Will you edit your own movies? (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

And as I've been saying, I fully agree with the semtinemts of that saying.

If you do fully agree, then let's end it. You've made your point over and over (and over and over) that you think it's wrong. Repeatedly telling us this does not show your agreement. So prove that you agree and stop telling us it's wrong. Watch and let watch.

DJ

 

[John_Berger]

So, at least, copying of some DVDs would not violate the DMCA.

I fully agree. And even with the draconian DMCA in place, I see no problems in creating an archival backup of a DVD or VHS tape, even if it does circumvent copy protection. In that case, you are attempting to protect your investment by having a duplicate that is identical in nature to the original. I have zero problems with that. (We're expected to back up our hard drives inthe event of a failure but we're not supposed to back up our software or DVDs in the event of a failure? How absolutely ridiculous!)
That is different, however, than this little debate since we're talking about performing modifications on the material for the purposes of altering the resulting contents of that material. We're not talking about straight duplication. I see a difference. You mileage might vary. Somehow I think that it will.

 

[John_Berger]

Repeatedly telling us this does not show your agreement.

That is NOT a one-way street in this thread! I got slammed just as much as I did the slamming!

 

[Damin J Toell]

I fully agree. And even with the draconian DMCA in place, I see no problems in creating an archival backup of a DVD or VHS tape, even if it does circumvent copy protection. In that case, you are attempting to protect your investment by having a duplicate that is identical in nature to the original. I have zero problems with that.

As someone who has been such a stickler for the law in this thread, please realize that what you're giving your approval to is equally as illegal as the subject of this thread.

DJ

 

[John_Berger]

As someone who has been such a stickler for the law in this thread, please realize that what you're giving your approval to is equally as illegal as the subject of this thread.

I never got into the matter of law to be a deterrent. That would definitely be throwing stones in a glass house. I was just bringing to point the issue that modifying a movie does go beyond the issue of ethics and what someone wants just because he now has it in his home. That's why I brought up the cocaine reference. How ironic that I was then accused of going to the extreme.

 

[Todd Phillips]

Let's break through the clouds of confusion here.

As far as I see it, if one's goal is to view the movie as the director intended it, then P&S and editing would be the wrong way to do it. I think everyone can agree to that.

I actually think we should be arguing whether or not it is valid to want to apply one's own vision (or re-visioning) to a piece of art (whether that be P&S, or editing or music remixing, etc). I will say that it is perfectly justifiable as long as one does not try to represent it as the original intent or vision for the work (which is what the studios are doing with Pan&Scan). It would be your vision and would represent a completely separate work which should never be mistaken or passed off for the original.

Re-editing Mememto in chronologial order is not "Memento" anymore (and it may be a lesser movie), but it is still interesting and it even might give insight into the original (as do remakes and satires of books and movies). Mostly, though, it doesn't invalidate the original, i.e., I can still watch the original. So I find it valid.

However, if if the studios determined that the "majority" of viewing public only wanted to watch movies in chronological order, and only released the re-edited version of Mememto, then that WOULD be bad since the original vision was unavailable and effectively destroyed. That is what is happening with Pan&Scan.

I truly believe that if every movie was released in both OAR and 4:3 (assuming that they are different), no one would be arguing about it, since the original would always be available.

 

[John_Berger]

I truly believe that if every movie was released in both OAR and 4:3 (assuming that they are different), no one would be arguing about it, since the original would always be available.

Arguing? Probably not, but there'd still be a lot of bitching about it.

 

[Jack Briggs]

How ironic that I was then accused of going to the extreme.

John:

Will you cool it, please?

Home Theater Forum is not your personal soapbox, nor are its established threads there for you simply to derail them.

The vast majority of threads on HTF are civil--and when they get lively, they still remain under control.

You are not contributing to this atmosphere of civility with your posts.

JB

 

[Holadem]

I would edit the extra scenes out of the Director's cut of one of my all time favs, Aliens. The director's cut makes a tight action movie drag a little for my taste and takes some of the creepiness out of the movie.
The theatrical version is not available on DVD.
--
Holadem

 

[Aaron Croft]

John (about Pan and Scanning): "Right, which means that the studio has accepted that those changes were authorized or approved in some way by the filmmakers."
John: "Absolutely not. Regardless of whether the original is available for purchase or not, the P&S version is not the correct version. It is a perversion of what the movie was meant to be. It is not acceptable." But I thought the director INTENDED and ALLOWED for a P&S version to be released?
John: "However, with respect to this thread they are different in one very important regard: one requires the breakage of copy-protection, the other does not. So, the usage of the media might be subject to the fair use laws, but as you so very often point out to me "fair use" has been thrown out the window due to the DCMA. The need to break the copy-protection on DVD alone puts this issue in a different category than print media."
John: "I fully agree. And even with the draconian DMCA in place, I see no problems in creating an archival backup of a DVD or VHS tape, even if it does circumvent copy protection. In that case, you are attempting to protect your investment by having a duplicate that is identical in nature to the original. I have zero problems with that. (We're expected to back up our hard drives inthe event of a failure but we're not supposed to back up our software or DVDs in the event of a failure? How absolutely ridiculous!)"
John.. IM BACK! LOL.. OK. If it was the directors intention to release a film on DVD that has copy protection, are you not blasphemising his/her work by then breaking that copy protection to back up your DVD (which you kept saying over and over again was wrong)???
You are fun to argue with, but also very confusing my freind. Also, you keep having the argument about "just because" you are doing something in the privacy of your own home doesn't mean it's right... and then you repeatedly make examples that ACTUALLY do affect other people. And IMHO, while I try to be a law abiding citizen most of the time, I tend to go more with my MORALS than to the letter of the law. In fact I don't have any problem with someone sitting in their own home and doing an illegal drug, as long as it really isn't effecting anyone else (no kids around, etc.)
And as far as the copy protecion issue goes, as far as I know there are conflicting laws and practices in that issue. As you pointed out you are allowed to make a back up of any media you purchased under the fair use act, yet you also claim it is illegal to break copy protection. You also take issue with said law, while defending it earlier when it applies to anything other than making a back up copy.
AND.. if we completely ignore copy protection, I STILL disagree that it would be illegal, or breaking a liscense to edit a movie for your own use. I think music and movies are fairly closely related... and it is common practice to re-mix, and BROADCAST a re-mix of a song that had nothing to do with the original artist.
BUT.. as you point out, this really isn't an argument.. since neither side is going to chang

I had to add some smileys, and thumbs up to make sure the moderators understand that at least my posts are not meant to be hot headed in any way.
Of course... even though I consider my posts "art", the moderators have full permision to edit and cut parts of my post if that is the way THEY want to view my posts, since legally, they own my post HAHAHAHHA
Aaron

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

If pan and scanning was done in the privacy of J6P's own hope, than I wouldn't care less. As long as the original version is OAR, then I'll happily watch it in in OAR and let J6P butcher it as he wishes. Alas, it is done at the source level, and that is why I'm against pan and scan.
Likewise, editting to a D-VHS is done in the privacy of a consumer's home. Let people butcher their copies as they see fit, and I'll watch the original cut happiply in MY home.

 

[Dick]

There are individual shots in certain films I find almost unwatchable in otherwise fine films. An example that comes instantly to mind: the shot of one of the robbers thrusting a gun into the mouth of a calf in CITY SLICKERS. I was able to very smoothly edit this shot out, leaving me with a film I could watch and enjoy without anticipating a bit I found unneccessary, in incredibly bad taste, and truly offensive. Call it revisionism or tampering or lack of respect or censorship - that shot had once ruined the film for me.

 

[Travis D]

Well, I've always wanted to re-edit my own copy of Jay and Silent bob Strike Back. Kevin Smith provided all the footage shot as deleted scenes and even joked about how you could make your own version of the film. It's not that I think the movie is inferior (I love the movie) to anything I could make, but making my own version with some of the cut jokes put back in would be really fun to do.
As for copy protection on this issue, here's what I believe. There is need for both CCS and Macrovision. I see that need and acknowledge that mass bootleging and pirating is the worst thing that could happen, but when someone breaks the protection for property that they've already leased, I just don't see the point.
If you've paid your money, you sould be able to do whatever you like with the film as long as you don't REDISTRIBUTE. If at some point you sell your DVD, you must destroy your re-edited version because you would be retaining a pirate copy. I just do not see a problem with someone purchasing a product and copying as must as he wants as long as it doesn't leave his home. Once it is given away or sold it has then taken money away from the property holders. If you don't create a case in which money is deprived from a property holder, I just don't see the problem.

 

[Eugene Hsieh]

I'd be VERY surprised if you could copy directly from DVD to D-VHS directly, even if you had a Macrovision defeater.

It should be analogous to Ron's Philips DVD recorder review where he cannot copy from DVD (without Macrovision) to DVD+RW directly.

Will I edit theatrical releases? Probably not. But many people are definitely going to. I must admit though, even though I haven't seen it, the Phantom Edit without Jar Jar is very tempting...

 

[John_Berger]

Quote:

Actually, I just found out on another HTF thread that (if I understood them correctly) the decryption keys are stored on the disc itself as well as the VOB files. As a result, DVD+/-RW discs have either their own key or a generic key that is incompatible with the keys that are encoded into the files.
This is all assuming that I understood them correctly, but it does make sense.