# An Immodest Proposal: Reverse Censorship **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 6, 2005, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-immodest-proposal-reverse-censorship/307111 "2005-06-06T11:48:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-immodest-proposal-reverse-censorship/307111/41 "2005-06-09T02:39:13Z")
That’s largely my objection (and I think it would hold up). Any attempt to alter and then sell them is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Especially if the intent is to add material. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-immodest-proposal-reverse-censorship/307111/42 "2005-06-09T05:04:49Z")
Depending on how closely the actors, costumes, and sets of the inserted scenes are made to resemble those of the movie, I suspect those scenes themselves could be considered unlawful derivative works. If you could avoid that restriction, however, I wouldn’t have any problem with your scheme (as I have none with Clearplay) and might even consider subscribing if the quality were high and the cost low. (I’d be torn about getting _Casablanca_, though. In Ingrid Bergamn double, I wouldn’t mind seeing. Bogie? Not so much.) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-immodest-proposal-reverse-censorship/307111/43 "2005-06-09T12:10:37Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > That’s largely my objection (and I think it would hold up). Any attempt to alter and then sell them is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Especially if the intent is to add material. Is it YOUR PERSONAL objection, or is it your perception of what the law allows/does not allow? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-immodest-proposal-reverse-censorship/307111/44 "2005-06-09T12:12:04Z")
> [@Alan Smithee](#): > > Depending on how closely the actors, costumes, and sets of the inserted scenes are made to resemble those of the movie, I suspect those scenes themselves could be considered unlawful derivative works. If you could avoid that restriction, however, I wouldn’t have any problem with your scheme (as I have none with Clearplay) and might even consider subscribing if the quality were high and the cost low. (I’d be torn about getting _Casablanca_, though. In Ingrid Bergamn double, I wouldn’t mind seeing. Bogie? Not so much.) Given the resources available to most porn filmmakers – a videocam, a couple of actors and hotel room being all they can afford to buy for most films, on the evidence, I don’t think there’s much chace of the inserted scenes being ALL THAT unlawfully derivative. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-immodest-proposal-reverse-censorship/307111/45 "2005-06-09T12:16:22Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Is it YOUR PERSONAL objection, or is it your perception of what the law allows/does not allow? I’m addressing Mr. 2001 on this, as well. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-immodest-proposal-reverse-censorship/307111/46 "2005-06-09T17:52:32Z")
Could you just add in some swearing, perhaps digitizing the lips to sync up? Because Mary Poppins needs swearing to be a really great movie. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2005, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-immodest-proposal-reverse-censorship/307111/47 "2005-06-09T23:25:21Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Is it YOUR PERSONAL objection, or is it your perception of what the law allows/does not allow? The latter. I’m fine with the idea of selling DVDs containing altered versions of a movie, as long as you don’t try to pass the original filmmakers’ work off as yours (or your work as theirs)… my views on copyright have been documented well enough on the SDMB that I don’t think I need to explain why. I just think it’s a bad way to do business, since AFAICT it’s illegal. Unless you want to limit yourself to the black market trade in altered DVDs, you’d need to use a MediaMask-like technology that lets you distribute only the scenes you want to insert. ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-immodest-proposal-reverse-censorship/307111/48 "2005-06-10T19:19:40Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > Because Mary Poppins needs swearing to be a really great movie. As a big fan of Richard and Robert Sherman, I’ve just gotta say leave the songs alone. But do whatever you want to the rest of their musical ouvere. I’m particuarly looking forward to their theme park anthem _God Dammit, Do You Realize How Fucking Small The World Really Is?_ ---
**Author:** ![Grither](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grither/32/425_2.png) [@Grither](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grither)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2005, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-immodest-proposal-reverse-censorship/307111/49 "2005-06-11T03:51:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Matt Green, a 29-year-old medical student in New York City, said his family won’t watch R-rated films and uses ClearPlay to filter movies. Green, a Mormon, recently watched “The Matrix” using ClearPlay. > > “From what I hear, I definitely missed a couple of fight scenes,” he said. “But I don’t feel like we missed any of the plot.” Did anyone else find this quote hysterical? Because, yeah, the plot was The Matrix’s strong suit! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-immodest-proposal-reverse-censorship/307111.md?page=2)