• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

The moral high ground to alter movies

MatthewB

MatthewB

Grandmaster Pimp Daddy
Famous
so I read on Facebook yesterday this new streaming video service where you can "legally" alter streaming movies that will allow you to edit movies of swear words, sex scenes or anything you may find offensive. Here's how they do it. You buy the movie for 20.00 then you can go into a category to pick and choose anything you find offensive. The movie then plays and you have 24 hours to watch your edited movie then here's the catch, you can sell the movie back to the server for 19.00 so you now can essentially rent a watered down movie legally for a dollar. The reason to buy the movie is this company feels since you own it you can now legally edit the movie to your liking then sell the movie back.

There are currently four major studios suing this company ( called VidAngel). For altering the movie. I used to work with this born again Christian bible thumper lady who refused to let her kids watch Titanic as the two leads have premarital sex in the movie. Yes I rolled my eyes. Turns out the moment the kids grew up they moved out and became major sex fiends. Anyway I digress.

I think this is so wrong. Granted I see the need for these type of movies as religious zealots want clean versions of everything. I recall Blockbuster video got into trouble for doing the same thing by editing sex scenes out of popular movies. They lost as they rented the movies but VidAngel makes you buy the movie then watch then sell back so it's only costing you a dollar for DVD and 2.00 for HD edited streaming.

What are your thoughts on this.
 
As long as Hollywood gets paid, I think they are dumb to look a gift horse in the mouth.
 
I find it odd that anyone would be opposed to people watching what they want how they want. Why do you care that a parent doesn't want their kid to see/hear something in a movie?

And I swear to god ... if Mr. Get Around the Copywrite Laws by checking out movies at the library and ripping digital copies and then sharing them with family and friends says one word about the studio getting screwed out money ... I'll loose my shit.
 
My public library, and hundreds like it across North America, subscribes to a streaming service called Hoopla.

https://www.hoopladigital.com/

You can access it through your library's web site and after a simple registration process, proceed to borrow content. How many titles you can borrow at a time and for how long varies by library (it depends on what they've contracted for.) You can stream to desktop or mobile devices.

Another great reason to become a member of your local library - if you have not done so already!

And look! Even the Houston Public Library is on board!

http://houstonlibrary.org/hoopla

Now that's good shit that nobody would ever want to lose!

:)

Jeff
 
Towen7 said:
I find it odd that anyone would be opposed to people watching what they want how they want. Why do you care that a parent doesn't want their kid to see/hear something in a movie?

And I swear to god ... if Mr. Get Around the Copywrite Laws by checking out movies at the library and ripping digital copies and then sharing them with family and friends says one word about the studio getting screwed out money ... I'll loose my shit.
Click to expand...

The sharing part isn't the problem. That is a component of the UltraViolet licensing program that has the full blessing of the studios. It is more the whole bit about using a movie you did not pay for in order to validate under the disc-to-digital system and get a movie for $2.50. It is not strictly speaking illegal, but it is definitely playing the gray areas of the system and absolutely does screw the studios.

Yes, I know that comment was not directed at me.
 
TV does this kind of editing all the time, I suppose this is selective editing (leave in the boobs, take out the curses!) is the same thing.

sidenote: I was so surprised when tits came out in Enter the Dragon. Apparently every time I had seen that movie up until 3 years ago, it was the edited version.
 
Towen7 said:
I find it odd that anyone would be opposed to people watching what they want how they want. Why do you care that a parent doesn't want their kid to see/hear something in a movie?
Click to expand...

Not only this, but how is it different from:

The DirtMerchant said:
TV does this kind of editing all the time, I suppose this is selective editing (leave in the boobs, take out the curses!) is the same thing.
Click to expand...

Movies get edited for various purposes. If somebody wants to see an edited version, I don't have a problem with it. It's not my monkeys, not my circus. I'm really not sure why anybody would be up in arms over it, unless (as it seems here, sorry Matt) it has more to do with rejection and dislike of religion. There's no problem with editing for OTA broadcast purposes, but the moment it's done due to religious conviction, it's a problem? That's inconsistent.

I've seen stuff about this before, and even then the studios weren't thrilled with it. I'm not sure about the legalities of prohibiting someone from editing the movies someone already owns- they probably have to use that wondrous piece of legislation, the DMCA (since it prohibits cracking copy protection, which is needed in order to do this) in order to force them to stop. I find it silly that they're all that miffed though- they're getting their money for the sale of the flick. They can hide behind the "art" of the work, but they allow editing for broadcast, so obviously they don't care so much about the editing when it's a network doing it.

Really, though, this isn't really a thing. There's not a large group of people taking advantage of this service. The vast majority of people with religious conviction either watch the movie as made, watch it edited for TV if it is ever shown in such a form, or just skip watching the movie. The vast majority of people of conservative religious leanings have never even heard of VidAngel and would find it silly if they had.
 
I'll let any lawyers who are familiar with American Copyright laws jump in, but let me bring a Canadian perspective to this.

Under Canadian Copyright laws, and court precedents, an artist's moral rights include the right to protect your artwork against distortion, alteration or mutilation in a way which prejudices your reputation. That's been interpreted very broadly by the courts. The most famous (Canadian) example is where the artist who designed, made and sold the geese castings that hang within Toronto's Eaton Centre sued over the fact that, one year at Xmas, the mall tied red bows around all the geese's necks. The courts held that, since the artist did not specifically waive his moral rights when he sold the geese to the mall, the mall had no right to alter his work in any way shape or form. Xmas bows were definitely a no-no. That's why anyone commissioning a work of art is now very careful contractually with dealing with the artist's moral rights.

How does that apply here?

Changing / editing a movie without the artist's permission would seem like an obvious violation of his moral rights under Canadian Copyright laws. In the case of a movie I believe that the "artist" is the director. Now it could very well be that somewhere along the line, that director, through some of form of contract, waived those moral rights (or assigned the copyright) to someone else (like the studio). But you don't know unless you know, and, at least in Canada, I doubt that you could hack up someone's film for display, broadcast, streaming, etc. without concern for those moral rights.

I'd invite any Canadian lawyers to jump in as well, if I've misspoke.

Jeff

ps. Just updated this post. Originally I talked of assignment of moral rights - which is not possible under Canadian law. Rather, the artist may waive those rights. Just want to ensure what I post is technically accurate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We're not really arguing that it's okay to make and distributes copies of art that one didn't pay for is okay but that paying for it and removing scenes is somehow "wrong"?

I hadn't considered the idea that removing nudity and adult language from a movie somehow harmed the artist. I suppose I can undertand that in the context of public display but that is not what we're discussing.
 
Towen7 said:
I suppose I can undertand that in the context of public display but that is not what we're discussing.
Click to expand...

That's the thing... we're talking about something that is ONLY seen by the people who commissioned the editing. It's not something that can be legally used for public exhibition, only private use (you can't even use a purchased DVD for a public exhibition without securing additional rights).

In the US (and I am not a lawyer, let alone one skilled in this field, so I could be incorrect, but I don't believe I am), there is no "moral purity" assigned to any work of art. If you own the work outright, it's yours. You make a sculpture for another under commission, they can put bows on it if they like. They can paint it pink with yellow polka dots. Any such rights would have to be explicitly kept by the artist, not implicitly kept by the artist unless otherwise stated/contracted. Even if this would be the case, the case for refusal to allow editing would be weakened if they ever did allow editing for broadcast- for example, you couldn't cut out the nude scenes from Titanic for network broadcast and then refuse to allow somebody to do the same claiming purity of the art... if it didn't impact the purity to let, say, NBC or TBS do it, there's no good reason to not let Joe Blow do it.
 
Jeff hit the nail on the head. If I directed a film and it was distributed and then found an outside company was altering my movie and profiting from it then yes I would be pissed. This is exactly what this VidAngel is doing but what they are doing is selling one copy of a movie over and over again it's just their software allows you to alter the movie then you sell the movie (or digital copy in this case) back allowing you to invoke property laws to allow alteration of the movie.

The difference between edited for TV movies is that the studio gets paid and has authorized an edited version to be broadcast ( they do the same thing for in flight movies on airplanes). Which I assume the makers of the movie have all agreed to. I doubt VidAngel is getting an agreement considering four movie studios are suing them.

Tom doing disc to digital is not the same thing. First off I'm still paying for a digital copy. I'm not reselling my digital copy or charging admission for people to watch my digital copy and it was the studios who allowed disc to digital to be done. Did I find a loophole in the fact I don't own the movie being added to my collection but nowhere in the terms and conditions (yes I read them) does it say I must own the movie to be converted. It just says an authorized copy must be used for disc to digital to work. It does not say anywhere where I can and cannot get that authorized copy. I've used dvd's at my moms house is that any different. The studio got paid for my moms copy and the copies at the library that were bought and paid for and then donated to the library. Heck the library sells donated copies for profit and they don't give any of that money to the studio but the 2.50 I spend for conversion some of that does go to the studio. So the studio is now getting some money from me on a title I most likely wouldn't buy unless I got it for so cheap. I didn't create the system I just found a loophole in the way they created the system. By the way no crime has been committed unlike what VidAngel is doing.

So don't lose your shit.
 
