I'm constantly amazed at how much help the right needs when it comes to raising their kids.
It's like welfare for the "moral"... Of little use to most people.
I've never had a problem sending my kid to his room to play when I watch shows I don't think he should see. And I've never had a problem watching them when he is in bed.
Somehow I just don't think 'Blade: Trinity' would be the same...
The funny part is always someone responding to things like "intellectual freedom" with interesting statements, usually along the lines of "Well, yes, but do people have to be free to do this?!" No, no -- it's the special kind of freedom where nobody's allowed to do anything that disturbs you, Sir. That's how freedom works now!There are lots of would-be censors out there, and although they may have different agends, they all want basically the same thing: For you to see the world they see...or at least to shut up about what you do see that's different. They are agents of the status quo. Not necessarily bad guys, but dangerous guys if you happen to believe in intellectual freedom.
If you are a Christian, then you shouldn't be watching movies like that in the first place. So you wouldn't have to worry about your children seeing them at your house. Problem solved all around with no government intervention.
That was easy...
"Abstain from ALL appearance of evil." - 1 Thessalonians 5:22
Re:Quite honestly...
mary.poppins on 2005-05-06T23:10:54
Or movies where people eat shellfish!
If I buy a book, I can rip out pages, or paint over words or paragraphs to improve (in my opinion) the book; and I can publish a list of the pages, paragraphs, and words that I felt were extraneous. As long as someone who gets my list still has to buy the actual book and choose to apply my cuts, the author should have no recourse.
I've never done that and find no appeal in the "service" that this law is specifically enabling, but the movie industry should have very little right to sue over this sort of editting - none unless someone is selling their work without copyright approval, or presenting their work in modified form as if it were the original.
Re:fair use
phillup on 2005-04-28T17:02:12
On this issue, I think its crazy that a law has to be passed to allow people to create editted versions of movies.
I'm not sure that is what the law allows.The key words being if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion is created. Nothing is being created. An experience is being modified.the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology.
It is like someone creating a painting, and then suing a museum because they let someone look at the painting while wearing glasses. (or sun glasses if that helps the analogy) The original is not affected, just the perception of the original. And most importantly, it is done privately at the behest of the user.
In my mind, this is the worst part of the law... because this is (IMHO) covered by fair use. No law is needed to allow for this.
We have just started down the slippery slope of actually legislating use of copyrighted material.
If I buy a book, I can rip out pages, or paint over words or paragraphs to improve (in my opinion) the book; and I can publish a list of the pages, paragraphs, and words that I felt were extraneous. As long as someone who gets my list still has to buy the actual book and choose to apply my cuts, the author should have no recourse.
My understanding of the first sale doctrine is that you can actually sell your books... even if they have been altered. I may be wrong on that tho.
What makes this law different tho is that we are actually talking about a "companion product". It is basically a playlist that gets used in conjunction with the copyrighted material. (I might add that the playlist itself will most likely be copyrighted).
Using the playlist in no way changes the original source, and no new "product" is created.
