Of course the Hollywood crowd has been known to deliberately stick in a scene or two or a few naughy words or phrases just to get a certain rating, which they do supposedly to bump up the audience potential. Movies rated "G" unless by Disney or similar fair simply don't do well at the boxoffice.

I think the two movies you cite as examples as good ones. In Titanic the story could have been told and told well without the sexual overtones, but taking out those scenes would have given a totally different tilt to the film. Previous versions of Titanic focused more on the accident, the bravely of the crew/passengers or lack there of.
They probably went the way they did this time because of who they had play the lead male role. Ask any teenage girl that saw the movie ten times, they would answer because of Leo. Because of the decision to make it 'hotter' the movie turned out to be a blockbuster instead of just another version of Titanic which I suspect would have flopped. It sure wouldn't have been the hit it was with the those scenes.

In E.T. (one of my all time favorites) the director captured some of the interplay that's common between boys especially when roughousing where they in real life say and do things more in a teasing way towards each other without any malicious inferred.

I think the phase you cite and some others added to the flavor of the movie. It sounded more realastic. Contrast that to early TV shows like 'Father Knows Best' where the lady of the house was always dressed up in her 'good 'clothes even when cooking dinner, the house was always neat as a pin, never a roller in her hair and dad almost always had his suit still on hours after coming home from work and the kids always were so polite and proper. Can you say phony as a three dollar bill?

Today check out the scenes in Malcom in the Middle. The grass is full of weeds and overgrown, dirty dishes in the sink, the boys are always getting into something and both parents instead of being cast as some all knowing kind, gentle loving parents more realisticly have arguements, they yell and scream at the kids and so on.

Language in general has gotten rougher over the last couple decades. You see that reflected in movies and on TV. On the night when Jay Leno on the Tonight Show had many of the canidates running for governor that had no change of winning in the audience he was popping wise cracks at several then they would zoom in for a close up for their reaction. Leno made what many would consider a dity joke towards the "lady" that was the X film star also running for Gov. She responded by giving Jay the finger. Not only was that shown (blured) but Leno wisecraked about it right after calling attention to it. That never would have happened as recently as ten years ago.

Actually, our house when I was growing up was much more like "Leave it to Beaver" than "Malcolm in the Middle." My mom worked and didn't wear pearls around the house, but from the civility and neatness aspects, our home was very similar to the one portrayed on that show.

The coarseness that Hollywood portrays is no doubt common in some homes, but I suspect not in most. I can see why many people around the world have contempt for America just based on the values "taught" by Hollywood.

People get a visceral thrill from watching taboos being broken, but aside from that, does coarseness really contribute much to the story? Take any classic story--say, "Magnificent 7." I'm certain that the sort of gunslinger that existed back in those days peppered his language liberally with four-letter words. So would that movie be any more exciting or inspiring if it were re-done to more-accurately reflect that language?

Interesting posts. Spot, you worry me :) How could you be so versed in LDS culture/theology and twist a song like that?

I have two items also:

1- I agree whole heartedly with John Cline in that

"If YOU want to spend the time editing all the objectionable stuff out of a movie and show it to your immediate family, then, have at it. However, if you distribute it in any way outside of your immediate family, particularly for even a penny's worth of profit, then you have gone way over the line.

I would never edit a song and use it for an ounce of financial profit. I only use those edits in my home for my family. That leads to my second point.

2-I don't know well, and honestly want to know precisely if doing and edit for PERSONAL use is legal or not? I have heard many people say thier $0.02 on both sides of the argument, but don't know the actual, precidented law. If anybody knows from factual, documentable evidence please share. I would love to have a good source on this specific question.
thanks

What you're looking for is called the U. S. Code and it covers the whole ball of wax as far as criminal violations at the federal level is concerned. There's several searchable databases on the web. Some better than others. The problem is the code is so complex and lengthly and filled to overflowing with double talk only some attorney would love digging through the maze trying to find the exact law or even understanding how it applies sometimes it is difficult and most always more than one law applies. So just because you find one or references, don't be surprised if there are actually 30 or 50 buried elsewhere sometimes under a different Title.

For example Title 18 is a monster and covers a great deal of ground including some copyright law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pI.html

More an exercise to see how goofy things are and how needlessly complex. Of course that's fine with attoneys. Lots and lots of money to be made. <wink>

Some may find the following useful. The first is just a primer of the sticky area of copyrights, intellectual property rights, etc..

http://www.timestream.com/stuff/neatstuff/mmlaw.html

The second a trade journal that keeps it members up to date with changes in the law, that kind of thing.

http://www.musicjournal.org/lawupdates.html

Cheroxy, I have a minor degree in LDS History from the U of U, have lived behind the Zion Curtain for most of my adult life. My father is a GA.

Huntsman v. Soderbergh (pro-editing/piracy)
Motion Picture Association of America v. 2600 Anti-editing/piracy
U.S. v. ElcomSoft (anti-editing piracy)
All three will give you info on the subject.
Currently, it's illegal to edit DVD's because then you are creating a derivative work. One precedent that stands is a private collector buying a well known painting from an artist. The collector wanted to have part of the painting redone after he'd bought it. The artist refused. The collector had it redone anyway, artist sued. He won. Because it then was no longer HIS art. It was a derivative work even though it was the original work that had been altered.

Here's my take, guys....
My Voice, My Choice.
If I'm the artist, scriptwriter, author, director, composer, sculptor, whatever...I did the work to make a statement. I may be paid or not be paid for that statement. But it's MY statement to make. No one has the right to alter MY statement. You have the right to ask me to shut up, the right to not listen, and the right to walk away. But it's MY statement. What if the KKK took Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech and edited it so that it suited their recruiting agenda? What if the same happened with American History X, wherein the film is a statement against bigotry. It would be easy to turn it into a pro-hatred movie. It's all in the editing, messaging.

I'm passionate about this, I know. But this is America, guys! If you don't like what I have to say, DON'T invite me into your home to visit with your family. Because what you are proposing is to invite me into your home and say whatever you want me to say. My freedom of speech has been curtailed by your edit, your box, your whatever. Don't invite me into your home if you don't like what I have to say.
I used to be host of a fairly popular Vegas group. In fact, I started it. Then one day about a year ago, I learned that my words were being edited in the forum without my knowledge, by the owner of the forum. He didn't like the way I said something, so he edited it and shifted my words, and added different meanings. When I yelled about it, I was told, "I own this forum, it's my house, I can do whatever I want." My response? You invited me into your house to say what I wanted to say. You never told me that I'd have to deal with my words being edited or altered. If you want to edit/alter my words, then DON'T have me in your house." You can't choose to benefit from my work and then alter my work to suit YOUR fancy. That's not right.
My Voice, My Choice. I hold the copyright, I get to determine how you hear my message. If you don't like my message, don't pay to hear it. If you don't like my message, then turn away. If you don't like my message, then go somewhere else. But it's MY message.
In America, I can say Tom-AY-to and you can say Tom AAAAH to and we can both agree that's a good thing. But don't you dare tell me to either say TomAAAHto or shut up, or worse, turn off my voice and put that word in my mouth. Because that has removed my freedom of speech.
When you buy a DVD, you don't own that movie. you only have a license to watch it. If you don't like it's contents, don't watch it. If you go to a restaurant and you don't like the spice in a food, do you walk back to the kitchen and cook it for yourself the way you like it? No! You might ASK for it differently, and if you don't get it back the way you want it, you don't pay for the meal, and you leave.
Well....it's that way in Hollywood. Use your $$ to tell Hollywood that you don't like the swearwords, the sex scenes. But don't presume the right to alter what someone else had to say.
Look, everyone likes a car wreck, right? Everyone slows down hoping to see the blood, gore, mess....and then says "Isn't that horrible." If people would stop slowing down to look at the gore, then Hollywood wouldn't make the car wreck for them to see. Cigarettes are mostly gone from Hollywood. Why? Because buyers of movies sent a message to Hollywood.
Some would say "I'm Christian and don't want that in my home, but my choices in entertainment are limited." My response? Tough. Either watch what there is, or make your own. Find others who share the same value and band together with them to make media that like-minded folks will watch. But don't presume to steal someone else' choice by robbing them of their voice.
Spielberg, Cameron, Lucas, Soderbergh, etc all know exactly what they are doing by inserting words and action into dialog and scenes. They do so with an intelligent, albeit not always agreeable thought process because it's all $$ to them. Maybe they are subltely making a statement. Maybe they are boldly making a statement. Remember "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" It's no one's right to create derivative works based on their vision. Except theirs.
Sometimes, filmmakers deliberately insert or omit the F word, gory scenes, etc so that their film better hits the target audience. "My Giant" was NOT intended for little kids. It was an early animation in a time when folks thought that animation was just for kids. They deliberately inserted those words and scenes for adults.
I had one moron tell me that he wanted his 10 year old son to see "Saving Private Ryan" and I just about got sick laughing at him. Removing the swear words, it's still a gory, heart-breaking film that no 10 year old should see. What an idiot!
This simply angers me to no end. If I said it, it's MINE. Sharing it here, it's still MINE. Either you benefit from it or you don't. That's your choice. Just because we CAN do it doesn't make it right to do it.
I absolutely hate what religion exclusionists, racists, extreme right and extreme left groups have to say. This last month was the Mormon conference where Mormons from around the world gathered. Protesters were there with sacred objects, spitting on them and stomping on them. I was aghast that this was happening. But then I thought about it. I abhor what they were doing. But I'll forever defend their right to do it. Because if I don't, it might be my right being removed someday.
What if the majority had been on the side of shutting up anti-Semites? Anti-racists? Anti-segregationists? Anti-equal opportunists? We'd live in a different world. Giving people the right to say what they want to say is one thing that makes America great. Giving people the right to not listen and to protest what people are saying is what else makes America great. I've seen most every part of this world as either a performer or videographer. We've got it good, believe me.
I'll always defend on the side of freedom of speech. You should too.
Because you never know when you might be threatened with losing your voice.

