NYT/AP: Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films

[DeepModem Mom]

Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 8, 2006

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Sanitizing movies on DVD or VHS tape violates federal copyright laws, and several companies that scrub films must turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios, an appeals judge ruled.

Editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an ''illegitimate business'' that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights, said U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch in a decision released Thursday in Denver.

''Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies,'' the judge wrote. ''There is a public interest in providing such protection.''

Matsch ordered the companies named in the suit, including CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms, to stop ''producing, manufacturing, creating'' and renting edited movies. The businesses also must turn over their inventory to the movie studios within five days of the ruling....

***

CleanFlicks produces and distributes sanitized copies of Hollywood films on DVD by burning edited versions of movies onto blank discs. The scrubbed films are sold over the Internet and to video stores....

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts/AP-Film-Sanitizers.html

[OwnedByFerrets]

1. Now THERE is some good news. n/t

[w4rma]

2. Good. You shouldn't be able to change someone's work and sell it

without their consent.

[MADem]

3. An opportunity for the film maker to make a few extra DVD bucks too

If he/she is willing to edit up and sell the MADE FOR TV version--cut out that middleman, it would serve these bums right:

''Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor,'' he said.

[jpgray]

4. Awesome

[regnaD kciN]

5. Why do you liberals hate family values and common decency?

:sarcasm:

[MrPrax]

6. So THAT'S what happened...

I remember hearing about these punks three years ago and it took this long?
Spielberg had a big suit against them. They're vandals encouraging religious intolerance to make a buck off of religious intolerance.

Clean scenes
A video watchdog in Utah edits out all the nasty stuff for his Mormon customers.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jack Boulware

Jan. 11, 2001 | Mormons in Utah hoping to rent a Hollywood film without sex, violence or profanity have found their savior. His name is Ray Lines, and he doesn't merely preach against the heathens of hell. Lines is a man of action. The one-time sportscaster operates two CleanFlicks video stores in the greater Salt Lake City area, and spends much of his time editing the videos to remove bare breasts, sex scenes, gun battles and unfortunate dialogue like "fuck" and "goddamn it."

The large local membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provides an ideal customer base for Lines and his Carry Nation crusade against video filth. Since his stores opened a few months ago, he has attracted a steady stream of well-scrubbed film fans who don't mind paying up to $17 to rent a Mormon-friendly version of "Titanic" or "Saving Private Ryan."

Salon

[countmyvote4real]

7. Only the copyright owners can clean up their art for ancillary gains.

If the copyright owners (studios and/or directors) want to sell their sanitized airline versions on DVD, then it is their right to do so until their copyright expires or they choose to sell those options to a third party. Makes perfect sense.

[Lefty48197]

8. Can Walmart continue to force musical acts to censor their music

or face a ban from the Walmart shelves? Considering that something over 50% of all new record sales are done through Walmart stores, their plan forces artists to cave in to their demands, or face poor sales totals nationwide.

[Codeine]

12. Actually, that's fine.

It's their (shitty, dirty, skanky, awful) store and they can choose what to sell -- they just can't make changes themselves. It's perfectly legitimate for them to refuse to sell the stuff, however.

One more reason not to shop there.

[Lefty48197]

13. Apparently, we need laws against monopolies or something

Or laws against Walmart.

[fujiyama]

92. Wal Mart at this point

I believe is the largest retailer of media (DVD and music).

I dislike their strongarm tactics and I think anti-trust laws should be better enforced. But Wal Mart, which I have stepped into only twice, has a right not to sell what they don't want.

[saigon68]

109. Besides you will get the crabs

If you use the toilets in Walmart or shop there

[Gman]

9. Why do these judges hate God?

and legislate from the bench and all that stuff, etc...??!!

[formercia]

10. Oh, you mean like..

scrubbing all of the blood, gore, filth and violence from the evening news?

What's really nasty is the way the Administration edits out the truth.

Now the US Government should be taken to task for the same thing.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

11. Classic MadTV sketch: "The Sopranos" as shown on PaxTV...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmX-SSJO-ug

[flamingyouth]

14. kick

[villager]

15. Judge Orders End to "CleanFlicks" (censored versions of H'wd pix)

Judge scrubs CleanFlicks

Court orders end to sales of 'clean' pix

By DAVE MCNARY


A federal judge in Denver has ordered four companies to stop selling cleaned-up versions of Hollywood films, finding that the practice violates federal copyright law.

Decision by Judge Richard P. Matsch, issued Thursday, culminates a four-year legal battle that began when Utah-based CleanFlicks launched a preemptive suit against the DGA and 16 leading directors -- including guild prexy Michael Apted, Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese -- hoping to obtain a favorable court ruling that would legally christen the practice of altering films. The DGA was able to persuade the Hollywood studios to join the action as defendants and via a counterclaim.

Matsch, in a 16-page ruling, found that CleanFlicks, Family Flix, CleanFilms and Play It Clean Video were violating the studios' rights as copyright holders "to control the reproduction and distribution of the protected work in their original form."

