This might be as good a time as any to remind everyone that our first amendment rights are always just one vote away. VCA has not edited anything out of any title - your government did. The changes in some classic titles that many of you have noted, were not made for DVD, they were made in 1992 and apply to any video copy sold since then. And, like many of you, we at VCA Interactive agree - it sucks. Censorship, in its many forms and cloaked in such disguises as interstate commerce regulations, have led to the restriction and even destruction of many a precious moment captured on film, or in print. Our boss spent a year in jail and paid over $1,000,000 in fines standing up for our first amendment rights that allow us to produce any adult entertainment at all! Believe me, we would not attempt to edit anything out of any title. In fact, we are too busy scrambling for content off the editing room floor to try and give you more on DVD. Rest assured that if footage is available, we will include it. And we NEVER remove content, or compromise a movie for extras or DVD gimmicks. When the choice comes down to giving you the best that is available or nothing at all, we hope that you can enjoy what we are able to restore and, perhaps preserve in this new media format...before George W. Bush, Joe Lieberman or Tipper Gore lead the next wave of censorship. Remember, your vote counts. Exercise your rights. Wit
Wit- I realize that the VHS versions were edited as far back as 1992 but despite what you say the cuts WERE made by VCA and NOT the U.S. government. If you are implying that political pressure was placed on VCA to edit content then that's another matter, but to suggest that the government *themselves* made cuts to your videos is patently untrue. This self-censorship was exactly the reason why John Leslie left the company when VCA refused to approve the content of Dog Walker, just because there was some non-sexual violence involving guns. Leslie later made the film for Evil Angel and other porn studios have released material with far more controversial content than VCA without any legal recriminations (so far). How did their videos slip past the government unnoticed? There is no law which requires VCA to submit films for government approval (unlike here in the U.K. where all videos must be examined by the state censors). In the U.S. those restrictions simply don't apply, so it appears to me that VCA are looking for an excuse to hide behind. Pretty much everyone in this forum agrees that VCA's DVDs have the best technical quality and features but I think you underestimate how annoying these edits can be, especially without prior warning. If VCA intend to continue with this policy will you at least consider including a note on the cover stating that the contents have been changed? Please? -Wanderer
If I had to spend 1 year in jail and pay over $1 mill. in fines I think I would be hyper-sensitive to selling products that could put me back in jail. It's real difficult to look at what's acceptable in porn in terms of black and white. Much of what is produced falls into the 'gray area'. Each company has to assess any risks involved and determine what best for them. The bigger the company, the more they stand to lose in an obscenity trial.
Wit: I have to agree with The Wanderer's post in all respects, including the praise for the quality of your transfers and product. But I also agree that there is lots of material being released on DVD today that is far "riskier" than what you've elected to edit out (or not restore, depending on what generation of material you're mastering from) on your releases. For instance, the extremely light "bondage" scene from Every Woman Has a Fantasy 2 is far outdone by most of what AVN reviews in its "Specialty" section. And why, later, edit 40 seconds out of the same title so John Leslie gets one less finger into Keli Richards (less than four in the original!)? Finally, was it ever actually proven that Kristara Barrington was underage when she shot EWHAF1 and some other titles? Or was she, as many believe, just trying to pull a "Traci Lords" on the industry for more publicity and sales on her later titles? I really don't know the answer to that last one, so any help would be appreciated. I also have to agree that some sort of labeling or "reviewer info" seems to be called for when you release a title that has been in any significant way edited from its original release. At least we'll know what to expect, rather than feel cheated. [This message has been edited by greybeard (edited September 22, 2000).]
Well, I have to agree with Wanderer's response to Wit's statements. The government (as far as I know) had taken no action to remove the edited scenes from EVERY WOMAN HAS A FANTASY and from LET'S GET IT ON. It was an act of corporate (mis)feasance and prior restraint in order to avoid potential obscenity problems. I don't blame VCA one bit for protecting their financial interests, but if this were purely a First Amendment issue, VCA would have not voluntarily edited their products.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Wanderer: Pretty much everyone in this forum agrees that VCA's DVDs have the best technical quality and features but I think you underestimate how annoying these edits can be, especially without prior warning. ======= I definitely think Private is the best DVD company. Better more natural girls, great picture and extras and no condoms. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with your post regarding passing the buck on self censorship. I hate thinking that any piece of art I buy whether it be a CD, mainstream movie or porn DVD is censored.
It's tough to go with either side on this because I know how politicians work. Democrats sometimes attack porn as violence on women. Republicans attack it on the basis of community standards and decency. Given how much money the industry makes, why aren't the companies hiring better lawyers though? Even the ACLU and Playboy chip in on legal fights about this stuff. Is it too much to ask that you divert some of the money to set up a legal fund? Is it too much to ask that you work with store owners and set up a training program so they don't open the door to your prosecution? Maybe it is, I don't know. In Houston, some of the bigger topless clubs hire expert lawyers to come to the club and teach you what you can (and cannot) legally do. The book stores used to hold (so I'm told) training forums where the clerks were shown what to say (and not say) and how to act. Why is it so unreasonable to expect that large porn companies get together and hammer out agreements on standards? I agree that any edited releases should include a list of cuts made. Think about it, wouldn't knowing what cuts were made to protect oneself from prosecution help further your cause? Upset people have a way of affecting changes. Just my thoughts...
HoustonDon - The idea of a legal fund is an interesting one. It would have to be a huge amount of money. When the government sends the obscenity posse after the porn world they tend to go after everyone in the distribution chain. It's not only the studios that are affected. A lot of the influence over what is acceptable comes from a studio's customers. (Although the consumer is the ultimate customer they don't purchase direct from the studio in most instances.) The studio's customers are the larger distributors. If a few distributors won't sell a specific title for fear of prosecution the studio has effectively wasted their money producing it.
OK. I'll tell you all the truth right up front. This thread pissed me off more than just a little on the first reading. I went and took a little breath before starting to add my two cents so hopefully I'll be rational. First, Wit might have been a little lofty and idealistic in his verbage, and no, at no time did an agent of the federal come and physically alter a title, but if you don't think that the policies and actions of the federal government were the direct and undeniable cause of those cuts then you don't have a very good understanding of the long-term history of this industry and haven't thought the problem though with any effort. Yes, we've gone through a period of about 8 years that saw almost no major obsenity prosecutions. There are a great many people who have come into the industry during that time and don't understand what can happen when the hammer falls. A few others have simply been lulled into a false sense of security. That's why there's been a change in the type of content available. VCA just happens to be owned by a very smart man who's been around a long time and doesn't want to play fast and loose with his company, his employees (who can also be named for prosecution) or his freedom. You want to ask for notice on what's been altered? Fine. A fair and understandable request. You want to blast someone for trying to keep his company afloat and people out of prison? Start a porn company, stand trial and spend part of you life in a federal prison for breaking an undefinable law. Then you can come and talk about it! This leads to the completely asinine assumption that not having to get government approval for a title is better. That's something our industry has been fighting to GET for years. As it currently stands there is no way to determin legality prior to a titles release. A few years ago OGV made a movie originally titled "After Midnight". About the time it was finished the Free Speech Legal Defense Fund (Yes, there is a legal defense fund for the industry. It's now called Free Speech Coalition. You can find them at [url=28972]www.freespeechcoalition.com</A and the industry has spent untold amounts on the best First Amendment lawyers in America today)wanted to try and force the courts to tell us if a movie was legal BEFORE it was released. We donated "After Midnight" to use in the test case. The FSLDF fought for three years, all the way to the Supreme Court, to get one movie declared either obscene or not prior to it's release to the public. The courts refused at every level telling us that the only way to determine if the movie was legal was to release it for sale. At that time, if anyone found it offensive, they would prosecute us for selling obscene material, if not, then we're fine. Each and every movie any company releases is a crap shoot because of the fact that there are no set guidelines. The Clinton administration has been VERY good to this industry by ignoring it but that IS about to change. There's a bill before the House at this very moment to set provide 5 million tax dollars to start new obscenity prosecutions. Our legal advisors have informed us in no uncertain terms that if Bush wins, all hell is going to break loose. If Gore wins it will be a little better, but not good. So...yes there are companies putting out "riskier" stuff at the moment and haven't been prosecuted "yet". So what!? Just because someone else is acting like a dangerous, short-sighted dumb ass VCA should ignore experience and follow suite? Someone implied corporate misfeasance. Are you serious? The owner of the company went to prison over this stuff! To protect his employees he stood trial for each and every count the government came up with. Even the owner of the company that simply printed the boxes the movies were packed in went to jail over this! The government showed it's hand in the first prosecutions as to what material they were going after and VCA reacted to it. The owner of VCA wanted to keep his employees out of prison and let them keep their jobs and continue providing you with movies. How anyone can find fault in this just completely beyond me. OK, my rant has gone long enough. There were other points to make but I'm just getting steamed again. To reiterate: You want to know what's been altered? Understandable, I'd want to know the same thing. Is the government ultimatly responsible for these cuts you don't like? You better by-God fucking beleive it! Is the owner of VCA somehow wrong for taking actions to keep his company open, his employees and vendors free and with jobs and to be able to continue providing adult entertainment for years to come without greedily succumbing to a dangerous trend for a quick buck? Give me break!!
I don't mean to get into a pissing match here about VCA's decision to edit some of their titles. VCA is a corporation; their DVDs are their products; they can do anything with them as they please; and the consumer can decide whether to spend their money on these commodities. And certainly, VCA's products should be entitled to First Amendment protection. However, it is not inconsistent to criticize VCA's invoking the First Amendment rights, when it is they, not the Federal Government which decided to "self-edit." That was the point of Wit's response. It was a business decision on VCA's part. There is something just a wee bit disingenuous about a call for arms against censorshit [pun intended] when it was really a corporate business decision; money was the issue, not freedom of speech. For what it's worth, I do believe VCA makes some of the best DVDs on the market, despite the edits. I also find it surprising and worthy of praise that they would raise this controversial topic themselves in a public forum.
I said, "Wit" and I meant to type "Wanderer." Also, I am looking at this subject from a moral/political point of view, as opposed to legal/business...for those who care.
I think jb0911's response is one of the most reasonable and worthwhile things I've read among these posts, and this is coming from someone who has raised criticism about his/her company's actions. jb0911 is precisely correct about the environment of "prior restraint" the porn industry finds itself in today. While the MPAA serves the "legit" (non-porn -- and I know "legit" is an unfortunate choice of words) industry as a pre-release "watchdog," the porn industry is forced to wait to find out whether or not they'll be prosecuted until it's too late! Let's face it, folks, the porn industry is a business, first and foremost. It has to make money at what it does and avoid the exorbitant costs of legal challenges and prosecution when and where it can. To the extent that it accomplishes these goals, it makes its profits and we enjoy its products. Different people/companies "draw the line" in different places, and they have every right to do so, even though some of us may disagree as to where that line should be drawn. I'd rather have *most* of a classic film/video on DVD than none at all, and, let's face it, many people who don't have or haven't seen much older product on VHS really don't know (or care!) what's missing! So, VCA is definitely within its rights to edit its own DVD content in order to protect against what they feel might invite unwanted prosecution and thereby endanger their ability to survive as a company, which, ultimately, would lead to none of us being able to enjoy their product. That much said, I hope that some of our suggestions about letting us know what cuts have been made from the original, or *at least* that cuts *have* been made, are beginning to find some receptive "ears" in the industry. As I've said before, having this information before we buy will not only help us make a more informed purchase decision, but also help us feel better about the product we're buying.
Drew, as JB pointed out, there is a legal fund of sorts (I'd be splitting hairs if I were to point out that the FSC has a LONG way to go to be really effective) but I was thinking about something a bit more comprehensive. JB0911, glad you agree on telling what's been cut. I honestly think that consumers should be told for two reasons. First, they are paying lots of money for this stuff and second, they may be able to help influence the powers that be into changing the current situation. In Houston, about 5 years ago, the city passed a much more restrictive set of sexually oriented business laws. I spoke with a number of people and convinced them to place voter registration cards on the counters of the book shops. I'm not sure if the topless clubs followed suit but the idea is to be heard. If you aren't aware of what's missing-you won't care enough to alter bad policies... Regarding 5 million dollar prosecution fund: Well, considering that this is small potatoes in legal circles, I wouldn't stay awake at night worrying about it. The OJ trial cost more than that by itself! This is a token amount to show "something" is being done-and it's just a bill, not passed. How much money was appropriated for prosecuting federal gun laws? (hint: a heck of a lot more than 5 million and virtually no prosecutions came of it) Corporations making cuts: I agree that they can cut anything they like as long as they make it clear that the movie is edited (ie: not a tiny line buried on the back of the box). If the movie is edited, all previous awards and reviews should be removed as well since they are usually based on the unaltered movie. I don't that is unfair. I can understand not wanting to go to jail over this. I can understand WHY cuts are made more readily by some companies vs others. I just think it's not fair to pawn off a title as something it isn't (anymore). Preapproval of movies by the government: It's not going to happen. The whole concept of State vs Federal power prohibits it. I'm no lawyer but the idea that the fed's can dictate a particular communities standards (which would be needed to set up such a board of preapproval) is offensive. I'd much rather you ask individual states to set up such boards-think of the political patronage jobs they could hand out-and simply not ship anything to a particular state that either won't do so or bans a title. I'd volunteer to be on such a board in Texas. I know you'd prefer the easy route of a single board but frankly, it won't happen soon. Even people that agree with your 1st Amendment rights aren't going to like handing over even more power to the fed's. Bottom line: society has come a long way in the last 30 years. Stands must be taken and lines must be drawn by the industry. How many times did the Mitchell Brothers go to jail or stand trial (not counting the murder case) to protect our freedoms? Larry Flynt? The industry makes big bucks and part of the reason is the legal risks involved. Until you "very nice and smart" people start working together in a more coordinated effort, it's not going to change. Bush vs Gore: The Republican party platform is anti-porn but they don't do much about it. The Democrats often view porn as anti-women/anti-kid and that is a much more dangerous road to take if you want to stay out of trouble.
Sorry for the length but I wanted to touch a few areas... Good luck!
So, let me get this straight Diesel. VCA thought it's product would be protected by the First Amendment. The owner and some of his business associates were arrested, sentenced to prison and faced huge fines because the courts ruled that certain parts of their product were not protected by the First Amendment. The owner took steps to make sure that his product would be protected by the First Amendment from that time forward. Yet, somehow you don't find this to be a First Amendment related issue? Many times in the porn industry it is simply impossible to separate political and business decisions. The only way that the cuts were a business decision was that VCA thought that's what was necessary to simply stay in business and out of prison based on the politics of the day. No, the govnment didn't show up at anyone's office and say "Ok, to keep us happy you have to cut A, B and C from titles X, Y and Z". However, that's not the only form censorship can take. The government came down on VCA via the courts and, through actions, said "You can't sell this material or you'll go to prison and pay fines that will eventually put you out of business". It may not have been hands-on but it was censorship. You know, I keep going back reading your post over and over again because I think there must be something there I'm missing. I just don't understand how you can say that trying to operate within the paramaters of court decisions in a politically generated First Amendment/obscenity case has nothing to do with politics or the First Amendment. When you say this ONLY about money and that you are looking at the situation from a moral/political point of view it SOUNDS like your saying the only decision VCA could have made not open to criticism was to leave themselves open to prosecution until they were all bankrupt and in prison for good. You also say the call to arms against censorship is disengenuous coming from them simply because they've attmepted to stay in business and not thumb thier nose in face of Uncle Sam non-stop till the bitter end. I'm sorry, but I think someone who's done time and continues to pump large sums of money into the adult industry's First Amendment battle coffers has well earned the right to wave that particular flag. Hi Houston, It is an undeniable truth that in the big picture FSC has a long way to go. That's why they need more support from within the industry and from the public. Your work distributing voter registration cards is truly comendable. If all our customers put in a fraction of that sort of effort we would make amazing strides toward protecting adult entertainment. That's one reason I was amazed at the response to Wit's initial post. He came here making an effort to raise awarness on the issue as well and got ripped over the fact that the company he works for tryed to make their product safe after getting raped in a court room. Yes, if the one 5 million dollar new prosecution appropriation was the only thing to ever happen then it wouldn't be cause for doom and gloom. It appears, however, that this is simply the first shot in a new wave to come and that's the worrisome part. As I've stated previously, letting folks know a movie is altered is not a bad idea. Requiring ALL awards and reviews might be overstepping a little. I mean, I don't think cutting, say, a fisting sequence should affect the fact that the movie won best screenplay or best actor or actress if they weren't even in that scene. I would understand not using a best sex scene award for marketing if that was the scene altered or even a best actress award if the peak of her peformance was cut. Anyway, just saying we might not want to be too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As for working for government approval, it's more a matter fighting for more than you would settle for or really want to try and get some concession from the other side. You are absolutely correct in that the Fed shouldn't have control over community standards and we don't WANT someone looking over our shoulders. We were just hoping they they would throw us a bone in the way of general guidelines a little more concrete than "you'll know you've sold obscenity the day you land in jail" Yes, people like Larry have gone above and beyond in their efforts. A lot could be learned from Larry Flynt AND Russ, the owner of VCA. The simple fact of the matter is that no individual is able to fight every fight. We have to pick and chose where to stand and where to draw the line so as to be able live to fight another day. I totally agree that the industry would benefit from more organization on this front. The industry would also benefit greatly if comsumers could simply make a concious decision to vote in such a way that showed support of the product they buy and enjoy. Come on folks. The whole reason Wit showed up here was because he/she understood that not being able to have the whole movie in it's original form was upsetting. The fact that the cuts were made came from governmental pressure and that you could help try and stop that kind of pressure from building up again.
I agree. Wit had some good points and tried to do a good thing. There was a little problem in the wording, but the intent was definately good. When the government passes a regulation, the business isn't given any choice but to follow. One example would be the mandatory drug testing. It's an invasion of privacy, but the government does not give the business a choice in it. If you want to stay in business, you have to do what Big Brother wants. If only people would understand that bigger government doesn't solve problems in the long run.
Faron & Wit - I really appreciate your prespective on the issues of cuts and censorship. I've only been involved with the adult entertainment business for a few years. (We have many people on our site that are new to porn as well.) Your feedback provides the DVD consumer with insight they might not otherwise have gotten. I wish there were an easy way for discussions such as this to turn into something positive for fans of adult entertainment and for the businesses that provide it. It's clear to me that things are going to change after this next election. How much will they change? It's hard to tell. Are there any good web resources to educate porn fans on the issues and candidates positions related affecting the business? If we can't fix the problem maybe we can at least help get the word out to more people.
Wit is right on and of course, so is jbo911. The owner of VCA, as well as Vivid, Videoteam and scores of others were prosecuted and jailed. To think that just because there has been a "lull" in prosecution,does not mean it is not happening today. Just recently TEXAS Presidential candidate Mr. Bush's wonderful attorney general was investigating two cases involving explicit educational content, removed from stores and confiscated by the Ft. Worth Police (without warrant) Ask GOALIE, one of the largest adult chains in the country about the raid on all 5 of their warehouses, or General Video Michigan, having their entire inventory confiscated. Folks prosecution is alive and well. Adam & Eve spends 100's of thousands of dollars each year fighting the 1st Amendment prosecutions. Phil HArvey, owner of Adam & Eve, now spends most of his time in Washington D.C. just for that reason. Adam & Eve has been raided and prosecuted, and we won. But we still have every single title we sell reviewed by outside therapists,for "questionable" content produced by ourselves and content we sell in our consumer business, produced bu other companies FYI- Try to buy a dildo in Addison, Texas or other parts of the state. Sodomy Laws. New people in the business do not give the respect to people like Phil HArvey, Russ at VCA, and the others who have gone to bat for the industry. The fact that VCA may have edited questionable content, because of fear of prosecution, makes Russ a hero, to his company, his employees, the stores he sells to and the webmasters who ship to areas like Utah, Kentucky, ALabama, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma and Tennessee. We won't even ship to these states still living in the 1950's. Ask Sunshine why they don't do mailorder. Terrified of prosecution- don't think "Fisting Transexuals 3" is going to fly in most states. The simple truth is this, it is going to get worse, so instead of beating a company up,for doing the right thing join the fight against this nonsense. It is truly remarkable how the internet has made companies feel they are immune to such things. And how the history, and leaders of the industry get no respect, when was the last time you went to jail, on principle? To protect others? Or laid out a kings ransome, for someones elses defense? Give VCA the credit they are due, you never know when some bible thumper will get a package meant for you, and the Fed's show up at your favorite companies door. Happened to us...
To jb0911: First Amendment protection is frequently invoked by corporations as a means to protect their bottom line, and not to protect any significant political or artistic statement. I doubt that preserving Shanna McCullough's doggy-style fuck with Jamie Gillis on DVD is as worthy of Freedom of Speech protection as (for example) a government demonstration for equal rights protection. I was questioning the vigorous stance of a corporation (which, by definition, is solely in existence to make money), acting with prior restraint based on a financial, as opposed to moral, concern.
JB, I agree that FSC needs to get really active. Holding benefits is one way. Another way is to actively join up with more mainstream groups. Look at how much power the AARP has with politicians-it's because they are a large number of VOTERS. I also agree that the owner in question has been great at fighting the good fight. It'd be nice if others joined him more often... Awards removal: well, I wonder if it's truly fair to maintain that the movie that won is the same movie. I know that smacks of purism. I'll be content, for the most part, if the edits are identified. I wouldn't want to toss out any babies. Prosecution: I understand the fears. I know that selling a bunch of dildo's is technically illegal in TX. I also know that juries throw out those cases all the time. If you want to get the laws tossed out, you need to offer someone something better than the DA will. By this, I mean that most convictions for stuff like this are plea bargains. Offer some minimum wage clerk some dough to take the case through the appeals court. They usually rule that the law is no good when such laws get that high up. Problem is-almost everyone takes a plea so there's no precedence set... That said, thanks to Phil, Larry, Russ, and all the others out there that contribute. I know it's much easier to sit back in our comfy little homes and tell you guys what to do than it is on the front lines. With a few exceptions, most everyone here is on your side completely. Some people don't understand the risks as well as others here do too. JKrull, I get Adam & Eve catalogs sent to me all the time and have ordered from them before. When did y'all stop selling here in Texas? BTW, you can buy a dildo in most parts of the state quite easily. A few stores get raided-usually when the clerk starts making SPECIFIC recommendations about SPECIFIC practices to vice cops. Ask Steph if she thinks I might know something about this... Also, the sodomy laws were just recently ruled by the courts to be Unconstitutional. It was never enforced except for public sex (FTMP). No doubt prosecution is alive and well in this country. I agree that it'd be easier to have a federal standard for obscenity. However, what is easy for some is problematic for others. We've lost a lot of freedoms over the last 8+ years and I'm not willing to fork over a bunch more. What should we all do? Vote, register like-minded people to vote, support the companies we do business with, serve on juries, and contribute to worthy causes. This is just a start of course. (BTW-how have you liked my recent reviews?)
OK, now things are clear. Diesel wants his porn but those of us who make it for him are amoral, money-grubbing "corporations" (by the way, I'm only now becoming aware that incorporating your company places you just under wife-beaters and thugs on the morality-o-meter). And now that I know we are all unworthy of protection under the constitution of the United States of America I'll let all the other pornographers know so that we car-pool to the nearest federal penitentiary. Oh, and next time you feel the need to jack-off just call the headquarters of the local equal-rights movement. I'm sure they'll just tumble all over themselves in an effort to get your dick hard once all of us horrible, buck-chasing corporations are safely out of your pristine moral nation.
