It was decided in favor of corporations and against consumers.
Once a property is bought, it should belong to the consumer, end of story.
I think Nick Gillepsie (hat tip to Instapundit) gets it exactly right with regards to this case in his article for Reason.
This decision opens the legal justification for TV content providers to assert that commercials are an intrinsic aspect of over the air media, and banning technology that allow consumers to fast forward through the commercials is their right (as was stated recently by ABC's President)
They already successfully killed the 30 second skip, but to completely prevent all fastforwarding would be the typical and idiotic response of content providers when new technologies shift consumer's habits (the TV will destroy film, the VCR will destroy film, the DVD will destroy film, the Virtual Reality Holographic Experiensatron will destroy film!)
As far as the CleanFlicks folks, I think their product is silly, I think it does hurt the artistic integrity of the films, but I also think they should have every right to do what they did and sell the altered product to like-minded consumers.
I'm thinking after the Supreme Court overturns the decision that a DirtyFlicks business should open up as well.
Using the latest in technologies, why not ADD boobies, sexual content, blood, et cetera in places where it was clear that filmmakers had wimped out and held back on that sort of content to court a lower rating.
(clearly turning the first Harry Potter movie into a sex romp would still be way out of bounds and illegal, given that they're all underage, but adding some blood to T2, or extra sex scenes to Summer Lovers (they don't make them like that anymore) seems pretty reasonable and consistent with the original film)
Plus any comedy movie can easily be improved by adding fart noises judiciously throughout the soundtrack (I think it would be best not to add fart noises to Schindler's List, however).
UPDATE: Reader I Am, posting at Done With Mirrors, rebuts my argument with this post.
(and, no this won't be getting all Jane Curtin v. Dan Aykroyd on Weekend Update up in here, the blogosphere can be a place where civil people disagree civilly)
(and for illustration purposes I excerpt below a transcript from a Weekend Update originally broadcast in 1978, borrowed from here, partly cause not everyone will get the reference,, and also because I find it interesting that the Jane 'point' refers to the anti-Shah students as 'leftists', how little they knew back then, and how typical. Aykroyd's faux-rabid conservative is equally off-base in imagining the communist hoards being behind the student unrest against the Shah, religious fundamentalism was simply incomprehensible to Americans in 1978)
Dan Aykroyd: Hello. I'm "Weekend Update" Station Manager Dan Aykroyd. This week, the Shah of Iran declared martial law, in an attempt to put a stop to the violent writing which has paralyzed his country. The Shah is the subject of tonight's "Point/Counterpoint". Jane will take the Anti-Shah Point, and I will take the Pro-Shah Counterpoint. Jane?
Jane Curtin: Dan, I know exactly what you're going to say: "Jane, you ignorant slut! The Shah is our friend, he sent us oil during the 70's re-embargo. He's a fighter against Communism." Maybe so, Dan, but what happened to the human rights you scream about every time a Saranski gets sentenced to some Soviet jail? Why is it wrong to torture a dissident and freezing Siberian Goulag, but okay to wire a leftist student's genitals in a baking Tehran dungeon? I only hope that someday someone wires your genitals, Dan. Then you'll be singing a different tune!
Dan Aykroyd: Jane, you poor, misguided scrag! Sure, the Shah's a jerk, but he's all we've got! Just look at the map. To the north, the Soviet Union; to the east and west, Afghanistan and Iraq. Both leftist radical states; and in the south, the Persian Gulf. Any idiot can see that Iran would be a prized stepping stone in an eventual Soviet takeover of the world. And when that happens, Jane, those Cossacks will be coming over here with their broom handle, and we'll see how you'll feel then! Of course, you'd probably love it, you ignorant slut!
Jane Curtin: That's the news. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.
1 comment:
I concur in part and dissent in part - I think as a matter of law the ruling is correct (and given the Court's makeup, unlikely to be overturned), but as a matter of policy it is terrible.
Post a Comment