"It is particularly gratifying that the court recognized that this conduct is not permitted under copyright laws," Apted said in a statement. "Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choice of a third-party editor." Apted also said that the case was of particular import to directors as their films are the basis of their reputation.

"No matter how many disclaimers are put on the film, it still carries the director's name," he added. "So we have great passion about protecting our work, which is our signature and brand identification, against unauthorized editing."

The companies had claimed that the doctrine of "fair use" gave them the right to edit the films, and CleanFlicks said it would appeal the ruling. Matsch also ordered the businesses to turn over their inventories to the studios within five days.

<snip>

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117946477?categoryid=18&cs=1

[ThomCat]

16. Good. Make your own damned whitewashed movies.

[MADem]

17. ......arbitrary choice of a third-party editor

Left unsaid is THIRD RATE to go along with third party.

[villager]

22. good point

n/t

[flyarm]

18. amen..thank you judges who believe in our laws!! and stand by our laws! n/

[MorningGlow]

19. Wow, some good news for a change!

Keep yer damned uptight morals outta my videos, ya hear? Now GIT.

:headbang: :applause:

[Warpy]

20. Oh, please, the obligatory sex scenes are very useful to me

as they signal time to go to the bathroom or get myself a snack. Sanitizing the movies by removing them wouldn't do a thing for me and I suspect for a lot of people. Most of us aren't prudes, we just don't consider sex much of a spectator sport and find something else to do in the interim.

What these prigs are doing is Bowdlerization, something that got a very bad name in the Victorian era, rendering a lot of art bland and pointless.

You'd think they'd have discovered "mute" and "fast forward."

[skypilot]

36. I feel the same way.

I don't even remember at what point sex scenes became tiresome for me. I do remember that when I went to see "The Matrix" with a friend we were glad that the movie contained not a single sex scene even though we weren't to fond of the movie overall. One of the advantages of waiting for movies to be released on DVD is that I know that I can fast forward through all that crap.

[nosillies]

21. I remember the good old days

when Mom and Dad just made us run out of the room really fast, and then called us when we could come back in.

[bleedingheart]

27. I still do that...hahahaha

if I am watching a movie and my kids are playing...sometimes they stop by and watch a bit with me...if I know a bad part is coming...I send them scampering down the hall...hahahaha

[nosillies]

29. LOL

I used to ask my parents for a detailed definition of every dirty word I heard. But I was always too appalled to use them. Despite my avatar, I was such a Puritan.

My 2 year-old repeated his first dirty word the other day, so it's time to be on my toes!

[bleedingheart]

32. my kids do imitations of the character Fat Bastard from the

Austin Power's movies...

"I don't remember eating corn"...
"wafting wafting wafting.."


they are of course...much older than yours so you have much to look forward too...but I have to say..it is fun!

[nosillies]

34. Well those are great movies, and he's a great character.

Glad to see they have taste. We chase our baby around the house threatening to eat him on a regular basis.:D

[AlCzervik]

41. me too!! Cover your eyes! Block your ears!

although i still don't let me kid watch anything more than pg.

[truthisfreedom]

23. ordered to turn over their inventories to the studios within 5 days... BWA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

[Archae]

24. I saw one of their "edited" movies.

"Saving Private Ryan."

They BUTCHERED it. :grr:

[Lance_Boyle]

25. I can't believe the fuckers tried to argue 'fair use'

If these holier-than-jeebus wingnuts wanted to "sanitize" movies for their own consumption, *that* would be fair use. But they wanted to "sanitize" movies so that they could sell them and profit - that has never, ever, ever, ever, ever even been close to allowable under the fair use provisions of copyright.

[fishwax]

40. yeah, what a joke

fair use doesn't involve a profit motive. What tools.

[Paulie]

26. Doesn't Walmart use these "clean" titles?

I seem to recall. I wouldn't know, I go to Costco. :) :) :)

[nosillies]

28. I know they sell clean versions of CDs, don't know about movies

[bigworld]

30. These are authorized

by the copyright holders (as are the edited versions on netowrk TV), not just versions cleansed of naughty words by the corner video store. Totally different.

[LostinVA]

53. No n/t

[rocktivity]

31. I had no idea that the films were being cleaned up by third parties

without the director's consent or supervison. Of course directors should have a say about if and how their films gets altered!

:headbang:
rocknation

[dipsydoodle]

33. Must of decided it was ridiculous

if Bambi's mother didn't die.

[Ian David]

37. Imagine if we sold a Jesus-free version of Ben Hur? n/t

[Ian David]

35. Government should order the customers to return their purchased films...

Anyone holding one one of those films is now in possession of contraband.

When Democrats re-take the House, Senate, and White House in 2007, Unitary Executive Nancy Pelosi can confiscate the client lists of these companies.

And then we can raid their homes to search for this contraband, just like we do now based upon the client list of companies that sell illegal cable de-scramblers.

And thanks to the recent right-wing Supreme Court cases, if we happen to find anything else in those homes-- for example, improperly registered fire arms, fireworks, Viagra made out to someone else, whatever...

Oh, and we don't need to knock anymore.

Anyway, we'll have a long list of "pro-family" Christian households to search for these contraband tapes.

I wonder if we'll find illicit literature from terrorist groups such as The American Family Association and The 700 Club when we search these houses?

Imagine... all those Christians at Gitmo being re-educated to accept the homosexual agenda.

And it wouldn't have been possible without the broad, sweeping reforms of the Bush Administration to thank for it.

[msongs]

38. christians love porn. you'll find boatloads of it. nt

[Ian David]

42. I bet that the post-impeachment raids of 2007 will uncover illegal porn...

the kind that consists of only a man and a woman.

After the Impeachment, it will be illegal to own porn that doesn't include at least one act of homosexual contact in each scene.

All Hail Unitary Executive Nancy Pelosi! May she reign forever!

[underpants]

39. Why that dirty SumBum!

[Psephos]

43. About time we heard some good news from a courtroom! n/t

[On the Road]

44. If the Studios Don't Like Others Editing the Movies

I hope they have the wisdom to do it themselves. These companies serve a useful purpose. There is a reason they exist. The status quo is really not a bad compromise, and is a safety valve allowing people with different standards to choose which version they see. I would much prefer that the large number of people who object to foul language, bedroom scenes, and graphic violence to have a butchered version of the original than for them to seek additional controls on general releases.

[villager]

45. would you suggest 3rd party "book editors" too?

No, these companies exist just to try and impose their morals on everyone else. They can just not see the movie...

[On the Road]

48. Imposing Their Morals?

On the contrary, you seem to want to impose your own morals on the entire audience. These versions are for people who do not want their 11-year-old kids to see people fucking and cutting each other's arms off. These movies are part of the public space, and it's very difficult to put limits if your kids' friends are seeing them. If the studios don't offer cleaned-up versions, I can't see the harm in someone else doing it. Seems like a perfect solution.

And yes, it goes for books as well. If someone wants to create a version of "On the Road" without the drugs and hookers, or "Huckleberry Finn" without the word "nigger", great. It should be their choice as long as it's understood to be a bowdlerized version. Some works might get a wider audience that way.

[martymar64]

50. If you object to a movie, DON'T WATCH IT!!!

n/t

[LostinVA]

54. Exactly -- good grief

I certainly hope you're joking. If not, I am quite honestly gobsmacked by your statements -- especially about censoring books. What's next for you, banning them?

[bettyellen]

56. what's the harm if racists rewrite to kill a mockingbird?

why can't we each have our own personal favorite version of the same book?
LOL.

[LostinVA]

57. Or Neo-Nazis the Diary of Anne Frank

ha!

[martymar64]

112. You replying to me?

huh?

[On the Road]

62. Now, Who's Imposing Their Value System?

"If you object to a movie, DON'T WATCH IT!!!"

If I represent a group of people who want to see a movie without the naughty bits or the grisly scenes, and are willing to pay for the rights to watch it, why should I be prevented from removing the parts that are offensive? People have different values, and you have to respect that.

The artist's vision is unchanged. Whatever the director can work out with the studios is what goes into theaters and is the public version. The more I think about this, the more I think it's fair use.

The profit question is another matter -- I don't think profits are the engine behind this. But there are ways around that.

[Occulus]

64. Ever heard of FAST FORWARD?

Or TURNING THE PAGE?

The artist's vision is completely altered. Every word in a book or scene in a movie is (or ought to be) there for a purpose. And no, authors and filmmakers do not have to respect the vaule systems of anyone, particularly when going against those value systems is part of the overall plot.

If you don't like it, turn the channel, walk out of the theater, put the book back on the shelf. Don't expect the cretors to bow to your prudish, neoconservative demands.

[On the Road]

71. Personally, That's What I Do

and for exactly those reasons.

The cleaned up versions may be choppy and poorly done, but it someone's right to choose that version. I would argue that like satire, alteration to confirm to personal morals and sensibilities is legitimate and should be accepted as fair use.

What you're arguing is that as a consumer I must accept the mass marketed version or else forego the entire work. That's what I have a problem with.

Personally, I LIKE prurience in movies. I just don't expect to impose my tastes on everyone else -- and neither should Quentin Tarrantino or Steven Spielberg.

[fujiyama]

95. OMG, Speilberg and Tarintino are not imposing their values on you

They are artists. In a free society, no one is forced to watch any particular film. If you don't want to watch Schindler's List, or Pulp Fiction, you don't fucking have to. And I'm sorry, in both Scindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, the violence and nudity DID serve an artistic purpose. A sanitized version of SPR loses all effect of the DDay invasion scene.

You must either be sarcastic, or have little concept of artistic intention. If a director inserts a sex scene or a violent death, it has a purpose according to the director. You may not like it. You may not feel it forwards the plot. You may find it gratuitious or placed in there merely for the shock value. It's your right to interpret the film any way you choose. However, it's not your right to simply "edit" the film to your liking, market it as the original, and then make a profit - especially recent films.

