EFF Supporting Home DVD Editing 508
cheesedog writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a brief in federal court in support of companies that offer software to edit violence or sex from a user's DVD. The full story can be found in this article from the Salt Lake Tribune."
Yes, let the Mormons edit their DVDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, let the Mormons edit their DVDs (Score:5, Insightful)
At least they're consistent (Score:5, Insightful)
Last I checked, the **AA and the book publishers' organizations hated public libraries, used book stores, and used CDs. They've argued that libraries should pay royalties, that selling used books and CDs should be illegal, etc. So don't be surprised at this stance.
Re:At least they're consistent (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like the Napster argument, all over again (or, is that the other way 'round?).
Re:Yes, let the Mormons edit their DVDs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes, let the Mormons edit their DVDs (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still paying for it. I'm not selling the changes or forcing them upon anyone.
I just get to watch my video (I payed for it), in my home, on my terms.
You would think Hollywood would welcome the chance to relaim customers, but apparently all they're intent on is reducing society to the lowest common denomiator, with no exceptions.
Re:Yes, let the Mormons edit their DVDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you're not watching the same movie. You're watching a film that's been edited to mean something entirely different to that intended by the artists who produced it.
Do the artists that produced the film have a right to force you to watch the movie all the way through, without bathroom breaks? Can they physically restrain you from pressing the "Fast-Forward" button? Or from hiring someone to do so on your behalf? Or from watching it on your 12" Black-and-white TV, without surround sound?
The argument that the artistic work has somehow diminshed through the editing doesn't hold water here, because the people who buy Clean Flicks know exactly what they are (not) getting. People who pay for movie tickets expect and deserve the whole unedited movie. People who buy Clean Flicks expect and deserve a cut-up version. What's the problem?
Re:Yes, let the Mormons edit their DVDs (Score:5, Insightful)
I would never do this to myself. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I would never do this to myself. (Score:2)
Re:I would never do this to myself. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, I dont see any reason to stop people from removing parts of a movie that they dont like. Self censorship is best.
But I dont know how I would feel if
Re:I would never do this to myself. (Score:2)
Re:I would never do this to myself. (Score:5, Funny)
We need to make a law, or some new technology, to prevent people from fast forwarding through the parts they don't want to see.
You should not get to skip advertisements in a tv program either, because after all, it is their show, and the show and ads together are a work of art that should be seen the way they want you to see it.
JOIN TOGETHER TO BAN FAST-FORWARD CONTROLS!
Now suppose I did the horrible thing of distributing an "edit list", let's say, a text file, that your DVD player, or TiVo, or Freevo or Movix could directly only play the parts that you wanted to see. No copyright material is being distributed. Just an edit list. The edit list allows some people to skip the sex and violence. Other people can skip directly to the sex and violence. Some people can watch only ads with no content. Others can watch content with no ads.
But of course, you feel strongly that people should not be allowed to watch only the parts they want.
What if I go to the art gallery and only look at the bottom halfs of paintings? Or what if I look at them all upside down? This is not what the artist intended. Should I have a right to do this?
Should you have a right to have any say so whatsoever over what content I watch in my home? I want to skip directly to/over the sex/violence/commercials/etc. What is wrong with this?
Re:I would never do this to myself. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would never do this to myself. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not just watch what's already there? (Score:5, Funny)
Or, given that the technology exists to cut out the sex and violence, why not make a drive that skips everything _except_ the sex and violence?
It would certainly make Van Damme's movies watchable.
Clockwork Orange (Score:5, Funny)
YOU WILL WATCH IT! Here are the toothpicks.
It ups the potential audience size (Score:5, Insightful)
"Consumers are being empowered to use technology to customize the way they view something in the privacy of their own home, and this makes Hollywood nervous," said Jason Schultz, the EFF attorney
I don't see why empowering the customer in this way would be bad for Hollywood. The customer wins, but I don't see the flipside loss.
Is it that Hollywood would want to sell their own software to do this? Is it lost opportunity cost?
Re:It ups the potential audience size (Score:2)
The MPAA types might not object to this use, but the kind of openness necessary to allow it woul probably be exploitable for other purposes -- avoiding region-coding, outright ripping, etc.
Re:It ups the potential audience size (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It ups the potential audience size (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. All that it requires is a conventional DVD player that can skip around the film according to rules listed in a file.
