Imagine What This Would Do to the Southpark Movie…
President Bush today signed legislation legalizing technologies that enable users to skip or mute sections of DVDs. Most often these technologies are targeted to parents who want to control what their children watch.
Hollywood and other media companies opposed the legislation because they argue that the government is enabling companies to distribute technologies that violate Hollywood’s copyrights. That would be a fair charge if anybody were actually altering the content (and especially if they were distributing the altered content, which is illegal). But that isn’t happening. The content isn’t being altered at all. The technology enables users to automatically skip certain sections of movies. It’s no different than if a reader were to skip a couple pages in a book or a track on a CD—except in this case it’s automated, and the skipped portions are very carefully selected.
Although this legislation is driven by an ideology of censorship, the outcome is more consumer freedom. That’s a good thing. And it’s typical that Hollywood would oppose it.
(As an aside, I got a kick out of the URL for this article. The URL includes the phrase “bush_sanitizing_hollywood”. That’s beautiful. It sounds just like what an [impartial and objective!] AP editor would title this piece.)
The Comments
Mr. T April 28, 2005 at 11:52am
Hollywood, or more specifically the MPAA, has to take a hardline stance on this issue. ANY unauthorized changes to their product would infringe on their proprietary rights. I agree with and am all about consumer rights and choices, but the problem with this legislation is that it can basically screw up the free market model. If there is enough demand from consumers for a version of “Sin City” minus the violence and nudity, then Frank Miller and company could/should release a G-rated family version of the film and put that on the market (like what the music industry does with censored CDs). Theoretically there are all sorts of possibilities but basically those on the supply side end up getting shafted. Another theoretical example: If consumers could just edit down violent/sexual movies into typical Disney fare, this discourages creators from making Disney type movies to begin with.
All in all this seems like another Joe Liebermanesque play on “family values” vs. evil Hollywood to score political points with Red States.
But in anycase I have enough faith in the free market to recognize that a business solution will come about.
Mr. Wilson April 28, 2005 at 4:50pm
ANY unauthorized changes to their product would infringe on their proprietary rights.
Perhaps, but nobody has actually changed anybody else’s product. The “Disneyfication” companies aren’t selling a modified product, they are selling an entirely separate product. An “add-on,” if you will. Do you mean to imply that iPod accessories should be illegal?
Once the product is in the consumer’s hands, he can do whatever the hell he wants to it. (Note that I didn’t say “with it.” The matter becomes more complicated when you consider what a consumer can do with the product—such as duplicating or redistributing it.) He certainly doesn’t have to watch the movie straight through just because that’s what the director wanted. He doesn’t like a scene in the movie? He can skip it. He wants to watch a titty scene again and again and again? He can back up the movie and watch to his heart’s content. He wants to write “Property of Bubba” on the DVD with a black marker? He can do that, too. He can eve put his DVD in the microwave and watch the cool light show.
And if the consumer wants to purchase a filter that automates the process of skipping and/or muting certain scenes or portions thereof, he can do that as well.
Your concept of the “free market model” is screwed up. The free market model is precisely the reason why these filtering products should be allowed on the market. Consumers are expressing a demand. Current suppliers are not meeting the demand, so new suppliers create a submarket that extends, rather than competes with, the existing market. Consumers get what they want, the current suppliers retain 100% of their market (or even expand their market), and the new suppliers happily sell their wares in their newly created market. How in the world is the supply side “getting shafted”? The supply side is growing!
You go on: If consumers could just edit down violent/sexual movies into typical Disney fare, this discourages creators from making Disney type movies to begin with.
Umm, yeah. So what? That’s the market model at work, big guy. What if you had said: If consumers could just add their own Spanish language soundtrack on top of the existing soundtrack, that would just encourage creators to build a Spanish language soundtrack onto the DVD by default. That’s the market model at work, right? How is it any different from your Disney example?
All in all this seems like another Joe Liebermanesque play on “family values” vs. evil Hollywood to score political points with Red States.
Well, yeah. But this time it just happens to extend consumer rights as well. That may be an unintentional side effect of the legislation, but I’ll take it.
