Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trailergod
yes, you can parent lock movies and so, but its not correct to start selling DVDs or movies or show movies that are edited in such a way to satisfy some people in society, expecially when its been edited or censored without the aproval of the director or the producer.
This law makes this possible, until now it has been unlawful to edit/censor movies without the aproval movie maker. Soon you will have sites/shops that will sell DVDs that are Censored/edited.... without the aproval of the maker.
TV stations buy the rights for the movie and have permission of the movie maker in editing it for TV broadcast.
|
This is not about censorship, or destroying a directors artistic vision, or even about hurting your movie going experience. Quite the contrary this is a good thing for everybody. Put it this way, the studios who create movies are out to make money. It's a fair deal, since the whole reason to make a buisness is to make money (regardless of what they claim) and as a result the decision to make maximum profit is the RIGHT decision! Up until now, if a film is released aimed at a target audience but contains a scene that offends parents and limits that audience then the right decision is to cut that scene and maximise the audience, thus maximising the profits that they released the film in the first place. Now though parents have a DVD player that enables them to choose to cut that scene and so they are more likely to buy an uncut dvd since they can cut it themselves and thus the studios are more likely to release a DVD uncut because this will maximise their profits. The results, people who dont want to see the scene get to watch the scene without it and you get your uncut DVD with the scene included. Everyones a winner, you, them, the directors, everyone, and yet still you're complaining.
The reason given is that people are destroying a work of art, but that is not even close to being true. Take for example the statue of David, a very controversial statue among some people for the fact that it shows a penis. Childish yes, and if one of these people was to break into a museum with a hammer and chisel and remove David's manhood then that would be wrong, desecrating a priceless work of art. However if one of these people wrote an article on the statue, took a picture of it and photoshopped over the offending item then their wouldbe nothing wrong with that. The art remains intact, the artists vision has not been compromised and the only thing being done is to change a copy of the art so that the person in question gets what they want without depriving anyone of anything. Same thing here, a dvd is merely a copy of the film. The artistic vision still remains in the original film print, and if somebody chooses to alter a digital copy (which is infinitely copyable) to get what they want out of it then they are happy without depriving you of what you want to see. Where's the problem?
Threaded Mode