Re:It ups the potential audience size (Score:3)
RTA. The manufacture and sale of such devices is exactly what this lawsuit is trying to prevent.
If the suit fails, then in a few years you'll be able to toggle a G/PG13/R/NC17 switch on the front of a DVD player, and all movies will drop portions that violate the classification you prefered.
Re:It ups the potential audience size (Score:4, Insightful)
it must be converted into an editable format first
That's wrong. What we're talking about here is a system that recognizes a DVD and looks at its (the systems not the dvds) data (probably downloads it from somewhere) and then automatically fastforwards past the bad parts. How does noting that minute 25-27 contains sex require access to the data on the dvd? All you need is a player and a notepad
Re:It ups the potential audience size (Score:5, Interesting)
The argument I've heard is that the film's directors disapprove of their work being "altered" so as to change the artistic vision. This was in connection not with software for consumers but in the context of companies that were reselling modified discs to consumers, but if all copyright conditions are fulfilled (paying for each copy of the disc up front) I don't see why the cases would be different.
I for one don't recall hearing any directors or studios complaining about the damage to their artistic vision when their films get edited for TV audiences and they get a big royalty check...
My guess is the real motive for opposing this technology is that the implicit copying involved would be a step onto a slippery slope that undermines their draconian stance on copy control.
Re:It ups the potential audience size (Score:2)
In this case they OK the changes or OK there being changes.
Re:It ups the potential audience size (Score:2)
Re:It ups the potential audience size (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they'll want to show their kids a version with sponsorship messages and product placements removed. It's not difficult to imagine a (PC based) player that takes a "blurtrack" file which matches a DVD, and superimposes a blur over parts of the screen that I don't want crammed down my throat.
Maybe they'll want to watch the basketball but have the TV show a replay rather than listen to the network's shamless shill proclaim "I'm going to Disnaeland".
Moreover, the EFF is defending the principle that the customer should control what they've already paid for. That the customer can watch a US region movie in Australia. That the customer who bought the home version of "I know what you did last Tuesday" can watch it on their laptop, on their cellphone, can listen to the soundtrack without the dialog, can skip over the ten minutes of trailers and ads that preceed it.
Hollywood doesn't want the consumer having this control. It devalues their advertising and prevents them from reselling you the same material over again in each format you want to use.
If I can edit out the sex and violence... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not very important (Score:2)
I thought the EFF had more important battles to win than this.
Re:Not very important (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I have no problem checking out Kate Winslett naked in "Titantic" - it was probably the only good part of the movie for me.
But if somebody else wants to buy the movie and edit it to remove those parts, that should be their right as owners of their own property.
This case goes to the issue of what do you own. Do you own the DVD and the movie contents inside, to modify as you please? If that is the case, if you purchase a full version of the movie, the artist/producer/copyright holders all get their money, are you not allowed to then take it to some other third party to edit out scenes you don't like? Or if you are a third party dealer, can you buy the movie, edit it, and sell the edited versions with the same profit going back to the original copyright holders (for example, you include the original DVD, and for an extra $5 - $10 dollars you can get the PG version as a separate disk that says "Edited by John's Prude Company".
What if you want to make dance remixes of a song? Can you buy the CD, take it into a professional DJ, and have him give you a CD with the music you bought with the various other remixed music inside?
So while the issue is rather silly - (Oh, No! A Utah Mormon might see a breast or hear the F-Word! Runnnn!), the central idea of ownership is far from it.
Of course, (as Dennis Miller was oft to say), I could be wrong.
Re:Not very important (Score:3, Informative)
You should check out Hideous Kinky [amazon.com] and Holy Smoke [amazon.com] They both have more nudity and are more interesting films.
Re:Not very important (Score:2)
Seems to me this is just the latest example of a long line of abuses by the RIAA/MPAA that all boil down to the same thing: they want to sell you things and tell you how to use them.
Its central to the EFF's goal, which is EF.
Re:Not very important (Score:3, Insightful)
The EFF has a tough time defending stuff like deCSS because the first thought of many is pirating. However, software to edit out violence and sex would ALSO need to have this knowledge. I think they're using it to gain some leverage in the battle of "what are the positives of having the CSS out there."
This also would help cement the idea of DVDs as belonging to the consumer. The consumer can do what they choose to they're own pro
Editing DVDs (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
I have no problem with the violence or sex. What I want to edit out are the mandatory previews, FBI warnings, "The comments made are those of the individual and not the studio", kinds of things. Those bother me far more than the content of the video. Any word on if that's a possibility?
Probably not (Score:2)
Being as those Hollywood types want you to believe that "not watching a commercial is stealing a tv program", I find hard to believe they'd let you get away with not watching the previews...after all, those previews paid for... wait no, it was my goddamn money!
On the FBI warning:
That screen is your contract not to pirate the movie or use it in non-personal ways. If you could skip that screen you could claim you never "signed" the contract and are not bound to it... that's why dvd players won't
Re:Editing DVDs (Score:3, Informative)
I use a program called IfoEdit which has great guides and tutorials at http://www.doom9.org. You can remove the P-UPS (Prohibited user operations) rather easily with this program.
The guy has actually gone to work on DVDXCopy. I found the best so far is to make a one disc copy (even of dual layer dvds) with DVD2One which can reencode an entire dual layer dvd to one disc in half an hour.
I think that this is good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think that this is good (Score:2)
Re:I think that this is good (Score:2)
I'm confused... (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its only censorship if someone else tells me I can't watch the sex scene. if i don't want to watch it that my afair.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:2, Informative)
I totally support this idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Ratings (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Ratings (Score:2)
Yes, I watch Boogie Nights for the excellent acting and the Matrix for its philosophical insight. Riiight.
Re:Ratings (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ratings (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd be surprised how many movies have good stories that survive without the sex and violence.
Some movies only need "stylized" violence rather than blood and gore. In fact, TV and older movies seemed to work quite well this way.
Now granted, some movies need the sex and violence. Some movies are nothing but.
In fact, I worry much more about the violence than the sex. I forget who once said: I ca
Editing... (Score:5, Informative)
There's selling pre-edited movies. I'd say that should be protected under Doctrine of First Sale, as long as it's clearly labeled, but that argument doesn't appear to hold much water in cases so far.
Then there's selling companion data which DVD players could use on-the-fly to edit out portions of movies. Since the companion data wouldn't even quote the original media, it's quite likely it would hold up to any sensible interpretation of the law.
(Replying to self.) (Score:2)
Extra thought as I hit 'submit': the media companies would probably attack such companion data products with trademark issues. It's hard to sell a product which edits "Terminator 3" without somehow mentioning the owned trademark.
Re:Editing... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is all well and good... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:This is all well and good... (Score:2)
See the deeper battle (Score:2, Insightful)
I do wish the EFF had more (some) power sometimes though...
--D
What about other kinds of editing? (Score:2)
It's mine. (Score:2)
Personally, I think films are meant to be watched in their intended format, but if someone wants to watch all 2 minutes of Faces of Death without violence, let 'em.
Re:It's mine. (Score:2)
i'm reminded of the kid who asked Bill to sign his copy of MS Office or something and Bill refused saying it belonged to him (Bill) and this guy didn't have the right to deface it.
i imagine this is the case with lots of other stuff too..
I remember The movie industery promising this. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I remember The movie industery promising this. (Score:3, Interesting)
My daughter likes Ghostbusters - she likes Slimer. But I have to be fast on the remote otherwise after the ballroom scene, with the "we came, we saw, we kicked it's ass", my little tape recorder will be walking around saying that.
The claim that a director wants his work represented properly is bull. Wit
Your DVD, Your Player, Your right (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just self-censorship (Score:2)
More elaborate functions like splicing multiple sources, and separation of video and audio tracks would allow some fantastic fan-created mutations of films, without any sort of copyright issues whatsoever, because absolutely no content from the movie is redistri
Re:Not just self-censorship (Score:2)
Or even further, the films could be released with the intention that the viewer can pick and chose what views they want to see - so if the plot goes off in two directions, following different characters, you can watch one, or the other, or both, whatever
Now, that kind of movie experience would be something i'd pay a lot for.
Keep in mind that... (Score:3, Informative)
Double Edged (Score:2, Interesting)
1) If consumers purchase the product, they should be able to do with it what they want. This would be akin to backing up a cd, but leaving out a song or two that suck.
2) Since the artist/director released a version they see as fit. By altering it, you are taking part of the artistic integrity from the work. This would be like going to a museum and taking crayola's to a Rembrandt.
