The views expressed in the interviews and/or commentary accompanying this movie are those of the individuals making them, and do not necessarily represent the views of Universal Pictures or any of its partners or affiliates.

These kinds of notices are becoming more prevalent everywhere, as various corporate entities strive to distance themselves from the legal vulnerability of being associated with any expression of opinion that could be legally damaging to their public image.

However, in some situations you have to wonder just how much ass do these notices really cover? For example, in the case of a DVD of a movie that you rent, you will see a notice similar to the above text flash on the screen before the movie starts. It covers the interviews and commentary on the DVD, i.e. the “special features” that make DVDs different from the released theater version.

It’s not that the interviews themselves contain dangerous material - it’s just that the company releasing the DVD wants to hide behind a blanket statement: if you are offended by any of the interviews, don’t shoot the messenger.

However, what if the messenger is far from a neutral entity? What if the messenger has a deeply vested interest in the message?

There is a blurred line here between individual views and corporate views: on one hand the corporate entity stands to profit precisely because of the volatile personalities and passionately expressed opinions of those individuals that represent the corporation. However, the corporate entity is all too willing to disavow any such representative association if the corporate entity stands to lose money from the individual going “too far.”

After all, if the individual’s views do not line up with the corporation’s views, do you really think the corporation would allow such views to get on the DVD in the first place? If one of the film makers said during the interview: “fuck Universal Pictures man, don’t go to any of their movies,” do you think Universal Pictures would really let THAT make it onto the DVD?

Of course, why would the film maker say such a thing, right? Why bite the hand that feeds you? Which means… just how much subtle pressure is there to NOT say the wrong thing on interviews? Especially when you know that your own monetary reward is at stake, do you go along with the company line, or at least not challenge the company line in public?

If you think it’s a mutual relationship, think again: your “corporate sponsor” will readily feed you to the wolves if the wolves start howling about something you said.

Which means that the company producing the movie gets to shape, in significant ways, the message that goes out on the interviews and the color commentary: keep it relevant to the movie, don’t veer off track and don’t put the company in a bad light. Don’t say anything that could hurt us, corporately. And, the beauty of it all is that they do not even have to state it explicitly like that: by simply editing out the parts that they do not particularly like, they can choose precisely WHAT views and opinions actually make it onto the DVD.

In fact, the interviews and special features on a DVD are usually marketing material carefully edited to further push the product (the show, the movie). Even the so-called interviews with the actors and writers are themselves slickly produced shows that use music and tantalizing flashes of the real show to build a sense of hyped stimulation - while carefully avoiding any topic that might tie the show to sensitive real-world issues or parallels. Nevermind if the writers wrote a particular episode as a critical commentary on, say, the war in Iraq - the interview with the actors involved will instead focus on the sex scene in the episode and how there might be a new baby born by the end of the season.

Which means the legal disclaimer is bullshit: the views expressed in the interviews and commentary precisely reflect the overall orientation and messaging of the parent company and its affiliates, which often is - WE WANT YOU TO CONSUME AND BE MINDLESSLY ENTERTAINED BY OUR PRODUCT!

So what we have here is a symbiotic/parasitic relationship: both parties feed off each other, and simply want to cover their asses from being held accountable by us, the “viewing public.”

Of course, we, the public, are too busy consuming and viewing to do much accounting, aren’t we?

This blurring of the individual and corporate has much bigger repercussions: every one of us now has the potential to be “owned” by some corporate entity, in the sense that the vehicles for our opinions are all owned and operated by corporate organizations.

If you write your opinion in an email and send it out to someone, the company that provides your email service can be held accountable for your opinions, and so they may filter your emails so that they are not at risk. Think that’s silly? Think again: think google in China. If you are a pro-democracy activist in China, your google activity (your search queries, your emails, etc.) are subject to filtering and reporting to the authorities, BY google! google maintains that it is simply censoring results, but it is also limiting access to certain services because it does not want to be “ordered by the authorities to release user information” - which means that under current Chinese law, if China wants that information it can get it. google is also currently battling a US lawsuit that calls for the company to release user search information to the federal government for homeland security purposes - at least on US soil google can fight such invasions of privacy, but not for long.

If you have your own blog, and you write something in your blog, the company that hosts your blog reserves the right to shut down your blog if you post material that violates their policies. And even if you host your own website, off your own computer, people can still associate you with material that someone else puts on that computer. Think that’s silly? Think again: think judge Alex Kozinski in California who was forced to recuse himself from an indecency trial because someone raised a stink about allegedly objectionable material found in a locked-off area of a website maintained by the judge’s son. Check the Wikipedia entry here and the astute legal commentary by Stanford University law professor Lawrence Lessig here.

If you make a telephone call to express your opinion to a friend, the companies that provide the technology that transmits your voice to your recipient can (and will, and MUST) give your information to the government so that the government can determine if your opinion constitutes a risk to national security. And, in these United States, the land of the freely overheard, those companies have legal immunity from your pitiful efforts to keep your telephone calls unmonitored.

So any technology vehicle you use to express your opinion is subject to monitoring, repression, legal disclaimers, and terms of service that you agree to abide by.

What remains is your own voice. However even that is limited these days: if you speak on public grounds, the town government can decide that your actions constitute a threat or a violation, and they can shut you down. There is no such thing as “public” ground any more - even July 4th parades are run by private organizations that can prohibit any form of protest they wish. The best you can hope for are PRIVATE grounds hosted by companies that are sympathetic to your cause and provide a space for your expression.

Which brings us back to the notices: by the very act of investing money and resources into producing DVDs that have colorful interviews and commentary, movie companies DO tacitly approve the views and opinions expressed therein.

Which should make you think: what is the subtle corporate message that those companies want to convey? What individual views and opinions are they afraid of?

Don’t buy the bullshit.