Or how about the Audio Home Recording Act

http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/bad_laws/ahra.html

You'll notice I still haven't answered the original question. ie can you "legally" makes copies for personal use?

Well would you settle for a not really, but its OK with us if...

http://www.minidisc.org/ahra.html

Basically its still "illegal" mostly but the recording industry being such nice guys (ya right) they say " As long as the copying is done for noncommericial use, the AHRA gives consumers immunity from suit.:

Oh how nice of them.

Spot, thanks for the links and I have to agree with you on most of what you say. I feel too many people spend too much of their time trying to impose their way on everybody else, yet it is great that people freely can. I just wish that more people in the world would disagree with more mutual respect. Life's conundrum is that everything would be greyscale if we all had the same tastes yet we all think everybody should think the same as us!

I also have to say that I am excited to know your history and that I admire your work. I would love to see you in concert if you come to the baltimore area or maybe sometime when I make it back to the desert.

Carson Calderwood - aka cheroxy
www.calderwood.org

I got a question I bet SPOT can answer. Something I probably should know but don't and always wondered about.

Suppose Artist A writes a song, performs it, records it, the whole nine yards. Its a big hit, sells millions of copies. Sometime later maybe years later Artist B, C and D all come out with their version and they make a bundle too.

How does Artist A the originator and his recording company make out on this? We've all heard big name artists like Elvis or Johnny Cash come up with a song, then soon after a whole bunch of artistis have recorded their version.

Any relation to Bernie Calderwood?

Artist A makes money 2 ways.
First, he makes mechanicals. Every reproduction of his song regardless of who recorded it, pays him a statutory royalty which is compulsory by act of Congress.
Second, he gets a publishing royalty for the use of the song. When it's played on the radio, television, whatever he gets a share as a writer.

Dolly Parton for instance, made a whopping bundle on Whitney Houston's remake of I Will Always Love You. Far more than she made on her own version.
Finally, remakes also help sell catalog, so the original recording's sales climb as well.

Thank you billyboy, but this really still doesn't answer my question. I don't want to copy music, persay. I have always based my desire to: edit the original, then not play the original, only playing the edited: on the following

-If it is not illegal to purchase a machine built to edit out the unwanted content from a CD/DVD it must not be illegal to do the same for myself, rather than using the legally purchased machine.