Re:Double Edged (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it would be like taking crayolas to a reproduction of a Rembrandt. The original art isn't defiled in any way.
Re:Double Edged (Score:2)
Here is the con argument (Score:2, Interesting)
2)The movie loses some of its meaning.
3)Joe tells everybody he knows that the movie sucks.
4)Joe decides to not rent anything else by that director.
If there are enough Joe Born Agains then this can become a problem. If the director on the other hand voluntarily edits the films, as they do already for television, then it has a better shot of not losing its quality.
Now I am not saying that I agree but this is one of the arguments against the censor
My Rights! (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps this is because they'd rather force feed our brains with crap some of us don't like viewing with small children in the room, or even just because some of us (??) find it objectional
Drastically changed and sold in mass... THAT would be illegal. It's no different if I bought a DVD and wanted some of the violence or sex "skipped" by a third party. This is all Trilogy Studios in Sandy, ClearPlay in Salt Lake City and CleanFlicks of Salt Lake City are doing.
I don't see much wrong, if anything at all if I wanted to skip or edit something I owned - so if I can buy this product from a third party where certian items are "skipped" then I'm more inclined to purchace there.
Re:My Rights! (Score:3, Insightful)
No Problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Editted sex and violence (Score:2, Funny)
Finally opposed (Score:2, Interesting)
People make something, it ought to be presented to the public the way it was envisioned, and not the way people would like to pretend it was. Imagine if classics from
Re:Finally opposed (Score:3, Insightful)
The big difference is that this is being done by the end user. If I am a parent who wants to block language from my kids but want them to watch an otherwise funny
Re:Finally opposed (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you have it wrong. The EFF isn't standing for public censorship. Rather, they're saying individuals should be allowed to cut out things they don't want their children to see. I agree that if it was a broad-based public censorship, then it would be bad. But basically all their advocating here is a fair use right for individuals (or families) to do what they want with something they bought. That is totally something I can understand.
For example, my mom still hasn't seen all of Saving Private Ryan because she couldn't get through the first five minutes, which is just the beginninng of a very realistic portrayal of the storming of Normandy beach. If I were to cut out some of the most disgusting scenes for her, then she would probably watch it and enjoy it. I don't see why this should be wrong.
She also doesn't like swearing, and if a movie has a lot of F--- this and F--- that, she's very likely to be turned off by it even though she says she likes the plot. She should be allowed to do that if she wants.
It's all about user's choice. The censorship is self-censorship, and therefore totally permissible (and supportable) IMHO.
Re:Finally opposed (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the article again. Here, I'll even help you out.
The companies in question are Trilogy Studios in Sandy and ClearPlay in Salt Lake City. The
Re:Finally opposed (Score:3, Insightful)
The EFF promotes freedom to use technology. After filing a lawsuit to defend the right of a Replay TV owner to use a technology that does automatic fast forward over commercials, how could the EFF not defend a technology that does automatic fast forward over naked breasts? The copyright holder doesn't want you to FF over either of them of course, but should the law declare a difference here?
Defending free technology means you sometimes hav
how to edit a DVD? (Score:2, Interesting)
from the article it looks like the program will skip filth automatically, but what's automated and who sets the rules? parents or the programmer? do you have a drop down menu for 0/1/2 tits etc?
Torn here, Against or For the issue. (Score:3, Interesting)
But I also believe the consumer should have the choice to skip over any part. If they want to pay someone to do that for them, then its ok. Just as you buy black lists for email or websites.
Tough call, but I think I side with the Artists on this one if its a simple edit. If its a normal option to view both uncut/cut, then I would agree with the CleanFlicks.
The likely outcome... (Score:5, Insightful)
This will nip the "What about the CHILDREN!?!?!" and religious fundamentalist justifications for editing/manipulating content, since parents can just toss/hide the adults-only code for the DVD so that junior is stuck with the G version.
It will also serve to get the right-wing Republicans backing their activist constitutents doing the editing to stop being interested in fair use issues and back with the rest of the Republicans in legislatively enshrining MPAA corporate objectives.
They'll still offer the non-code-based DVDs to the rest of us, so that filmies and others won't whine to loudly about this inconvenience.
