More debate on the Cleanflicks lawsuits and counter-suits with the Directors Guild of America. For those who haven't heard of the issue, it concerns the right of companies to sell edited versions of Hollywood pictures on moral grounds.
Brad Siberling (Dir. City of Angels) was quoted as saying.
"All that any filmmaker can hope for is that the viewer at least has an opportunity to take in the intended storytelling experience," he says. "If people restructure your film for the hell of it, that tends to get in the way. I mean, if you own a copy of a film it should be yours to do with what you want. But for a company to externally distribute a whole set of editorial choices, well, that runs counter to the whole creative process."
FYI the Hollywood directors lost their case, as reported earlier by Phillip Noyce (one of the 16).
A more recent public thread on the issue and why fighting this kind of thing may be counterproductive.
http://www.tacitus.org/story/2005/4/25/15102/5464
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,63969,00.html
One to watch carefully. The proposed Inducing of Copyright Infringement Act of 2004 aimed at preventing people and organisations from 'inducing' people to swap copy-righted files is being considered in the US.
Q) Is Blade destined for legal trouble? It makes sense for a re-mixable hero to have a familiar name, and I'd never heard of the Marvel character prior to the movie...
http://www.teako170.com/blade.html