Skip to comments.
Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films
AP ^
| Saturday July 8, 9:52 pm
Posted on 07/08/2006 9:24:52 PM PDT by BenLurkin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520, 521-540, 541-560 ... 701-712 next last
To: durasell
But I'm sure they'll eventually make the argument that people should be forced to view the material in its entirety, thus taking away our right to fast forward through parts that are boring or offensive!!! Ever seen that "Illegal Operation" message come up when you try to ff the stuff before the movie on some DVD's?
521
posted on
07/09/2006 2:27:03 PM PDT
by
OmahaFields
("What have been its fruits? ... superstition, bigotry and persecution.")
To: OmahaFields
522
posted on
07/09/2006 2:29:21 PM PDT
by
durasell
(!)
To: Binghamton_native
Yes, if clean films had an agreement there would be no lawsuit. That's so obvious that it's a nonargument.
523
posted on
07/09/2006 2:29:44 PM PDT
by
Melas
(Offending stupid people since 1963)
To: BenLurkin
No, these people are stealing. Nothing more, nothing less. In your irrational rant, you are justifing committing theft because you "don't like the morality of Hollywood".
Man, do I hate hypocrisy.
Tell "Cleanflix" or whoever to make their own damn films and market and distribute them if they don't like what is out there. Don't steal somebody elses work and "fix" it.
These people would snap the penis off of the statue of David because it offended them - then sell the emasculated reproductions - and you think they are noble!
524
posted on
07/09/2006 2:32:04 PM PDT
by
KeepUSfree
(WOSD = fascism pure and simple.)
To: Melas; Central Scrutiniser
I'm just sick of the Hollywood Elites pumping their vile, perverted product into society earning billions of dollars apiece while they party atop the St. James hotel in California, throwing scraps of food to the homeless gathered below, before returning to their giant houses in compounds guarded by their armed minions with automatic weapons with laser sights ready to cut down orphan children eager for a simple autograph or running down crippled kittens on Hollywood Blvd in their fancy Italian cars...
525
posted on
07/09/2006 2:33:51 PM PDT
by
durasell
(!)
To: BenLurkin
As much as I hate the garbage Hollywood pumps out, I actually agree with this ruling. The work is theirs and they should have control over it.
Our choice is whether or not we want to partake of it.
With the myriad entertainment options out there today, I believe that we actually have it better than many previous generations in our opportunities from which to choose.
To: durasell
While that's all very interesting, it's a justification for your own dislike, and nothing more. There is nothing there that stands as a defense for altering a work without the permission of the copyright holder.
527
posted on
07/09/2006 2:37:47 PM PDT
by
Melas
(Offending stupid people since 1963)
To: RadioAstronomer
If this practice was allowed to stand, who knows what would be next to be "scrubbed" from movies.Probably religious references.
528
posted on
07/09/2006 2:39:17 PM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Central Scrutiniser
"You want congress to pass more laws based on your desire to legislate morality."
How many times do we have to go over this? There is no need to pass "new" laws; simply clarify old ones.
If you buy a copy of a DVD you can do anything you want, including edit it for language etc. *ONE* district fed judge disagrees, he can be overturned by the 9th circuit and the SCOTUS.
But you're right, given congress is run by a bunch of money hungry whores (attention Orin Hatch), who would sell their grandmothers for money, I'm sure Hollywood will always be able to rewrite the law, no matter what the Judges say.
I don't even care. I like this ruling. It tells all the conservative boobs in flyover country that Hollywood will go to court to force filth and unchristian attitudes down their throat.
Just stop with the phony "its the law" nonsense. No one believes that. Not Hollywierd, not George Bush, not anyone who isn't 10 years old.
529
posted on
07/09/2006 2:39:55 PM PDT
by
rcocean
(Copyright is theft and loved by Hollywood socialists)
To: Melas
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who owns a single article of clothing made by Armani has given up all rights as a U.S. citizen.
530
posted on
07/09/2006 2:40:21 PM PDT
by
durasell
(!)
To: rcocean
Why are you so worked up about this? Hollywood isn't conservative. So why are you in their corner? That's completely irrelevant. If Hollwood (taken in en toto as you seem to prefer) is indeed liberal, it doesn't matter. One isn't automatically wrong just because one is liberal anymore than one is automatically correct just because one professes conservatism. It doesn't work that way.
531
posted on
07/09/2006 2:41:01 PM PDT
by
Melas
(Offending stupid people since 1963)
To: durasell
532
posted on
07/09/2006 2:41:27 PM PDT
by
Melas
(Offending stupid people since 1963)
To: KeepUSfree
Tell "Cleanflix" or whoever to make their own damn films and market and distribute them if they don't like what is out there. Don't steal somebody elses work and "fix" it. The studios are losing a big market just because they throw in a bunch of F words so they can get the rating pushed from G to PG. They can put 954 languages on the DVD, why can't they put out a non-F word version, also.
533
posted on
07/09/2006 2:41:49 PM PDT
by
OmahaFields
("What have been its fruits? ... superstition, bigotry and persecution.")
To: RichRepublican
Can you say, "permision"? I know that you could.
534
posted on
07/09/2006 2:42:18 PM PDT
by
Melas
(Offending stupid people since 1963)
To: Central Scrutiniser
Architects don't copyright their houses or disallow buyers to make modifications. First, I did not mention the architect, I mentioned a previous homeowner. Second, copyright is not absolute, as it is limited by the fair use doctrine. This court ruling is, IMHO, an unjust constriction of fair use.
Third, my political objection to this ruling is that it expands the power of the hollywood freaks. They, much like the airlines, do not want secondary markets available for their product. Secondary markets generally make product more competitive, which benefits consumers but can diminish profits for producers. IMHO, the diminishment of hollywoods profits is a good thing.
To: Melas
This thread needs some serious livening up. Law is boring. Hating Hollywood is fun.
536
posted on
07/09/2006 2:42:50 PM PDT
by
durasell
(!)
To: DesScorp
They're certainly welcome to do so. Why do you think it hasn't happened yet....?
To: durasell
Now there is a movement to attack DVR technology by taking away the ability of the viewer to fast forward through commercials!!!
To: GatorGirl
Nobody can advocate altering the contents of a book, for example, and selling that for a profit, but they see no problem with editing a movie for distribution. I certainly can. As long as the copyright holder is duly compensated upon resale of each unit, and the alteration is sufficiently disclosed to the buyer. Can you say fair use?
To: HAL9000
540
posted on
07/09/2006 2:50:14 PM PDT
by
red irish
(Gods Children in the womb are to be loved too!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520, 521-540, 541-560 ... 701-712 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson