(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

What Exactly Is the Movie Industry Objecting To?
08/09/2002

"Just because we have the technology to do it doesn't make it right," says Directors Guild of America President Martha Coolidge in The Salt Lake Tribune. She's talking about new services that are cropping up, particularly in heavily religious communities, to edit objectional material from lawfully purchased videos and DVDs. "Films are made by people who care passionately about what they do and what their work says."

Since I don't have all day to relate the many scintillating critical-theory discussions in college that bear on Ms. Coolidge's objection that tampering with video "obliterates the intention" of the creator, I'll just get to the heart of the matter.

A film's creators cannot possibly imagine that they have any control over, or any right to control, how I choose to watch a movie presented to me for viewing in the home. I have every right to fast-forward through sex and violence, hit mute when bad language is thrust through the television at my child, or even watch scenes out of order with the TV upside-down and covered with blue cellophane. Likewise, I would have every right to purchase technology that automates these actions for me. I don't think there's much room for argument thus far because I haven't touched the medium on which the film is sold. But what of that medium? If I pull all of the tape out of a video and string it around my house, surely I am within my rights, having purchased the physical object. Likewise if I paint a DVD and use it as a frisbee.

I can understand the difference between changing the way I view a movie and changing the movie itself. I can also understand the difference between changing the function of a physical disc or tape and changing the content. However, I just do not see how, for my own private use, I lose the right to manipulate the physical item in order to view the movie as I see fit. Public presentation of copyrighted material is another legal matter altogether. And I'm not up on specific laws as far as renting videos out is concerned, so maybe there's some gray area here. (Although, I'd say that if the editing is noticeably acknowledged — indeed, desired by the rentor — there really isn't much room to cry foul.)

Most of all, though, I just have to wonder why it is that the movie industry, of all groups, would put forth the argument that a "person who is troubled by the content of a film should simply not watch it." Is it because they know that they're much more likely to undermine parents' objections if the parenting choice is all or nothing?

Someday, Jody and I will agree on something, but moviemakers claiming the ethical high-road in this instance is a bunch of [beep].

Posted by Justin Katz @ 03:42 PM EST

8 comments

Did someone call my name?

As I think it was my post you were responding to, you are perfectly right that you do have the right to fast forward, mute or turn off a movie that you don't like. Any artist who creates a work for film or video recognizes that people will do that. In fact, they agree, more or less, that such things will happen in exchange for the chance to create their work.

What they don't agree to is another company coming along and editing their creation towards a set of standards that they have no say in.

The artist who created the work, has a say -- traditionally, historically and, in this day and age, legally -- on how his or her work is displayed or conveyed. There is an intent behind the work, a point to be made. Taking pieces from it, without the artists approval, destroys the intent of that speech.

It would be the same thing as someone decided that every occurrence of the letter "e" as well as every fifth word on your blog page was somewhat offensive or objectionable.A certain set of readers would be much better off reading your page if all those items were removed. The effects of such things would, of course, render all of your glorious thoughts unintelligible.

You write (slightly up the page) "...I have to write this book, it has to be poetry, and it has to be perfect. It is as if the book exists apart from me and won't leave me alone until it's written..." I'm not sure you'd stand for me coming along later and changing those 16 syllables that you worked most of the day on. Not just changing them, but removing them all together. How about changing your book of verse into one of prose, because I know that it will then reach a wider audience?

If I'm right, you want your book to be hard, challenging, involving to be read. You don't wan't the reader to have a passive time of it, but to rather make an effort to understand and appreciate the verse involved. It's not for me to change that.

Hollywood is defending the creation of movies because, all of the profits, fame and paparazzi exist because of the artistic creation that is done there, day in and day out. That much of it is piss poor and horrible is beside the point.

The fact is that people who do not have the right to change a work are in fact doing so. They are censoring, simply put.

J

Katzy, baby, have your people's people call my people's people's people. Will do lunch on this fabu little bistro I found on the West Side....

Jody @ 08/12/2002 01:41 PM EST

Damn. Forgot the dumb in the previous. Insert after the out quote from what you wrote.

Jody @ 08/12/2002 01:47 PM EST

Of course [/i] won't print in the previous. Sigh. I just can't win.

Jody @ 08/12/2002 01:49 PM EST

Jody,

I'm glad you asked about my view of this with respect to my own work. I would object your forbidding me to publish my poem-novel with those sixteen syllables, or even your changing a single word prepublication without my consent. I would also object to your buying up a bunch of copies (whenever it's finished), ripping out a few pages, and then reselling it as unabridged... even if you made no money from the endeavor. However, I would not object to people buying my book and blacking out portions to enable their children to read it (there will likely be fairly graphic sections).

Even the shops that profit from "cleaned" videos are not claiming to sell the original product as released, nor are they preventing dissemination of the original creation.

With your example of my blog, the actual parallel would be somebody manipulating his or her browser to delete text. It would likely cross the line for a company to mirror my site at another URL, say "www.dust-without-e.com," but not to sell software that would render my work unintelligible for readers who prefer it that way.

(Note: You might have guessed that I'd be prepared for exactly this line of argument.)

Justin Katz @ 08/12/2002 02:02 PM EST

FYI... I fixed your italics problem above.

Justin Katz @ 08/12/2002 02:06 PM EST

Which, again, is my point. It's your work and you don't object. None of the artists in question from the article were asked. You have the right to authorize, approve or sanction changes to your work. Others don't have the right to do it to your work without your approval.

Jody @ 08/12/2002 02:47 PM EST

Thank you for the correction, BTW.

Jody @ 08/12/2002 02:47 PM EST

By offering up a physical object for sale and providing an artistic work in a medium that may be manipulated, the creator relinquishes control over individually, duly purchased copies of that work.

All of the books that I've read are marked up, and although Ralph Waldo Emerson would probably dislike my notations of "idiot" in the margins of his books, he has (or would have if he were alive) no right to tell me that I cannot write them.

Likewise, if somebody wanted to read Emerson with my comments, he'd have a right to pay me to mark up his duly purchased copy or to borrow mine.

Justin Katz @ 08/12/2002 02:59 PM EST