The Passion of the Splice: Gibson sues CleanFlicks

Again I couldn't agree with you more. It would be so wonderful for the directors to release those edited versions to the public. That way people would be getting the movies they want any way they wanted (original, directors cut, unrated, and edited) Almost like a KFC(original , crispy, extra spicy, and skinless) That way the actors and producers would have control, and there wouldn't have to be a third party trying to keep the feeling of the movie while taking out the explitives. But until that happens we go back to the same old story. Right or Wrong people want the edited movies, they know exactly what they are getting, so give the people what they want. Maybe these lawsuit will give enough public attention that Hollywood will clue in that there really are a lot of people that love movies but don't like the "BUT..." that comes with them.

I will admit that I saw both of those movies, yes I did see them edited. Then to see the difference I saw the original Braveheart. Again I will admit that I like the edited one better.
I didn't feel like I missed the story. They are such powerful movies
I am not going to get on a biased rampage promoting edited movies but I enjoyed them.

There may be a market for edited movies, but there's also a market for kiddie porn. Just because a market exists, that doesn't mean that the market ought to be satisfied.

Movies are intellectual property. The owners of that IP are the ones who have the right to say what will or will not be done with that IP. The hack in Orem doesn't own the rights to Gibson's movie. He owns a license to view his copy. He can trash his copy if he wishes, but that license doesn't give him the right to re-sell the trashed version. It's theft. If Mel Gibson doesn't wish to offer an edited version, then that's his business. The hack from Orem has no right to make that decision for him.

That's where the fair use law comes into play, it's a persons constitutional right to view material in the privacy of their own home however they deem appropriate.
You bring up child porn, wow that's left field. We are not exploiting anybody or forcing anybody to do something they don't understand. If someone wants to take out a scene in a movie so they can watch it with their kids, then who are you or me or anybody to tell them that they can't. If they don't have the knowledge or technology to do so, but they still want it done, then give your movie that you purchased to someone that does have the knowledge and technology to take that scene out, and sure pay them for providing that service. That's your right.
Stealing is defined as "To take (the property of another) without right or permission."
We are not taking anything from Gibson or any other producer. These people have bought an original copy of the movie. All the royalties have been paid all the credit has been given. Now all these people have these movies in their home and they want to change them. Go ahead do it.

I brought up child porn because there's a market for it; people desire it. You're justifying CleanFlicks' actions partially on the basis that people desire these edited movies. Desire for a product or service does not translate into a right to have that product or service available. No right exists to purchase a version of someone else's intellectual property. That isn't "fair use".

As I said before, if a movie disturbs you or you think that it's inappropriate for your children, then don't watch it. As an example, I thought that David Lynch's Blue Velvet was brilliant. I never want to see it again; it was too disturbing. My opinion of it, however, doesn't give me the right to expect that a "less disturbing" version be available. I have no right to ask someone to steal from David Lynch to satisfy my desire.

I agree that just because you want something, that doesn't mean that you have a right to get it. My mother taught me that very early in life.

But again we are not dealing with us altering someone elses Intelectual property and then selling that version instead of the original. It would be like taking Microsoft Windows (whichever version you choose) chop it up and then put it on the shelves as that original windows operating system.

This is completely different. We are not dealing the the initial exposure and sale of these movies. People see the original or at least purchase that one first, and then decide that they want to customize it to their personal wants and needs.

I feel that you and I are saying the same thing, just in different ways. We both agree whole heartedly that someones someones intelectual property is theirs and it is their right to maintain the integrity of it. For someone to alter and then try to pass it off to the public as the original or try to convince the public to buy the altered version INSTEAD of the original is so wrong.

But again back to the windows example. People buy the orignal version and then customize the setting and so forth to their specific needs. Of course Microsoft is keen enough to offer different options and custimizing features so that people don't have to do it themselves.

Thus we get back to the real point. If Hollywood would just release thier edited version then we wouldn't be having this conversation, but they haven't yet and our society is a society of choices and options. The constitution provides those freedoms so that's the way it will be.

It also allows us to speak freely in forums like this one. It is really great to talk to all of you. I'm glad I stumbled onto this forum.

Happy Thanksgiving weekend

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.