Wait for what?schmendeler said:
I find the legal situation interesting to ponder, but the service doesn't interest me. I'm generally anti-censorship. If they can't watch the whole thing as is, then they can wait.
biobioprof said:Wait for what?schmendeler said:
I find the legal situation interesting to ponder, but the service doesn't interest me. I'm generally anti-censorship. If they can't watch the whole thing as is, then they can wait.
schmendeler said:biobioprof said:Wait for what?schmendeler said:
I find the legal situation interesting to ponder, but the service doesn't interest me. I'm generally anti-censorship. If they can't watch the whole thing as is, then they can wait.
The children to get old enough to watch the uncensored version.
I don't think you have the right to force product creators to give you access to their product on your terms, beyond voting with your wallet.abc0371 said:schmendeler said:biobioprof said:Wait for what?schmendeler said:
I find the legal situation interesting to ponder, but the service doesn't interest me. I'm generally anti-censorship. If they can't watch the whole thing as is, then they can wait.
The children to get old enough to watch the uncensored version.
The problem is that a lot of us would like to watch movies without all the unnecessary cussing, violence, etc. The service should be totally legal.
Squirrel Master said:I don't think you have the right to force product creators to give you access to their product on your terms, beyond voting with your wallet.abc0371 said:schmendeler said:biobioprof said:Wait for what?schmendeler said:
I find the legal situation interesting to ponder, but the service doesn't interest me. I'm generally anti-censorship. If they can't watch the whole thing as is, then they can wait.
The children to get old enough to watch the uncensored version.
The problem is that a lot of us would like to watch movies without all the unnecessary cussing, violence, etc. The service should be totally legal.
ChiliBeans said:
I find it bizarre that people feel entitled to edit movies to their liking. I agree with Queso that profanity is way overdone these days, but there is a practically unlimited amount of movies or other forms of entertainment to choose from.
Thomas Ford 91 said:
I know where you can legally watch filtered and edited movies for free. OTA Networks. For a fee you can do the same thing on about 50 different cable stations.
It isn't about the editing, its about licensing. No license, no play. Vidangel is a great idea poorly executed.
This is a kind of strange situation indeed. I can see both sides of it, and I'm no IP attorney, but it seems like its an issue with allowing the consumer to change the IP to their liking. I could see creators of content having a problem with doing that, so I kind of take their side.abc0371 said:Squirrel Master said:I don't think you have the right to force product creators to give you access to their product on your terms, beyond voting with your wallet.abc0371 said:schmendeler said:biobioprof said:Wait for what?schmendeler said:
I find the legal situation interesting to ponder, but the service doesn't interest me. I'm generally anti-censorship. If they can't watch the whole thing as is, then they can wait.
The children to get old enough to watch the uncensored version.
The problem is that a lot of us would like to watch movies without all the unnecessary cussing, violence, etc. The service should be totally legal.
It doesn't force them to give you access to their product on my terms. It's simply a service that allows you to watch a movie you own through a filter. You own the movie, and aren't altering it in any way. If you choose to sell it back, it's in the same condition as when you bought it.
Also, you can ask the cook to change it to make it to your wants.ChiliBeans said:
I completely agree with you on all of this. Whether I like something or not, I want to see it the way the creators intended. To use a bit of analogy, I like to cook but when I go into a restaurant I'm expecting to see how someone else makes it.
TresPuertas said:This is a kind of strange situation indeed. I can see both sides of it, and I'm no IP attorney, but it seems like its an issue with allowing the consumer to change the IP to their liking. I could see creators of content having a problem with doing that, so I kind of take their side.abc0371 said:Squirrel Master said:I don't think you have the right to force product creators to give you access to their product on your terms, beyond voting with your wallet.abc0371 said:schmendeler said:biobioprof said:Wait for what?schmendeler said:
I find the legal situation interesting to ponder, but the service doesn't interest me. I'm generally anti-censorship. If they can't watch the whole thing as is, then they can wait.