If you are arguing that studios have control of their copyrights for too many years, that's a different argument altogether. Your argument that these "cleaned up" versions are "satirical" holds no credence however. There is no satirical value in simply marketing a slightly modified product, which is copyrighted.

[ALago1]

72. Here's why

You are altering the creative work of someone without their consent.

End of argument.

[On the Road]

74. You're Not Altering it for Everyone

You're choosing a version for your own use with a few parts removed that you might find offensive. Why should the studio have the right to tell the consumer they cannot do this for personal use? Like most issues involving public standards, there are conflicting rights. This seems the least intrusive way to balance both sides.

[ALago1]

78. Private use vs. Distribution

If you personally have the technology to alter the films for your own personal viewing, I have no problem with that (and I don't think the law would either).

The issue is that this is being done by companies for distribution so it's really not a matter of personal use at all.

[fujiyama]

96. Actually copyright laws have become pretty ridiculous

and it is technically illegal to even rip a copy of a legally purchased encrypted DVD to your computer, making any modification inherantly illegal as well.

But you are correct, in that the other poster's assertion that these "clean film" companies should distribute and that too profit off others' works while destroying the original artistic intention is complete bullshit.

[ALago1]

102. Really??

I thought that whole issue was settled when tape (VHS and Cassette) became the common media for video and music?

Didn't the law essentially say that for private personal use making copies of a legally purchased item is legal?

[fujiyama]

103. I think the DMCA

technically restricts a person from circumventing any copyright protection schemes, hence making digital backups of legally purchased DVDs illegal.

Stupid eh? You can thank congress for that and unfortunately Clinton for signing it, and not a single Dem. senator opposing it.

Politicians are usually idiots when it comes to technology.

[fishwax]

98. what is to prevent anyone from selling bootleg DVDs then?

if all you have to do is claim you "edited" it and pay a small royalty to the studio, what's to prevent someone from burning a few hundred copies and selling them?

[fishwax]

76. actually, you probably could edit the film yourself

you just can't profit from doing so. If you want to splice the videotape to edit the sex scene so your kids won't see, I don't think the law would prohibit that. But if you then sold copies of your edited version, you would have a problem.

[TripeOmatic]

110. Of course the artist's vision is changed. An edited 'work' is no longer

the work of the artist. It's the work of the censor and should be billed as such. It can no longer be billed as the work of the original artist because it's no longer that work. The trouble is that it amounts to a censor putting out a work that's been plagiarized except for the parts that are altered or omitted. That's as cheap, hypocritical, and sleazy as those doing the plagiarism.

[martymar64]

113. It 's the director's and producer's prerogative.

If they wish to issue an edited version, that's fine. But anyone else cannot do it for profit. If they want to edit for a personal copy, I have no objection either. But thesse guys were renting their edited copies. That is conversion, use of anothers property for your own enrichment, an illegal act.
If they had stores, then profit is behind it.

[girl gone mad]

84. Bingo.

There are already plenty of films sans sex and violence which are suitable for an 11 year old. Pick one of those or just turn off the television.

[bettyellen]

51. movies are NOT "part of the public space" they are complete whole works

people choose to consume. they are works their creator most often do not want altered, as that would skew and damage their work and reputation. they are not to be taken and semi-copied and altered by anyone that feels like it and then sold! if you all want to do that, start informal clubs to pass around your edits- but profit from that garbage? no. wrong.
you must not have a creative bone on your body if you think that;s okay.

[On the Road]

59. What You're Not Grasping is That

having multiple versions out there increases rather than decreases creative freedom. Directors' creative freedom is continually compromised, but it's generally the studios rather than religious interest groups that are guilty. I like to be able to see sex and violence in films, but having one version for all is the surest path to censorship that I can think of.

"Eyes Wide Shut" is a perfect example of the need for multiple versions. Because the theater version needed to have an R rating to be profitable,the most obviously pornographic bits showing public group sex were edited. Along with Roger Ebert, I happen to think those bits were central to the whole effect Kubrick was creating and it weakened the movie to have them covered up. But studios are not going to release a large-budget X-rated film without taking a financial bath. That's why there should be two versions, possibly more in this case.

Having edited versions distributed on a non-profit basis is not a bad idea if that somehow resolves the legal issue. It's copyright versus fair use, and at the very least the fair use side has to be taken seriously. It's the one way to satisfy all parties.

[JackDragna]

68. This isn't about censorship..

..this is about a group parasitizing the work of others and making a profit from it. It's well and good you want movies without the bad stuff, but it should be up to the filmmakers themselves to edit and release such movies, not third parties. That's the problem the Supreme Court has.

[On the Road]

73. The Legal Issue *May* Boil Down to Profits

and it's possible that the censorship should be done by a nonprofit corporation. Or you could have a law mandating studios to make arrangements with groups like this.

I really think the studios are being idiots -- this is a win-win for them. They just want complete control, which is nothing new. The studios should get royalties and the edited versions should not be presented as the originals. Other than that, I don't think the studios really want to get involved in cleaning up their own works and are probably clueless as to what is acceptable to the various groups (and there are different groups with different standards). The studios should make royalties on all copies sold and not have to deal with the pressure to satisfy everyone with a single version

[Bridget Burke]

86. If the creators want to release different versions, that's up to them.

If they don't, prudes don't have the right to rip them off.

[fujiyama]

97. Exactly

That's why "Unrated" and "Director's Cuts" of versions exist.

[dionysus]

104. don't tease the Big Brother advicate Winston...

n/t

[bettyellen]

106. it's not okay that any old jackass/ prude rips apart a creative work

it is not theirs to do that to. got that? it's a finished product! done.
what part of hands off, it ai';t all about you, asshole! - don;t you understand?
go elsewhere and take responsibility for your kids, because society is not going to babysit them for you. that's YOUR JOB!

[Occulus]

63. Well, THAT'S a post from Freeperville, I guess

You forgot the quote marks.

I certainly hope you're not actually serious.

[LostinVA]

65. The poster most definitely is

Scary, huh?

[On the Road]

85. I Really Don't Think I'm the Scary Person Here --

I'm just kind of appalled at the vehemence shown on this issue against people who are not lobbying for censorship, who accept the status quo, and who just want to watch something tailored to their own standards. What is the outrage over that?

Everyone has standards, and they're all different. Once something in the public space repeatedly violates your standards or sensibilities, you'll want changes of some kind, too. If this doesn't ring true with you, maybe it's because social progressive have been a lot more successful in the last few decades than social conservatives. Of all the ways this has been handled at different times by different governments, allowing people to distribute DVDs with a few scenes removed to a niche market seems the least intrusive way of satisfying everyone. It might violate copyright rules on derivative works, but there's a principle here that should be explored.

[martymar64]

114. If you really want something tailored to your own taste

I suggest you sit down in fromt of a word processor. Write a screenplay that fits to your tastes. Pitch the story to someone to raise some money. Once you have the money, hire a crew and talent and shoot this movie. Once it's shot, then edit it, mix it, make copies and distribute it.
It is up to the studio and artist to devide if they want to alter their movie to satisfy evrey small group that comes along. Whether they do or not is their business and their choice alone. That is what creative freedom is all about. If you don't like it, tough.

[fujiyama]

94. Remember though

these were copyrighted works and these companies were profitting off something someone else did, in a way it wasn't intended or authorized.

I have often disliked the way copyright laws are interpreted, and I find it absurd how long companies can copyright materials (thanks Disney! :sarcasm:), but since it's been established that these works are technically NOT in the public domain, there is no argument here. These companies were clearly violating the law.

Regardless, if you are not able to experience a work of art in the way it was intended, you are likely not mature enough to deal with it. If you don't want your kid to watch arms getting cut off (Sin City is a good example of scenes similar to what you describe), it would be best if you not allowed your 11 year old to watch such a film. There is a ratings system for a reason. Now with the internet, there are websites that should give parents an idea of possible objectionable material.

[northzax]

101. um, by definition, creating a work of art

no matter how tasteless, is imposing your morality on someone else. it's kinda the whole fucking point of the exercise. the beauty of it is that the recipient can choose to partake, or not.

it's called art, and that's why we have artists.

[readmoreoften]

111. If you don't want to watch movies or read books then don't.

But don't ask artists to design their creations for you. And some works don't want a "larger audience" if it's an audience of morons how refuse to read the original because they are too hypersensitive to face the world.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Fuck that shit.

If adults can't handle sex and violence they shouldn't be watching movies.

[On the Road]

47. I Have to Assume You're Joking

It's precisely because I want to have movies which sometimes include sex and violence that I want there to be other options for people who have different standards. I do NOT want the movies to go back to the standards of the so-called golden age.

[bettyellen]

52. if you can't control what your kid wactches, society can't babysit for you

sorry, that's your job. don;t ask society to make a happy clean version of everything just for you- next you'll ask to put thosae versions on cable because you can't stop your kid from watching.
get a grip and stop spouting nonsense like books should be rewritten to please every reader. that is ridiculous.
why don;t you find some G-rated artists with talent, instead?

[LostinVA]

55. Then don't watch the damn movies, or let your kids watch them

I am 41 years old. I wasn't allowed to watch "Hawaii Five-O," or go see movies like "Midnight Cowboy," "Billy Jack," "Poseidon Adventure," etc. There ARE movies for people with "different standards." I like some of those movies. I like "Remember the Titans," I like "Madagascar." I also like other types of movies. I HATE certain types of violent flicks... guess what? I DON'T GO SEE THEM. Or take my niece and nephew to them.

If you don't like it, then form your own film company. Seriously.

I'll say it again: good grief.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. I'm not joking at all. I hope you are.

I want movies to have fucking and shooting or whatever the hell the filmmakers wanted.

Not what some prude with a stick up his ass wanted.

[On the Road]

81. OK. You Want Fucking and Shooting. Not Everyone Wants the Same Things

And before this court decision surfaced, you didn't even know this was going on, did you? So what if someone wants to be a prude in your eyes? How does it affect you? Why do you want to force them to choose the version you prefer?

The reason I thought you might be joking is the tone of moral outrage, which seems really overwrought. Especially because the mass media is butchering movies right and left and forcing them on a mass TV audience. Except nobody seems particularly concerned about that at the moment because it isn't a political news item and doesn't elicit a knee-jerk response.

[Occulus]

83. You are worse than wrong

You are INTENTIONALLY OBTUSE about your wrongness. This was widely discussed here back when news of it was first reported- this would have been something like a year or so ago, maybe longer.

You compare apples and oranges as if we were just talking about fruit, rather than different types of fruit. Hey, here's a clue: the TV movies are being edited with the creators' permission, and contracts, and a lot of other permissioned bullshit! I'm frankly stunned you would think us all to be so unbelieveably fucking stupid as to try to make that comparison!! It might be the networks doing the editing, but gee golly shucks, it's done with the permission of the creators, studios, or whomever else is required for legal reasons! I mean, holy fucking Christ on a trailer hitch- do you think we're all idiots here?

Madness. Absolute mad, twisted logic, what you're displaying. I would argue you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, except that it's obvious you KNOW you don't know what you're talking about and you just don't care.

Agenda much?

[On the Road]

88. Well, That Was Refreshing

You seem to have lost your way and raised your voice. Not used to having your moral high ground questioned?

Of course the TV versions are done with the "permission" of the studios. Do the artists you are defending really agree with these bowdlerized versions? Do you think they have a choice?

What can be shown on TV is a carefully crafted compromise among government, business, and private groups, and involves which channels, which hours, and how the show is rated on that complex scale. Not even Steven Spielberg can change that. He can take the money and shut up (which is what he does), or he can fruitlessly try to argue that the word "penis-breath" in E.T. should be shown on prime-time television or that the studios should sacrifice millions by not allow E.T. to be shown on TV. That's the reality of the creative permission you refer to.

The principle that is illuminated by this is that one-size-fits-all results in a bastardized product which satisfies no one, especially someone like you who obviously want sex and violence in movies.

So do I. I think the best way to maintain that is to find a legal way to have multiple versions which satisfy the complaints of people who DON'T want some of the same things.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. You haven't got much business...

talking about the moral high ground.

Fucking and shooting is one thing.

Censorship is downright obscene.

"Of course the TV versions are done with the "permission" of the studios. Do the artists you are defending really agree with these bowdlerized versions? Do you think they have a choice?"

You answered your own question.

[On the Road]

93. Jesus Christ, Man

Can't you present a coherent argument?

There is no censorship being discussed in this entire conversation. If there were, your opinion is that is would be worse than "fucking and shooting." That, of course, is debatable because it's impossible to define. Your position is impose that on everyone by supporting only one uncensored version of each film. And as far as I can tell, the reason is only because that's what you like.

Yes, I understand that you used (and I repeated) the word "permission". I was pointing out that it's slightly hypocritical for a studio to (1) release a movie which panders to audiences' prurient tastes in dialogue, sex, and violence, (2) give their permission for a completely butchered TV version of those same movies, complete with missing scenes and altered dialogue and then (3) act as if they are defending an artist with a sacrosanct vision. When you look at what happens rather than the rhetoric, it's just ridiculous.

The industry is looking for total control over their product. They may have a legal argument, but I can't see the moral outrage. I can't imagine that you're worked up about the fact that somebody somewhere might be seeing a different version of "Sin City" without the parts that happen to offend them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

100. Yes, censorship offends me.

I consider the sort of people who'd rather see a different version of "Sin City" to be the same sort of people that would rather see a school library without copies of "Harry Potter" and "Huckleberry Finn."

[fujiyama]

99. The difference is

when the "mass media" butchers material, it does so with the authorization of the studio and/or the director. Ultimately, the discretion of how a film is distrubted is up to the agreements set forth by the studio and the director and other creative parties involved in the creation.

You really don't know what you are arguing. If the studio wants to release a kid friendly version of Scarface, they are free to. If they do not, they are free to not do that as well. I find it arrogant however, that you claim to know if or how much violence and sex change the intention of the artist's creation. That's not your pjerogative, and it's not some other third party's either. As I said, personally, I think copyright laws in they way they exist currently is silly, and if you wished to create a "cleaned up version" of to screen to your kids, fine.

But it's not your right to market that and profit off that, that too as being the original title, without permission of the author of that work.

[martymar64]

49. If they want "clean" movies

Let them produce, finance, shoot, edit and distribute them themselves!
These guys are no more than pirates with a puritanical streak.
I don't want some cultural commissars telling me what I can watch or read or listen to.

