On the other hand, i think all the sex, profanity, and violence are the worst things that have happened to movies ever. I look forward to seeing more "clean" family friendly movies. This should in fact widen the market for many filmmakers.

As soon as they get government OUT of religion.

I couldnt agree more. Thats all this term will be for this president. To me it feels like this current administration is trying to force morality back to the 1940s and 1950s. Thats ridiculous. Wasnt racism worse back then?

Yikes! Any bets about how all those recent administration court appointees will vote if it comes to a First Amendment test?

Here's some more reading on the legal issues:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/obscenity.htm

Heres something very scary that is coming sooner than you think. There will be a law that will require filmmakers to release two versions. A regular version and a sanitized version. Hows that for creative minds?

I'm not so sure that Wal-Mart only offering an edited version should be considered censorship. Private enterprise is free to conduct business (with some practical limitations) as it sees fit. Wal-Mart doesn't carry Penthouse magazine either but no one is complaining about THAT. If you want Penthouse, you go to the convenience store down the street. If you want an unedited movie, you purchase it elsewhere. Until the Government steps in and says ALL retailers may ONLY sell edited movies, I'll continue to classify this as a business decision. (Besides, this sort of OT stuff is what wakes "the monster." Shhhh....I think I hear it stirring!)

I'm usually a little left of center it seems, but this bill seems a little harmless none-the-less. If a person wants to buy an edited version of a movie with the profanity cut out, it makes sense to me that he or she be allowed to do this. As long as this isn't forced on a movie maker or an audience, what is the harm?

The way I read the article, it gives a company the right to, for each copy of the movie they purchase, edit that copy and offer it for resale. It has nothing to do with forcing the movie companies to market 2 version of their movie. Buying one copy, modifying it, and then seeing thousands of copies is still illegal.

Now, that aside, I don't think I agree with this, even though I would probably watch more movies that I today CHOOSE not to watch. I don't think I would want someone else messing with MY vision of MY movie that I had put together.

Michael

"Until the Government steps in and says ALL retailers may ONLY sell edited movies," Thats what this bill opens up the possiblity to. This is only the first step.

What bothers me is that government and various coalitions feel they have the right to tell content producers that they cant show their creative works the way they were intended to be seen and heard. Its censorship.

A better question is how will they be able to indentify what is considered inappropriate. Inappropriate differs from community to community. A bare stomached woman or a shirtless man is acceptable in lets say a Florida community but in small community in Arkansas it is not. So because Arky people dont like it, its ok to force the rest of America to not view it? I know my example is far fetched but this is where we are coming to.

Yes, but it's one thing for Wal-Mart to decide not to sell "Penthouse." It's another thing for Wal-Mart to take the magazine, airbrush out all the naughty bits, edit out any offensive jokes, and then sell the magazine as "Penthouse." If that's not a copyright violation, what is?

So, let me get this straight: PBS' award-winning documentary on the Civil Rights movement, "Eyes on the Prize" can't be shown anymore because the broadcast networks are insisting on exorbitant royalties for 40-year old news footage of public figures. If that's not "fair use," what is? Meanwhile, any part-time manager at Wal-Mart can edit out any portions of my movie that they find objectionable, re-edit it so that it no longer makes any sense, and I have nothing to say about it?

If that's what copyright law is doing to protect my "intellectual property," then do me no favors. Junk the whole set of laws and start over.

"The way I read the article, it gives a company the right to, for each copy of the movie they purchase, edit that copy and offer it for resale."

Thats violating the DMCA whether it be a company or an idividual.

"It has nothing to do with forcing the movie companies to market 2 version of their movie. "

No it doesnt. But that is coming. Bank on it. This is only the first step.

If I was American I would seriously consider moving to China ;-)

Yeah, I look forward to seeing more Hollywood crap that has no edge, does little to nothing interesting in terms of technique, and doesn't offend the religious people who are attempting to take over this country. It really is sickening.

So how many seconds of Sin City will actually make it into a clean copy? 30 seconds?

Blockbuster (in the usa only it seems) already does, in some cases, carry slightly different versions of some movies ...

i thought this was myth until someone showed me differences on two versions ..

"Thats violating the DMCA whether it be a company or an idividual."

It's not violating the law if they change the law.

"No it doesnt. But that is coming. Bank on it. This is only the first step."

The same can be said for ANY law. They all lead to one more law. It's a viscious cycle that keeps the government in their jobs. They always need a new law to clairify the old law that was to fix an error in yet another law.

Yes but the content owners provide that to Blockbuster. For Blockbuster to take a DVD, re-edit it to their liking and then rent/sell is copyright infringement. They are taking a work in part or whole and violating it by selling it.

It takes the rights of the content owner out of their hands and puts the rights into sellers hands as they see fit.

Would Pulp Fiction have been as a good if Walmart edited the parts it finds appropriate? It still comes down to one thing. If parents want to watch wholesome family movies for their children, then do your job and parent them and monitor what they watch.

America has become a place that has shifted responsbile parenting to companies, retailers, and teachers.

Dont like the nudity? Dont watch. Dont like the language? Dont listen. Dont want your kids growing up naked and cussing? Dont let them watch. Simple.

Just something to think about,
Who do you think has pushed this to congress.Religion? Nope

Guess who. The major studios, WHY?, you ask.

Simple, who is going to benefit from this? The studios.
They will now reach more people with dvd sales and rentals.

THink about. if you have only one R rated movie that is offensive to some, you eliminate them from the cash stream. Now you add a second PG-13 Version, and BAM, you just added more people to the cash stream.

Makes sense to me, Doesnt it?

It amazes me how so many of these limited government conservatives are so quick to control what we can see or do in privacy.

pmasters - i totally agree w/ you

i am just saying that walmart is unlikely to edit the stuff them self, and they would have the same edited crap BB would carry (or the more sanitized versions) ...


I could really get going on this topic as well as fairuse and a number of other issues --- but I'll just let it alone as this isnt the forum for it ..

I saw someone checking out with a DVD at Wal*Mart a couple of days ago. The cashier held up the DVD case and said, "You do realize this one is edited and isn't the same as what you saw in the theater, right? The sex scene has been cut out." The customer said "forget it then" and walked away without buying the movie.

*shrug* Wal*Mart's free choice to carry the altered version. Customer's free choice to not buy it. As with most things in life, the consumers will eventually dictate this market too.

"America has become a place that has shifted responsbile parenting to companies, retailers, and teachers.

Dont like the nudity? Dont watch. Dont like the language? Dont listen. Dont want your kids growing up naked and cussing? Dont let them watch. Simple."

It may suprise you, but I totally agree with you on this point! Like I said earlier, I'm not sure I really agree with this law. It's just more parenting at the government level which I am totally against.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Say I produce sermon videos for churches and someone likes the music but they don't like a particular part of the sermon. Would I like it if they edited the sermon, or even rearranged it so that it says something completely different? No, I wouldn't.