Editing Movies, right, wrong, censorship ?

Remove all ads!

About:Censorship, Copyrights, Personal feelings, where is editing right, where is it wrong. Wherever freedom of thought takes this issue and isn't deemed by the admins as off topic.

There's a tight link between copyright and censorship. The most famous example I know of is Heinrich Heine. In his writing he mentions often censorship, copyright and the link between.

Censorship. A lot of countries didn't want his work puplished. Therefore they made some of it illegal.

Copyright. Puplishers wanted to puplish his works, because it sold. So it happened that the puplishers altered his writing, without his consent. -> censorship because of public demand.

And anyway, a lot of people stole from his works.

A book can be compared to a movie. Spielberg WANTS the people to see the first part of saving private ryan. If people chose not to watch it (ff maybe), they are free to do so. But a 3rd person hasn't the right, to alter the film and sell it this way without the consent of spielberg.

It has the potential of "censorship through private enterprise". -> If this business takes off, it's possible that in some states "edited" movies are more common, that the "original".

Fictional Example: 70 % of the people of a state want a certain scene in a movie banned. Not possible through law, because of free speech. Solution: The make their on company and puplish the movie without the scene -> Hey, we're private persons, not a state. -> Copyright protects not only the commercial intereset, but also the right of expression of the artist.

And copyright is tight to freedom of art. The arist has copyright -> The right to say how the copy of it has to be. No one has the right to alter it without his consent. If he wants sex and violence or make a movie about war, no one, neither private person or state, has the right to interfere with it.

(Of course exist laws that restrict free speech -> porn hasn't to be allowed.)

[ May 01, 2003, 22:59: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Death Rabbit,
I think that we are in agreement, for the most part.

However, there is this:

You gave the definition of censor: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable".
I don't see anything in this definition that stops what is being done from being called censorship. It is considered objectionable. So it is being removed. According to the definition, this is censorship.
The question is, is it bad censorship. I say no. Not if it is desired by the recipient and approved by the owner. In this case what seems to be missing is permission from the owner.

Again, to be clear, under no circumstances should a video store owner be editing the tapes without the permission of the studio. That is completely unacceptable.

 

Yes, I think we understand each other. My last post was a rib poke more than anything (hence the rolly head), but I see where you're coming from and agree.

In your case though, if permission IS given, censorship now doesn't seem to apply IMO. When I personally think of the word 'censorship,' I see it as meaning forceful removal, or at least removal against the will of the creator. I know this goes slightly beyond my stated definition, but that's how I see it. So in your case, it seems more like self-imposed restraint than censorship. But now I'm just overanalyzing the word and beating a dead horse...