Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Directors Guild of America is Fighting Edited Films 702

Posted by michael from the cutting-room-floor dept.
BoyPlankton writes "According to this article in the Salt Lake Tribune, film directors are gearing up to battle companies that are making a name for themselves selling/renting out edited films to consumers. The film directors claim that it's censorship and that it's morally, ethically, and legally wrong. The companies doing it claim that consumer rights trump the artists rights in this case, and that the artists don't have the moral ground to stand on because they already edit their films for T.V. and planes. Is this issue going to further erode our rights as a consumer, or will lawmakers take this opportunity to shore them up?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Directors Guild of America is Fighting Edited Films More

Directors Guild of America is Fighting Edited Films

Comments Filter:

  • This is an easy one. (Score:3)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:28PM (#4026551) Homepage
    They who pay for the film and own the rights can do what they want with it. Everyone else involved were just employees.
    • What about the person who owns the rights to the movie, he or she that wrote it, what about the MPAA, the customer that is willing to pay for the edited rental, or how about the studio, or the television stations who purchase rights, etc... Nothing is simple with that many players. Everyong has different vested interests.
    • Hackers like the Phantom Edit(or) are engaging in fair use and/or creating derivative works by modifying the film/song/etc.

      Blockbuster is not within its right to edit the film it offers to its customers, because that interferes with the creator's artistic vision.

      Got it.
    • You don't own the rights to a film just because you bought a copy. You own the right to view the film. This gets back to the whole license vs. purchase debate. Still I'd tend to think that this act in particular falls under fair usage; but I'd tend to think they should some sort of disclaimer like, "The movie you are watching is based on James Cameron's Titanic as reinterpreted by ClearPlay Inc".

      Which IMHO should also be done on the outside of the box for the Blockbuster versions.
      • Blockquoth the poster:
        Still I'd tend to think that this act in particular falls under fair usage;
        Actually, this isn't Fair Use. It's something else, called "the Doctrine of First Sale". First Sale says that a publisher's control over a particular copy of a book ends once the publisher makes a "first sale" -- i.e., sells that copy to anyone. After the book has been sold, the person buying it can do just about anything (except distribute copies of it) and the publisher can't say "boo". That's why it's legal to sell used books. It's also why public libraries are legal.

        From the original article, this usage (editing copies for someone) falls easily under First Sale. We don't have some third party company editing the films and reselling them. We have a third party company taking an already purchased tape and editing out the bits the person doesn't want.

        The real question is, what happens when such a person buys a DVD ? Will the third-party company be guilty of violating the DMCA by ripping the disc, editing out the bits, and burning a new one? I suspect the answer is "Yes" -- which means that the DMCA kills First Sale for digital media. Some will argue that was one of the points of the DMCA, though certainly not one to which the MPAA would ever admit.

    • Re:This is an easy one. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JoeBuck ( 7947 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @02:02PM (#4026926) Homepage
      They who pay for the film and own the rights can do what they want with it. Everyone else involved were just employees.

      This is the traditional American concept, but it is not true in most European countries, where there is a legally recognized "moral right" that cannot be sold, but that always remains with the creator of the work. For example, no matter how much money you pay in France for a classic work of art, you still can't deface it against the will of its original creator.

  • Blockbuster? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dr.Seuss ( 94326 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:28PM (#4026557)
    So does this mean they'll take on Blockbuster for only renting the censored version of a film?

  • Target George Lucas (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hopefully their first target will be George Lucas for his disgraceful "Greedo shot first" revision.
  • Next they'll tell us we can't skip ahead to the conclusion when we read a book. Jeez.

    • Re:Editing (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 4dGirl ( 598591 )
      Not only that, you won't be able to skip back to recheck things that happened or stop half way and start it again a year later. There might even be a time frame within which you have to finish the book otherwise you are not experiencing it as the artist intended! Art is put out there by the artists, how consumers choose to consume it has been and always will be up to the consumer. If I want to hang a Picasso upside down, that's my business (God, I wish I owned a Picasso).
  • companies that are making a name for themselves selling/renting out edited films to consumers. The film directors claim that it's censorship
    Umm ... if the government were doing it it would be wrong. How is it illegal for Private citizens and cooporations to censor things?

    Stephen

    • it's not wrong as long as the consumer knows what he is buying and they are ok w/that.

      Directors have a point. They made a movie in a certain way and expect it to be released that way. That would be like creating a painting and having someone change it completely and creating a whole new meaning than the one you intended.

      That's wrong.

  • No mention of Blockbuster? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:31PM (#4026586) Homepage Journal
    I was a bit surprised to notice that the chain Blockbuster Video wasn't mentioned in that article; I seem to recall they've been bowdlerizing their videos for years. But OTOH, they're owned by one of the studios, aren't they?

    IMO, there's a substantial difference between selling edited copies of a tape and using a system to overlay your own "edits" onto a full version you've bought. The former is an unauthorized motification, but the latter is within your personal rights for fair use, and not any different from simply hitting the mute or the fast forward button.
    • From what I understand, the way blockbuster handles things is a bit different. Blockbuster merely states that they won't carry certain things, and require the studios to edit it or it won't appear in their stores. With Blockbuster representing such a major part of the rental market the studios cave. Blockbuster never actually modifies the film, they just require the studios to do so, or not be carried in their stores.

      That said, I agree with you here. So long as they aren't selling a modified version of the film, it should be legal under fair use for me to mask portions of it which I find objectionable. I still think it's a bit ridiculous, but to each his own.

    • Re:No mention of Blockbuster? (Score:5, Informative)

      by alphaseven ( 540122 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:47PM (#4026782)
      I seem to recall they've been bowdlerizing their videos for years.

      Well technically, blockbuster isn't censoring videos, they're just refusing to carry NC-17 rated films (like Crash [imdb.com]) so studios sell them edited copies because they still want to make money. (I wonder why competitors don't advertise they carry critically acclaimed films like Crash and Bad Lietenant uncut). I've talked to people who work at blockbuster who mistakenly think they're carrying the regular version of Crash. I think it had something to do with being a family oriented video store (so now the whole family can watch Crash together or something).

      What I wish filmmakers would do, instead of seamlessly editing they're films for content, is to just insert squares over the naughty bits like Solondz did for Storytelling [imdb.com], so at least the consumer can easily tell the version they're watching is cut.

      Also, you ever notice that now directors insert all the naughty bits into the 'Deleted Scenes' section of the DVD, like the commentary will say "Oh we couldn't include this or we'd get in trouble." Since the film is still an R-Rated film blockbuster has no trouble carrying it.

  • Contradictions everywhere (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:32PM (#4026593)
    The DGA is probably the only film industry body more fascist than the MPAA. They attempted to FORCE George Lucas to put his name at the beginning of Star Wars in 1978. He refused, they fined him, and he left the organization.

    On the current issue, who do they think they're fooling? "Edited for television" has been around at least since I've been allowed to stay up that late. Studios chop scenes out against directors' wishes all the time. What's next, a fight against chapter menus because everybody skips to the Good Parts?
    • Not quite.

      Star Wars came out in 1977, but that's me being a nitpick.

      As to you second point, you made the distinction right there: it's the studios that own the films who edit them for television, etc. We're talking about third parties who don't have that right.
    • "They attempted to FORCE George Lucas to put his name at the beginning of Star Wars..."

      Off the main topic, but you are incorrect. The dispute was over the director's credit on "Empire Strikes Back," which was not directed by Lucas. It also was not just the DGA.

      Both the Directors Guild and the Writers Guild fined Lucas for placing Irvin Kershner's and the writers' credits at the end of the movie while keeping the Lucasfilm Ltd. logo (the producer's credit) up front. Lucas resigned from the Directors Guild, which is why he could not hire an American director for "Jedi."

      The two Guilds spend a lot of time looking out for the interests of their members, the people who actually create the content you watch, so I would say that they are within their rights to assert a Eurpoean-style 'moral right' to a work of art as its creator.

      I think it's a very important issue, because in the US, only a director with 'final cut' in his or her contract can refuse someone else's edits. If the case holds up in court, it could change the whole "work for hire" concept of US contract law as it pertains to anything that could be a work of art. Of course, the contract could still call for the director/writer to produce an "R" rated movie, since, God forbid, an NC-17 rating might mean that a movie deals with topics unsuitable for kids. I mean seriously, Ferrara said that "Bad Lieutenant" was not a movie for children, nor were any of his other movies.

      I think that this is why the studios themselves are not weighing in on this yet, because a) it's not costing them money, and b) they don't want to help the directors and writers get power over the work they produce.

      Also, I presume that the companies involved are snipping out scenes for a fee. This makes me think that they have violated the copyright by redistributing an altered copy.

  • Obvious solution (Score:4, Interesting)

    by magicsquid ( 85985 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:32PM (#4026598) Homepage
    If people are willing to edit your movie to supply the demand for such a thing (ala The Phantom Edit) then why don't movie makers pick up on the demand themselves, and re-release the movies in the way that the audience wants to see them? I know that I'd glady pay another $20 for an official Phantom Menace DVD that had the bright yellow "New and improved! No Jar Jar!" sticker on it...

    • Re:Obvious solution (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nanojath ( 265940 )
      Apparently some of these damn "artists" have some sort of bug up the yang about their copyrighted works being altered without their consent.

      This is actually a pretty tricky issue. I can't just take a copyrighted work, alter it wihtout permission, and resell it. That's illegal. BUT... I want someone to seriously come and tell me that I can't rip a page out of a book I've bought. Altering a tape someone brings and asks for is one thing... ALtering it in advance, anticipating their desire is another... but are they legally the same? I mean, the real-time filters are obviously legal: noone can force a particular frame around what you view. Saying tis is illegal would make picture-in-picture illegal. But I think there is a legal case that a business cannot market a preedited version of copyrighted content without the consent of the copyright holder.

      One more question: doesn't Blockbuster routinely edit movies it rents for content? I've heard this a million times but I've never seen absolute confirmation of it. If so I'm surprised it's not mentioned in the article...

    • ... then why don't movie makers ... themselves ... re-release the movies in the way that the audience wants to see them?"

      You mean the way Stanley Kubrick did with Eyes Wide Shut [imdb.com]? There is a long orgy scene in EWS, that American censors said would have to go, because it was too explicit. In the version shown in American obstructions were digitally drawn in to hide the, um, "action".

      But as to the deeper question, "why don't artists just give people what they want?" I am going to translate that to "why don't artists just give people what they are comfortable with, what won't challenge them?"

      Well, many film-makers, writers, musicians, entertainers do exactly that. But there are great artists, like Kubrick, who feel they have a point of view that it is important to express. They think that they have an idea that it is important to present to the public even if it isn't completely comfortable at first.

      Is this a good thing? It depends how you feel about cultural and social change. American writer Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a book called Uncle Tom's Cabin [virginia.edu]. I believe the term "Uncle Tom" has a cultural meaning nowadays that it acquired in the last couple of generations. I believe that scholars such as those whose article you can read in the link I have pointed to, contend that UTC was an uncomfortable read for many, when it was published, because it put a human face on the effects of slavery for white American readers. So, yeah, I believe being open to letting artist's challenge our accepted views of things is worthwhile.

  • Films are made by people who care passionately about what they do and what their work says

    Oh, yeah? Then explain Armageddon to me.

    But seriously, folks...
    What 'consumer rights'? Who's got the right to see Titanic? What about the right not to see it? More importantly, the right not to hear Celine Dion singing that godawful song?

    It could prove interesting, though. If it's is deemed acceptable, will people be allowed, for example, add their own scenes? Change the order of scenes? Imagine if someone were to take a copy of Star Wars and delete the second or so where Greedo pulls a gun. It'd completely change the character of Han Solo.
    • haha, nice touch with Han Solo.

      I wonder how many people will get it?
      • I got it and I'm not even a star wars geek. It's almost like the geekiness here is shared or something...
      • For those of us who are younger and never saw the original theatrical release of Star Wars, could you clarify the Han Solo/Greedo example?

        • In the original release (Score:5, Informative)

          by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:46PM (#4026755) Journal
          Greedo never pulled a gun on Han. In the 'update' Greedo drew first, thus making Han's shooting of Greedo an act of self defense, instead of cold blooded murder.

        • Greedo had no gun in the original version, so Han Solo shot him because he's a crazy ass cowboy. In the rerelease, they added a gun.

          I think that's the story...
        • Originally, Han Solo shot Greedo from under the table before Greedo had a chance to shoot.
          In the "new and improved" version, Greedo shoots first, inexplicably missing a sitting Han from about 3 feet (some bounty hunter!) and then gets whacked. Allegedly, that makes Han more of a good guy. In my book, that makes Han a slow fool, Greedo a lousy shot and George Lucas an idiot.

      • Re:Art? Pah. (Score:2, Funny)

        by TyZone ( 555958 )
        haha, nice touch with Han Solo.

        I wonder how many people will get it?

        Hmmm...in a few months, people won't get it, 'cuz they'll have seen only the edited, re-release of the film, where Greedo pulls out ... a walkie-talkie!

        But it's okay, folks, 'cuz Han Solo has already pulled out his own walkie-talkie under the table, and he quickly ... uhhhh ... irradiates Greedo's genitals with a high-power RF burst?

  • They've been doing this in Utah at least since Titanic was released. More here [ericdsnider.com], though the editing issue is completely tangential to that particular article.

  • If I buy it's mine (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Torgo's Pizza ( 547926 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:35PM (#4026625) Homepage Journal
    The argument is the same with any appliance, music, movie or other media that I buy. Once it's in my grubby hands and I remove the shrinkwrap, I should be able to do whatever I want to it for my own personal use.

    What I've seen a lot of people do for movies is to buy it as is, and then either have someone personally edit out portions they don't like or just have some sort of electronic filter that has a set of edit points stored in memory. I frankly don't see how content providers are going to be able to stop this.

    • Nobody has a problem with you editing the film for your own use, its when you edit and redistribute it that there's a problem (and IMO, rightfully so..Would you like me to edit your Slashdot posts, and redistribute them on another board? Especially when people know that you created the posts, but may or may not know which parts I edited for my own purposes?)

    • Re:If I buy it's mine (Score:4, Informative)

      by StevenMaurer ( 115071 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @02:16PM (#4027055) Homepage

      For your own personal use does not include renting it out to other people. And while setting up specific edit-points may very well pass court scrutiny (because it's adding what effectively amounts to "opinion"), this isn't what the stores are doing.

      You people had better be upset about this, because if somehow this altered-redistribution is somehow established as legal - it's bye bye GPL.

  • Just like a large (Score:3, Interesting)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {dnaltropnidad}> on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:36PM (#4026628) Homepage Journal
    industry to see people making money and try to control the technology and sue the people, instead of releasing special edition releases.
    sheesh.

    Of course, if DVD technology was left to engineers, we would probably have the ability to do this on the fly with dvds.

  • Moral Rights (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ReadbackMonkey ( 92198 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:38PM (#4026650)
    I think what the article is getting at is that the director may have something called "Moral Rights" over the work. Essentially this means that the item is a work of art that was produced for a fee and that the author of the work has the right to object to derogatory treatment of the work (i.e. censoring scenes).

    The idea being that once a piece of art has been created the author has his/her name attached to it, and thus any treatments of the work done later that do not fit the artist's vision taints the artist's reputation.

    I don't know how this works with film, because there are limitations to this when an artists produces work for an employer.. so it may be that the studio owns the moral rights, and I'm also not sure how this works in the US, but the UK and Canada both have moral rights. I'm not entirely sure as IANAL.

    But.. here is a link for my karma-whore points... Moral Rights [intellectu...rty.gov.uk].
    • As long as people are editing there own copy of something, and not pawning it off as a studio version, I don't see a problem.

  • Eroding our rights? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by coupland ( 160334 ) <<moc.liamtoh> <ta> <esahcd>> on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:38PM (#4026655) Journal
    Puh-lease. The travesty in all this isn't that directors are fighting our ability to buy edited copies of movies, it's that any idiot would try to take the swear words out of a film in the first place. Don't watch the goddam movie if it offends you so much. While we're at it let's erase all the footage of Elvis Presley's "obscene" hip gyrations and file the tits off the Statue of Liberty. Some people just have no sense...
    • Typical /. viewpoint. All about consumer liberty, unless of course, it's not about me and what I want. Tolerant of everything except opposing viewpoints.

    • Re:Eroding our rights? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BoyPlankton ( 93817 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:54PM (#4026851) Homepage
      it's that any idiot would try to take the swear words out of a film in the first place

      If I buy a print of the Mona Lisa, do I have the right to draw on it? Yes, I do.

      The idiot is the guy who thinks that Leonardo's artistic vision trumps my consumer rights.

      • Re:Eroding our rights? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SirSlud ( 67381 )
        No, the idiot is the guy who buys Leonardo's artistic vision, and crayons over it.

        BTW, your argument is bad because the Mona Lisa is one of a kind. I promise you, if you bought all the famous American paintings and burned them 'because its your consumer rights', you'd have to deal with the rights of art lovers around the world to live in a society that preserves its culture. I can assure you that you have no rights when it comes to pissing on original and important pieces of cultural work. I dont know what the gory details are, but I think you'll find that you are not permitted to piss on your culture, even if you own it. (Could be wrong, but shouldn't be.)

        Now, if you have copy #2342032 of the latest blockbuster, can you draw on it? Of course you can. The problem is simply the aggregated editing houses that will make it so 'easy' for the culture to censor their own culture that the censored works of its famed artsits become more popular and widespread than the original artistic vision. (For instance, if somebody drew a mustache on Mona Lisa prints, and sold those, you could raise an entire generation of folks who threw out what was good about the Mona Lisa because Leonardo's mustache drawing abilities were clearly sub-par.)

        It's a slipperly slope. There really isn't that much difference in 'editing' something and 'completetly editing it out of existance' a la book bonfire. When you begin to aggregate censorship in large amounts, it doesn't matter if its a private body or a public body that does the censoring - it still breaks the crucial cycle of communication required between populus and the artistic community required to inspire creativity and lateral thinking in the non-art world.

        To summarize, editing your 'print' of something should be legal and dandy, although probably should be discouraged by the social body in question in order to prevent a slide down that slope. Meanwhile, editing originals is very much a different thing, as cultural works of importantce are shared among a society by virtue of being culturally significant in the first place. I believe this falls into the basket of the 'general will' contract one makes with a society by choosing to participate in it.
      • you bought a print of the original, unedited version.

        If you bought 10,000 prints of the Mona Lisa, drew a mustache on all of them, and then resold them, The Louvre (or whoever owns the image rights to the Mona Lisa) would have a cease and desist in your face ASAP.

        If you secured rights to edit the Mona Lisa and then sell it before you sold it, then you would be legal.

        Same thing with movies. I can edit my own tape of Fight Club, but someone can't sell me an edited tape without Fincher's (or Fincher's production company's) permission.

        Slashdot ought to be called News For Copyright Law Geeks. Stuff That Used To Matter.

      • Heh. That reminds me of a story several weeks ago (which I've spent 5 minutes searching for, in vain) about a Japanese man who wanted to be buried with several extremely expensive Gaugins (or Renoirs, or something). The art world thought that was odd, but didn't make a fuss about it because they thought his family would just dig them up after he was buried.

        Then he died, and it turned out he wanted to be cremated, along with the paintings! That stirred up quite a bit of outrage, since the paintings are, naturally, priceless.

        Obviously, this is a different situation from the /. article, since an original artwork is irreplaceable. Actually, I'm not sure why there's no comparable type of object in film, or music for that matter.... Why doesn't the master print (or whatever) of a film have value comparable to an original painting?

    • it's that any idiot would try to take the swear words out of a film in the first place

      Ever watched Robocop on network TV? How about Ferris Bueller's Day Off? Both have dubbed in lines that are so funny that it is worth watching the edited version.

      Beyond that, how are these people harming you? What is it about them that has you all hot and bothered?

      If you think about it, they have given up asking Hollywood to tone down the content of movies. Instead they have taken matters into their own hands. Since they have given up on Hollywood you no longer have to worry about them pressuring the studios to remove your precious swear words. So you get movies with extra filth due to these people! You should thank them!

  • Simple answer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JoeShmoe ( 90109 ) <askjoeshmoe@hotmail.com> on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:39PM (#4026665)
    Film alternate scenes/dialog that conforms to the different levels of viewership.

    That was one of the promises of DVD, we were supposed to have multiple ratings at our fingertips so the kids could see the PG version, the teens could see PG-13 and after the children were tucked in, the adults could see the R version.

    That hasn't happened. They apparently don't see a market for it. Well if they don't and some consumers do, why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to pursue it?

    All these whiney directors need to do is release an editted version themselves. Or are they going to prevent parents from fast-forwarding that one "bad scene" or muting an expletive-laden tirade?

    I don't care how "important" the message in Schindler's List is. The scene where there is a nude woman in the German officer's bed is stimulating and sexual. If I had kids, I would want to skip that scene.

    Here's what makes me want to puke on these directors...there are a lot of good good movies out there that had to add a single vile scene so they would be able to get the R rating their marketting folks said would sell better. Wasn't that compromising your artistic integrity?

    - JoeShmoe

    .

    • Re:Simple answer (Score:5, Insightful)

      by skeller ( 145333 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @02:05PM (#4026949)
      I don't care how "important" the message in Schindler's List is. The scene where there is a nude woman in the German officer's bed is stimulating and sexual. If I had kids, I would want to skip that scene.

      So... let me get this straight. You're cool with the scenes that depict horrible acts of cruelty and murder, but a scene which is "stimulating" and "sexual" has got to go? There is seriously something wrong with your outlook on life.

      For the record, I wouldn't want to cut anything out of Schindler's List -- it's so powerful and effective as it is.

      • Re:Simple answer (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JoeShmoe ( 90109 ) <askjoeshmoe@hotmail.com> on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @02:52PM (#4027395)
        Oh please, you call this hypocritical and you don't even understand the difference between the action and the message.

        There is a big, big difference in the intent of scenes that depict horrible acts of cruelty and the scene I am talking about. This may be difficult for you to understand but there is even a big, big difference in the intent of other scenes that depict full frontal nudity.

        When the soldiers shoot the old one-armed man, that is a horrible act. It is shocking. I don't think young children should see that scene. But then, I don't think young children need to even know about the Holocaust so they can enjoy their damn childhood.

        But when they get into junior high school and/or high school and start studying World War II, I think Schindler's List is appropriate and the scene where the old-man is shot, for all it's horror, is not gratuitous. I'm sure it happened all the time. The part where the German officer is shooting randomly at Jews is also not gratuitous. The part where hundreds of people are running around naked is not gratuitous. That's how the inspections happened, and I don't see any problem with my kids seeing that. It's not a sexual message, it's the horrible truth.

        But why the behind-the-scenes look at the German officer's sex life? Why do we care that he has a hot topless mistress? What is the point of that? There is none. You know how I know that? Back in 1996 or 1997, they showed Shindler's List on television for the first time, commercial free (sponsored by Chevy maybe?) and almost completely uneditted. You know the only edit they made to that film? A floating fuzz-spot to obscure the nipple of the girl in the scene I am describing. Spielburg himself gave a speach before the airing of the movie talking about the importance of showing the whole truth and horror of the Holocaust. So then why this edit? Because I think that the network (NBC I think?) and Speilburg knew that this scene was gratuitous and had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

        Later in the movie, the same German officer (I am too lazy to look up his name, forgive me) confronts the Jewish servant girl in a scene that has a lot of wet-shirts and sexual elements. I don't think it's hypocritical that this scene also doesn't bother me. I'm pretty sure there were a lot of German officers that took advantage of their helpless female Jewish servants. It also is critical in understanding why he ultimately lets Schindler rescue her.

        So, I stand by my comments. As a parent, I have a right to choose what messages my children see. "German officers get laid a lot by hot German mistresses" just isn't a message I feel important enough to pass on in light of the other serious and important messages in that film.