But in anycase I have enough faith in the free market to recognize that a business solution will come about.
You’ve confused me. This is a business solution. What more are you looking for?
Mr. T April 28, 2005 at 5:48pm
Boooo, hissssss, booooo. So basically, you are arguing that you can develop and market a service to edit out violent or sexual scenes of a movie? Ouch! So much for the proprietary rights of the artist. If you edited down “Sin City” with your service to present a family version of “Sin City” for some consumer, you can expect Frank Miller and company to be a little irate. That is why, understandably so, Hollywood would be pissed.
Your problem here is that you are confusing some understanding of “consumer rights” without looking at the big picture. Obviously a person can do whatever they want with a DVD they have already purchased. But that has nothing to do with copyright protection. The issue here is profiting by taking the work of an artist, and editing that same work down for “family values” purposes. Whoever developed this filter isn’t doing it from the goodness of their hearts you know. They are making $$$.
Mr. Wilson April 28, 2005 at 6:23pm
Whoever developed this filter isn’t doing it from the goodness of their hearts you know. They are making $$$.
What’s your point? How is their motivation of any relevance to this discussion?
So basically, you are arguing that you can develop and market a service to edit out violent or sexual scenes of a movie? Ouch!
Damn right. I paid for it. Why shouldn’t I be able to do with it as I see fit?
So much for the proprietary rights of the artist.
Psh. How are anybody’s rights being infringed? Frank Miller can kiss my ass if he thnks he can force me to view his “art” only in the way he wants it to be viewed.
If you edited down “Sin City” with your service to present a family version of “Sin City” for some consumer, you can expect Frank Miller and company to be a little irate.
Nobody is editing anything. Rather, certain portions of the movie are being skipped. Are you saying it’s ok for a consumer to use the “skip” button on his remote control, but it is not ok to automate the process? Or would you even ban manual scene skipping?
Your problem here is that you are confusing some understanding of “consumer rights” without looking at the big picture.
So what’s the big picture? You don’t say.
Obviously a person can do whatever they want with a DVD they have already purchased.
“Obviously”? You quite plainly say the opposite. The only person it’s obvious to in this dialogue appears to be me.
The issue here is profiting by taking the work of an artist, and editing that same work down for “family values” purposes.
There you go again with that “editing” talk. Nothing is being edited. The original work is not altered.
Let’s try this. Which of the following would you say should be illegal, and why:
a) I buy a book and tear a page out of it.
b) I buy a book and I also buy a study guide from a third-party company that tells me which pages I should skip, and I follow the study guide’s advice.
c) I use a marker to highlight portions of a book.
d) I use a marker to obscure portions of a book.
e) I buy a work of art (painting, sculpture, whatever) and cover up a portion of it.
f) I buy a work of art and remove a portion of it.
g) I buy software and “hack” it to better suit my needs.
h) I buy software, and I also buy an “add-on” software package from a third-party company that extends the abilities of the original software.
i) I buy a DVD and while watching it, I notice a scene approaching that I don’t want to watch. I skip the scene.
j) I buy a DVD and I also buy a filter that automatically skips certain scenes for me so I don’t have to worry about having the remote control handy throughout the movie.
k) I buy a DVD and switch to “black and white” mode, becuase the movie looks cooler in black and white.
Mr. T April 28, 2005 at 7:59pm
Au contraire mon frere! You are hung up with focusing on consumer choice and not considering the proprietary rights of the artist. Of course a consumer can fast forward a DVD movie anyway he sees fit! That is not the issue here, so none of your hypos are on point. The issue is the infringement on the artist’s rights by a third party who is making $$$ on it. And yes, contrary to your assertion, $$$ does matter.
Take the Mel Gibson example. He makes a violent movie – “The Passion.” Millions of consumers want to watch this movie and show it to their kids but minus the gore. Here’s what can happen next:
Mel Gibson can re-cut and re-release his movie (which he paid for and he worked on) minus the violence. Consumers pay for it, Mel gets paid, and everyone is happy.
Here’s the other possibility:
Someone develops a service that will censor out the violent scenes from the Passion so people can watch it minus the gore. But does Mel get paid? No. But the developer of the service does. Would Mel and his studio be pissed? Probably. And you wonder why Hollywood would oppose this legislation? Um…ok.