The children to get old enough to watch the uncensored version.
The problem is that a lot of us would like to watch movies without all the unnecessary cussing, violence, etc. The service should be totally legal.
It doesn't force them to give you access to their product on my terms. It's simply a service that allows you to watch a movie you own through a filter. You own the movie, and aren't altering it in any way. If you choose to sell it back, it's in the same condition as when you bought it.
Again, its interesting, and probably has MUCH more to do than just editing out language or objectionable material, and we likely haven't seen the last of this in the courts.
But what if I order a hamburger and I want to take the onions and tomatoes off? Isn't that the same thing as what this service provides? The chef can make that hamburger however he chooses to, I am just going to take some of the ingredients off.ChiliBeans said:
I completely agree with you on all of this. Whether I like something or not, I want to see it the way the creators intended. To use a bit of analogy, I like to cook but when I go into a restaurant I'm expecting to see how someone else makes it.
I don't see why they should wait, if there's a means to prevent them from seeing inappropriate material.schmendeler said:
I find the legal situation interesting to ponder, but the service doesn't interest me. I'm generally anti-censorship. If they can't watch the whole thing as is, then they can wait.
I remember seeing Hawkeye Pierce call someone a "son of a b****" on TV and how shocking that was, and it proves your point of using particular words to get a particular effect. But if that effect will be lost on young ones, I'd err on the side of keeping them from hearing such words in an otherwise good movie.TCTTS said:
A bit off topic, but my grandfather once told me how utterly shocked people were in 1939 at the line, "Frankly me dear, I don't give a damn" from Gone with the Wind. He and everyone he knew just couldn't believe the word "damn" was actually spoken in a movie. For better or worse, think of how far we've come since then. And likely, 100 years from now people are going to think it's insane that there were still like five words we weren't allowed to hear/say in certain situations. And yes, words should have meaning/consequence, and there's a power and even an elegance in being able to use one of a select few to really get your point across. But one day people will laugh at us for the manner and nonsensical way in which we designated certain mouth noises to be off-limits. Sure, there will always be violent/sexual situations in media that will require certain ratings and restrictions - as they should - but the idea of "cuss words" has always baffled me.
But if you're paying them to remove the onions and tomatoes, they aren't unaffiliated. You brought them into the restaurant to take the stuff off your burger. They work for you and are doing what you want them to do.TCTTS said:
Bingo.
The difference here is that an unaffiliated third party is interjecting and charging you for them to remove the onions and tomatoes, without any official contract with the original "restaurant."
I don't see how this is even a question.
Hard to FF or mute and hit it exactly.ChiliBeans said:
You have fast forward and mute buttons.
Heck, my parents would just cover my eyes and ears or tell me to leave the room. Different times, I suppose.
I think the analogy may be lost on you.Quote:
But if you're paying them to remove the onions and tomatoes, they aren't unaffiliated. You brought them into the restaurant to take the stuff off your burger. They work for you and are doing what you want them to do.
I don't think so, but maybe you can explain it to me.ChiliBeans said:I think the analogy may be lost on you.Quote:
But if you're paying them to remove the onions and tomatoes, they aren't unaffiliated. You brought them into the restaurant to take the stuff off your burger. They work for you and are doing what you want them to do.
But if I bring a guy in with me, order a burger, and then pay him to take the stuff off, what business is it of the restaurant? OR more like I order a burger and take it home, then have a guy remove the tomatoes and onions. It's my burger, that I paid for, and I want that guy to take the stuff off for me...maybe I'm allergic or something.ChiliBeans said:
A restaurant is not going to allow a third party to come in and charge a fee to alter the burger after it's been served. On top of the basic common sense self interests, there's a mountain of complex copyright law governing use and distribution.
The studios may at some point offer their own approved editing app, but is their legal right to decide whether or how to do so.
Admittedly, my analogy was slightly strained to begin with.