        - JoeShmoe

        .

    • Re:Simple answer (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GauteL ( 29207 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @02:08PM (#4026971)
      "The scene where there is a nude woman in the German officer's bed is stimulating and sexual. If I had kids, I would want to skip that scene."

      Don't take this the wrong way.. I'm all for parents right to show what they want to their own children.. but I feel most adults view on children and sexuality is ridiculuous.

      Who came up with the idea that children are totally non-sexual beings that need to be protected from anything remotely sexual? The truth is that children DO have a form of sexuality, and the ones that are actually uncomfortable with sexuality and children in the same sentence is adults.

      This does not mean that I would show porn to my children, or extremely sexual movies, but I think the generic american and european view of children and sexuality is screwed up, and probably does more harm than good to kids. No kid takes any harm from seeing a naked body.
  • it is the directors who are censoring derivative works. According to my definition, censorship is a prohibition on distibution due to content or lack thereof. The 'companies' in this case aren't prohibiting anything...though what they are doing may have questionable standing in the current legal environment on account of effective copyright laws.
  • First of all - since it was Disney who said in their ad "Own it [Tarzan] now on Video or DVD" - so if they can then change their mind that i don't actually own it, I can not give a crap.

    Secondly - once I have given YOU the money - it IS mine - so if i want to paint the screen with white out, that's my business. With paint or with another device if i so choose.

    I can see the DGA being upset with organized resale of modified DVD's and tapes - but once i buy it, i can - and will - do whatever the hell I want with it.... including burning it, using it as a doorstop, changing it, backing it up.
  • close your eyes guys... don't look at it, it will be horrible.

    TIMMY!
  • If they stop editing movies for TV, I might actually *watch* TV again. It's so incredibly aggrivating to see movies mangled for TV that I just refuse to watch. When the edit the dialog it's always very obvious. And come on, fuzzing out middle fingers and buttcracks? Does this actually matter to anyone? How many people can honestly say their lives are better because they've never heard 'fuck' on TV?

    Good luck to these guys.

    -- Bob

  • Miscellaneous articles about editing inappropriate material from movies for home viewing: http://www.ldsfilm.com/ar_editedfilms.html [ldsfilm.com]
  • What a conundrum! I keep seeing ads on TV telling me that I can "own" a movie "now" on DVD or VHS. Do I really own it? Does the distributor really mean "License it now on DVD or VHS"?

    Every DVD case that I own has small print that tells me that the movie is for home entertainment only. But there's no fine print that says that I can't edit it.

    For what it's worth, it seems to me that this is pretty much a non-issue, though. I mean, the parking lot in front of our local Clean Flicks store has *maybe* a tenth of the traffic as the Hollywood Video store across the street. And as big a chain as Albertsons is, I don't exactly see throngs of people in the store trying to rent videos.

    I guess that if the people who own the creative rights to the movies really want to make sure that they retain control of the content, they ought to convince the distributors to include some sort of licensing statement. Lovely, right? Now I'll have an EULA for my movies, too.

    -h-

  • Well, I understand thier feelings... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Eagle7 ( 111475 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:44PM (#4026728) Homepage
    Legal issues aside, I understand the Directors feelings. Certainly when you get a competent director who make thoughtful stuff, like Stanley Kubrik or Dave Fincher or Quentin T., it's an insult to have people watching your movies under some sanitary cut. This isn't a plane or TV, where the audience will like the movie and then go to view the real thing. This is either really pathetic people not wanting to be offended, or parent's trying to show your art to children in a butchered manner. I think there is a difference, and I'd be damn pissed off if I took the time to create A Clockwork Orange, Se7en, or Fight Club, or Pulp Fiction, only to have people stipping it's essense out and changing the experience.

    Again, it's not the same as the TV or plane version, because the goal here is not to open the movie for a wider audience (who can then go and see the real thing), it's a viewer asking someone else to protect them permenatly from the scenes that often make the movie.

    But I guess I am sort of a sadist when it comes to these things, and prefer movies that make me uncomfortable and show raw humanity at it's best and worst. Also, note that if you think Stanley's, David's, or Quentin's work sucks, pick another director - the point still stands.
    • I'd be damn pissed off if I took the time to create A Clockwork Orange, Se7en, or Fight Club, or Pulp Fiction, only to have people stipping it's essense out and changing the experience.
      They are shows with only a few scenes that many people find offensive, and where editing DOESN'T change the experience. They [cleanflicks.com] have a listing of the shows they edit, including things like Air Force One, Cast Away, The Mummy, Point Break, and Scream 3. They DON'T have on their list Pulp Fiction or Fight Club.
    • Except that there are people who object to certain types of content, but the story of the movie really interests them. Allowing for edited films increases the size of the audience for the movie. Allowing certain "private clubs" (which is how they typically get around the copyright issue... it's not "public" distribution or rental - you have to be part of their "private club" which is simple enough) increases the market penetration for those marketroids, and their artistic work is appreciated by more people. There've been a lot of movies where I walk out and say "that was pretty good, except for..." where there's typically some kind of gratuitous violence or sex scene. And in some ways, it comes down to this - as an example - what's the difference between art and pornography? While one may not object to pornography personally, I think it's intolerant to not accept the fact that some people find it obscene, or choose not to subject their children to it. So the distinction between gratuitous and artistic is personal, and should therefore be left in the hands of the individual.

      • Re:Well, I understand thier feelings... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Eagle7 ( 111475 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @02:24PM (#4027137) Homepage
        OK, but isn't this sort of like putting a loincloth on David, or covering up Venus's breasts? Or removing the n-work from Huck Finn? Perhaps some art is intended on being experienced and viewed as harshly as it was created. Perhaps you feel that it is not neccesary (for instance, I don't see what David would lose in a loincloth), but I posit that that choice ought be left to the creator.
  • So, in order to get your sanitized version of "Where The Boys Aren't #27" or "Fisting Firemen #10" you need to go out and buy a regular copy and then have it edited. And the problem here is what? If these companies bought one copy, edited it and then sold copies as original purchases I'd have an issue with it. But making it possible for the ultra-squeemish to enjoy sanitized versions of their favorite films isn't a problem in my book. It's no different, IMHO, than taking a marker and blotting out the words you find offensive in your copy of "Huckleberry Finn".
  • As long as the uncut movie is still available, and the "censored" editions are very clear that they're edited, then why should there be any problem? Those who want to hear the cussing and see the sex scenes will buy the unedited version, and those who don't will buy the edited version. Seems like it's just a case of giving people what they want to see. I don't think it's violating the director's rights as long as the original version is still available. It only becomes censorship when you deny people access to the unedited version.