VidAngle isn't modifying the movie and claiming it as its own original work. Someone who wouldn't otherwise had seen the movie asked them to. I really can't believe that a director would be horrified because someone saw his movie but didn't see the 15 seconds of a scene with bare tits.

Are limousine companies "wrong" for modifying town cars and reselling them as limos?

Honestly, I think what bothers you is that some people don't feel the same way you do about what they or their kids should see on a movie screen. You've made it clear that you don't care about being fair when it comes to compensating artists for their work (I'll cite the disc to digital "loophole" you happily exploit and the vast amount of music in your collection that you copied). But am I'm to believe that your worried about the director's feelings being hurt because curse words and nudity are removed by request of a customer who is renting a movie, or that a studio is being deprived of revenue even though someone buys a copy and then resells it?

No, your outrage has nothing to due with following the letter of the law or morale outrage that a piece of high art is modified. Your issue here is deeper and personal.
 
MatthewB said:
The difference between edited for TV movies is that the studio gets paid and has authorized an edited version to be broadcast ( they do the same thing for in flight movies on airplanes). Which I assume the makers of the movie have all agreed to. I doubt VidAngel is getting an agreement considering four movie studios are suing them.
Click to expand...

Which is the only real angle they have on things. They can't claim artistic purity, because they didn't have a problem with editing the movie for broadcast or airline use. Their only real true complaint would be if they weren't getting paid. But they are (as I understand it)... the people buy a copy of the film, pay the company to edit their copy, and then watch that edited copy they paid for. About the only legal recourse the studios have is to invoke the DMCA with the copy protection bit, and that's something that we otherwise would complain about- we ourselves want the ability to defeat copy protection so we can take paid-for movies and put them on another format for our enjoyment (such as ripping it to a home server).

I agree with Towen- I think this is less about artistic purity or outrage over violation of a poor law and more about being unable to deprive people with strong religious convictions of something. Matt, I love you man, but I'm not sure you're really thinking it through. Why should it matter to anybody what they do with their copy of a movie if they're not depriving the studio of revenue via piracy?
 
I could care less what people do with their own personal copies. I do have issues when things like this have happened before that has affected me. Decades ago when I lived in Mesa AZ I found out local theaters were editing movies to cater to the large Mormon community that lives there. So when I pay good movie to see a rated R movie then later find out it's been edited to PG-13 quality I get upset because now a religious organization is infringing my rights to see nudity and hear a few F bombs. My view is if your a religious zealot then maybe you should stick to rated G movies so not to offend your sensitivities. Let me see the rated R movie I paid for. Then I found out that Blockbuster video ( when they were around) were doing the same exact thing. So I'd rent a rated R movie and again get a PG-13 equivalent. Luckily the directors guild put a stop to Blockbuster doing than sued them and won. Now we have VidAngel doing the same thing. Now I wouldn't care if a person buys the movie and edits it themselves but what VidAngel is doing is buying one copy of a movie then selling and reselling that same movie over and over again. Now VidAngel is small and hasn't gone mainstream and hope they get sued and lose everything. My feeling is if your so religious then maybe you shouldn't be watching movies that need to be altered to cater to your moral high ground and feel companies shouldn't be profiting off of this. Your God believes nudity and bad language is a sin maybe editing Pulp Fiction to watch it maybe you should stick with Disney.

Listen I don't judge people who want to believe in a mystical being who controls everything I do mind when it interferes with me wanting to enjoy tits and ass in movies. Now I understand VidAngel isn't going to affect me personally but just the thought that religious groups have infringed on my lack of morals is upsetting and VidAngel is just one of the many arms that feels society as a whole is evil and wants to change it when I think they should just concern themselves with themselves and not try to change the rest of us.

Do you guys realize the entire town of Mesa doesn't have one X rated movie store. They actually did try to open one that lasted for two weeks but had to close because Mormons took vigil and protested outside morning noon and night and screamed at patrons trying to enter the store. So once again a religious group has now infringed on my right to rent porn ( when renting porn was the only option). I just hate anyone group or organization that wants to instill their beliefs on me.
 
MatthewB said:
Now I understand VidAngel isn't going to affect me personally but just the thought that religious groups have infringed on my lack of morals is upsetting.
Click to expand...



Just the though? Get over it man. None of that is happening here. This company is editing video by request for the private use of a small number of people that choose to not watch those specific scenes. Nobody is denying you access to tits and F-bombs or removing them without your knowledge. Your morals or lack there of are 100% unifringed. Nobody is trying to force you to watch these edited versions.

How is this company or the small number of people that rent from them interfering with your enjoyment of T&A or instilling their beliefs on you?

You don't give a damn if people are offend by your morals but you're now upset by "just the thought" of VidAngle?!?! C'mon man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top