Stones Cry Out

Very interesting ruling...

I am the proud father of 2 boys that like action films. I enjoy them too, but when Tom Cruse beds an attractive woman in Mission Impossible 2, it makes me VERY uncomfortable with an 11 and 8 year old watching with me.

Also makes me wonder what this added to the story line... but I digress.

I'm one of those folks that have purchased legitimate copies of films and spent the time editing the objectionable parts out, both language and sex. It takes about a half day for every film to do the work. I'm a video producer and I have the ability to do this. For those who can't, they are now stuck. If the purchaser receives a new, uncut motion picture company produced DVD along with the edited one, where is the copyright violation?

The courts have long held that we can legitimately make archive copies of software and music CDs to protect against damage. I have used my computer for years to take legally purchased music from CDs or from the iTunes Store, arrange them in different orders, delete songs I don't like and listen to only the ones I want to listen to.

This ruling not only takes away the fast forward control but it also requires us to listen to songs or watch things we don't want to.

Since we're not allowed to delete the scenes we don't like, I will now no longer purchase DVDs. Since I was buying a legitimate copy, the studios now lose money from me.

Real smart Hollywood!

So I wonder what the deal is with the edited versions that appear on TV and airplanes. Somebody edits those - probably with permission. If they made those available, maybe all would be OK. That solution is probably way too simple, can't do that.

I, like some of you, have some movies that I'd love to share with my kids but won't because of the language or for other reasons.

But I'm leery of making edits and here's why:

Suppose you created a movie about something you cared deeply about. Perhaps like one of those Billy Graham evangelical movies - the Cross and the Switchblade kind of thing.

If it's your intellectual property and you've created it the way you want, then you're glad for people to watch it. But what if someone has permission to edit the flick as they want and for mean-ness (or art or whatever), they totally adapt it, they have Billy Graham cursing out a nun or saying "Hail Satan" or something.

I'm pretty supportive of creative people's right to create something that they don't have to worry about it being changed. I suppose that's a slippery slope, and therefore weaker, argument, but that's my concern nonetheless.

I understand that consideration, and "where does it end" is a legitimate question. But when the studios themselves have edited versions for airplanes or TV, and when (and here's my big distinction) the result is no different than hitting "FF" on your remote at strategic locations, I don't see how copyright becomes the issue, whether they do it or I do it to my personal copy. Can I not black out part of a book I own? If so, can I have someone else do it instead? If so, can they charge me for their time and effort?

Adding or changing is, I think, fundamentally different than skipping. In the former cases, I think a clearer line has been crossed. You can make an artistic claim that skipping is "changing" but I really don't see the legal claim.

And again, this is all happening while I already own the full version and/or it is completely available to me while watching the edited version. Everybody gets paid, nobody is under the false impression that the edited version is the one the director released, and I get to share a movie with my kids (or even just watch it myself) that I would not have normally.

We could also be having this same conversation on books too. What happens when I skip the pages I don't like? Am I now not allowed to read Newsweak and skip Eleanor Clift's column because it changes the editorial balance of the magazine's issue? Can I no longer skip the classified ads in the daily newspaper because I don't need to buy anything at this time?

As I speak now, TV networks are leaning on DVR makers to not allow users to skip commercials during the playback of recorded programming. That’s why I bought a Tivo, to skip the commercials and watch a 1-hour program in 40 minutes.

As I stated earlier, I edit DVDs for my own family’s use and I never copy, distribute or even loan the edited version to others. I have a legal store bought copy of every film I've "adapted" for family use.

Apparently the basis of this suit/ruling comes from someone else editing it for you and then selling you an uncut and a cut version.

The studios would do themselves a good service by offering a choice between an edited and an unedited version much in the way they do for full and wide screen versions of the film.

DVD technology is pretty amazing. Movies can be played back in different languages, screen shapes and the like. It is possible for the producers to release a cleaned-up version on the same disc and the user can just play the version they want.

Of course, the studios would do themselves even a greater service if they made films that were better than the garbage they usually release. But this opens up another conversation on that!