  • This is exactly like (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:47PM (#4026778) Homepage Journal
    When Ted Turner colorized all those movie classics. Or the choice to release a movie in a foreign market dubbed (I'm talking about foreign films brought to the US and only released dubbed by the distributor).

    The owner of the rights to the film can do with it what he choses. Simple.

    Turner owned those reels of movies and he did what he wanted. Of course the public backlash stopped it in the end.

    Similarly local distributors in a country count as the owner's proxy in those states. But the general dislike of dubbing has stopped them from releasing dubbed versions of Crouching Tiger and Life is Beautiful. Of course it has also limited the distribution of foreign movies (the assumption being people don't like dubbing but only film critics like to read subtitles so you can only release it in art houses).

    Like an earlier poster said, anyone who doesn't own rights to a movie but works on it is just an employee.

    A good example is Fox owning the original Star Wars. Lucas had to buy it back from them. Of course when he did he added in "Greedo shooting first."

    Originally Fox could have stopped him from adding it. Later they couldn't. Neither could the LucasFilm employees or Harrison Ford.

    Control of the final product is one of the benefits of being a big time director.

  • I think this battle was lost over colorization (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:48PM (#4026791)
    Interesing topic, but I would think it is moot. The DGA fought the same battle through the courts when the studios started colorizing and rereleasing black & white movies in the 80s. They lost the battle 100%. Hard to see how this is much different.

    sPh

  • Give consumers what they want! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Harrison ( 223649 ) <johnharrison@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:51PM (#4026815) Homepage Journal
    Weren't DVDs supposed to give us the capability to watch a PG-version of an R-rated movie? Why are studios afraid of this? The obviously already do these edits. That is where the version of the movie that you see on an airplane and on network TV come from. If the work has already been done why don't you sell it to the public?

    There is a large enough market here to justify the additional cost. There are a variety of companies in Utah that have sprung up to fill this need. The company in question has found people all over the country that want to see cleaned up movies. If Hollywood would simply provide the toned down versions that they have already made of these movies on DVD they could realize additional revenue.

    This is not censorship. Censorship is when someone else decides what you get to watch. This is consumers deciding for themselves that they don't want to view particular content. I doubt that many /.ers can respect that, but they should be able to see the difference.

    Certainly if I buy a book I am free to rip out any pages that I want. The magic of DVDs allows you to "rip out pages" without doing so permanently. Why hasn't this technology been supported by Hollywood?

    • Weren't DVDs supposed to give us the capability to watch a PG-version of an R-rated movie? Why are studios afraid of this?

      Because it hurts their revenue model. Look at this shit they're pulling with the LOTR DVD. A version went on sale yesterday, then there's going to be another "collector's" version in a few months, and then around the holidays the five-disc, king-of-all-collector's-editions edition comes out. And you know there are people that will buy all three.

      Why should the studios stuff differently-rated versions onto one disc when they know they can sell multiple versions on different discs and sucker a decent number of people into buying both?

      ~Philly
    • "'Olsen's Standard Book of British Birds'?"
      "Yes..."
      "O-L-S-E-N?"
      "Yes...."
      "B-I- R-D-S??"
      "Yes....."
      "Yes, well, we do have that, as a matter of fact...."
      "The expurgated version....
      "I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that...?"
      "The expurgated version.
      "The EXPURGATED version of 'Olsen's Standard Book of British Birds'?!"
      "The one without the gannet!"
      "The one without the gannet--?! They've ALL got the gannet! It's a Standard British Bird, the gannet, it's in all the books!!!"
      "Well, I don't like them...they wet their nests."
      "All right! I'll remove it!! (rrrip!) Any other birds you don't like?!
      "I don't like the robin..."
      "The robin! Right! The robin! (rrrip!) There you are, any others you don't like, any others?"
      "The nuthatch?"
      "Right! The nuthatch, the nuthatch, the nuthatch, 'ere we are! (rrriiip!) There you are! NO gannets, NO robins, NO nuthatches, THERE's your book!"
      "I can't buy that! It's torn!"
  • Ok, very important. Read the article.

    It is not about the right of the consumer to edit films.

    It is about the right of the director to have some control over the final edit of films to avoid butchered versions of his vision.

    So posts about The Phantom Edit are off topic.
  • I have the right to mutulate my book, to take pages out and freaking burn them, to draw on pages etc.etc.etc. becuase it is MY COPY now. I am not doing it to a library book, I am NOT reselling the book.

    The same with anything. If I buy a Leonardo Davinci's Madonna for X millions of dollars, I can then freaking burn for all I care - but this is a more questionable deed since we agree there is only ONE Madonna, even though we can make copies of it.

    However, when I buy a DVD I cannot make extracts of it? What if I want to use it for some critics class or for the sake of making a parody? What if I just want to copy a portion of this DVD to a tape and only watch that portion of the movie later because that is the only portion of the movie that I like and that is the only reason why I bought the freaking DVD on the first place?

    I do not know much about Utah and why they do not like nude scenes in Titanic (mormons live there, don't they?) but I believe they have all rights to do as they will with their copies of DVD and if there is a company that helps them to custrate that DVD and make a different version of that DVD for their OWN use, then screw MPAA and all their lawyers, let them try and enforce it. If this is enforcable then noone should be able to take a newspaper apart and only read portions of it.
    • "I have the right to mutulate my book, to take pages out and freaking burn them, to draw on pages etc.etc.etc. becuase it is MY COPY now. I am not doing it to a library book, I am NOT reselling the book."
      correction: If I did that to a book and someone still wanted to buy it from me, I can and will resell it. However I cannot legaly make copies of material in the book (all of it or parts of it) and sell the copies.
  • I dont have a problem with editing films for TV, as long as the fact that there are edits is clearly stated before the film is shown.