In other words I am doing with my software to achieve the same end result that a product such as TVGuardian does it must not be illegal. Right?

Nope, but asking that might date you :)

"...I abhor what they were doing. But I'll forever defend their right to do it. Because if I don't, it might be my right being removed someday..."

Spot, your response shows that a lot of serious thought has gone into your point of view, and for the most part I would agree. Just be careful about the statements such as the one above. What a society does and does not allow to occur is a constantly-changing line in the sand. If one group is doing something truly offensive to the community standards, the community can and should prevent the actions. Otherwise one gets into the weird viewpoint that anything goes because, after all, everyone should have the right to do whatever they really feel like doing.

Anyway, back to copyright. The Disney gang was thrilled when the feds recently decided to extend, yet again, the rights to Mickey Mouse. Why is it that copyright protects for nearly a century while my patents go up in smoke in 20 years?

> [SPOT] Don't invite me into your home if you don't like what I have to say.

Spot, you are welcome in my home any time. You are obviously someone with integrity and conviction and I admire that.

> [cheroxy] -If it is not illegal to purchase a machine built to edit out the unwanted content from a CD/DVD it must not be illegal to do the same for myself, rather than using the legally purchased machine.

There are two errors in that logic: First, no such legal machine exists because it is illegal to break the copy protection on the DVD. Second, if such a machine did legally exist, it doesn’t mean that it’s legal to use it. It is not illegal to sell or own a hash pipe or other drug paraphernalia; it’s just illegal to smoke drugs in them. It is not illegal to own a handgun. It is just illegal to shoot someone with it. (it may even be illegal to carry it or conceal it under certain circumstances). Heck, it’s illegal to use a cell phone on an airplane. Just because Vegas allows you to copy CD tracks and sync music to video doesn’t give you sync rights. I believe is it legal to do this for use in your own home, but take that same video out and show it at your local Boy Scout troop meeting and it becomes a public performance and you are now illegally playing it with out a sync license.

It’s pretty simple: You don’t have the right to alter a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. I’m with Spot. You don’t have a right to edit my music. You only have the right to listen to it or NOT. For those of us in America, it’s a first amendment right and we must fight for that right even if we don’t agree with what’s being said, otherwise we may loose that right and be the victim of censorship ourselves. And that’s Spot’s point.

Stop buying DVD’s and editing them. Boycott them and make your voice heard.

> [riredale] Otherwise one gets into the weird viewpoint that anything goes because, after all, everyone should have the right to do whatever they really feel like doing

You missed Spot’s point. First amendment rights don’t give you the right to break the law. They give you the right to express yourself without being repressed. The fact still remains that your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. You can’t hurt anyone or break any laws while your doing it. We’re talking about art and media and the right to write a song against the government if that’s your point of view. (try that in Russia before the U.S.S.R. collapsed or in Iraq earlier this year!) You don’t have to buy my song if you don’t like it, and you certainly don’t have the right to twist its meaning. That’s what Spot was trying to convey. I agree with him.

~jr

"Stop buying DVD’s and editing them. Boycott them and make your voice heard."

On principle I can agree to such statements but lets carry it to the next level. Copyright laws extend beyond music. Just to play devil's advocate consider the following:

a. a newspaper is also copyrighted. So when I buy one does that mean I can't take seveal pages and let my new puppy use it for his business or maybe I'll just put some sheets on the floor when I do some painting. Sure silly, but I'm altering the original which if I'm hearing SPOT correctly he doesn't like since its his work.

b. while the first was meant to be purely silly, this isn't. What if I buy a CD and because I have a super-duper state of the art home theater I alter it when I play it back changing how it sounds adding heavy bass and playing with the equalizer till its all distorted. The artist that wrote the song may go ape because to his ear I ruined the song he wrote. But look... I just paid money for it. The artist benefits, so where does he get off telling me how I can play back the tune? Its now my copy and I should be able to play it back however I want. I also should be able to protect my investment by making a copy of the CD or DVD. I should also be able to takes songs A, B, C...G from several differnt artists and put them on MY CD. To not be able to infringes on MY rights as a consumer.

c. What if I buy a book and start ripping out pages? I guess some author wouln't like that. But ITS MY BOOK! If I was to scribble in the margins, so what. Its mine and I should be able to do with it what I want.

I think artists have TOO MUCH protection under copyright laws. Way too much when they think just because they wrote a song or a book that nobody better touch it or alter it in any way shape or form from now to eterinty. That's equally silly.

What if there was a law that said you couldn't repaint your car unless you got permission from the dealer you bought it from or you had to check with your neighbor before you pick the color of your house?

Bad laws encourage people to ignore them. And we all know they do when it comes to music.

Could I just throw something in here of more direct relevance to those of us working in video?

What i find quite odd is that as a manufacturer I can buy any ones product and pretty well turn it into anything I so desire. Copying its design to make the thing myslef may be in breach of his patents or whatever, but so long as I've paid him for his work he's happy.

Now this maybe different depending upon where you live. I'm sure many of you make wedding vidoes as a way to pay the rent. Many times no doubt you've been asked to use the couples favourite piece of music for the soundtrack. I'd heard many of the wedding guys in this country tell clients it was OK so long as they owned a copy. Dead wrong!

Copyright here means literally what it says, the right to copy.
It would seem perfectly logical to me that so long as they had purchased a copy of the music for each copy of the video everyone should be sweet with the deal. A very simple scheme, everyone gets their money. The existing laws if taken as intended means the artist misses out. Videographiers and the clients usually just ignore the law as it's so unworkable. A simple change like I'm suggsting I think most videographers would have no trouble complying with, after all its a minor additional cost to the finished product that they can pass on to the client and then sleep easy at night.

Here we do have one oddity, say your kids want to perform a published work at a school show. You are allowed to record that and make copies for other school memebers so long as it's without profit. You need a licence to do so and there is a body that administers that. Never had cause to do that so I don't know more details.

One thing I might add is that here under the new copyright laws copyright expires automatically 50 years after the death of the artist. So even though someone has bought the rights they become worthless 50 years after the artist dies.

I've gotten clips off DVD by simply playing the disk through the input of my Camcorder and then capturing to computer through Vegas.

Worked for me.

John, again I see you have a curious need to lecture about what you think others may not know. Is it your hobby that you need to pontificate so often?

Frankly I'm getting awfully tired of YOU seeking out my posts and jumping to conclusions about what you think I know or may not know and you having some need to publically critique and criticize what I've said one thread after the other week after week with you usually adding some line that you think what I've said is stupid or insane.
If you always seem to disagree with what I have to say why is it you keep reading what I write for no reason other than to complain about it?

I'm more aware of copyright laws than you may think. I'm simply pointing out in a humorous way how half-ass the current laws are. I'm also well aware of historical districts where certain prohibitions are enforced. For example in Naperville IL, where I live, the old central portion of town goes back to the early 1800's and people have to jump through hoops to change the appearance of their property. You needing the point out you know about such things suggesting by you jumping to the conclusion I don't know only shows you in a pompous light.

What I object to most in your posts John is you frequently take the approach that you know this and this and this and us mere mortals don't know so you have some need to tell us what you think we don't know and you always do it in a way that's deliberately condescending.

You've jumped to false conclusions many times in this forum and it doesn't show you in a very good light. You come off as boorish, self-important and intolerant of other people's opinions. You also have a tendency to restate the obvious.

As far as the last comment I made that you take exception with I point to prohibition of alcoholic liquors by federal law back in the 1920's. It too was BAD LAW. People wouldn't and didn't stop drinking. The recording industry finds itself in the mess its in becasue of another bad law they ramed through Congress. Good law is when both sides are protected. That is the case now with consumers with regard to some stupid copyright laws currently on the books and it has nothing to due with creating a work which was desired by many and, consequenlty, worth a fortune, you would be fighting tooth and nail to keep your ownership rights intact Been there, done that too.

It is not illegal to sell or own a hash pipe or other drug paraphernalia

Then why is Tommy Chong serving 9 months in prison?