To jb0911: You need to chill out, dude. Believe it or not, I think that we're on the same side. But even like minds differ...no big whup. May I recommend a good video to calm you down (or to get you up) like THE TEASE or THE LAST RESORT as means of relaxing? (Both are from VCA...a corporation I obviously despise by giving them the highest reviews --- which they deserve --- with almost every new DVD release). Oh, and I did try to call the headquarters of the local equal-right movement the other day when I really needed to jack off. They kept me on hold for so long, that I dialed a 1-900 number instead. Finally, are you a representative from VCA? Just curious.
Diesel - jb0911 is Faron from OGV. Just do a quick search of the forum for his posts. (I recommend searching the [url=20470]new forum</A. The search mechanism is 10 hex faster than the UBB search. The message base is about 1 week old but you'll find plenty of posts from Faron. He's been a very helpful studio rep for quite a while on ADT.)
I'm not convinced. The wording of Wit's post wasn't a grammatical error as you suggested earlier, it was a clear and deliberate attempt to deflect attention away from VCA and dump all the blame for their self-censorship on the government. The timing of his message was no coincidence either, following on from recent criticism of VCA cuts elsewhere in this forum. If you'd taken the trouble to read any of the previous threads where VCA edits were mentioned then you would've found it easier to understand my reaction to Wit's post. I can see how my comments could appear harsh when removed from the context of all the other occasions where the topic has cropped up. However, this isn't a new subject in the forum and I stand by everything I said in my response. VCA had numerous opportunities to respond directly to these issues when raised in other threads but chose differently. Instead they decided to post a new message with the absurd claim that VCA haven't removed *anything* from their own titles. Other people may believe this was a careless error in the wording of Wit's message but I don't. I think it was quite deliberate. For all your ranting about VCA having the right to remove footage from their tapes and DVDs, nobody disagreed with you. This matter was never in dispute. Although I did say I wasn't happy with the situation, I would never deny that VCA have the right to decide what's best for them. Of course they can cut whatever the hell they like (with fair warning), just the same as I have the right to boycott their vintage titles on DVD in future. I also asked for VCA to be more honest with us when packaging their DVD releases and for them to include a note on the sleeve indicating that the contents have been changed. Again, this isn't the first time the subject has been raised but so far it's been conveniently ignored by Wit and his buddies. It's in VCA's best interests to introduce some consumer advice anyway. I've avoided buying DMJ 3&4, Girlfriends and a few other classics on DVD because of uncertainty over what may or may not be cut. If the DVD versions are complete then VCA are needlessly missing out on extra sales because of the confusion caused by their previous actions.
[This message has been edited by The Wanderer (edited September 27, 2000).]
I know that VCA think they'll avoid prosecution by removing certain images and dialogue from their movies, but I fail to see any logic to some of their decisions. They show very little consistency from one title to the next when deciding what to remove, so it's as though VCA are only censoring as a token gesture to the government. How can VCA expect to predict what different communities will find offensive? They still include scenes of anal sex and facials (in older titles anyway), so following your logic Russell Hampshire could be back in jail next week if the wrong person watched one of his tapes. Why only remove part of the problem? To some people *all* pornography is obscene and VCA can never account for that however much they self-censor.Your hopes for government approval of hardcore porn seem misguided to say the least. I know we are looking at this from different points of view, you and Wit from a business perspective and the rest of us from a consumer standpoint, but let me assure you that an unregulated video industry is *always* better for the consumer without any exceptions. If you encourage government intervention it could backfire on the porn industry with devastating effect. Consider this scenario if you will: The government introduces a system where the MPAA define what is acceptable content on home video. By law every tape or DVD must have an MPAA rating before it can be released and studios have to pay extortionate amounts of money to the censors for classification of their videos. The MPAA decide that ALL explicit hardcore porn is unacceptable and softcore only will be allowed because of the risk that adult material might be seen by children in the home. Where would that leave OGV, VCA and the rest of the hardcore industry? You'd be looking for alternative employment because very few of your existng customers would buy the censored crap on offer. Even if the censors allowed hardcore, chances are it would be softened to such an extent that people lose interest and sales dramatically hit. This may sound far-fetched but exactly the same thing happened in the U.K. during the mid-eighties. Prior to 1984 there were no legal restrictions on the content of videos, so we had exactly the same round of obscenity trials as you had in the United States a few years ago. This was followed by requests from the larger studios for regulation (much the same as you're doing now) in the belief that it would offer some protection and remove any worry about releasing a certain title. When the British government finally stepped in, the end result was some of the strictest censorship in the free world. Far from benefiting, many smaller companies went out of business because the films they owned the rights to were refused a rating and also due to the high cost of classification. The bigger studios fared little better with heavy cuts being made to their films even in the 18 category. Warner Bros had to wait 16 years to obtain a video rating for The Exorcist and only now are we beginning to see a more relaxed attitude from the censors. During this time I bought most of my videos from the U.S. because the versions on sale in the U.K. were a waste of tape. I'm not saying that the U.S. government would definately react in the same way, but there must be a strong possibility. Worth remembering next time you ask them for guidance.
[This message has been edited by The Wanderer (edited September 27, 2000).]
Diesel- I have passionate feelings on this particular political issue and about the people involved. A problem in America today is that people are far too "chilled out" about important issues. The owner of VCA and his wife are people I have a tremendous amount of respect and affection for on both professional and personal levels. I pray to God the day never comes that I DON'T talk long and loud in defense of Constitutional Freedoms and friends. You love to talk about "corporations" when the truth is that major descisions at every adult company come down to one guy, the owner. I hate to break it to everyone but the industry, while larger then ever before, is just not that big. So, when you call an attempt to save a business's existence and the employees jobs and freedom self-serving you're gonna raise my ire. When the prosecution of VCA started several of the employees were named alongside the owner. The only reason a BUNCH of folks just trying to earn a living DIDN'T go to jail was that the owner walked in and pleaded to everything to save his people. If Russ knew he was the only person who would ever have to face prosecution it might have been a different story and a harder fight. But, he wanted to make sure that the people who worked for him and the people who did business with him were never in that kind of danger again. In the prevailing political climate the First Amendment wasn't enough to protect the people for whom he felt responsible so he took the only action he could to provide that protection. How dare you say that those cuts were not based on a moral descision? May I respectfully suggest that in the future you have a few more facts before publicly offering up the internal motivation of an unknown third-party. Wanderer- I never even came close to saying Wit's statements were a typographical error. I said it might have been lofty and idealistic verbage. In other words a little more complicated than simple direct statements. Wit was trying to make a point about who was ultimatly responsible for a particular action. He was writing with something you may have heard of, it's called subtltey. I have actually read every thread on the subject. That's why I understood and agreed with the point that asking for notification of changes was valid. That's also why I understand that why the cuts were originally made is a separate issue from notification. By the way you need to read THIS post again because not once did I "rant about VCA having the right to remove footage". I ranted about someone ripping a guy a new asshole over a selfless descision meant to keep people out of jail and the role of politics and the First Amendment in the process! If you want to disagree with me at least disagree with something I actually said. Now that we're past the slanderous lies you've posted about me... As for there being no response from VCA previously on the subject I've never before, and can't now, say anything about why that might be one way or the other. I have my own set of self-imposed rules for posting about my own product and wouldn't attempt to guess what Wit's might be. You say VCA is TRYING to place the blame on the government? This is the place I've got a problem with your post about VCA. You wanna be pissed off about them not putting a notice on the package? For the fourth of fifth time, fine. You wanna boycott because of it? Fine. I've got no problem with any of that. Never have. You wanna try and say that governmental prosecution of content has no bearing on a company having to alter content to avoid further prosecution? I don't think so. Learn to separate the issues.
Historically, the US is quite likely to react in the same way. As a comparison, the US normally follows British firearm regulations about 20 years behind. It's just as easy for them to chip away at one part of our Constitution as another. There's a documentary out on the Waco ordeal that's really scary. Whether you agree with the people in the Waco compound or not, they still had rights.
I stand by my comments. In fact, I think that your follow-up response proves my point exactly. (By the way, I have some background on First Amendment issues and Constitutional Law. If you re-read my posts, you will see then you will see I was discussing a more subtextual issue. At the very least, topics such as these are worth discussing, especially in this kind of forum, wouldn't you agree?). On a lighter note, do you have any information as to whether Odyssey video owns the rights to several "old" Leena videos like: LEENA, BLINDED BY LOVE, THE LIVING END and others? I notice that there are phone sex ads with clips of these videos in some Odyssey DVDs. If they were ever released on DVD, they would surely be top-sellers.
I am coming at this from a consumer's perspective. I always view the VHS first, and if I really like it, then I buy the DVD. So far, I have about 40 adult DVDs. Most of them are from Anabolic, Diabolic, or Extreme Associates. When I buy their DVD's, I have complete confidence that everything I saw on the VHS is also on the DVD. On the other hand, I will never buy any DVDs from Vivid or Elegant Angel. The issue is one of credibility ... once a company censors one DVD, I no longer have confidence that they won't censor another. Life is too short to have these frustrations and doubts. I also find it laughable the excuse VCA gives for censoring. There are LOTS of vidoes from the major producers with far nastier content. IMO, it's better to have no DVD than a censored DVD.