    In the UK, they cut everything, including Star Trek (removing references to the IRA for example) and they do not state before a film or show is aired that they have made cuts.

    This amounts to false advertising. If they advertise that a film is to be shown, this means the film as released by the studio / director. If any edits have been made, then this is NOT the same film, but a corrupted version, and it should be clearly marked as such.

    If people in the UK knew just how many cuts were made to TV broadcasts of films and shows (by a simple "edited for television" at the beginning) they would be outraged.

  • Well (Score:2)

    by SirSlud ( 67381 )
    I have to say that anyone who requests censoring their owned art to remove the 'offending' parts is intolerant and probably doomed to be uncultured and ignorant. But whatever. Thats their perogative. Should we prevent people from 'splicing' their VHS tapes?

    It's totally understandable that the artists in question would fight to ensure that their vision remains unedited for two reasons:

    1) Control over product. It's understantable in an artistic medium - its not like a car, where if you can make the product go faster, after-market, good for you. Art is a message (even if its an uncomplicated, shallow message), and to fuck with it is to fuck with the message.

    2) Money. If I'm artist X, and I think most people who are seeing my work through word-of-mouth are seeing edited copies, I'd be upset that other people's editing of my product could be influencing potential customers' decision to purchase my movie. (After all, it's not too uncommon to hear somebody say things like, "Yeah, the movie sucked, but I own it cause of that scene where that chicks not wearing anything." or whatever. Sometimes the offensive bits sell the product.")

    That being said, since people have always been free to splice VHS cassettes themselves, etc, I really think its a battle that should be fought only to present the issues directors have with it. I really do believe its unethical to edit art yourself, beyond editing that must take place for logistical reasons ('narrowed for TV' is a legit reason, 'took out bad language' is legit if it doesn't impact the artistic message).

    I remain steadfast in my opinion that those who wish to edit their art should grin 'n bare the 'bad stuff', or look for new art altogether.

  • Unbelievable Quote (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Flamerule ( 467257 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:54PM (#4026841)
    "'Jerry Maguire,' for instance, was a great show. Unfortunately, it had a little bit of bad language and a sex scene that never should have been there," said CleanFlicks president John Dixon, adding that no studio yet has threatened legal action.

    Who the hell is this guy to determine what should and should not be in a particular movie? I'd hate to see his version of Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut -- it'd be about half an hour long.

    It's bad enough already that anything anyone could possibly consider objectionable gets cut out for TV broadcast. I'm sure this guy would love it if Walmart decided to start selling only his censored versions of movies in their stores, to avoid the inevitable objections of several random parents.

  • I, for one, would like to see some heads roll for those who edit movies for TV or edit movies and resell them edited. This, to me, is a violation of the director's/writer's vision and intent. Edited LOTR for content? I convulse.

    I am sick and tired of parents not taking good responsibility for their kids. You know what? Some movies are not meant for kids to watch. PERIOD. If you can't "get over" that fact, mommy, daddy, then learn to deal with the consequences.

    I'm also tired of parents thinking that their children are naive. Where did this idea come in? That your children are virgin, clean, pure, and haven't ever heard the word, "fuck", at the age of 9? Like hell.

    I watched lots of movies with questionable content when I was a kid. I didn't see a lot because my parents objected to them, so I didn't see them at all, not some farked up edited piece of dung. I had to wait till I was of a maturity level high enough to handle it properly. I was constantly reminded by my parents that, "This is not acceptable in our house or in public, no matter what the movies say." I understood, I followed.

    Learn to be a good parent and quit blaming the depravity of society on the artists.
  • Pulp Fiction, as intrepreted by CensoMatic Pictures:

    Opening credits roll...
    Flash of light, Samuel L. Jackson says "Hey, you..."
    Closing credits roll...

  • I'm a filmmaker as well as a developer, and here is how I see the issue. The DGA is doing what it's supposed to by protecting its members. The fact that someone is editing the films is not the real problem. This falls under Fair Use, and neither the studios nor the DGA can do anything about that. The problem is that someone is selling these videos like this. That is what the whole FBI thing on the front of videos is about. I can see the point of the consumers of these videos, but I agree with Martha Coolidge (after all, she did direct Real Genius...)

    But Coolidge and other filmmakers argue the films are the creative property of the filmmakers and cannot be altered without permission. A person who is troubled by the content of a film should simply not watch it. Censoring it even temporarily is not an option, she argues. "We are talking about a technology that obliterates the intention of a movie. Parents can control what their child sees by not allowing it in the house."

    Here's an analogy for those of you who aren't as familiar with filmmaking. Suppose you develop a schnazzy new algorithm for sorting through your company's client database. You toil over this thing for months until you've tweaked it to the point that it will not run any faster. You go to lunch, celebrating the fact that the method is a good as it can be. When you get back from lunch, you find that the asshole intern the company hired has taken your code out of CVS, changed the display parameters, and made it look like it ran a few millis faster. Now he looks like a god and you look like the asshole.

    Films are not things that spring up overnight. Essentially, from a director's view, these "editors" are amateurs who are detracting from the movie's message. Whether that message is "Elizabeth Berkley can't act, but she CAN be nude," or "Tom Hanks is a fine father and hitman." is completely irrelevant. Choosing one movie to edit and not another hurts ALL films.

  • If someone wants to get a version of a film "edited for reactionary right-wing christian fundamentalists", so what. As long as it is clearly labeled that it is an edited version and is not "sanctioned" by the film makers, it shouldn't be a problem.
  • It's interesting that, at least in the music industry, the artists have appeased retail giants like Walmart and Kmart by offering versions of their CD's with alternate covers/lyrics. A common example is Nirvana's In Utero album, which the title listing for the track "Rape Me" was changed to "Waif Me".
    I guess only when it involves sales, it's an issue with the record companies.

    Perhaps movie companies don't care as much about editing movies for retailers because they usually premiere and make the big money in theaters?

  • From the article: (Score:4, Funny)

    by dr_dank ( 472072 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @01:59PM (#4026895) Homepage Journal
    "[t]wo Brigham Young University graduates developed software to allow subscribers to download edits for selected films, allowing eight levels of censorship, including "vain references to deity," "sexual situations," "immodesty" and "gore."

    The other levels are:
    * Natalie Portman Nip-ons
    * Glaring Technical Inaccuracies
    * Scene Contains Scott Baio
    * Bad 80's Haircuts
  • From the artist point of view, I can understand various levels of control, such as not allowing single step or reverse play, only under certain lighting conditions, etc. Suppose an artist creates a sculpture, a large wind mobile, and wants it to fold up and hide if the wind is over a certain speed. Now suppose someone else builds a building around it with fans to create artificial winds. Has the artist's vision been violated?

    From the consumer point of view, it seems perfectly reasonable that whoever buys a DVD has the right to use the remote to skip or repeat parts, slow down, pause for bathroom breaks, and so on. There is nothing very different with the purchaser blocking out parts. From there it's a small step to a re-edit, possibly even re-arranging bits and pieces, maybe adding some explanatory material. Now it's pretty obviously not the original. But is that wrong if only the purchaser watches it? How about immediate family? Suppose friends and neighbors watch it during a party?

    Now suppose the purchaser knows what scenes to block out, but doesn't know hot to do it, and hires someone to do it. Is that immoral? What if someone else comes in and asks for the same edits. Is that immoral? Suppose someone has a reputation for good edits, is it wrong to simply get copies of all those edited DVDs without knowing in advance exactly what they are; a subscription service?

    Where does one draw the line?

  • Copyright upholds the original creator... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gorehog ( 534288 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @02:00PM (#4026909)
    The copyright laws in the US defend the rights of the copyright holder, IE, you cannot ALIEN, edit out the stomach bursting scene, and resell it. It is still ALIEN. It does not become a derivative work by making changes to it and the copyright still belongs to the copyright owner of record. So, it may well be illegeal to edit a movie and resell it.

    It would certainly be a violation of copyright law to buy a movie, edit it, and resell it without telling the new owner.

    It is not illegal to resell books and films so long as you dont make copies. I can resell my copy of WIN95, Neuromancer, or Apocalypse Now. This is legal.

    As I write this I realize that, though I find censorship abhorrent, and though I believe it has no place in state sponsored schools, education, and libraries, I dont see how offering edited films for private viewing can possibly be in violation of copyright laws.

    The copyright holder has been paid for the license to own a copy of the work. If I take the work to an editor and request that thus-and-so changes be made to it I can expect to be charged a fee, and he will make those edits.

    Now, if he has a bunch of them already (because it is a popular edit) and trades tapes with me, then charges me the difference for his work the same transaction has happened. I have purchased a license, I still have my one copy, with my after market changes. In theory the editor can return the original to the store and recoup the cost of the license.

    But can the editor purchase them in bulk, edit them, and resell them, eliminating the need for the trading of tape? Now he becomes an unauthorized distributor of licenses to that copyright. This would seem to be the only real legal grounds that the studios have.

    As for the rest of the techniques, it is really no ones business what I put in line between my DVD player and my TV. I still think censorship sucks, but it is plainly obvious that it is a person's right to handle their property as they see fit.

  • Time for the one true bible (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bons ( 119581 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @02:10PM (#4026993) Homepage Journal
    It's as if they think of themselves as God come down from the mountain telling us what the one true bible is.

    What's next? No more speed reading books? No more looking at art without an art degree? No more adjusting the bass on my CD player? No more choice of browser resolution? Police making sure I use exactly two quarts of water in my cool aid?

    Some people need to get over themselves.

  • Blockbuster (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sebastopol ( 189276 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @03:54PM (#4028046) Homepage
    So let's say you want to see the unedited version of "Requiem for a Dream". If you live in one of those beige cube suburban sprawl trackhomes, then you only have one choice: Blockbuster, the monopoly. However, they only carry the edited version.

    So who is getting fucked?

    The corporation (Blockbuster) has decided to impose it's own moral code of ethics, but since they are the only game in town (unless you want to drive an hour to the nearest city), you don't have a choice but live under their ethical standards.

    Do you get fucked because you have less choice?

    Or does the corporation get fucked because they are being told they can't alter a movie?

    So it's a lose-lose for the consumer: either Blockbuster wins or the MPAA wins.

    What a fun time to be alive! 1/3 of the planet's population is starving and we're worried about our rights to see softcore porn. Not that I think we should have to do something about those billions of starving people -- I just think it is fascinating.

  • Stop and think, please (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chazzf ( 188092 ) <cfulton AT deepthought DOT org> on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @04:44PM (#4028574) Homepage Journal
    Now, I know this will be hard, but I want everyone to take a deep breath and think about the issue for a second.

    Third-parties are editing creative works that are not their own to meet their particular standards. They want to screen out tits, Jar-Jar, whatever. The argument that seems to be pretty popular here is that "we bought, we can do what we want with it." This is true, to a point. If I want to watch my own 30-minute version of Eyes Wide Shut that's my own business.

    Where it gets complicated is that people are making that edit and then selling it. Even if it's marked, under what right are they doing this? They didn't create it. Like it or not, a film is a work of art. The entire film is an expression of the artistic vision of the creator. To alter it is to alter the message, which does a gross disservice to the creator.

    What would Lolita be without a 14-year old girl (never mind that she was 12 in the book)? Clockwork Orange sans violence. Armageddon with no asteroid?

    A film is not just some montage of scenes pieced together for you viewing. It has a point, maybe a moral--it's going somewhere. At the very least it is telling a story that has certain nuances.

    My point is simple: the art is being altered and then being sold. Even if it's marked as edited, it's being sold under the original title. Let's say that Titanic is edited to remove the lovemaking between Winslet and DiCaprio? Is it still a James Cameron film? Hard to say, really, because you aren't seeing what he intended. Think about that, for a second. Consumer rights this, consumer rights that--what about artistic rights?

    ~Chazzf

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close