I am not going to resell the movie as that is illegal...

At the risk of stirring up the hornets's nest (again!!), ripping it is illegal.
When you bought the DVD, you bought the rights to watch it - and that's it.

Mike

Well if they would sell a PG-13 vers of the movie(s) then I wouldn't try and rip a movie but my parents don't watch Rated R movies because of too much violence/nudity/profanity etc.

But if I purchase a movie then I should be able to do whatever I want to it except resell it.

Why can't the Film industry just get over themselves and just use both sides of the DVD's 1 for the original rating if it's R rated then the other side of the DVD as a PG-13 vers.

Edit: Oh and to answer Kenny I tried going frame by frame but there isn't a way to remove the blood splatterings during scenes unless the blood is by itself .

I wish there was a track of just the blood splatterings so i could just delete that part.

Just turn down the color control on your TV set so the movie is black and white. Then tell your parents the combatants are just covered in maple syrup.

300 is a blood thirsty film about a fierce and violent pitched battle, it's about as gruesome as human behaviour gets. Not sure why they would want to see it.

But it is also true that you are breaking the copyright by ripping it and will contrevene the law further by editing it. Do your parents want to be involved in that illegal activity?

Andrew

I just had this great image in my head, so I thought I would share it. You know the "censored" sign the tv companies put over stuff when, well, censoring. I could just image the blood being censored in 300. Just image 100's of these little slogans popping up all over the film.....

Movies are a work of art. If the artist doesn't want to make a PG-13 version of their movie, then that is their prerogative. You, as the viewer, are free to give your attention to someone else's vision if you don't want to risk offense.

Did you edit out the blood in Mel Gibson's "The Passion", too? Or is Christ's blood the only blood worth seeing?

"yet there's a ton of violence but I was thinking if I could remove the blood splatterings , I could leave in alot of the fighting scenes"

Kind of like wanting to see porn without the sex scenes.

I'm sorry but this is just plain silly. Sorry

Sab

"But if I purchase a movie then I should be able to do whatever I want to it except resell it."

I find it highly unlikely that you purchased the movie. I can't even guess the price, but i bet for a major hollywood blockbuster it would be 8 or 9 figures at least. Did you spend 10's or 100's of millions of dollars to buy "300"? Nope, i didn't think so.

What you bought was a circular piece of plastic and the rights to watch the material stored on it. You did not purchase the movie, nor did you purchase rights to alter it.

ripping it is illegal.

This is a touchy legal issue, since there are a number of different court cases with different results regarding this. The cases that date back to VHS (whoever it was) vs the movie industry, clearly gives you the right to make a duplicate of a movie you have purchased the right to watch. Fair use and all. If this goes to the supreme, I think that they will have to contend that making a dupe is legal. On the other hand, you are cracking an encryption scheme, which in general is illegal, so...

Now, changing the movie, that is absolutely not Fair Use, and as such completely illegal unless, as someone said, you purchase the movie, probably at somewhere around $100 mill. You can probably also purchase the rights to edit the movie for display for certain audiences, TV stations, airlines etc do this. Again, it will cost a lot of money.

The OP should realize that what he is engaged in is theft of the traditional kind, and that his parents, if they watch a movie that is stolen and altered against the will of the owner, are hypocrites, but then again, I haven't yet found a religious person who as not a hypocrite, so perhaps they'll be happy to steal it.

At the risk of stirring up the hornets's nest (again!!), ripping it is illegal. When you bought the DVD, you bought the rights to watch it - and that's it.

Not everywhere... fortunately, the entire world isn't under such draconian law as the DMCA. People should have the right to make a backup of their legitimately purchased DVDs, and do in some parts of the world. This is especially useful if people have children, who tend to destroy things like DVDs fairly quickly.

In principle it's no different than ripping your own audio CDs to MP3 or AAC to put on a portable device. And that is allowed; why not backups of DVDs as well? My iPod would be devoid of video content (the Canadian iTunes Store having the pathetic selection it does) were it not for the various programs made for ripping commercial DVDs.

As for altering it, I don't quite see it is being particularly easy with a program like Vegas. It seems like a waste of time to me, if it is possible. And that would seem to fall under the category of being an illegal thing to do, although I'm not sure who would care if you aren't profitting from it or holding public viewings of the edit, lol.

"Well if they would sell a PG-13 vers of the movie(s) then I wouldn't try and rip a movie but my parents don't watch Rated R movies because of too much violence/nudity/profanity etc."

Then they have no business watching 300 then. If the artist(s) put out a version of 300 that was PG-13, then they could watch it.

