4 ms·

I pay for content that I want to support and I'm very active in choosing media I want to support and putting my money where my mouth is, but there are many reas

I pay for content that I want to support and I'm very active in choosing media I want to support and putting my money where my mouth is, but there are many reasons why someone might want to use a service like this: 1. Editing for their children as an audience. Something like Lord of the Rings is a classic with an amazing set of movies, but I might not want to edit a few things for children. 2. Editing gratuitous violence out of an otherwise good film. A lot of movies put in gratuitous violence or swearing just because it is expected to be a "serious film" even though it has no reason to be in it. If there is simply a choice between "Barnie goes to Paris" or "Lord of the Rings" with a few things edited; I know what I'll pick. 3. Slipping standards and ratings in modern movies: classic movies managed to be great without the violence, sex, and profanity. A PG13 of today is very different than a PG13 of yesteryear. 4. Production costs and minority status: the demand for clean films seems low. Producing a state of the art movie costs a lot of money, it's easier to cleanup a film than to produce the same movie from scratch without the objectionable parts. This is something of a minority rights issue and how to fit into a larger society. 5. Triggers and Choice: people have a wide variety of psychological needs and quirks. It is important for them to be able to fit into society and not be traumatized by it. These solutions help a oid things that may trigger things or aggravate conditions. Choice is similar. You can and should be able to choose what you eat, drink, etc. Same with "mental eating". You can filter your water for things, why not filter what your mind eats to suit your tastes?

BjoernKW 7y ago
Sure, everyone is fine to do as you described for his or her own private use. You might think that an otherwise good film contains gratuitous violence but the film's creators put it there for a reason. Even if that reason was a shallow one you can't simply decide for yourself to sell a new "improved" version of that content without asking for permission first, which is precisely what CleanFlicks did.
- winkeltripel 7y ago
  right, but for any parent to do that editing by themselves is a monumental task. If the mormons: 1. bought an original copy of each film 2. added an edited DVD to each box 3. re-sold the box with both DVDs That would seem ethical to me, and abiding by reasonable copyright laws. Their right to remix (even if in somewhat boring ways) should be important.
  - BjoernKW 7y ago
    That's just the financial side of things. They'd still be tampering with the original piece of content, which most likely isn't what the artist would've wanted. Then there's the question of if it's really ethical to want to consume content that at least partially is against your moral values. I completely concur with parents' desire to protect their children. However, if it's about adults finding content morally objectionable the actual ethical choice is to simply not watch that content.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - jhanschoo 7y ago
      I disagree with the parent comment (see my reply), but this isn't correct either. > That's just the financial side of things. They'd still be tampering with the original piece of content, which most likely isn't what the artist would've wanted. It's culturally important that people are allowed to transform creative works in ways that the author/artist didn't intend or want. Hence parody is allowed. If I were to redact parts of a book I bought in a store and resell that book, it would be legal. It can also even be ethical. The problem with CleanFlicks is that they made their own DVD copy to contain copied, edited video of the original film. It's a copy, and hence infringes copyright.
  - jhanschoo 7y ago
    > added an edited DVD to each box The edited DVD is a copy of the original DVD. That is copyright infringement. > Their right to remix (even if in somewhat boring ways) should be important. This isn't a remix. A remix should desire to completely change the creative expression of the original into a new creative expression. The edits seek to preserve as much of the creative expression as possible (as much as that does not cross over certain fixed (hence unoriginal) rules). I don't think a reasonable person will think that this is transformative.

BjoernKW 7y ago

Sure, everyone is fine to do as you described for his or her own private use. You might think that an otherwise good film contains gratuitous violence but the film's creators put it there for a reason. Even if that reason was a shallow one you can't simply decide for yourself to sell a new "improved" version of that content without asking for permission first, which is precisely what CleanFlicks did.

winkeltripel 7y ago
right, but for any parent to do that editing by themselves is a monumental task. If the mormons: 1. bought an original copy of each film 2. added an edited DVD to each box 3. re-sold the box with both DVDs That would seem ethical to me, and abiding by reasonable copyright laws. Their right to remix (even if in somewhat boring ways) should be important.
- BjoernKW 7y ago
  That's just the financial side of things. They'd still be tampering with the original piece of content, which most likely isn't what the artist would've wanted. Then there's the question of if it's really ethical to want to consume content that at least partially is against your moral values. I completely concur with parents' desire to protect their children. However, if it's about adults finding content morally objectionable the actual ethical choice is to simply not watch that content.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jhanschoo 7y ago
    I disagree with the parent comment (see my reply), but this isn't correct either. > That's just the financial side of things. They'd still be tampering with the original piece of content, which most likely isn't what the artist would've wanted. It's culturally important that people are allowed to transform creative works in ways that the author/artist didn't intend or want. Hence parody is allowed. If I were to redact parts of a book I bought in a store and resell that book, it would be legal. It can also even be ethical. The problem with CleanFlicks is that they made their own DVD copy to contain copied, edited video of the original film. It's a copy, and hence infringes copyright.
- jhanschoo 7y ago
  > added an edited DVD to each box The edited DVD is a copy of the original DVD. That is copyright infringement. > Their right to remix (even if in somewhat boring ways) should be important. This isn't a remix. A remix should desire to completely change the creative expression of the original into a new creative expression. The edits seek to preserve as much of the creative expression as possible (as much as that does not cross over certain fixed (hence unoriginal) rules). I don't think a reasonable person will think that this is transformative.