Suppose it's a case where the person has been screaming about the sky falling for a while that when it actually might be falling, no one wants to hear about it simply because it's been something yapped about on Every subject.

then again, I believe that the WWE has the option to pay the fee to use it, but they CHOOSE not to. that choice might be the deciding factor here.

You're right. I shouldn't have stuck that "legal" nit in there.

However, that doesn't change the overall point. The program has been altered from its original, previously aired form, whether by legal requirement or through the WWE's decision not to pay a fee (by whom, I guess, would depend on which is the case). Again, censorship is not an absolute evil, and it's sometimes done under the guise of the law, for both the good and the bad.

After all, it's the law that you can't say certain words on broadcast television, but would you ever describe those bleeps as anything other than censorship?

Can of music rights worms: opened.

Well on South park those bleeps have become a comical gag.

It's more like the case of the boy who cried "dog!" every time he saw a poodle or chihuahua, so no one paid attention when he yelled it regarding the rabid Rottweiler.

yeah, forgot this was that rottweiler. you know. blured logos and all... Not any removal of blood, nor any removal of matches that have wrestlers who were let go for reasons like drugs or women beating... no no no, None of that, but the censorship of covering up what could potentially be a lawsuit..

Yeah. That makes sense. I too will not buy these censored DVD's. How dare they deprive me of the logo which stands at the forefront of my DVD viewing experience. I mean who cares if there are people hurtling themselves off of top ropes and slamming each other to the ground with the possibility of serious injury. I don't watch that, I watch the logo. Ppttooyy. Too hell with lawsuits, I boycott these DVD's. And DVD's with no inserts. And snappers. And Lucas (how dare he make us wait for DR. Jones)

This thread is censoring my enjoyment of GOOD threads.

No, this is definitely a poodle. Still a dog, though.

The question is whether this poodle warrants everyone's attention.

I think this poodle can piss all over my carpet and I wouldn't care. Aslong as I could see the rest of the apartment piss free..

Man can you get this dvd for less then $24 like $20 or below I can't find it cheaper then $24 online and BB and CC did not have it when I looked for it.

That in itself might be censorship!

Your first point is 100% wrong. Which means you are among the membership noted in point 3.

Ignorance once again rears its ugly head in DVDtalk. The WWF *lost* a legitimate trademark suit. McMahons fought long & hard against the WWF (wildlife) suit. The suit was even tried in England FYI. ANd things can get complex with international rights.

Wrestling lost, wildlife won. The WWF wrestling log can no longer be used. WWF (wildlife) owns the mark. And wilful infringement (which is what it would be at this point) would get treble damages.

And just to give you the big clue, "censorship" is the suppression of material for political, religious, or moral reasons. Doing it as required as a result of a *legal* decision is NOT censorship!!!

Please get a bit of education here folks. You're only making yourselves look bad.

Really? I know it's easy to say, but please come up with a reference to a single dictionary that defines it solely as such. Until then, the jury's out on who's in the position to be handing out "clues" here.

Then why can the block logo be used?

A settlement was reached whereby the block logo could be used. The settlement pre-dated the creation of the "scratch" logo, so when that logo was created and introduced, it did not fall under the protection of the settlement, and was therefore in violation of the settlement.

Anyway, that's the best I can glean from the cursory accounts provided in the mainstream news.

Just for kicks, what does everyone feel would be a better solution: 1) blurring the offensive logo, or 2) putting a non-skippable 2 or 3 minute World Wildlife Fund ad at the beginning of each DVD?

The second option isn't based on anything that's actually going to happen, I'm just curious which is the lesser of two evils. Myself, I think I'd prefer an ad if they ever did that. I'll buy the DVD either way.

I would also prefer the ad.

What? A forced trailer! Ridiculous, i'm writing a letter!

I'd prefer the ad.

I just finished watching the Cage Matches DVD...some good stuff on there.

Interestingly enough, when they were close enough to do such detailing (like someone on the floor next to the ring apron with the logo on it) they simply blurred the stripes that come off the scratch logo that make up the F in WWF, thus creating a visual of the new WWE logo of just a pair of W's.

I wouldn't mind the forced ad either.

Well, a few days and numerous posts elsewhere later, I can only assume that he's not so much interested in being right as he is in merely sounding right.

(Or, I guess, there's always the possibility that he just hasn't checked this thread again. )

Anyway, to keep this post contributory, the forced trailers idea is interesting. Granted that I don't actually care either way with regard to these releases, if a similar situation were to arise with regard to a DVD I was interested in, I guess I'd prefer the forced trailer. Of course it's not perfect (it's easy to circumvent (just don't watch), it doesn't address all the issues inherent in the dispute, there's an intrusiveness to it that's quite off-putting and a bit disturbing (but of course the same applies to the blurring), etc.), but nothing is. Regardless, I'd certainly prefer it to a censored presentation.

This DVD has the entire Bret vs. Owen match, doesn't it? I would gladly pay full price, just for this match.

I've never heard the forced trailer thing being an option, but I'd sign up for a FIVE minute trailer to get rid of the blurs. I mean, it's really not fair where I stand. The stuff was grandfathered in, but Vince flaunts ego again, what else is new? And if advertising and promotion were all the REAL WWF were after, I'd support a one minute commerical in every hour of WWE programming if we could ditch that god awful name.

As for the blurred logo, they did a better job on the cage match DVD, and it's less intrusive. My one issue, however, is that there seemed to be a two grade drop in video quality where the logo was blurred. That was more troublesome than the blur to me. Thankfully on this disc, so much stuff is pre-attitude era, it's not so bad. I think maybe the DVD production house picks their spots for where and when to blur the logo. When they know it won't be a big deal, they blur, but if were to be a high profile DVD covering an attitude subject, I think they just chance it(as seen by the Hogan DVD).

And this DVD is magnificent. If you are a fan of 80's wrestling, it's simply a must own. The NWA stuff, which I'd never seen was simply awesome. What an intense match that was with Blanchard and Magnum TA. And it's just so cool to hear the crowd during the Rock N'Roll Express-Andersons match. Popping like crazy(ditto for any Snuka cage matches).

This is their best effort since the Hogan DVD set. I just hope Ric Flair's set is just as good.

Yes, the complete match is included in the extras.

Brett