Talk:Re-edited film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): Filmmaking task force

[edit] Editing film isn't censorship if the consumer chooses it

Overall this article gives a rather negative opinion on editing film for content. The article is even listed as part of a series on censorship. However, true censorship occurs when a government or some other powerful organization edits media without the approval or express desire of the consumer. When a person deliberately purchases a film that has been edited for content they are simply making a choice about the type of media they choose to consume.

Studios who own the rights to distribute films complain that companies who edit their films and then sell them at a profit are illegally making money off of the studio/writer's content. However, when a studio sells a case of DVDs to a department store like Walmart they typically give that store the permission to sell the films with some amount of markup. Companies that edit films are doing the same thing--when they purchase copies of films they are taking over the right of distribution for those copies. This type of editing is standard in the music and radio industry, since profanity is not allowed on most public airwaves.

(Comment: There is an issue of copyright as pertaining to intellectual property that is not addressed by the mark-up argument made here. Further, comparing the form of censorship described in the article to the censorship described in this discussion point is imbalanced. The latter is conducted by state (or state-authorised) bodies, or standards bodies sanctioned by broadcasters, or broadcasters given permission by studios/publishers to disseminate intellectual property. The former is a case of retailers breaching copyright law without the knowledge or permission of the copyright holders – and, as the article notes, has been ruled by US courts as illegal behaviour. Any bias in the article is thus supported (and shared) by a United States copyright law ruling and prior copyright legislation; any bias in this criticism of the article is based solely in personal bias.)

When studios refuse to allow edited copies of films on the market, they are the entities that are truly participating in censorship since they, without any direct request from the consumer, choose to keep a certain version of their film from the market. In a free market society, such as the US, the consumer should have the right to choose what type of media they consume.

(Comment: By the same argument, it should be legal – and encouraged – to breach patent rights for the sake of a free market economy? In case someone likes most of a particular patented discovery but is unhappy with that nagging 1%? No free market is *that* free.)

“There is a certain irony in the fact that these companies will break the law in the name of family values, and also that people interested in protecting their families from offensive content will participate in the same.”

This is a direct quote from the current article, and I would like to point out that at the time these companies and families were editing/purchasing the films it was not illegal to do so—that was the point of the lawsuits. Also intellectual property rights are still anything but clear and concrete and so individuals may still be unclear about this.

(Comment: A subsequent addition to the article observed that this comment is opinionative. However, it also took the piss out of the comment and cheapened the tone it purported to embody, so I have removed both remarks. Regarding the point made here, the lawsuit led to a specific ruling; prior to that, the behaviour at the heart of the lawsuit was *at least* as questionable legality as it was in breach of broader copyright laws. Not every law is formed out of precedent: much of it emerges directly from legislation.)

Finally, the article cites an ABC News poll that is no longer available on line. In the absence of question wording and the complete data about the survey, as well as the fact that the poll was taken over two years ago, it should not be used as evidence as the total and current view of the American public on purchasing films edited for content.

(Comment: Rephrasing is probably in order to clarify that this is not a blanket opinion – though anyone who needs to be explicitly told that a single opinion poll is *not* a blanket representation of an entire nation's opinion evidently has no real idea how an opinion poll functions. Should there then be a link on the word "survey" to an article on that topic? Or is it sufficient for readers to get a sense of that from reading the linked article itself, which is quite clear in its content on where its statistics came from – and which *is* still available online.)