They are changing someones creative vision and presenting it with the directors name on it to other people as a fair representation of their work to their families.

To my knowledge, CleanFlicks and the like mark the edited products as such.  As long as they aren’t pirating copies of the edit, or repackaging the edits without labeling them as such, I don’t consider it piracy, although I totally agree about it screwing up the artistry of the film. 

I agree about paying a lot more to see some films.  Paying $17 for the wife and I to see a flick means we just go for the ones we think we REALLY want to see on the big screen.  Considering some dvds are $10, it’s cheaper than the theater, and only $5 more than renting, it’s tempting to just buy the damn thing, and resell it if we don’t like it.

Elwed beat me to the Jefferson bible reference.

Or maybe...wait for it...somebody else gave the movies to you!! That would make it a gift, would not it, Darrell?

Kazzaa???  Bittorrent???  And then, you may get a gift from MPAA/RIAA in the form of a subpoena.
Joy!

Sexy Sadie: Or maybe...wait for it...somebody else gave the movies to you!! That would make it a gift, would not it, Darrell?

If I could swerve off-topic for just a moment: Sadie, are you just basically incapable of spelling someone’s name correctly even when the proper spelling is staring you in the face?  What’s the story on that, anyway?  Your lifetime record is about zero-for-fifteen.

Back on topic.

Sure, it would be a gift from someone to me.  They paid for the movie so I wouldn’t have to.  What does that have to do with Paramount, or Twentieth Century Fox, or Steven Spielberg?  It certainly wasn’t a gift from the director or the producer: Take a look at the mansions some of those people live in.  You think they got those by handing out gifts??

As a conservative, I have this wacky idea that if I pay for something, I own it.  That means I can do what I want with it.  If I buy a book, I can tear out any pages I don’t like, or maybe write some things in it which the author never thought of.  Why?  Because it’s mine.  It belongs to me.  I don’t need the author’s permission.  If this offends the author, too bad.  Once he sells his book, it doesn’t belong to him anymore.

If I buy a copy of “The Two Towers” and scribble out J.R.R. Tolkien’s name and write “WRITTEN BY DARYL CANTRELL THE WORLD’S GREATEST AUTHOR"… Well, that might be a bit immature but there’s really nothing stopping me.

If I sell my car to someone, I don’t try to tell them what kind of engine oil to put in it: it’s their car and they can do what they want with it.  Maybe Ford should sue people who trick out their Mustangs, because it’s not an accurate representation of the car designers’ original “vision”..?

If I build a house and then sell it to someone, I can’t object when they turn the study into a guest bedroom because my “artistic vision” was for it to be a study.  It’s their house and they can do what they want with it.

If these authors and directors really value “artistic vision” more than they value money, the solution is simple: They can keep their artisitic works for themselves.  No one forces them to sell their books or movies to other people.

Deoxy: They are changing someones creative vision and presenting it with the directors name on it to other people as a fair representation of their work to their families.

The movies have a trailer at the beginning which states that they have been edited for content after purchase.  Anyone who’s enough of a busybody to wonder whether the movie is an accurate representation of the director’s “vision” won’t be deceived into thinking it is.

Anyway, it’s easy enough to solve this problem: While you’re editing the movie for content, go ahead and remove the credits.

Deoxy: How would Christians feel if we changed the bible - take all the bits out of it that we don’t like

Which parts do you like?

Go buy your very own copy of the Bible, and knock yourself out.  That’s the great thing about owning something: you can do what you want with it.  In fact, the ability to do what you want with something is a pretty good definition of ownership.

Deoxy: I don’t know what you call $9.50 (or <$20 for a DVD ) to witness a what may be a lifechanging piece of artistic genius but I call them “gifts�.

I payed $250 to get to see all of that and all I had to do was show up to a theatre and place a few on-line orders.

You call that “payingâ€?? 

No Daryl, I call that a gift from some extremely talented people.

Dude, seriously, this is the single gayest response ever posted to SEB.  Put a dress on already.  Even my wife thinks so, and she’s way nicer than me.

But at least you can spell my name correctly *tips hat*.

When this thread started, my first thought was Who gives a shit? Now after all the comments I’m a bit more enlightened.

I would think that the law would be on the side of the Hollywood in this case.  If a performance (movie) is considered a work of art, then absolutely no one should be able to change the content without the writer/director’s permission.  If these asshats want to modify movies then they should have to buy the rights to the script.

Now, if the movie is just another product, like an automobile, people should be able to do with it as they will to suit their individual tastes.  Once modifications are made to the initial product it can no longer carry the same name, credits or packaging.  This test has stood up in court in the motorcycle industry where builders were taking existing bikes, redesigning them and passing them off as equal or better than the original.

Last thing.  A movie is not a fucking gift.  Studios do not put up good money just to be generous.  The point is to make money in any way it can.  Some movies go big, some lose and that’s all part of their business model.  I’m glad you’ve been touched by some great movies but I assure you, the only thing the studio cares about is whether or not you put down your hard earned money first.

If a performance (movie) is considered a work of art, then absolutely no one should be able to change the content without the writer/director’s permission.  If these asshats want to modify movies then they should have to buy the rights to the script.

My feelings exactly.

A movie is not a fucking gift.

Certainly not a lot of Hollywood fare (particularly action and/or comedy films). But many films I do consider to be gifts. Just because studios make money off of them does not necessarily strip filmmakers of their visionary integrity. I’m talking about filmmakes I consider good, mind you. Michael Bay need not apply.

Scattergun across multiple authors here, so forgive me ...

Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings� film trilogy was a rendering of the book that I had dreamt and hoped for since I was 8 years old.

And yet, there are plenty of folks out there who consider them an abomination of the *writer’s* (i.e., Tolkien’s) vision and interests and words.  Granted, Jackson had the legal rights to do so, having licensed it from the company that had it licensed from the estate of the original author—but did that give him the *moral* or *aesthetic* right to omit Tom Bombadil, or tweak Arwen’s participation, or neglect the scouring of the Shire?

I think it’s more that, along with excessive gore, these people also like their “entertainment� free of sex, drugs, pleasure, fun, “blasphemy,� and other realities of life. I was actually under the impression that a lot of them aren’t particularly offended by violence itself.

Well, I don’t think anyone argued that “Saving Private Ryan” was being edited by these firms in order to reduce the amount of sex, pleasure, or fun.  “Blasphemy,” in terms of language, perhaps, but then we’d have to criticize endless numbers of mothers, too. 

So obviously *some* of these folks *are* offended by violence at certain levels, yes?  Hence the bowdlerized versions of “Passion of the Christ” that are available, too.

It’s like the South Park movie satirized the cultural conservatives and their war on entertainment: “You can have all the violence you want as long as there are no naughty words!� Somewhat simplified, sure, but still it seemed a fairly accurate appraisal to me, if you also add “sex� and “drugs� to “no naughty words.�

The American public in general does indeed seem to be more sensitive to violence than sex (vs., say, most of Europe).  But there’s clearly a spread, even among “conservatives.”

As to “naughty words,” I’ll admit to being a hypocritical fuddyduddy who makes use of all the standard profanity while still trying to watch my language around my 5½ year old daughter, and trying to restrict the language she uses in public settings, too.  Make of that what you will.

How would Christians feel if we changed the bible - take all the bits out of it that we don’t like - You know like Revelations perhaps? How about 1 Timothy, Chapter 2 (and in fact all of the Gnostic gospels) for the misogyny?
How about the bits the speak ill of homosexuality?
How’s about we remove the stories that involve slavery, incest, people selling their own children to god or to other people?

Some folks have already mentioned Jefferson.  I’ll add to it the Jesus Project.  Heck, I’ll add to that the concept that the Bible is not inerrant but the interpretations of the activities and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (vs. Dictation from God).  Or, perhaps, those who quote from Scripture out of context (from all ideological directions).

And the answer is, *some* Christians are horrified, aghast, outraged, incensed, appalled, and determined never to see such a blasphemy happen again (you could probably MadLib Deoxy’s original post to get the sense of it).  Others are intrigued.  Others are unsure.  Many find it more palatable.  Others think it’s a cop-out. 

Heck, you can find some folks who are offended that there are other English translations than the KJV, vs. some who find more recent translations much more meaningful and, to their mind, accurate.

There’s no accounting for tastes (and just as well, given my own).

If a performance (movie) is considered a work of art, then absolutely no one should be able to change the content without the writer/director’s permission.  If these asshats want to modify movies then they should have to buy the rights to the script.

Actually, the writer often has little to do with it, and often even the director has only limited rights over how things are edited and released (heck, see the notes to every “Director’s Cut” DVD out there).  Make it the producer, the studio, the suits, etc., and you have a more accurate statement, if less aesthetically pleasing.

Daryl, do you have back pain today?  You seem grouchier than normal.  Try stretching, hot compresses, and maybe ibuprofen.  Make sure your shoes have adequate arch support.

When I read Deoxy’s comment, I thought; “Well, there’s an example of how some people are more deeply affected by certain art than others.” The fact that there is a profitable industry surrounding the art makes it more remarkable when something good actually shines through.

When you “buy” a movie, what you are really buying is a limited license for private performance.  There is probably some unenforceable clause in the fine print against you even discussing alternate plot points or criticizing the producer’s mustache in public.  But in practice, as long as one license is bought, I still think they’re just paying someone to fast-forward for them.

Why there isn’t a more developed Christian movie industry, I can’t guess.  There’s certainly a well-developed Christian music industry.  Makes more sense than bowdlerizing stuff made by evil secularists.

The auto industry encourages modification, by the way.  It promotes interest in their cars.  The Mini, in particular, has a series of ads about modified Minis.

As far as “changing the art”, DJ’s remix music in clubs/dances.  I don’t see a difference in what CleanFlicks does.  The copy was paid for, it’s not being pirated.

I feel some licensing infringes on Fair Use.  I don’t believe the “Artist” has a right to tell me how many times I can view their work, or that I’m not allowed to fast forward through the film. 

In short:
I don’t have the right to paint on the original “Mona Lisa”.
I don’t have the right to paint copies and sell them as my own creation.
But, if I buy a print of the “Mona Lisa”, I believe I have every right to pencil in a mustache and hang it on my door.

The auto industry encourages modification, by the way.

Oh, man. Don’t get me started on my beloved VW van! ...too late…

Well, I bought it six years ago from a really cool guy from Vermont who drove it all over the country in the mid-’60s. It was originally solid green (pea-colored, to be exact). I have since added psychedelic designs to it and put curtains in the windows (flowery print, of course). I named it Lucy, and yes, it’s a girl.

She doesn’t drive as well as she did back in the glory days of the ‘60s, but she still looks beautiful (I like to think I helped). Instead of actually driving her, I usually keep her in my yard and hold parties in her, listen to records in her, and occasionally even sleep in her when the weather’s nice. She’s really comfy!

Ah, me and Lucy...Thanks for letting me share!

Why there isn’t a more developed Christian movie industry, I can’t guess.  There’s certainly a well-developed Christian music industry.  Makes more sense than bowdlerizing stuff made by evil secularists.

I suspect that the large costs of movie production, and the low volume that can be cranked out, makes it a lot easier to do Christian music than Christian movies.

Sadie, my ‘67 Beetle just acquired a Brazilian engine with a new German carby and Mexican distributor.  Vrrroooom!

There are lots of VW restoration specialists.  Compared to cost of buying a new car you don’t like, they aren’t that expensive; just finding a good one (there are a few crooks).

Next up: carbon-fibre & blue-neon running-boards, bitchin’ stereo, Porsche wheels, custom seats…

Not sure if it fits Ferdinand Porsche’s ‘vision’ but it should be a lot of fun.

Sadie, my ‘67 Beetle just acquired a Brazilian engine with a new German carby and Mexican distributor.  Vrrroooom!

Yay!! Yeah, I’ve taken in Lucy a few times. We drove her when my friends and I took a roadtrip around the country in the summer of ‘01. She drove beautifully, but I decided to let her rest after that. If I do any serious driving, it’s usually either in my Volvo or in my life partner’s PT Cruiser. Lucy’s my outdoor bedroom (aside from my flower garden).

Have fun with your Porsche! Me, I’ve always liked Rolls’…

The auto industry encourages modification, by the way.  It promotes interest in their cars.  The Mini, in particular, has a series of ads about modified Minis.

Granted, but there’s a big difference between a consumer modding his car and a reseller doing it and selling it under the original manufacturers name.  That’s why companies like Saleen (Mustang) have reseller license agreements with Ford.

As far as “changing the artâ€?, DJ’s remix music in clubs/dances.  I don’t see a difference in what Clean Flicks does.  The copy was paid for, it’s not being pirated.

The DJ’s, just like you, are allowed to mix tracks anyway they please as long as they own them.  The problem, once again, arises in the reselling of mixed mutilated music.  You can’t redo one of Aerosmith’s songs and then resell it as an Aeosmith original.

This why recording artists have to use samples or purchase the rights to the song they want to butcher.

I feel some licensing infringes on Fair Use.  I don’t believe the “Artistâ€? has a right to tell me how many times I can view their work, or that I’m not allowed to fast forward through the film.

Be careful what you wish for.  Many new DVD’s have coding that prevents FF/RW during the ‘coming attractions’.  IMHO, Clean Flicks, and those like them, don’t have a leg to stand on.  Time will tell.

On a side note, I wonder if they go through the trouble of modifying the different languages, special features and subtitles associated with the DVD.

I suspect that the large costs of movie production, and the low volume that can be cranked out,

Dude, seriously, this is the single gayest response ever posted to SEB.  Put a dress on already.  Even my wife thinks so, and she’s way nicer than me.

I’ve noticed that this is the attitude in America that doesnt seem to exist anywhere else in the world that I’ve been.

This is a symptom of the fundamental difference that exists in America between a conservative and a centrist/liberal attitude.

It’s the difference between someone who believes that slavery is o.k. (as long as the slave is an uneducated poverty-stricken “wop” or “wetback") and someone who finds the idea deeply offensive.

An American conservative would rationalize this idea by saying “Well, that dirty stinking foreigner is probably better of with me looking after them than being free and ending up unemployed and poor and unable to feed their families”.

If it’s gay to respect and care about other people, including those of other religions and cultures then I’m a big steaming queer.

If it’s gay to think that art is something valuable that improves the quality of our lives then I’m a screaming faggot.

If it’s gay not be proud of “aggressive ignorance” like American conservatives are then pass the dress, the high heels and the lube - I’m a flamer.

I’ll take the whole BS lie about being gay (I’m actually heterosexual and married to a beautiful petite American woman), you can take the truth that the fearmongering hatemongering anti-intellectual anti-science anti-art hate-fuelled stupidity that is American Conservatism is the worst scourge that mainstream America has ever suffered. 

If I had a choice to rid the world of Modern American conservatives or every addictive and destructive drug from the face of the earth it would be a no-brainer to choose the conservatives.

Regards,

Deoxy.

Dude, seriously, this is the single gayest response ever posted to SEB.  Put a dress on already.  Even my wife thinks so, and she’s way nicer than me.

At the risk of sounding like an easily offended liberal or something, I find the use of “gay” in this kind of perjorative sense to be really fucking stupid.

But I digress.

It’s the difference between someone who believes that slavery is o.k. (as long as the slave is an uneducated poverty-stricken “wop� or “wetback") and someone who finds the idea deeply offensive.

An American conservative would rationalize this idea by saying “Well, that dirty stinking foreigner is probably better of with me looking after them than being free and ending up unemployed and poor and unable to feed their families�.

I’m sure it feels comforting to think of “American conservatives” (which encompasses whatever percent of the population you choose to extend the definition to) as folks who would actually condone slavery in this way (never mind that most traditional conservatives would consider this rationale a typically Liberal one), but ...

How the hell do you go from “I think that this particular piece of art is excessive and prefer a bowdlerized version of it” to “I don’t value art as something that improves our lives” to “I think slavery is cool” to “I am a greater threat to the world than heroin, coke, alcohol, meth, and tobacco and ought to be exterminated instead of them,” I have no idea?

Well, I guess it goes with the rest of the I-hope-it’s-hyperbole, and we’ll just leave it as that.

I have to admit, Deoxy, that I think you went a bit off the deep end with that last comment. I’m no big fan of most of the Conservatives out there, but you’ve taken it to a whole other level.

The DJ’s, just like you, are allowed to mix tracks anyway they please as long as they own them.  The problem, once again, arises in the reselling of mixed mutilated music.  You can’t redo one of Aerosmith’s songs and then resell it as an Aeosmith original.

This why recording artists have to use samples or purchase the rights to the song they want to butcher.

From what I’ve seen, CleanFlicks and the like are not selling the films as the originals, but as labeled, edited originals.  That’s the whole selling point - it’s not the ORIGINAL film.  Same as selling a remix of Aerosmith that not only says “remix” on the package, but having purchased a copy of the original for every remix made.  It’s just cheaper to license it to make a remix or use sampling.

I have to admit, Deoxy, that I think you went a bit off the deep end with that last comment. I’m no big fan of most of the Conservatives out there, but you’ve taken it to a whole other level.

Although he could have put it a little more gently, I agree with Deoxy’s main point (that the mindset of fear and insipid hate-mongering of American conservatives is launching our nation frighteningly backwards), and I think it needs to be stated again and again.

If it’s gay to respect and care about other people, including those of other religions and cultures then I’m a big steaming queer.

If it’s gay to think that art is something valuable that improves the quality of our lives then I’m a screaming faggot.

If it’s gay not be proud of “aggressive ignorance� like American conservatives are then pass the dress, the high heels and the lube - I’m a flamer.

Me too.

After coming home with a big smile, having rung the New Year in proper, I zip around for a few quick reads and find a strong contender for asshat statement for 2005 that just squeaked in:

This is a symptom of the fundamental difference that exists in America between a conservative and a centrist/liberal attitude.

It’s the difference between someone who believes that slavery is o.k. (as long as the slave is an uneducated poverty-stricken “wop� or “wetback") and someone who finds the idea deeply offensive.

An American conservative would rationalize this idea by saying “Well, that dirty stinking foreigner is probably better of with me looking after them than being free and ending up unemployed and poor and unable to feed their families�.

Dave correctly points out that the political/economic philosophy highlighted by you is actually a liberal one, not a conservative one. 

After reading that statement, I thought maybe the guy is just on one of those rants.  Les’s site tends to attract those that like to spout off from time to time including myself.  Then I read the winner for asshat statement for 2005 in the same post:

...you can take the truth that the fearmongering hatemongering anti-intellectual anti-science anti-art hate-fuelled stupidity that is American Conservatism is the worst scourge that mainstream America has ever suffered.

If I had a choice to rid the world of Modern American conservatives or every addictive and destructive drug from the face of the earth it would be a no-brainer to choose the conservatives.

I want to laugh at this, especially the “anti-intellectual” line followed by use of “hate-fuelled”, but it just isn’t funny.  It isn’t funny because Deoxy’s statement results, in part, from some of the rhetoric that he likely reads here and elsewhere on the net.

Deoxy, you seem to fashion yourself as an ubermensch being oppressed by dumbass conservatives like myself.  Let me put this to rest for you. You may be something special in God’s eyes, I don’t claim to speak for Him.  What is clear is an ubermensch you are not.

As a piece of advice for the future, let those that actually have the needed horsepower under the hood rev up the anti-intellectual engine.

Sexy Sadie, you rock, I’m so glad you understand me - thanks for the support - I was starting to feel like I was about

to get net.strung-up.

Les, You’re right, it was a bit hyperbole but I’ll write some more explanation about this later and why I feel this

way.

Consigliere

Dave correctly points out that the political/economic philosophy highlighted by you is actually a liberal one,

not a conservative one. 

This is the biggest load of crap I’ve seen since I last helped out on my uncle-in-laws cattle farm.

That political philosophy is pure conservatism.
Your post was utter crap.

I have to let you know, Consigliere, that when you write something like that as if it were factual when you have no

information, argument of sources to make a case it really makes you look arrogant.

Just because Lincoln belonged to a party called “Republicans” did not make him a conservative. He was quite the

opposite in fact.

I’m not surprised at this because it’s the same lie as claiming that because Hitler’s Nazi party had the word

“Socialist” in the name that they were liberals. 

Racial purity is a conservative ideal, the southern states founded the KKK and ever since the illegalization of the KKK

the south have been trying to find another way to politically revive the “White Power” movement.
It it the white conservative Christian movement in America that has been trying to make it socially acceptable again to

discriminate against people of different ethnic backgrounds. This is because they believe that they are the chosen

people of God and they believe that they are the only ones going to heaven and that only they are the truly chosen

people of the bible.

Lincoln’s Republicans were liberals through and through. The Republican party of 1860 was founded to stop slavery but

the party was DESPISED in the ever staunchly conservative Southern states hence South Carolina’s secession from the Union.
The Southern States detested Lincoln and the men who were prominent figures in the south openly encouraged people to assassinate Lincoln using the same kind of rhetoric we hear today from conservative Christians who try to justify murdering abortion doctors.

Today’s Republican’s are nothing like those of 1860.

Deoxy, you seem to fashion yourself as an ubermensch being oppressed by dumbass conservatives like myself.  Let me put this to rest for you. You may be something special in God’s eyes, I don’t claim to speak for Him.  What is clear is an ubermensch you are not.

You have no idea who I am or what my life has been like. It really shows how arrogant conservatives are for you to judge me like this.

I’m certainly not a superman - not with two broken legs I’m not, and I never was anyway.

Fact is my wife is American, I’m British and we are atheists and I’m currently unable to work. The reason for this is because I used to live in a very conservative area - very staunch Republicans and Christians.

One neighborwoman who lives in the community heard that my wife and I don’t go to church or celebrate Christian holidays.  Last spring she approached me and demanded I show up for the easter sermon at the local baptist church and when I told her that we weren’t going to do that she told me that I was unwelcome in hers, George W. Bush’s, and Jesus Christ’s country. 
She asked if I believed in a god at all and I said that I didn’t.  She asked if I would allow my wife to come to the church, I said I did not mind at all if she did, so she went to the front door of our house and knocked. She demanded my wife show up at the church and my wife politely told her that she did not wish to this easter or at any other time and that we are both atheists.

The next night I was jogging through the neighborhood when I heard an SUV coming up behind me, next thing I know my the SUV mounts the curb, hits me, and my legs are crushed against a tree, breaking both of them in several places.

So I’m lying there on the ground and the woman who had confronted me from the night before walks right up to me and she kicks me in the head and screams “That’s from Jesus!  He’s mad with you because he suffered on the cross to save your soul and you wont let him love you”. She gets in her SUV and drives off.

Well then someone comes out from a nearby house and calls the cops and the ambulance.

Since that rather unpleasant day we’ve moved to another area.  The lady that tried to kill (whom I’m not allowed, by law, to publically name) me was arrested and released within a week on bail.  Her insurance company has refused to help with my medical bills because she admits she ran me over deliberately - They are only liable for accidents.  The court system told me they arent keen to press charges against the woman because she’s so popular in the community and she’s having such a tough time financially they say I wouldnt get much out of it anyway.

A civil rights activist group have given me a grant to help me. They furnished me with a couple of powered wheelchairs for indoors and outdoors. The civil rights group is putting pressure on that courts system to press criminal charges but so far the DA has failed to return their calls, my calls or answer any questions on the issue.

However, when it was found that I have spinal damage from the attack and that It is unlikely that I will ever get back full function in my legs there was a response from the DA’s office in a letter which said that in the light of the fact I may have suffered permanent damage they may pursue charges against my attacker.

When I told the woman’s pastor about the incident he told me that he knew about it, he told me that he believed as the woman who attacked me believes - that she was not driving and that in fact the spirit of Christ had taken the wheel and that it’s all my own fault anyway - all I had to do was show up at church and this would never have happened.

So you tell me, Was I being oppressed by conservatives or is that kind of behaviour “liberal” now too?

Regards,

Deoxy.

Deoxy, assuming your story happened as you tell it - you were oppressed by facists, not conservatives.  But it is a difficult assumption.

Woman intentionally runs over atheist jogger in a fit of religious violence: unlikely but possible.  Prosecutor refuses to prosecute obvious case of vehicular assault because of religious agreement with popular driver: unlikely but possible.  Pastor of Christian church condones said violence as “Spirit Of Christ”: unlikely but possible.  All three in sequence:  well please forgive us if we might have problems with that story. 

I’m not saying it’s untrue, or that you weren’t hit by a car but the ancillary details are a bit difficult to combine. 

I still think Darrellllll was being an asshat with his ‘gay’ comment.

Happy New Year, everyone!

In a likely vain attempt to get this back on topic at least a little bit, I’d like to take a moment to point out what the U.S. Copyright law actually says. From the U.S. Copyright Office:

WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,� including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.

This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

• To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
• To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
• To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
• To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
• To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
• In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, “Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.�

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of “fair use,” which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a “compulsory license” under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.

The conflict over what the folks at places like CleanFlicks are doing centers mainly on that second clause up there about a copyright owner’s control over derivative works. There is absolutely no question that editing movies to remove the bits you don’t like creates a derivative work. The question then becomes: Is this legal to do?

Prior to February 25, 2005 the answer was a resounding “no” as the folks at places like CleanFlicks were clearly selling derivative works, but then Congress went and passed the The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 which was sold to Big Media as a means of beefing up the copyright laws. It amended the “Federal criminal code to prohibit the unauthorized, knowing use or attempted use of a video camera or similar device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other copyrighted audiovisual work from a performance of such work in a movie theater” and detailed the penalties for such violations, but it also included an exemption for companies like CleanFlicks that hack the hell out of movies to make them supposedly family friendly:

Title II: Exemption from Infringement for Skipping Audio and Video Content In Motion Pictures - Family Movie Act of 2005 - (Sec. 202) Creates an exemption from copyright infringement for: (1) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing from an authorized copy of the motion picture; or (2) the creation or provision of technology that enables such editing, is designed and marketed for such use, creates no fixed copy of the altered version, and makes no changes, deletions or additions to commercial advertisements or promotional announcements that would otherwise be performed or displayed.

Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to protect from liability for trademark infringement: (1) persons who engage in the above-referenced conduct; and (2) manufacturers of technology that enables such editing if notice is provided that the performance of the movie is altered from the director’s or copyright holder’s intended performance.

Thusly giving the folks at CleanFlicks—as well as ClearPlay, MovieMask, Clean Cut, FamilyFlix and Family Safe—immunity from copyright violation. From a legal standpoint the debate was settled by Congress in February of last year.

Oh, and for those who pondered the reaction to a sanitized version of Mel’s Jesus snuff film I can say that Mel wasn’t too happy about it. Not that it matters now, Congress told Mel to suck it up.

creates no fixed copy of the altered version, and makes no changes, deletions or additions to commercial advertisements or promotional announcements that would otherwise be performed or displayed.

I notice the motherfuckers didn’t forget to qualify their law with a little ‘thou shalt not adulterate the commercials’ aside.

Hey.  I find endless promos far more offensive than anything CleanFlix is editing out.

But I already have a company that deals with that for me.  It’s called -tons of free DVD editing and ripping software available freely on the internet-.

If I could, I’d buy stock in the company.

[aside] I don’t know if Deoxy’s story is true, but you gotta admit it’s a -great- story.  Especially the part where the fundy is booting him in the head while screaming ‘That’s from Jesus!’[/aside]

Happy New Year!

Thanks for the compliment, Deoxy.

If the anecdote you shared is true, then that is seriously fucked up. Sadly, I wouldn’t put it past many Christians to do such a thing.

The political parties of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were quite complicated as far as labels such as “liberal” and “conservative” go. There were several “reversals,” the last one quite recent (I would argue as recent as Reagan) that led up to the parties being the way they are now. However, it is accurate that Lincoln’s party was far more liberal than the Southern Democratic counterpart. There is some controversy surrounding just what Lincoln’s actual feelings toward African-Americans was, but the fact remains that he freed the slaves. Seeing how Southern Democrats at the time were largely pro-slavery, I hardly think it can be argued that they were “liberal” in any way. To this day, many Democrats from the South differ from asshat conservative politicians in name only.

To me, “liberal” and “conservative” are most accurately mindsets and even lifestyles. I’m the most liberal person I know (along with my life partner John), but neither of us belong to a political party. We vote Democratic 99.999% of the time, but we don’t really consider ourselves Democrats, if only because we don’t want to belong to a group (especially a political one).

I still think Darrellllll was being an asshat with his ‘gay’ comment.

Of course he was. But seeing how I’m very pro-gay, I don’t consider being called “gay” insulting! In fact it’s quite a compliment.

Sorry to tread off-topic again, but I have to ask: what the hell is the deal with the “snake” smiley (bottom row)??