Certainly both sides find those stereotypes offensive and objectionable and should therefore thank the makers of “Bleep!” for finding the first common ground between them.This might be the dumbest thread you’ll go through today but please bear with me, I downloaded audacity today and so I’m a rookie.Īlright, So I have an audio file in which 2 people are talking and I need to remove the voice of the first one. Still, if “Bleep!” doesn’t always pursue obvious implications - Should books that inspire movies be sanitized? Should viewers be able to edit the news? - the doc transcends the stereotypes of “holier-than-thou police” versus “greedy Hollywood reprobates” the debate tends to evoke in most media coverage. Then again, “Bleep!” lets sanitizers get away with saying things like “Morality is deteriorating” and “What’s at stake is our families, and if our families crumble, our whole society crumbles.” Um, evidence, please? The legislation passed just last week.ĭoc allows the technology’s developers and sellers to make a good case - this is purely for home use, no resale of any kind involved, Hollywood routinely lets airlines and television broadcasts edit out content - but then fails to press the movie industry on its claim that this, too, constitutes copyright infringement. The doc notes that legislation pending in Congress would very likely moot the case: The Family Movie Act aims to formally legitimize the technology as copyright friendly, since content is not permanently altered. Hollywood has taken ClearPlay, a company based in Utah, to court for its filtering technology, alleging copyright violation. The point - that offensive material is in the eye of the beholder - is neatly scored.Ī lawsuit is also still pending over DVD filtering technology, but the case, like “Bleep!” itself in this instance, has been overtaken by very recent events. CleanFlicks, for instance, edits out scenes of nudity, sex, violence and obscene language FamilyFlix excises all of that plus any mention even of “Oh, God!” or its ilk. The doc itself raises an effective question by simply juxtaposing lists of different material that different sanitizing operations delete. Others, like Taylor Hackford, talk about the imperative of directorial vision, which they creditably argue is impaired or undermined by such editing. Representing Hollywood is a coalition of directors, led by Steven Soderbergh, who claim that movie sanitizing is unauthorized tampering with content. The sanitizers - mostly videotaped in their editing studios, looking extremely professional - say they are merely providing this sizeable market with “an option” that Hollywood doesn’t give. But 20% - roughly 40 million people - said they would “very likely” rent or buy sanitized DVDs. AMC and ABC News conducted a poll showing that 51% of Americans opposed the idea of cleaning up movies, 44% supported it. To some extent, the numbers support the sanitizers’ claim of a demand. They also argue their resale in no way hurts the movie industry financially: For every altered DVD they sell, they either buy an original at regular price or bundle an original with the altered copy. Doc is strongest on the sanitizers who say they’ve responded to a demand for Hollywood fare minus “offensive” parts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |