2 ms·
I see this reaction every time one of these services is discussed here. People with angry, even violent opposition to people fast-forwarding through parts of m
by jasonkester 7y ago
I see this reaction every time one of these services is discussed here. People with angry, even violent opposition to people fast-forwarding through parts of movies.
It's fascinating. I can't imagine an issue that could affect the parent's life less than this. And yet he and a couple other folks downstream are properly losing their soup over it.
As to the point in question, I tend to disagree that Disney will be disincentivised from making more Star Wars movies because of that time somebody skipped the "Luke's Parents On Fire" scene when showing Episode 4 to their kids the first time.
- BjoernKW 7y agoFast-forwarding parts of movies for your own private use is entirely different from selling an unlicensed edited version of original content, which is precisely what CleanFlicks did. Unless that content is licensed under a free licence that specifically permits you to remix content (e.g. some Creative Commons variants) selling an unauthorised edited version is unethical and probably illegal as well. By arbitrarily removing parts of original content and publishing the changed versions CleanFlicks were altering it in ways the content creators didn't intend and it's perfectly understandably that those content creators don't want to be associated with these versions.
- smcl 7y agoBjoernKW isn't angry, violent or "losing their soup" over anything. It was just a comment that stated pretty plainly and succinctly what their impression of the problem was.