From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed Jan 01 2003 - 09:42:00 MST
> Barbara Blithered;
> <<I think if Clean flicks loose it'll be a pity, because with what they're
> doing there's no short term or long term financial "downside" for anyone
> and in the long term there's considerable financial and artistic
> advantages for the artist(s).>>
> Snopes Sniped;
> But if CleanFlicks wins, consider the implications: They (or a similar
> outfit) decides that, say, the appearance of O.J. Simpson in "The Towering
> Inferno" is objectionable, so they digitally "edit" the film and replace
> him with a different actor. Is that still okay?
Barbara Babbles;
Yes. Why not? (although I'd omit the word "a different" from the snope's
statement and replace it with "an" <g>). The Kung Fu spoof "Kung Pow"
showed just how greatly an original can be altered. We are not talking
about Clean flicks or similar forcing the rest of us to accept their
version over the original or about the destruction or cessation of
availability of the original version here: that would be an entirely
different kettle of Oscars.
Provided we're not talking about mass censorship, suppression of the
original, plagerisation (ie: "passing off"), avoidance of royalty
payments, false accreditation, or pirating; I can not see any harm in
creating versions edited to personal taste. Nor can I see any harm in
folk who share that taste sharing the edited version amongst themselves
providing the studio still gets their royalties. As these are folk who
would otherwise not view the movie or purchase the DVD/video it's a
source of income the studios/artists would not otherwise have.
As with Kung Pow some "edited" versions may be elligable as works of
intellectual property in their own right, creating new films from the
old. The creators of the original material still get their credits and
royalties so there's no harm done is there?
In the near future home computers will permit individuals to edit in
this manner anyway. Clean flicks are merely jumping into that narrow
time gap between the technology being restricted to the few who can
afford it and the advances that will make accessible to everyone.
Personally I look forward to that day: I'd cut the sex sequences from
many films (not out of prudishness, but at my age I find the squishy
bits just sooooo boring) and add Intermissions to long films like LoTR
(particularly the extended version!), or perhaps as a swordsperson
myself I'd make a compilation of cinematic and/or TV show sword fights
or Katas that I've liked. Why not? If I've paid for the original
version, so how I choose to view it, in whole or in part, is my affair
and no justified concern of the studios or artists.
Barbara
----------------------
> Rob Rote;
> <<But ultimately, I don't think people should tamper with any artistic
> creation. If they can't stand the original, they can find some alternative
> substitute with which to pass their time.>>
> Snopes sniped;
> But as always, it's a matter of degree. I doubt you'd object to someone's
> programming his CD player to skip certain tracks on a disc, but isn't that
> tampering with an artistic creation as well? After all, if the artist
> didn't intend and expect you to hear those particular songs (and in that
> specific context), he wouldn't have released them in the first place.
Barbara blithers;
Interesting you should bring this up. When cassette tape recording made
hone editing and home compilations possible it wasn't the artists who
objected but the studios. They called it "home piracy" and campaigned
for a performing rights surcharge on blank tapes.
However, "home piracy" wasn't illegal if the editor was using commercial
LPs/Tapes which they had legitimately bought and were not passing on or
selling their edited versions. Eventually the studios realized that folk
who did this would often buy a whole LP simply so they could extract a
single track. Whereas if they didn't have that ability they'd either
regard purchase of the whole work a waste of money, or too much hassle
and effort to line up a single track. So "home piracy" actually provided
the studios and artists with a source of revenue they wouldn't otherwise
have. The studio's assumption that every "copy" was a lost sale was
proven fallacious, and the whole surcharge thing was quietly downplayed.
The inability to do this with CDs was a major barrier to phasing out
cassettes. The studios and manufacturers recognized this and nowadays
one can go into a booth in Virgin, Tescos, or W H Smiths (and the like)
and select individual tracks from popular artists works and burn ones
own personal compilation album. Likewise the ability to edit and create
compilations is hyped as the major selling point of Sony's mini-disk
system ("get creative" they say), and rather more discretely included in
the sales pitch for home computers which have the ability to burn CDs.
Personally I'll lament the demise of the cassette tape. The ICE cassette
systems require much less diver attention to change tapes than change
CDs, and even to programme, or make a selection, on an in-car multi CD
player take ones attention away from the road for far to long in my
opinion. Perhaps when such devices are voice activated they'll be safe.
The music industry nowadays approves of home editing because of the
advantages to the music industry; the film industry will no doubt follow
suit after an initial period of resistance. Recall that the Film
industry was violently opposed to home VCRs, and even the video industry
as a whole, claiming that the video industry would inevitably cause the
death of the film industry, whereas the actual outcome was that video
sales and rentals proved to be the salvation of the film industry.
Likewise Clean flicks and their like will provide a source of revenue
the industry would not otherwise have had.
Imagine a Clean flicks version of Harry Potter with "wizard/witch"
changed to "prophet" with the good guys spells in Aramaic or calling
upon saints, and the bad guys like Voldemort becoming Satanists invoking
the Devil for their arts. The Christian Right, who've stayed away from
these films in droves, would approve of such editing, and the story's
core message of friendship, loyalty, and good over evil would not be
lost. No one except the Christian Right would watch such an edited
version, it wouldn't be thrust upon the rest of us, and the studios
would get royalties they wouldn't otherwise get. I don't see any
downside to this.
For centuries music composers have been in the position that every
artist who performs their composition will place their own
interpretation upon it; some interpretations are so radical that the
composition has meanings never intended by the composer. The altering of
the Irish anti-war ballad "Johnny I hardly Knew Ye" to the pro-war "When
Johnny Comes Marching Home Again" springs to mind (I use to perform
both; doing the US Civil War version first segwayed into the slower
Irish version; which I felt gave the latter's anti-war stance a greater
impact).
Composers seen their creativity as providing the raw materiel for the
creativity of others. The Music industry recognizes that stance and
exploits it now, where once they opposed it: I believe the Film industry
will go the same way after a similar initial resistance.
Barbara
--
Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@mindspring.com >
Alternate: < fortean1@msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans,
Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST