|
|
Posted by PTravel on 07/12/06 02:33
"Martin Heffels" <youwishyouwouldknow@nottellinya.com> wrote in message
news:ugm8b2tph4gv7svmt053nqhj5h6ens0ukn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:48:15 -0700, "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The censored version is an unauthorized derivative work, in violation of
>>the
>>U.S. Copyright Act. Ownership of an authorized copy of a protected work
>>does not convey the right to create a new copy consisting of your own
>>version.
>
> Yes, I understand that. So companies like Cineflicks could do their work
> by
> paying a fee to the copyright-holder to be allowed to make an edit, and
> all
> would be good.
Yes, if the copyright owner was willing to license the film for that
purpose.
>
>>> Now because of this ruling, people won't start buying the uncensored
>>> version, because they have no choice anymore of buying a censored
>>> version.
>>
>>Which is exactly right. The copyright owner has complete control over the
>>distibution of his expression. If he doesn't want a bowdlerized version
>>distributed, it is his right, pursuant to U.S. copyright law, to preclude
>>it.
>
> Sure. But that means loss of sale.
Yes, it does.
>
>>
>>> No, they won't buy these movies at all. So that means a loss in sales
>>> for
>>> the studios. Didn't anyone consider that?
>>
>>Obviously, the studios, since they, along with the DGA, were plaintiffs.
>
> OK.
>
>>>
>>> Maybe the studios should offer the censored versions themselves then.
>>
>>They do, to this extent. Studio films are edited with a target rating in
>>mind, and that frequently entails snipping the dirty bits. However, if
>>they
>>wanted to release a G-rated version of a film, they would. Clearly, they
>>do
>>not.
>
> Most movies can easily do without the dirty bits, because they don't
> really
> offer anything to the story.
Oh, please. I'll go with the artistic vision of the director and writer,
thank you.
> They are only put in to make the product
> attractive enough for the young male target audience (the major target
> audience that is). In my humble opinion there is nothing lost in cutting
> them out, and releasing a clean version, so that a movie can be
> distributed
> to a wider audience.
Tell you what. You don't have to have dirty bits in your films when they
have studio release.
>
>>> I
>>> think it would be easy to set bits for a scene which tell whether there
>>> is
>>> violent, nudity, drugs, whatever, and via parental-control you can set
>>> which things you allow your children to watch, and automatically those
>>> scenes are censored, based on the parental settings.
>>> If this technique is introduced, remeber, I am the inventor of it :-D
>>
>>Look up a company called, I think, CleanPlay. They have software that
>>does
>>just that.
>
> I read that. They have it slightly different from what I had in mind, but
> similar.
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
> --
> "I'm full of dust and guitars." - Syd Barrett
> 11/07/06 The Crazy Diamond is now a star in heaven
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|