Our friend Carl writes:

There was something you said the other day that has me completely confused. On 2/17, you said that if I were to buy a Picasso, which is considered a work of art, then I can handle it anyway I see fit, including altering its appearance with a switchblade. (Are you insane?!) Then later you said that a movie is also a work of art that ClearPlay has no right to alter. If that is true–and a work of art is not to be modified–then why in the name of Grandpa Simpson is it suddenly acceptable to do just that as long as the director gets paid for the modification? In my opinion, that’s pure greed.

There’s a very salient point about this modification that you keep glossing over. I keep mentioning the “third-party” that is modifying the art and you keep ignoring it. Here’s the diagram:

It’s OK if:
A paints a painting,
B purchases original painting from A and uses a switchblade on it.

It’s not OK if:
A paints a painting,
B takes original painting from A and uses a switchblade on it,
C purchases cut-up painting from B.

It’s OK if
A films a movie
B purchases movie and fast-forwards over the naughty bits.

It’s not OK if
A films a movie
B takes a movie from A and fast-forwards over the naughty bits,
C purchases the fast-forwarded movie from B.

I’ve never said that art cannot be altered. I’ve said that a third-party cannot alter art and then re-sell it. Two reasons:

B is selling a piece of art that does not resemble the original art that A intended.
B is taking the art from A without compensation.

Consider this. The director of this “art” already gets a monetary share of the box office receipts for his movie’s theater run. He receives more money from the sale of video tapes and DVDs that are purchased from “regular” consumers. He gets more money from us “ClearPlayers” who would normally avoid such “art” because of its questionable content. Now Mr. Director wants to stick his fingers in ClearPlay’s pocket and get even more money from the sale of DVD players and filters?! Such a practice would be greedy and hypocritical.

No, such a practice would merely be the director getting just compensation from the sale and use of his artwork. You can’t just build your business from the use of other’s copyrighted works without compensating them. ClearPlay is making money off of a director’s copyrighted work. You do agree that without DVD movies, ClearPlay would not exist, right? They have no more right to their business model than would a commercial radio station that played songs without paying artist royalties.

Though I will agree that there is a lot of money to be made here. I’ve consistently maintained that if a director gives his permission and if ClearPlay compensated him, I’m all for the evisceration of naughty bits on DVD.

Your mother sounds like a sweet person (just like my Mom). I’m glad she enjoyed “Napoleon Dynamite”. You have sort of piqued my interest in giving it a look-see one day…maybe. Anyway, I will tell you why ClearPlay developed a filter for that film. Although it had no cursing in it, it did contain language that some people would consider unacceptable. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that “flippin'” and “freakin'” are euphemisms for the “f word”. But if your mother could handle those words without passing out, then more power to her.

Now we’ve gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. Not only are the actual curse words offensive, but euphemisms for the curse words are offensive? Un-be-flippin’-lievable. I guess it would be impossible to watch “Meet the Fockers” under those strict guidelines. It’s not the words, but the mental trigger that the words trip. Do you not see this kind of thinking as tantamount to Orwell’s concept of the thought police? Where does it end? Here’s my take on that slippery slope:

I just dropped a two-ton heavy thing on my toe. What can I exclaim?

“God damn it!” — Oh, no, can’t have vain reference to deity!
“Damn it!” — nope, that reminds me of “god damn it.”
“Darn it!” — nope, that reminds me of “damn it.”
“Ouch!” — maybe, but the way I shouted it reminds me of “darn.”
“Flibbertijibbets!” — I don’t know, that sounds vaguely sexual.
“Oh, dear, I’ve smashed the dickens out of my toe.” — better, but we’d should watch out on that whole ‘dickens’ part. We’re getting vaguely sexual again.

The whole concept of this sanitization of reality absolutely fascinates me. I just don’t know what to say to someone who would find “flippin’ idiot” offensive… unless that person was truly a flippin’ idiot.

One last thing. I assure you that I am not intimidated by what you call “course reality”. Now boobies? Well…that’s another matter. 🙂

But you are, Carl. You have a certain set of moral values that would preclude you from cursing and engaging in immoral sex and violence. Yet you cannot watch a movie with those elements intact. Can your moral code not withstand seeing and hearing those things on a little TV screen?

Again, I get back to cake and eating it. The Amish never complain about sex and violence and swearing in the movies, because they have a moral code that eschews movies altogether. They do not partake in such worldly things. You want to partake of such worldly things, but only if they are scrubbed clean for you. We’ve even gone to great lengths to put forth a rating system to warn you of the worldly things within a movie. Watching movies is not a right.

“Radical” Russ — Oh, well. As we’ve both agreed, until it is illegal, it’s legal…