Featured White Papers
- 5 Strategies for Making Sales the Engine for Growth (AchieveGlobal)
- Enterprise PBX buyer's guide (VoIP-News)
- Hosted CRM comparison guide (Inside CRM)
Content provided in partnership with
CleanFlicks v. Kate Winslet's Breasts
Reason, Jan, 2007 by Julie Welke
Maybe Hollywood is stupid, as Nick Gillespie says in "CleanFlicks v. Kate Winslet's Breasts" (October), to underserve the religious market for wholesome family entertainment. But a company that creates a secondary revenue stream on modified source material is still stealing.
It's true that each consumer "edits" artistic content through a personal filter that includes life experience, beliefs, preferences, etc. It's also true that copying cassettes, burning CDs, and skipping over commercials and dumb sitcom jokes constitute personalization of the consumer experience. But there's no money exchanged, and the "filterer" does not occupy the same plane as the "visionary creator," without whom there would be nothing to filter.
I'm sure the producers and creators would be fine with the old-fashioned method: With ears plugged and eyes closed, viewers can shout "la la la" until the scary parts are over. But if CleanFlicks wants to make commercial edits to a Hollywood blockbuster, it should create and finance one of its own.
Julie Welke
Ferndale, MI
COPYRIGHT 2007 Reason Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2007 Gale Group
