It says so right on the FBI warning we all fast forward through: "This video is for home use only, and any unauthorized alteration, duplication or distribution is strictly prohibited. (or something close to that)." There's a demand for pot too, and the people who want it know it's illegal. But the guy who grows and sells it is still breaking the law. That's not the best example, but the same principle is at work here. The rights of the creator of said material are being violated. It doesn't matter if it's being RE-SOLD, because making any money off of it at all or garnering any kind of recognition from the edited product goes against the intentions and rights of the creator.

[edit - Dammit! Yago beat me to it.]

There's two different kinds.

There's the kind where they physically change the medium. That is, they alter the disk or tape. That is getting hammered, right now, by the MPAA. Personally, I think it's wrong as far as copyright and the whole "piracy" issue. You're changed it; it was not released that way. Even though you're just cutting, and not adding, it's still changed.

However.

They are also selling some kind of machine that makes the changes "real time". I'm not exactly sure how it works, but I think it modifies the bit stream in certain areas. The disk or tape isn't changed, just the stream in-route to the decoder. That's acceptable.

But I think, in general, it's just foolishness. The better way is to teach your children why those "scenes" have bad consequences or ideals.

It's funny. Some of the biggest hell-raisers I've ever seen in my entire life, come from hardcore fundamental families. Pureness through filtration.

Okay, we're two-for-two here. First Death Rabbit, now Yago.

Where was I unclear?

In TWO different posts, I made the comment that the changes needed to be made with permission.

People keep coming back to copyrights here. Including Yago (who started the topic). Is this topic about censorship (as the title indicates) or copyrights?

@Death Rabbit
Fair enough on the definition. The use of censorship in this case is desired by the audience (which is completely different then trying to ban "Huckleberry Finn" nationally). So yes it is censorship. Is it bad? Not if permission is granted.

@ ejsmith

Any change at all, regrardless of technology still applies here. Any change whatsoever that effects the final viewable version of the movie is protected. However...
But I think, in general, it's just foolishness. The better way is to teach your children why those "scenes" have bad consequences or ideals. BINGO!!!!! :D

@ Jack Funk

You said: "So yes it is censorship. Is it bad? Not if permission is granted. " If permission is granted, wouldn't it cease to be censorship? :roll:

Anyway, I keep bringing up censorship and copyright because as I stated above, copyright law protects against censorship. In fact, it's one of the few true weapons we have against censorship.

People keep coming back to copyrights here. Including Yago (who started the topic). Is this topic about censorship (as the title indicates) or copyrights?
About:Censorship, Copyrights, Personal feelings, where is editing right, where is it wrong. Wherever freedom of thought takes this issue and isn't deemed by the admins as off topic.

There's a tight link between copyright and censorship. The most famous example I know of is Heinrich Heine. In his writing he mentions often censorship, copyright and the link between.

Censorship. A lot of countries didn't want his work puplished. Therefore they made some of it illegal.

Copyright. Puplishers wanted to puplish his works, because it sold. So it happened that the puplishers altered his writing, without his consent. -> censorship because of public demand.

And anyway, a lot of people stole from his works.

A book can be compared to a movie. Spielberg WANTS the people to see the first part of saving private ryan. If people chose not to watch it (ff maybe), they are free to do so. But a 3rd person hasn't the right, to alter the film and sell it this way without the consent of spielberg.

It has the potential of "censorship through private enterprise". -> If this business takes off, it's possible that in some states "edited" movies are more common, that the "original".

Fictional Example: 70 % of the people of a state want a certain scene in a movie banned. Not possible through law, because of free speech. Solution: The make their on company and puplish the movie without the scene -> Hey, we're private persons, not a state. -> Copyright protects not only the commercial intereset, but also the right of expression of the artist.

And copyright is tight to freedom of art. The arist has copyright -> The right to say how the copy of it has to be. No one has the right to alter it without his consent. If he wants sex and violence or make a movie about war, no one, neither private person or state, has the right to interfere with it.

(Of course exist laws that restrict free speech -> porn hasn't to be allowed.)

[ May 01, 2003, 22:59: Message edited by: Yago ]

Death Rabbit,
I think that we are in agreement, for the most part.

However, there is this:

So yes it is censorship. Is it bad? Not if permission is granted. " If permission is granted, wouldn't it cease to be censorship? You gave the definition of censor: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable".
I don't see anything in this definition that stops what is being done from being called censorship. It is considered objectionable. So it is being removed. According to the definition, this is censorship.
The question is, is it bad censorship. I say no. Not if it is desired by the recipient and approved by the owner. In this case what seems to be missing is permission from the owner.

Again, to be clear, under no circumstances should a video store owner be editing the tapes without the permission of the studio. That is completely unacceptable.

Yes, I think we understand each other. My last post was a rib poke more than anything (hence the rolly head), but I see where you're coming from and agree.

In your case though, if permission IS given, censorship now doesn't seem to apply IMO. When I personally think of the word 'censorship,' I see it as meaning forceful removal, or at least removal against the will of the creator. I know this goes slightly beyond my stated definition, but that's how I see it. So in your case, it seems more like self-imposed restraint than censorship. But now I'm just overanalyzing the word and beating a dead horse...