This is exactly why copyright law is intended to prohibit derivative versions of creative works. And that’s also why it is illegal (or SHOULD be illegal) for some Joe Blow to take a movie like the Passion, and make money off of a derivative version of it that skips the gory scenes.
You are supporting consumer choice, which is fine, but missing the wider picture when it comes to why copyright law exists to begin with.
Mr. Wilson April 28, 2005 at 10:26pm
But does Mel get paid? No. But the developer of the service does.
Either you are drunk, or you aren’t listening.
The answer to your question is Yes! Mel does get paid. Where are you getting this idea that he doesn’t? The consumer buys the DVD ($20 for Mel) and the filter ($5 for the filter company). Without the filter service, either the consumer doesn’t buy the DVD ($0 for Mel, $0 for the filter company), or buys it despite the violence ($20 for Mel, $0 for the filter company).
At what point in that equation is Mel ever harmed by the availability of filters on the market? The filter turns the likelihood of Mel selling his DVD from 50% to 100%. How could Mel possibly not like that equation?
And that’s also why it is illegal (or SHOULD be illegal) for some Joe Blow to take a movie like the Passion, and make money off of a derivative version of it that skips the gory scenes.
Aaargh! There you go again. It’s NOT a derivative version. The original product is never modified. You seem to be confusing companies that actually edit and modify movies (bad!) and companies that merely provide customizable filters to be used during the playing of a customer’s own purchased or rented DVD.
You are supporting consumer choice, which is fine, but missing the wider picture when it comes to why copyright law exists to begin with.
I’m not missing anything. You, on the other hand, are missing the clear distinction between a derivative work (i.e. “Tom Sawyer, now without the ‘N’ word!") and a product that merely provides a new way to utilize the original work without modifying the original work in any way (e.g. the Google Toolbar for Internet Explorer).
Mr. T April 28, 2005 at 11:35pm
Au contraire mon ami! Kudos on your argument so far...but here is where your argument falls down. You say:
“The answer to your question is Yes! Mel does get paid. Where are you getting this idea that he doesn’t? The consumer buys the DVD ($20 for Mel) and the filter ($5 for the filter company). Without the filter service, either the consumer doesn’t buy the DVD ($0 for Mel, $0 for the filter company), or buys it despite the violence ($20 for Mel, $0 for the filter company).”
The scenario you conveniently neglect, however, is that in which the consumer buys the original Passion DVD for $20 AS WELL AS the $5 filter for the SOLE purpose of watching a derivative version of it minus the gore. And yes, there is a lucrative market out there for people who only want to consume G-rated versions of R-rated movies.
Don’t get me wrong. If there are consumers who want to watch a G-rated version of the Passion - that’s fine (which I support). Likewise, if Mel can (and did) release and sell a censored version of his work - more power to him (which I also support).
But its not a question of Mel making the $20. Its a question of Mel NOT making up to $25 for a G-rated derivative version of the movie that he made and paid for that OTHERS are cashing in on. And derivative versions of movies in which the original creators/studios don’t get paid for definitely irks Hollywood and its creative artists, and rightly so. its all about the $$$.
Mr. Wilson April 29, 2005 at 12:00am
I really don’t understand your point of view. It’s wrong for any company to ever add value to another individual’s work, and to make a profit off of that added value? That is truly, truly bizarre.
Do you remember the Game Genie? The original version (I believe) was a Nintendo Entertainment System modification that allowed you to access all sorts of cheats and hacks for pretty much any game available. At first companies put up a fuss akin to the fuss you and Hollywood are putting up. “Our games weren’t meant to be modified in these ways!” they hollered. Then they realized that not only did the Game Genie not hurt their bottom line, it actually increased players’ use of the companies’ products.
This situation is virtually identical. Not only is Mel not losing any of his audience, his audience actually becomes larger thanks to these filtering products.
Its a question of Mel NOT making up to $25 for a G-rated derivative version of the movie that he made and paid for that OTHERS are cashing in on.
I still don’t understand your thinking here. Nobody is selling a “derivative version of the movie.” The movie itself is not being modified. Mel’s movie is 100% intact. Copyright questions, creative rights issues, all that stuff is moot.
Plus, your math is really screwed up. You say Mel is “NOT making up to $25”? What the hell are you talking about? He made his $20. The $5 wasn’t his to begin with because he didn’t put that extra $5 worth of value into his product. Why should Mel get the $5? Mel can still make his own G-rated version if he wants to. If the market demands it and his creative conscience allows it, he may do just that. I doubt it, though.
The scenario you conveniently neglect, however, is that in which the consumer buys the original Passion DVD for $20 AS WELL AS the $5 filter for the SOLE purpose of watching a derivative version of it minus the gore. And yes, there is a lucrative market out there for people who only want to consume G-rated versions of R-rated movies.
Dude. You are so unbelievably out of it. I’m not neglecting that scenario. I’M TALKING ABOUT THAT EXACT SCENARIO. What scenario did you think I was talking about? The “lucrative market” you mention is exactly the market that these filter companies are trying to serve. You and Hollywood, however, would rather they go *bleep* themselves. (Filtered for your protection.)
Besides, I find this whole conversation laughably ironic considering the disucssions we had when you were first thinking about buying a DVD burner. Mr. T a protector of copyrights? Har!
Mr. Wilson April 29, 2005 at 9:35am
On a related note, what’s your take on the V Chip? The V Chip seems, to me, to be strikingly similar in both purpose and result to the types of products we’re discussing here. I assume you’re anti-V Chip?
Mr. T April 29, 2005 at 12:50pm
Uh, getting a little excited are we Mr. Silly?
OK I just read the original article you posted. Hollywood wants a chunk of the $ from this Clearplay outfit because they are making $ from consumers who are watching a derivative version of an original movie. And yes, contrary to whatever bizarre logic you are relying on, the filtered movie IS a derivative product of the original movie. LOL. Why can’t you understand that? They are making $ from a “filtered movie” that mutes out portions of an original movie. If that’s not derivative, what is?
Your “its adding value” argument is totally inappropriate (which is what I think you were similarly trying to suggest with your I Pod thought). This issue isn’t about “adding value” – its about a third party wrongfully profiting from a derivative version of an original piece of work, and the original creator objecting to it.
This V-chip thing is also totally not analogous but it doesn’t alter content of an original piece of work.
Besides, I find this whole conversation laughably ironic considering the disucssions we had when you were first thinking about buying a DVD burner. Mr. T a protector of copyrights? Har!
Heh heh heh. No contest there. I am just partaking in this – ahem – “spirited debate” because I enjoy picking your brains, learning about your philosophy, and most of all - seeing you get all excited. See - now you are doing what I call “double posting.” “Double posting” occurs when someone gets so temporarily excited/obsessed about an internet debate that they post twice instead of waiting for a rebuttal. Hence the term “double posting.”
And I noticed that your double post was done at 6:35 AM this morning. That means you must have gotten up straight from bed, and headed straight for your computer so you could double post. I hope in your double-posting excitement that you didn’t accidentally spill your cocoa puffs and milk on your computer!
Having said that…I grow weary of this “debate” and shall move on to another topic, heh...I don’t want to cause you any strokes or more sleepless nights. Plus, I am obviously destroying you.
Mr. Wilson April 29, 2005 at 1:16pm
And I noticed that your double post was done at 6:35 AM this morning. That means you must have gotten up straight from bed, and headed straight for your computer so you could double post. I hope in your double-posting excitement that you didn’t accidentally spill your cocoa puffs and milk on your computer!
Nope, sorry to spoil your fun. I just set the server’s time settings incorrectly after Daylight Savings and I haven’t bothered to fix it.
This V-chip thing is also totally not analogous...
How is it not analogous? For a J.D. you sure don’t support your arguments very well.
...but it doesn’t alter content of an original piece of work.
Neither do the filter products.
See - now you are doing what I call “double posting.”
Sort of. Actually, the second post was more a question from The Missus transcribed by me. (She thinks you’re rather boneheaded, by the way.)