"Everybody" wins -- Mormon kiddies don't see titties, filmies get "normal" DVDs, the MPAA gets Orrin Hatch off his back AND can get back to kicking home editors in the ass.
EFF Press Release (Score:5, Informative)
I still don't understand why people don't put this kind of stuff in their story submissions. Here's the EFF's press release [eff.org].]
For computer users only (Score:2, Interesting)
so what about those who can't afford a computer/software? is this another plot for digital divide? people with computer are 'cleaner', those without are 'filthier'?
DVD controls (Score:2, Interesting)
David Lynch (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I would agree with this philosophy. If you dont like parts of a movie, try to live with it.
Unfortunately the real shame of this case is... (Score:3, Informative)
If I am a concerned parent who whishes his children to enjoy a good piece of art like a movie, but as a concerned parent don't want some "bad memes" (ideas, images and feelings) to taint my offspring so early, why shouldn't I be free to choose a software that helps me in my role as educator?
The reason is this: Hollywood has already drawn their cards: they will want to sell me again special dvd players which will play specially crafted dvds which have the memes that the Hollywood makers allow me to screen off to my children (so that I can jump the gunfight, but not the scene were the female co-protagonist drinks soft drink "X").
All this is a shame because:
a) Hollywood will not satisfy all the public
b) real competition in "volouteer censoring software/hardware" will not ensue, bringing along worse hardware or software with all the flaws (maybe not being children proof like the 99% of the technology today preposed to it...)
c) again Hollywood stomps on the common sense.
It was a bad day when technology compaines began investing in movie companies.
Thanks to it more movies were produced, and more money was invested for a little time, but on the long run if one of the two sides has a crises, the other half can't say it's party time
Greater acceptance of film in religous communities (Score:4, Insightful)
The down-side to this is that there are a number of good films that should not be viewed by LDS followers. "Schindler's List" is a great example of this. It was rated "R" for violence and mature themes. However, it is a powerfull film made to tell an important story. BYU, the LDS church owned university in Utah County, could not show this film to it's history students, due to it's graphical nature and it's violation of the honor code that the BYU students agree to. Given the import of that particular film, I would love to hear that an edited version could be made available for those who want to see it, without violating the guidelines their faith lays out for them. Given the particular moral outlook of the prominent faith in Utah, I think it is great that a good film can be made to conform to the expectations of the largest demographic in the community.
I live in Utah, but am not a follower of the LDS faith. Many of my friends are, and they will either not go to any "R" rated movie, or they tend to get a guilty feeling if they do. A few have made the decision to judge which films they will see (i.e. avoid films with the "R" rating for sexual scenes or foul language, but not for violence). The ability to make a decision that will not violate their beliefes is a good one. I support Clean Flicks, even though I would not use their service.
The MPAA and the film industry need to come to the realization that their current view on the "Ownership" of the film medium needs to be changed. Then Clean Flicks and other companies might not need to face stupid lawsuits or worse, legislation.
Augmented / Annotated media (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a limited form of annotation and augmentation. For my final year project at uni, I created a web annotation project using a modified KHTML, KIO, and Konqueror.
The idea was that any entity could publish annotations of any uri addressable resource, and any portion of that resource via content specific identifiers - eg XPath for xml, substring matches for text, svg shapes for images, etc etc.
These annotations, which could also carry an rdf payload, were signed, and a web of trust created. The annotations were shared via a p2p network modeled on fast track, implemented in python.
Then whenever a location was visited, your client would perform a search for that uri, evaluate the trustworthyness of the annotations, and then display the ones it thought were useful. Moderation, in the slashdot sense was just a special form of annotation.
These annotations would be passed to the active component, and then, if it knew how, rendered appropriately. It also allowed eg. collaborative porn/ad/change-your-useragent-to-msie-for-these-i
It was a fairly neat project, and I got good marks for it, but I've never got round to polishing it up and releasing it - not sure if the KHTML would like all my changes anyway!
I had created a limited form of the Semantic Web, and when I do release it, I want to model the whole system just using rdf.
The other area I wanted to expand it to was collaborative tv ad filtering. Labeling TV show broadcasts with a unique urn, eg
urn:/BBC/Black Adder/03x04/Broadcast/UKGold/2003-04-14T2200 , and then use the same trust model to cut out ads, and add subtitles, commentarys, even hyperlinks and backlinks. Also geographic urns annotation presents some very exciting possibilty such as collaborative mapping and reviews, eg restaurants.
