@Selznik-- Authors and directors don't seem to have a problem with filtered
and altered versions of their movies being shown in aircraft and on broadcast
TV. Why should they object to an automated way of skipping the same content that
was removed for those audiences?
Bravo to those who made this bill! With time, I think everyone will agree this
is a win-win for everyone, even for Hollywood.
MovieMaker - Columbus, GA---To Selznik: You wrote: "What about
the rights of authors, composers and directors to have their creations seen the
way they want them to be seen?" This bill does nothing to take away that
right. Anyone who wants to can still see the original version. What this bill
does is give families and parents a CHOICE.---And exactly how
would that 'choice' be made, if not by purchasing a service to
'edit' the content. If I recall the ruckus over the DVD remastering,
that's exactly what was done.Most families or parents do not
have the skills or tools to edit such material. Hence this and other such bills
only create an industry which would cater to such consumers. And even then there
may not be a service which limits the material to a particular set of tastes.In the film, "Cinema Paradiso"(1988) there's a scene where
the local priest previews films, and indicates where cuts are to be made to
censor material. Later when the film is projected and the jump cuts occur, there
are cat calls and howls hear due to the censored parts.Children are
not stupid, and will fill in the blanks, and so, the entire
'censorship' project is doomed.
Sounds like a good thing, except I worry that it may be another wolf in
sheep's clothing.The article makes the claim:"The 2005 Family Movie Act was a long and extremely hard-fought battle in
which we were outspent and outmanned, and yet despite major pressure from
Hollywood, were able to convince both parties in Congress to do the right thing
for parents and their children."That couldn't be further
from the truth. Hollywood (the MPAA more specifically) donated hundreds of
thousands of dollars to Sen. Hatch (and others) specifically to push (and vote
for) the 2005 act; which was distinctly to remove the rights of parents to alter
DVD's that they specifically purchased for the purpose filtering
content.They loved the 2005 act because it ensured that companies
like VidAngel would never work. They claimed that their "intellectual
property" rights outweighed any "personal property" rights of
families. They created a small compromise; to make it more palatable, that it
was okay to manually mute the audio or turn off the video temporarily during a
movie; but without the ability (under the already existing DMCA) to create a
mechanical process of doing those things automatically.
I remember not being allowed to watch "Laugh-In" when it came out even
though most of my friends in second grade could. My parents
didn't demand it be filtered so they didn't have to hear me whine,
they told me to change the channel or turn the TV off. A few years
later, I wasn't allowed to watch "Love, American Style" because it
was too risquÉ. Again, my parents didn't demand it be censored, they
just turned it off. If you don't like the way a show or movie
is made, turn it off. Don't watch it. Stop trying to turn the world into
some sort of sanitized, homogenized safe space.
“How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your Tee Vee;
kill your own beef; build your own cabin and piss off the front porch whenever
you bloody well feel like it.” - Edward AbbeyAlong with
kicking in your Tee Vee, smash your "smart phone".
To Selznik: You wrote: "What about the rights of authors, composers and
directors to have their creations seen the way they want them to be seen?"
This bill does nothing to take away that right. Anyone who wants to can still
see the original version. What this bill does is give families and parents a
CHOICE. As a writer and producer myself, I would welcome the opportunity to
have my work seen by as large an audience as possible. And so would my
investors. Anyone opposing this bill is opposing increased profits to investors
(and the authors, composers, etc.) and wants to limit choices of audiences. To
do so would indicate some sort of secret agenda that doesn't make sense.
The U.S. doesn't have to worry about China stealing intellectual
properties, copyrights and film rights.Republicans are trying to do
it right here in Utah.Republicans are such hypocrites. They say
they don't like a movie because... Then, they really do like the movie,
they just want it edited to their tastes instead of the film they didn't
like.Is it so hard for these "family values" people to find
"family values" films that they can watch while exercising true
"family values" instead of their hypocritical "family values?"
What about the rights of authors, composers and directors to have their
creations seen the way they want them to be seen? There’s enough
entertainment choices without taking away the rights of copyright holders.
The overwhelming majority of bills never make it out of committee. It's a
little premature to talk about how great this bill is when the chance is close
to zero that it will ever get to the point where it can be voted on.