::DVDdude.net
Changing the Face of Movies
There has been quite a lot of recent publicity regarding censorship within the DVD community.
You may already be aware that there are companies out there who are making a living by altering films in an effort to "sanitize" them for family viewing. Their process is to purchase a DVD and, using computer editing software, copy the movie onto a new disc, but with all of the objectionable material edited out. This new disc is then packaged and sold as a "family friendly" edition.
Only the slightest amount of common sense is required to realize that this sort of activity is a clear violation of copyright laws and the usage agreement one enters into when buying a DVD.
The problem here is that these companies are permanently altering the film and selling this as a new product. They rationalize their actions by claiming that customers also receive an original unedited version along with the copy. In my mind, that's not so different from claiming that you're going to spend one legitimate dollar for every counterfeit one.
Hollywood is naturally upset by this, especially the filmmakers.
Beyond the copyright issues, which are clearly a problem, filmmakers are worried about just how their films are being edited. These companies are selling versions of films with entire scenes, sometimes entire plotlines, eliminated in order to satisfy their censorship standards. With the potential for the narrative to be so permanently altered, how does a director justify having his/her name attached to the film? Furthermore, the companies making these edits are doing so at their own discretion and according to their own standards regarding what is objectionable.
Regardless, the law is clearly being broken here. When you and I purchase a DVD, we have the right to watch it in whatever way we want. If we want to mute or skip past something we object to, that is perfectly reasonable -- and legal. You could even make a case for editing the film onto a new disc, as long as you maintained that altered version for private use only. But the minute you try to resell and altered version of that film to someone else, you're violating the law.
What I don't understand is why there is so much controversy and confusion over this matter. It seems to me that it was already settled -- through the music industry and the whole "sampling" issue. The law decided that one artist's music couldn't be sampled into another song without first obtaining the rights.
Furthermore, there are alternative technologies that do not violate copyright laws. One manufacturer is releasing a DVD player that has the ability to filter content. This player acts similarly to parental controls on a television or Internet account. In other words, the player doesn't permanently change the content of the disc, but rather skips around content that you don't want to see.
The important point is that what the player skips over is fully controllable -- users will have the ability to pick and choose what is filtered, or watch the film completely unedited.Given that you already have the right to watch your DVD however you want, this technology would not be a violation of any copyright laws.
What I find the most disturbing about all of this, however, is the growing trend toward a lack of parental responsibility. Now it seems that many people want others to make their parenting choices for them. I recall a time when, if a movie contained inappropriate content, kids just weren't allowed to watch it until they were older.
Is a film like Scarface or The Godfather any more appropriate for the family with all of the sex, violence and harsh language removed (never mind that an edited version of Scarface would probably be reduced to a 10 minute running time)? Probably not. And the same argument could be used for "tamer" films as well. Are the themes of James Bond or Mission: Impossible films really right for a younger crowd -- especially when safer alternatives (such as the Spy Kids films) are available?
At some point it is going to become necessary for people to take personal responsibility for themselves and their families. We can't rely on others to solve our moral problems for us. If that means making the choice to not watch certain types of films, then so be it. As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
-- Robert Wurth
May 27,2005