Well , now thats off my chest I just need to win the lottery, pay off my student loans, quit this mind numbing banking job and implement it...
No justifiable argument against this. (Score:5, Insightful)
And I would've thought for DVD that it would be a great move for movie companies to include an edited track and cut of the movie on a DVD anyways - they're going to have to do it for TV, so why not get that out of the way, plus increase the sales of the DVD?
What if this story was without EFF involvement? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder how the /. community would have reacted on a story saying "there's this company that
wants to make software that can be used to censor DVD content".
Or better yet- "M$ will put a feature in their next MediaPlayer release that will give the ability to auto-detect certain DVD titles and skip certain scenes".
I just wonder how many of us would be on the side of Microsoft if it came to that...
Just because the Good Guys are pursuing this one, I feel that many here are swayed in favor. I for one feel that censoring a (possibly artistic) work amounts to intellectual rape, in extreme cases, which for me outweighs the right of a buyer to mutilate his property.
On the other hand I do applaud the EFF for taking this stand, regardless of the eyebrows it will raise.
Well Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course consumers have the right to view DVDs and skip any part of it for any reason, too much sex, not enough sex, too boring, Jar Jar Binks, etc.
Next they'll tell us we aren't allowed to skip commercials or go to the kitchen while they're on, oh wait, didn't they attack TIVO on those grounds?
So many hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
I cannot understand why any of you give a rat's arse what someone else does with their purchased copy of a movie. This has nothing at all to do with offending the artists and everything to do with freedom. It is truely amazing seeing all the hypocrites whine.
Keep the fight going... (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
I have a patent on suing people for copyright infringement
Clever choice of issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Just don't waffle... (Score:3, Interesting)
While it may be quite unreasonable (as Lucas has done, and as Turner did before him) to remove a film from distribution entirely after you have made a change, and only distributing the new version, I can't say that anyone has the right to tell such a studio or director to NOT be unreasonable. Certianly as fans, we can voice an opinion, but I've heard some people try to claim that there's some "right" that we have to old movies in the form in which they were released... that's just silly.
I might mourn that I can't get the old version of a film, but I have no right to expect Hollywood to BE the collectables market or an archive for such....
As for companies that do this sort of modification, I respect them. They provide a service that people want, and while I do not think that people should rely on such a service to shelter themselves or their children, I can see the point of letting your kids see The Matrix: Reloaded while not keeping the "She wasn't kissing your face, love" sceene.
this is all a load (read on to find out why) (Score:3, Funny)
i don't care for the self rightous fire and brimstone religious nut jobs any more than anyone else, but hey hollywood choke on my nob.
oh, and utah, save the world, impload. (and that's for starters)
have a nice day
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
To spell it out: the moral is that "You've bought it, you can do what you want with it." (Within reason, of course.)
I personally may not edit movies, but I fully support the rights of others to do so, once they've bought it. Besides, we all know how some movies get a sex scene "tacked on" just to titillate the dating audience. In these cases, the people editing movies are probably improving the movie by doing so.
Anyway, I am even more appreciative of the EFF (although not really surprised, they're good guys) and more impressed with Slashdotters in general (what is the world coming to?
CleanFlicks.com Vs. Aliens (Score:3, Funny)
Which they then go on to remove :)
Screw that 'auteur' garbage (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps most of all, it ignores the audience. Trust me, as funny as 'Friday' was, nothing beat seeing it in a theatre where my brother and I were the only white guys in attendance. Would scary movies be as scary without a bunch of other people jumping at the scary bits?
I remember when the format was first released. One of the things touted was the ability to show different versions on the same disc. All you were supposed to have to do was tell it to play 'clean', and the violent and sex bits would automatically be skipped.
The question isn't why are the MPAA and the DGA fighting this. The question is: why are they leaving this market untapped? How far could Cameron get without $100 million + in studio backing? Screw him. And after Godfather III, I could care less what Coppola (or his daughter:) have to say on the subject.
Re:1984 (Score:2)
I wholly agree that editing out the sex and violence from 1984 and Clockwork Orange would be stupid, but the people who would want to remove Kate Winslet's (sp?) nude scenes from Titanic wouldn't want to watch Clockwork Orange or 1984 in the first place.
Personally I'd like to be able to e