[On the Road]

58. Who Is Telling You What You Can Watch?

If there is only version publicly available, THAT's when people compete to limit what that single version looks like. Frankly, I can't even an argument here.

[ripple]

60. I think I understand your point, but...

I strongly disagree with FORCING an artist to have their work altered to suit an audience the film wasn't trying to reach in the first place.

If you think that's ok, then I suppose those of us who LIKE a little edginess to our films should ask studios or a third party to ADD some smut to G-rated flicks. Screw it if it alters the tone and intent of the flick...

Personally, I can't wait to see Finding Fucking Nemo :sarcasm:



On edit: Typo

[On the Road]

70. Nobody is Forcing Anyone Here, That's What I Don't Understand

Artists are constantly forced into compromising their creative freedom BY THE STUDIOS when the theater version has to acceptable for the kiddies. I don't want that. I want to be able to see the unvarnished version. And if some religious group wants to clean it up for their audience, more power to them. Then they won't be picketing theaters and creating censorship organizations.

In one sense, this whole issue is an admission that the social left has won the cultural war. In the past, moral crusaders bowdlerized works of art, and made those the only versions publicly available. That is not good. Nowdays, social conservatives have to spend their own resources doctoring movies and distributing them only to their own audience. It's a niche market (I wasn't even aware of it). Let it stay there.

Writers, studios, and directors are being a little hypocritical here. The kind of movies that are in question were often deliberately made the way they were IN ORDER TO cross lines and provoke a reaction. Commercialism of sex and violence is just as much as a factor as artistic vision. A lot of good decent people, including a lot of good Democrats, want to see the works (or let their 11-year-olds see them) but without some of the scenes that pander to the audiences' prurience or blood lust. For example, I had a business acquaintance in the 80s who loved Body Heat because it was an excellent thriller, but was very frustrated he couldn't share it with his children or parents because of the one graphic sex scene. I myself loved Sin City, but was uneasy about showing my daughter the graphic dismemberment. In that case, I might actually have bought a cleaned-up version had I known of one.

-------------

The other thing that I don't get about this discussion is that on economic grounds, this is a deeply conservative decision. It is saying that the ownership rights of business trump the use of the product by consumers. (It's not the atist who's in control here, it's the studio.) There is a balance, and I don't want intellectual ownership to be the be-all and end-all of the law.

[ripple]

105. The artist already has a contractual agreement with the studio

NOT with the public at large. Frankly, it insults the work of any artist to presume that their work would be just as meaningful with a few cuts here and there. That is the artist's decision to make. If a studio is involved, it is an agreement between the studio and the artist.

As I pointed out before, if it's acceptible to you to CUT material from a piece of work and sell it, why wouldn't it also be acceptible to ADD to the artist's work and sell it? Either way, the artist's work has been permanently altered and they themselves are being judged on a film that lacks context and was not their creation.

If you want your daughter to see a given movie, you can certainly edit the material for use in your own home. Altering copyrighted material and then SELLING it clearly violates the right of an individual artist to (or a studio, if a contract is involved) market their creation as they wish.

This is not a conservative decision at all. Censorship, however, IS a conservative tactic designed to extinguish free speech and limit artistic expression.

[On the Road]

108. I Appreciate the Thoughtful Reply

and I agree that the way the law is currently interpreted, ownership rights do generally trump the rights of the third parties to sell modified versions. However:

-Rights are never absolute, and in court cases like this address how to balance conflicting rights.

-Exceptions to ownership rights can be made if there is a public interest at stake or ownership rights encroach on other rights. In copyrights, satire and quotations are the most common exceptions.

-Conservatives often promote ownership rights as trumping almost every other type of legal claim. (For example, Robert Bork was criticized during the SCOTUS hearings for supporting a manufacturer's right to control the actions of distributors in pricing and selling its products.) This is a minimalist legal philosophy which usually means money can do whatever it wants. Those with greater resources can always control the contracts -- they should be subject to guidelines set by the democratic process.

-The countervailing rights, in this case, have to do community standards. Decency has usually been the loser in these arguments over the last several decades, partly because the alternative is changing the original, which infringes on the rights of the artist and copyright owner. Governments and courts have a long complex history of how to balance the two sides. For a long time it resulted in censorship; now it's resulting in enforced noncensorship, even though it's really not necessary.

-One way to show that there is a real decency issue in these specific cases is that if the original version of these movies were shown on network TV, the networks would be subject to FCC fines.

-Arguing that individuals can edit their own versions is impractical and is equivalent to saying "take a hike." It is not a way of addressing their concerns.

-The clean DVD people are arguing that in addition to the exceptions for satire and quotations, there should be a fair use exception to allow third parties to bleep or cut frames in order to edit for language, sex, and violence.

From a legal perspective, the issue is whether there is a set to interests to offset ownership rights and how to balance the two interests. From a public policy perspective this is a good solution for everyone involved.

The other thing which people seem to be forgetting is the political angle -- namely that decency and morality issues have won many elections for Republicans. Allowing multiple versions for multiple audiences would take some of the wind out of those sails.