Hey Diesel- If my post proved your point I wish you'ld lay it out for me a little clearer cause I'm obviously just not getting what you're trying to say. The only protection Adult Companies will ever have is the First Amendment and it appears to me that you are saying it is disengenuous for us to get riled up when we aren't protected and call for people who enjoy the product to voice thier support for protection of those who make it. If I have been misreading your argument I'd love to know it. Also, Yes OGV owns the rights to almost every movie Leena ever made including all the ones listed in your post. While I don't have a projected release date as yet, we are planning to make them available on DVD. Reader1 We're talking about cuts made 8 years ago due to a heavy spate of prosecution, not one of the recent cuts by companies in order to make fake angles or to fit on cheaper formats. We all know those are despicable. You find a company owner having having enough balls and loyalty to his employees to take a prison sentence and consumer heat to be laughable? That's just sad.
jb0911: If you have ownership of a movie, then IMO you have the right to release it censored or uncensored. You can cut it down to a 5 minute movie and release it on a DVD, and who's anyone to tell you that you can't do it. Or you may choose to go back and reinsert scenes that were edited because the political climte is more tolerant today. You will also understand that as a consumer, I decide where my money gets spend. However, the issue here is the release of censored DVDs without informing the consumer. For example, I bought Gang Bang Angel #1 (an EA release), and nowhere on the box doesn it say that the DVD is edited in comparison to the VHS, in fact the photos on the box hints at the nastier scenes, some of which were shortened, and an entire segment was removed. Fortunately, I deal with a reputable retailer, but I still had to go to the trouble of repackaging and shipping it back. I have no respect for studios that do this, and I will not buy any DVDs from them.
Wanderer: I've checked on DMJ 3 & 4 and there seem to be no cuts. I couldn't do a direct VHS to DVD comparison, but the Blue Guide lists running times for each that correspond within a minute to the measured running times on the DVD! Can't say anything about the other title, tho - sorry.
greybeard- Thanks for the info on DMJ 3&4. If VCA won't provide us with any details maybe we'll have to start another thread identifying which titles are uncut. This topic is almost as much fun as Usenet. I never expected to have a serious discussion here and it makes a pleasant change from the usual subjects entitled "Who has the best pussy?" or "Which DVD has the most lesbians in it?". Typographical error? I said grammatical error, nothing whatsoever to do with typing. You know grammar, as in the relation between different words and how they are used. I thought that was what you meant but maybe we're just speaking separate languages.Well here's a typical example where you were doing exactly that:If this wasn't about VCA's right to self-censor then what was it?Who is this "someone" you are referring to? If it's me please quote the text where I supposedly blasted the boss of VCA for protecting his employees. The criticism I wrote was directed at Wit for the misleading way he worded his original post and then I spoke about VCA in general terms, not about anyone specifically. Unless you are suggesting that Russell Hampshire and Wit are the same person (which would possibly explain your over-reaction to any criticism of Wit, Russell being a close friend of yours), then I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know something about Wit's true identity that we don't? You're jumping to the wrong conclusions again. What I actually said was that VCA are trying to shift *all* the blame for censorship onto the government. I didn't say the government were blameless and I never denied that political pressure exists, but VCA must accept at least partial responsibility for cuts which they themselves made. Remember that VCA still have some choice when deciding whether to censor or not but they choose the easier option each time, hoping to save themselves from potential problems in future. So on the one hand VCA are saying that we all need to fight censorship and on the other they are censoring their own videos and doing everything they can to avoid confrontation. There seems to be some hypocrisy in this attitude and that's why I doubt the sincerity of Wit's rallying call.
[This message has been edited by The Wanderer (edited September 28, 2000).]
Hey Guys, Well this has been quite a week and it looks like I have a lot of reading to do over the weekend. Sorry I haven't respnded sooner. I normally get a chance to check in about once a week, or so. But since I started this thread, I should have been more attentive. I am excited about everyone who took the time to respond. This is, obviously, an important and emotionally charged topic. I feel that there is a lot I need to reply to and will post a more detailed response on Monday. The one thing I can answer to very quickly, is the one thing we can do without question. We will put a notification on our DVD Classics, if they have been revised from a title's original release. That is something we should have been doing, and will do going forward. Wit
Wit: On behalf of myself and many others, many thanks for agreeing to notify us of edits on "classic title" DVDs! Torris, however, makes a good point about how best to notify us without immediately turning off potential buyers. Two thoughts: This could become a porn version of that "general" DVD "hot topic," Pan & Scan vs. Letterbox, with "purists" on both sides. You might cop their phrases or language to the extent that "This Title Has Been Altered From Its Original Release Version -- It Has Been Edited To Fit Your Justice Department's Current Idea of What Is or Is Not Prosecutable Content."
Also (not joking this time), you might entertain the idea of posting details about each title's edits on your company's website, where the title's other information is listed, and maybe post a short "flag" here in ADT that the info is available. That way, you could put a short "edited" notice on the case or packaging, not taking up too much space or calling too much attention to itself, yet give us "purists" a place to go to check out just what/how much is cut. If nothing else, it'd drive us to your website, plus generate some "click-through" goodies for ADT! Whatcha think?
Wit- Just to echo the sentiments expressed by Torris and greybeard, I think this is a commendable decision by VCA and a definite step in the right direction.
A brief statement on the back cover would be good enough for me and if you want to provide details on the precise nature of each cut, by all means post them here. We won't tell anyone, honestly.
I look forward to reading the rest of your comments on this topic in the near future.
-Wanderer
"Blind acceptance is a sign, of stupid fools who stand in line."
