I'm having a crisis of conscience. From (the irony free zone of) The Salt Lake City Tribune:
The EEF...filed a federal court brief Wednesday in support of companies that make software to edit violent or sexual scenes from DVD films...But EFF argues that companies that create software to edit out "filth" in DVDs are different from CleanFlicks [who make modified DVDs] because the product doesn't actually alter the DVD. As the DVD plays in a home computer, the program skips violent or sexual scenes.
I'm a big fan of the EFF and, as you can read about here and here, a big opponent of companies that make modified versions of films.
To me, this is just an end-around the bigger issue of 'cleaning' DVDs. If a company provides software that edits a DVD, it amounts to the same thing as a company distributing an edited DVD. By commodifying the process, you're not (as the EFF states) "empowering consumers"--you're providing them with a bastardized product--a work of art that the artist never intended you to see.
But, then, how does this differ from the letterboxing that is done to better 'fit' films to television screens? I'll tell you how it differs--there was plenty of money to be made in showing films on television. Hollywood's not concerned about losing money here--these people will probably watch the unedited versions of the films anyway.
In short, I can't back the EFF on this one. While I support the right of individual consumers to modify art for their private use, these companies are effectively modifying art works and reselling them. The technological means is mere legal nitpicking.
11:47:36 PM 
Internet Technology The Commons
|
