# No Nudes is Good News **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 14, 2000, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507 "2000-02-14T05:27:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![JoeyBlades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a87d85/32.png) [@JoeyBlades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeyBlades)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2000, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/21 "2000-02-14T23:25:00Z")
RTFirefly writes: > [@](#): > > Except: if you purchase a copy of a tape, you’re free to copy it, and edit it, for your personal use. You just can’t sell or rent your copy, show it to large numbers of people with or without charging admission, or otherwise try to make money off it or pass it off as the original work. Etcetera. That’s why I explicitly wrote “unauthorized modification and distribution”. This is similar to the case against [MP3.COM](http://MP3.COM) with their MY.MP3 service. I personally think [MP3.COM](http://MP3.COM) will lose the case because the music is being redistributed in a modified form (i.e. MP3 format versus CDA) - even though the music sounds essentially the same to an untrained ear. andros writes: > [@](#): > > I mean, unless they get into legal trouble I’ll assume they’re not breaking the law. and Gilligan writes: > [@](#): > > Like RTF and Lib, I think this guy has found a clever way around around the legal issue. Poor assumptions. It seems pretty black and white to me. It’s a violation of the copyright law. Paramount seem to have decided that they will simply over look it, probably because it’s a pseudo-victimless crime and any attempt to defend their position publically might not be looked at too favorable by the population, at large… Just because Paramount has chosen to look the other way, doesn’t change the fact that it’s a crime. Another way to look at it is this: What if Paramount decided to go into the business of selling the tapes in an altered form to people who wanted “clean” copies? They would have a pretty strong argument that this video store had deprived them of some of their livelihood through these illegal activities. > [@](#): > > I think the “artistic vision” argument doesn’t hold water–whose artistic vision is it? The actors’? Director’s? Other director’s? The several producers’? Hey, most every film released has been hacked and re-hacked so many times it bears no relationship at all to the original screenplay. Pirate mentality. Since every piece of software distributed by MicroSoft has been produced and updated by multiple people within the giant MicroSoft corporation, that sounds like it’s fair game to make modifications to their software and redistribute it to whoever wants a hacked copy… ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2000, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/22 "2000-02-14T23:29:00Z")
Wait a minute, Polycarp! If you cut out the nude scenes in _Titanic_, you’d also have to cut out those scenes showing the nude _sketch_ of Rose that Jack had drawn. And it was in that nude sketch that the Great Big Diamond[TM], which was so central to _Titanic_’s plot, makes its grand entrance. A lot of the diamond’s poignancy is lost without that sketch and the circumstances surrounding its creation. So there. Incidentally, I remember one time from my youth when an R-rated movie that had been released to the theaters was voluntarily censored down to a PG rating, and then _re-released_ to the theaters in this new form. I’m talking, of course, about _Saturday Night Fever_. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2000, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/23 "2000-02-14T23:55:00Z")
I also agree that if the editing is done at the request of the consumer, it seems legal to me. (Not that I approve of it.) For example, suppose I buy a book, and, after having paid for it, I ask the store employee “Would you please rip out page 20 for me?” Would the employee be breaking a copyright law if they did so? ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/24 "2000-02-15T00:01:00Z")
I wonder if these same folks would edit the nudity from the Sistine Chapel frescoes? Some of the frescoes _were_ altered after Michelangelo died, with brightly-colored robes over the naughty bits. * * * \>\< DARWIN \> \_\_ **L\_\_\_L** ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/25 "2000-02-15T00:31:00Z")
> [@](#): > > It seems pretty black and white to me. It’s a violation of the copyright law. Paramount seem to have decided that they will simply over look it, probably because it’s a pseudo-victimless crime and any attempt to defend their position publically might not be looked at too favorable by the population, at large… Just because Paramount has chosen to look the other way, doesn’t change the fact that it’s a crime. How do you figure, **Joey**? I find it reasonable to assume that either A) they’ve dealt with the copyright issue and have come to an arrangement or found a loophole, or B) they haven’t gotten caught yet. I believe Paramount, as an example, wouldn’t hesitate to go after them. My reason for this belief is anecdotal but very pertinent. _ **Warning: Long rambling story to follow** _ In Salt Lake City, Utah, there is a smallish local theater company called the Off-Broadway Theater (as it’s right off 3rd South, also called Broadway. Cute, huh?). OBT is starting to run some bigger shows, now that they can afford the royalties, but for most of their 6- or 7-year history they ran original comedies written by the owners of the theater. These were and are bya nd large satires, parodies and spoofs. They are friggin hilarious, and if you ever have a wekend to kill in SLC, go and see one of their shows. Some of their most popular creations were a series of “Star Trek” parodies. Very original, very funny. Very upsetting to Paramount (wondered when I’d get to it, huh?). For some reason, Paramount decided to go after OBT for its parodies. The authors fought it as long and hard as they could, going to conventions and hitting the 'net for examples of other parodies, retaining a copyright lawyer (who had managed to protect the Second City and Groundlings from lawsuits in the past), even going so far as to beg for a compromise. Paramount ground them down. Eventually the theater ran out of money to fight the corp and gave up the ghost. If they would go after an independent theater for a Star Trek parody (one that arguably helped the ST franchise) with such vigor, I **cannot** imagine their “simply overlooking it.” -andros- ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/26 "2000-02-15T00:38:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Pirate mentality. Since every piece of software distributed by MicroSoft has been produced and updated by multiple people within the giant MicroSoft corporation, that sounds like it’s fair game to make modifications to their software and redistribute it to whoever wants a hacked copy… I said nothing about who owned the work. Obviously the legal owners of the software, or in the case of the OP, movie, have the rights to it. I specifically was referring to **artistic** rights. If Viking buys a manuscript from Steven King, do they have the right to change it? They own it, after all. No, obviously, because King has ensured as a provision of the sale that they will not. Does altering a film infringe upon director Alan Smithee’s rights? Hell no, unless he made a deal with the owner or distributor of the film that they wouldn’t alter it. See, I’m not a pirate ;). -anros- ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/27 "2000-02-15T00:50:00Z")
**andros** , go to the link **Snark** provided and read the story. Paramount DID go after the owners of the video store that edited _Titanic_, but they seem to have backed down. **tracer** , that story said they edited “two sexy scenes” out of _Titanic_. That sounds to me like they clipped out the scene where Rose poses for Jack and the later scene where they get it on in the back seat of a car in the cargo hold. I’m guessing they left intact all the pencil drawings of Rose wearing that diamond and nothing else. * * * \>\< DARWIN \> \_\_ **L\_\_\_L** ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/28 "2000-02-15T01:05:00Z")
Well, yeah, **jab** , that’s what I was trying to say. Just not very successfully. 🙂 I cannot believe that Paramount would have simply dropped their pursuit _if they actually had a case._ If they did, my two options stand (with slight modification): Either A) Sunrise cut a deal and are keeping mum or B) Paramount is still trying to figure out how to screw 'em. I do think it more likely that Paramount’s lawyers couldn’t find a way to really go after them. Score one for the little guy. But simply giving up is not one of Paramount’s standard plays. Still think it defeats the purpose, tho, if people want Paramount _et al._ to change the content of their movies. -andros- ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/29 "2000-02-15T02:25:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by JoeyBlades: > \*\*The bottome line is that unauthorized modification and distribution of another person’s copyrighted material is illegal. \*\* Got a cite of a statute for that claim? ---
**Author:** ![Cooper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@Cooper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cooper)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/30 "2000-02-15T02:32:00Z")
> [@](#): > > The bottome line is that unauthorized modification and distribution of another person’s copyrighted material is illegal. The bottom line is that this is not being done in this case. Gosh, doesn’t anyone read the links when they are posted with even the OP?? They aren’t distributing anything, the tapes are brought into them, and they edit them. This is no more illegal than it would be if someone brought in a painting to be framed, but only wanted you to frame half of it and throw the rest away. They bought it, its theirs, they can do what they want with it. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/31 "2000-02-15T03:58:00Z")
I think that’s the size of it. See, if a customer wants to buy an unedited copy of _Titanic_ or any other film, they can do so at another store. James Cameron and Paramount may not like it, but there’s nothing they can do about it as long as the film is not altered _prior_ to its purchase, and as long as the customer _requests_ it to be edited. The original film has not been touched; I’m sure it still exists in a vault somewhere. And I think that’s why Paramount gave up. But they won’t admit there’s nothing they can do, lest other video stores get the same idea. * * * \>\< DARWIN \> \_\_ **L\_\_\_L** ---
**Author:** ![Snark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Snark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snark)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/32 "2000-02-15T04:09:00Z")
I’m looking forward to the day when movies on DVD will have both edited and non-edited versions on the same disc. Then everyone will be happy. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/33 "2000-02-15T04:14:00Z")
Um…Tracer, they could show him drawing her, clipping the few cuts to closeups of her lying naked, and omit the scene in the car, without messing up the movie a whole lot. The idea of kids seeing nudity does not bother me; largely, they ignore it or giggle at it before a certain age, then seek it out. Making it not “forbidden fruit” will keep it from being a preoccupation, at an age when they’re sorting out a lot of other major issues about themselves out. Of course, YMMV. And I’m not discussing sex scenes, just nudity. But my point, that some sex and nudity, like some violence, is pretty much superfluous to plot development, I think is valid. And to provide those who want it with edited copies is not an unreasonable thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![Snark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Snark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snark)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/34 "2000-02-15T04:29:00Z")
**Andros** wrote: > [@](#): > > I do have one big problem with editing movies, however. Seems to me that the Mormon and Baptist groups (singling these out only because they seem to be the most vocal about it) who are editing movies are actually condoning the violence, sex, and nudity in the movies. IMO, if they truly wanted to “clean up” Hollywood, they wouldn’t spend any money at all on films containing objectionable material. Instead they bail with the morally weak argument, “oh, we’ll just edit it because it’s such a good movie otherwise.” Ever since I was a child, I was counselled by my Mormon leaders not to go to “R” rated movies. The LDS prophets have warned members against going to such movies. Many where I live (Provo, Utah) actually _don’t_ support or watch objectionable movies and videos. But you do have a point, **Andros**. I myself am guilty of watching many rated “R” movies in my youth, and you’re right, as a Latter-day Saint, I shouldn’t have supported them. I don’t go to “R” rated movies any more, and my family doesn’t go to them either. The fact is, Mormons _are_ counselled to avoid such movies and not support them. ---
**Author:** ![JoeyBlades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a87d85/32.png) [@JoeyBlades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeyBlades)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/35 "2000-02-15T15:21:00Z")
andros writes: > [@](#): > > Does altering a film infringe upon director Alan Smithee’s rights? Hell no… Does the sale of altered video tapes infringe upon the rights of Paramount, the corporation? Hell yes. The Ryan writes: > [@](#): > > Got a cite of a statute for that claim? Well, the copyright notice is at the end of every film and says pretty much verbatim what I wrote, however if that’s not good enough for you, check out what the law actually says at: [http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/](http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/) Pay particular attention to Chapter 1, paragraphs 106 and 109, though larger portions of the document are relevant. Interestingly, paragraph 112 seems to allow a loophole if the alterations are done by a non profit organization (which is not the case here). Cooper writes: > [@](#): > > The bottom line is that this is not being done in this case. Gosh, doesn’t anyone read the links when they are posted with even the OP?? Sure I did. What were you reading? People give their video tapes to the video store, video store edits the content for a fee, redistributes the movie in modified form… What am I missing? As to those who think Paramount would prosecute if they had a case, put yourself in their shoes. Paramount knows that some people find some of the content of some of their movies offensive. They also know that some people would never bother to go and see their movies unless theres a bit of T&A, some good cussin’, and maybe a fight or two, with a spectacular car crash thrown in for good measure. So they tailor their movies to try and hit the sweet spot with public opinion. Some people will fall outside their sweet spot. Some of these people will just refuse to go see the movies with offensive content. Apparently, now people are seeking other alternatives. If Paramount sues people for removing questionable scenes from private copies of their movie, they will be perceived as being immoral by the righteous minority (regardless of whether that’s within their rights). Rather than offend the righteous minority and lose potential business, Paramount can choose to look the other way… In other words, it’s a business decision. For the record, I believe people should have the right to have their personal video tapes altered if they find some of the content objectionable. In fact, most people have this capability themselves, today. There’s nothing to prevent you from buying a copy of “The Titanic”, fast forwarding to the objectionable scenes, time the duration of the objectionable material. Remove the tape, put several pieces of scotch tape over the record protection and tune your VCR to an unused channel. Now reinsert the tape, fast forward to the objectionable material, press the record button on your VCR and record over the objectionable bits… This is perfectly legal, though leaves you with unattractive discontinuities in the movie. What the video store does is they transfer the movie to another video, except they stop recording where the objectionable parts are. Then they rerecord over your original tape with the modified content. Then they redistribute it to their customer. For this service they charge a fee. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/36 "2000-02-15T16:10:00Z")
Joey: > [@](#): > > What were you reading? People give their video tapes to the video store, video store edits the content for a fee, **redistributes** the movie in modified form… What am I missing? Emphasis mine. The store isn’t _redistributing_ anything; that would imply that they are attempting to sell the altered movie to multiple customers. What they’re doing is _returning_ the altered movie to its owner, the customer who bought it and contracted for the alteration to be done. Poly: > [@](#): > > But my point, that some sex and nudity, like some violence, is pretty much superfluous to plot development, I think is valid. And to provide those who want it with edited copies is not an unreasonable thing to do. It seems reasonable to me. And given that they probably already do a TV/airline edit of most movies that aren’t already in the G/PG range, it wouldn’t surprise me if Snark’s suggestion - having both the original and an edited version on the same DVD - eventually comes to pass, especially when the DVD format overtakes VHS. * * * “Born in diversity and fired by determination, our society was endowed with a flexibility designed to contain the most fractious contentions of an ambitious, individualistic and adventurous breed.” - Sen. Adam Sunraider ---
**Author:** ![frolix8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f04885/32.png) [@frolix8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/frolix8)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/37 "2000-02-15T16:58:00Z")
Do you think I can get all those edited out bits at a discount? I fast-forwarded through over 3 hours of Titanic, it would have saved me a lot of time. ---
**Author:** ![Persephone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecc23a/32.png) [@Persephone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Persephone)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/38 "2000-02-16T05:11:00Z")
There’s no nudity in the scene in _Titanic_ where Jack and Rose are in the back of the car. None. Nada. Zip. James Cameron did a beautiful job with the nudity in that movie. In the scene where Jack is sketching Rose, she’s nude, but there’s no sex. In the car scene, there’s implied sex (you don’t actually see anything but a kiss, and that hand-in-the-window thing), but no nudity. It’s not cheap, it’s not tawdry, it’s not gratuitous. Why edit that? If you want to edit _Titanic,_ just get rid of **everything** before they hit the iceberg, nude & sex scenes included. I enjoyed _Titanic,_ but it didn’t get **really** good until they hit the 'berg. * * * Changing my sig, because Wally said to, and I really like Wally, and I’ll do anything he says, anytime he says to. ---
**Author:** ![Snark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Snark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snark)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/39 "2000-02-16T13:29:00Z")
Cristi, this thread was started not to talk about nudity in the movie, _Titanic_, but to debate whether people have the right to have their videotapes edited for content they find offensive. The title of this thread, “No Nudes is Good News,” is simply the title of the online newspaper article about the video store in Utah that is editing videos. * * * “Are you now or have you ever been a member of a communist dishwashing organization?” Frank Burns, M_A_S\*H ---
**Author:** ![JoeyBlades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a87d85/32.png) [@JoeyBlades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoeyBlades)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507/40 "2000-02-16T14:50:00Z")
RTFirefly wrote: > [@](#): > > The store isn’t redistributing anything; that would imply that they are attempting to sell the altered movie to multiple customers. Since “redistribute” means to “distribute again”, I don’t think that multiple customers are required to meet the technical definition of redistribution, though admitedly I don’t know how the copyright law defines distribution and redistribution. The issue is that the video store (a commercial enterprise) is performing what could be considered an artistic edit, for a price (which makes it a commercial activity), and “distributing the movie again”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-nudes-is-good-news/17507.md?page=3)