Ah touche ;)

Ar Cunin- that point also worries me. I wonder how the copyright laws see something like that? I mean on American TV we 'bleep' words so is THAT considered 'infringement' on the copyright? It IS editing, but is it damaging to the work as a whole? Should we just not show it on public or publicly accessible stations? Whew, Willow, BIG topic you have here! :D

Caleb- I have an overwhelming urge to hug you....refraining mightily....but ....aaaaaaaaaaack.....*HUGS CALEB* :D :D :D

Cloudy I think the bleeping is different because it's momentary and most people know what was said anyway.
With a whole segment cut out, if you haven't seen it before youmay not even be aware there was anything missing in the first place.
Also the artist knows their work will be bleeped when they sell it - if they don't want to allow it to be bleeped they would withhold it.

This is a different case because in buying the movie - you agree not to do what this person has done.

I didn´t even consider that part! But it is a VERYgood point! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] If I were to retort immediately I´d say it´s not quite the same thing. Editing out a bad word from an interview (documentaries don´t tend to have bleeps, at least not up here) is not the same as editing out scenes from a piece of art (a movie ;) ). If I were to make a comparison. Hmm perhaps it´s like covering up certain body parts on a painting? And I´m glad the mood changed in here! [img]smile.gif[/img] YAY IW! ;)

<font color="#ff6666">The editng of works of art has always disturbed me, while what I consider art may differ greatly from others, I think Americans in particular are warping our kids by covering up the David or parts of Venus Demilo, while allowing them to see people being shot on tv on a regular basis. I really do not understand why we allow violence but deny healthy sexuality and the beauty of the human form.

Edit: And don't even get me started about the schools declaring The works of Mark Twain and Ol Bill Shakespere as being innappropriate for children. Heaven forbid we allow our children to see how the world really used to be. :( </font>

[ 11-20-2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Couldn't agree more, MagiK. I have never understood why you can depict a hundred grisly homicides in an hour on TV (or elsewhere!) and one uncovered female breast would make nationwide headlines. ;)

Continuing to go [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] but I just thought this might be of interest:

Mormons have not practiced polygamy since the Supreme Court disbanded the church for doing so, and took its assets (those that weren't hidden). Years later, the church was reinstated, and property was returned - on the notion that the church had reformed its view of polygamy. There were 4 in total Supreme Court cases on it. It's been a while since I've read them, but http://candst.tripod.com/caselist.htm says they were:


1878 P U.S. Reynolds v U S, 98 U.S. 145 First of the Mormon cases and was decided under civil law, First mention of Jefferson's metaphor (Wall of Separation)
1885 B U.S. Murphey v Ramsey, 144 U.S. 15 Another of the Mormon cases (cited 3 times in The Myth of Separation)
1890 P / B U.S. Davis v Beason, 133 U.S. 333 Basically part of the overall Mormon cases Bigamy polygamy cases followed the Reynolds reasoning i.e., civil law. (cited 5 times in The Myth of Separation)
1890 P U.S. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v US, 136 U.S. 1 Last of the Mormon cases

This was an issue when I was working at legislative counsel in VT, which was drafting VT's civil union. A big question legislators has was "if we open the door to other types of marriages, how do we say NO when people come looking to legalize other things, like polygamy."

Sorry to be offtopic, just an FYI.

[ 11-20-2002, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

It's a slanted approach for sure. Can't be doing too much good for society. "Killing's ok, sex is bad..."
Personally I think depictions of sex and violence in current medias and arts are largely gratuitous any unneccessary anyway. But that's the lure of the $$$ for you...

Couldn't agree more, MagiK. I have never understood why you can depict a hundred grisly homicides in an hour on TV (or elsewhere!) and one uncovered female breast would make nationwide headlines. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed guys. Moreover, it's ridiculous considering the new trends among the tummy-bared body-shaven multi-pierced teens of today. Younger singers and actors are doing more risque things, and MTV is happy to show a 15-year-old in an ass-high skirt dancing seductively. Yet, we have to edit Looney Toons. Is there no end to the silliness?

Leonis, you made a good point in your first post, I have to admit I wasn't thinking of it in those terms. I was thinking more about allowing a wider audience to enjoy the film!

But then on TV here in the UK, films are often edited - not to edit out any parts considered unsuitable viewing, but to fit it in to a particular time slot. And viewers aren't told, it's only if you have seen it before that you realise there is something missing. In my opinion that is worse, even if permission has been sought from the copyright holder to do so (and I assume it has, perhaps films are sold to TV on the basis that editing is allowed?) - it seems deceitful somehow.

I can see that a director may well be unhappy with his artwork being tampered with, it would indeed be only right to gain permission before any such edits are taken place, in some cases it could well change the director's intention when he shot a scene.