If you take 300 and cut it up, rework it, and show it to your parents, you are creating a derivative work that you should pay royalties for. If you don't pay the royalty, then you may be a thief. In the end, it would not be the movie 300 anymore. It would be "my bastardized version of 300".

All in my opinion of course! This is a plant question to stir up crap. And it worked!

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Wow I leave for a few hrs and I stirred up the hornets nest.

Btw my parents never asked me to do this , I just thought it would be nice for them to see it , since it was a great movie and alot of it based on historical facts.

Also what is with all the sites/stores where they have edited movies for rent/sale etc , most of those places are still in business.

For me personally i didn't think it would be such a big deal for me to edit a movie , atleast my family could see it.

Btw tyvm for all the replies =)

/hug


Edit: Oh and to Pmooney , my parent's never saw "The Passion" , and there is no way to edit that movie without removing the entire time christ was being flogged , which is a huge part of the movie.

"Also what is with all the sites/stores where they have edited movies for rent/sale etc , most of those places are still in business."

Last I heard the higher courts ruled that edited movies were as illegal as pirated movies.

Not everywhere... fortunately, the entire world isn't under such draconian law as the DMCA. People should have the right to make a backup of their legitimately purchased DVDs, and do in some parts of the world.

wrong
With only two exceptions, the entire world is signed on to the Berne convention, which makes what he is doing illegal.
The ripping of the DVD isn't the true issue.
The altering of the copyrighted material, whether sold or not, is the issue.
As far as losing a temple recommend over it; yes, it is possible if they have a bishop that is fundamentally strict.
The twelfth article of faith (adherence to the articles of faith are requisite to a temple recommend) says "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
Anyway, that opens a religious topic, and this is one of legal (and technical) discussion.

Editing out the blood and nudity is no different than me taking a Disney film and editing Snow White to be having odd and abnormal sex with Dopey, or having Tobey Maguire enjoying his horse in a carnal way.
The law swings both ways. It's offensive to anyone of integrity, IMO, that someone would alter the original property of someone else simply because they find it offensive.
Ever borrowed a neighbor's car? If the color bothered you, would you repaint it? Maybe you don't like the leather seats, so you rip them out and recover them? Not quite an appropriate analogy, but it follows the same thought process.
Whether for "religion", profit, or just plain don't like the storyline...no one has the right to change the view of the director except the director.

I think the MPAA would have alot to say about what goes in or out of a movie and the Director has to bite his/her lip. Especially if the movie gets picked up by a large corporation.

you are incredibly incorrect here.
The MPAA has absolutely no say in what does or doesn't go into a movie.
The director and or studio has 100% say about what does or doesn't go into a movie, and in virtually every case, the director and/or studio have determined what rating they'd like the movie to fall under.
Zack Snyder specifically aimed "300" at a specific audience. Your parents choose to not be in that audience. Jenna Jamison aims her movies at a specific target audience, your parents are not part of that audience. Buena Vista varies the audience for which they make movies, but typically they're G or PG movies. They're made for your parents.
Religion is a great reason or excuse for how one does things in life, but it's no reason or excuse to alter the property of someone else.
If the director chooses to cut blood, nudity, profanity from a film for television, that is their[prerogative and no one else.
Michael Mann's first editor just did a great keynote partially on this very topic only two days ago here in Israel. "Pleasantville" for example, could have easily been targeted at a younger audience via its use of color, but Michael Mann specifically aimed the film at an older audience.

What The Law Says About Copyright
What the Law Says
The Federal Copyright Act (The Copyright Act of 1976, Public Law 94-553, 90 stat. 2541: Title 17; Section 110(i) governs how copyrighted materials, such as movies, may be utilized publicly. Neither the rental nor the purchase or lending of a videocassette or DVD carries with it the right to exhibit such a movie publicly outside the HOME, unless the site where the video is used is properly licensed for public exhibition.

Found this so though I'd post it , and since I'd only be showing it in my home , it says I can.

Could you post something that says I can't edit it for personal use pls , I couldn't find anything.


Btw I watched a show about the Rating system and the MPAA awhile back , when the MPAA asked the Director(s) to take out certain parts of the movie(s) , so the movie could get a R rating or lower.

Found this also , but couldn't find if it was passed yet.

The Family Movie Act may soon be passed into law! On January 25, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, which was quickly approved by the Senate in a unanimous voice vote. This week, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Courts, Internet and Intellectual Property, reintroduced the bill to the House (HR 357), where it will be reviewed by the Judiciary Committee. Chairman Smith was the initial sponsor of the bill in June 2004, and has been a strong proponent of making technology available to parents that will help shield children from unwanted violence, sex and profanity in movies.

Clearly, you don't actually work in our industry.
The only thing the MPAA can do is to tell a director "If you want this film to achieve a (insert rating here) then you'll have to remove (insert offensive description here."

The MPAA cannot control any aspect of a film. Just like Walmart can't tell a musician what he/she can put on a recording. Walmart *can* say, "If you want your music in our store, you'll have to conform to these guidelines." And some musicians conform, others do "Walmart" mixes, and others say "F@#$! off" and ignore Walmart entirely.
Additionally, you cite one very small, broad section of the law. You can show the film in your home.
A-Bypassing copyright encryption (which you did in order to rip the movie) is illegal
B-editing the film for any form of display outside of Fair Use (of which home viewing is not part) is illegal.
C-making a new version of the movie is illegal
D-all of the above not withstanding, it's morally wrong.
But the hell with the law, and the hell with what's right, I want to see this movie. Odd that it's OK for you to view the blood and gore over and over as you illegally edit the film, but it's not OK for your parents to see it just once.

But...I do have a copy of "Singles Ward" that I was considering editing so it's a porn flick. Just for my own use, of course. "The Work and the Glory" is next on my list of movies to pervert. Neither of them have enough sex scenes for my taste.

BTW, Hatch's (and Gordon Smith's) bill failed before ever getting anywhere, and the courts ruled in favor of DGA vs Cleanflicks.

First off , No I don't work in the industry , i'm taking some refresher courses in college on anything that is considered Computer Science .

2nd I left the mormon church when i was 14 over 25 yrs ago , when a friend of mine fell off a cliff to his death on a church scouting trip. So I can watch all those nasty things ppl put in their movies.

3rdly do whatever the hell you want w/ Singles Ward and The Work and the Glory , I don't care. But pls do not try and resell it /rent it out =)

And that sucks that The Family Movie Act was shut down , it sounded pretty good, yet I believe it should've been ok , if DGA etc got some decent royalties from Cleanflicks etc. As alot of ppl out there would love to see movies that were cleaned up.

You know what's funny is that there is a video store close to where i live that sells/rents edited movies , i've just never gone inside.

Btw ty for acting like an adult and not some young kid thru all of this...

Oh and I prolly won't edit the movie and ty for enlightening me on the subject of law and morality...

I'm with dpayne on this one but I'm not a 'purist' as many are here.

I don't see the problem with what you want to do as long as you don't allow it to be released to the general public. That would cause harm to the original movie and possibly to sales. However, if you just want to do it for yourself and your parents happen to watch it with you, I don't see any problem. So what if it's bastardized? When USA Network or CBS or <fill in the blank> want to show a movie on TV, they will do exactly what you are trying to do. They also cut out parts that may not be offensive just so they can get in some more commercials. I would also add that, typically, they edit them very poorly as to content. The director and studio probably doesn't have much say in that process.

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)[1], also known as the "Betamax case", was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs (referred to as VTRs in the case), cannot be liable for infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market as it created a legal safe haven for the technology, which also significantly benefited the entertainment industry through the sale of pre-recorded movies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc.

A DVD movie watched on TV could be considered a television show.

So, given above, it is legal to make a copy however, as was pointed out by others in this thread, it is illegal to hack the copy protection because of the DMCA.

Now, regardless of the fact that the DMCA has been broken, the rest would take a judges (or multiple judges and courts) ruling on what you do/did to determine guilt and punishment. Also, unless you have a habit of piracy, it's unlikely (almost impossible) for the law to get a search warrant to search for your edited movie, without probable cause. Unless you release it to the public, start trying to sell or rent it, who will know?

I think you will find that what you plan to do will be too much work though. I haven't seen the movie so I don't know. If you don't want to hand retouch every frame that has blood and just cut those scenes out, you may just end up with beginning and end credits. <shrugs>

FWIW, Lamar Smith is a hypocritical moron. How he continues to be re-elected and is the chairman of that commission, I will never know. I know I keep voting against that goofy bastard.

The ruling you cite, relates to taping broadcast TV shows to watch them later. It doesn't and cannot apply to DVDs because you already have the recording.

TV companies negotiate and pay large sums to edit and broadcast films, usually with strict legal agreements.

The issue of copyright crops up over and over but is very simple, unless you have permission, you can't copy or alter someone else's work.

If people choose to ignore, stretch or make their own interpretations of the law that's up to them, but it is still illegal.

For me, it's not a matter of being a purist, it's simply following the law.

Andrew