[jimbot]

69. From a legal standpoint...

I think that this is a semi-clear copyright violation because they are producing derivative works. I wonder if the same would hold true for the newer technology that will not actually edit but just mask or "skip over" potentially offending material.
I really don't know how I feel about potential offensive skipping technology. On the one hand, it is the same as a fast forward on a DVD...but on the other hand, you are leaving the screening to a third party.
I'm sure we'll see a similar case in the courts but there may be an entirely different outcome.

Question: I agree with the court ruling and think that "sanitized DVDs" are and should be illegal, but I really haven't formed an opinion on filtering technology...what do you folks think.

--JT

[On the Road]

77. Glad to Have Your Legal Viewpoint

I'm not a lawyer and don't have a legal opinion. It may in fact be that as a derivative work these versions should be considered illegal under current law.

However, if the editing is only done by omission and for reasons like community standards (or whatever the terms used in obscenity cases), I can see the rationale for arguing that dropping selected scenes that would offend a community of interest could be construed as fair use.

It's really a matter of control by the user versus control by the property owner, and both sides have to be respected. Intellectual rights exist, but should never be considered absolute.

I think the vehemence in this whole debate is a knee-jerk reaction to seeing admired artists versus hated social conservative groups without thinking through the implications and seeing that the social conservatives have a legitimate issue and are looking for legal ways to deal with it.

What really kills me, though, is that no one seems outraged by the fact that movies are routinely censored in artistically destructive ways and shown to mass audiences. I'm talking about the TV versions. My teenage daughter thinks it's comical to watch The Matrix and hear Neo saying "Judas Priest!" instead of "Jesus Christ!". There are dozens of these little touches, and it absolutely changes the original vision and the viewing experience.

For that matter, I watched part of "Flashdance" on TV a while back and was wondering how they would handle the restaurant scene where the Jessica Beal character says to the ex-wife "I fucked his brains out." I was astounded when she said, with perfect lip movements, "we made wild passionate love." At that point it dawned on me that studios shoot two versions from the beginning, one for TV. Seems like compromising the artistic vision is fundamentally built into the moviemaking process.

Come to think of it, maybe making the TV version available on DVD is an option. But I'm not convinced the consumers have no rights in the matter.

[illumn8d]

87. Consumers do have rights

The third party company that is selling unliscensed work is the one without the rights.

[onenote]

82. Family Movie Act

Legislation enacted last year clarified that it is not an infringement of copyright to market a device or technology that will render "imperceptible" portions of a DVD so long as the technology doesn't alter the actual DVD. For example, there is a company called ClearPlay that, as I understand it, reviews DVDs and compiles a range of edits. It then markets its software to be operated in conjunction with ClearPlay enabled DVD players. The consumer rents (or buys) the DVD in its unedited form and then can choose what level of "editing" it wants for the playback, ranging from unedited up to some maximum level. Essentially the technology mutes and/or fast forwards through the edited segments. It does not (and cannot legally under the FMA) insert any new material "over" or in addition to the original content. In short, its a service that pays someone else to fast forward and/or mute the DVD player at particular points in a film.

I don't have any problem with this technology any more than I would with someone publishing a book that provided a guide to when particular language or scenes appeared in a movie so that a parent could use the remote to skip over those scenes. I would never use such a book or device (choosing to make my own decisions about these sorts of things), but I see nothing objectionable about them. Selling an altered disc, however, is a far different, and clearly unlawful, tactic.

[Solon]

61. Wait a damned second here, unless its edited for parody purposes...

its ILLEGAL for 3rd PARTIES to do this. Why should the studios tolerate copywrite violators(I refuse to use the term pirates or theives) that have only a semblance of morality. "Hey kids, its OK to copy this shit and resell it, but its WRONG to see BOOBIES!!!!"

Hypocritical doesn't cover it.

[fishwax]

75. what benefit does that system provide the movie makers?

if some people don't see their movie in order to see the cleanflicks version, I don't see what benefit that provides the studios.

[VegasWolf]

66. Salt Lake City. Says it all. Another fundie business ripping the sheep

a new one. Sort of like the fundie mortgage brokers who charge an extra half percent to have God on your side of the financial transaction. Between the 10% tithes and all the other sucker traps I'm surprised the sheep have any money left.

[warrens]

67. Hooray! Let the fascists make their OWN films

The problem with being a blue-nosed censor hound is that sort of personality generally has no ability to think originally or creatively. Hence all the great films and music made by religious fundamentalists. Which is to say, none.

[Tight_rope]

79. GOOD...Fucking ridiculous..."Sanitizing movies"

[scarface2004]

89. where the f*ck am i going to get a clean version of ......

bad santa now??!!

[BurningDog]

90. The article leaves out an extremely important point.

For each video they edited, one studio copy was purchased. The process works like this:

1) Customer buys naughty version at the newstand
2) Customer sends their version to CleanFlicks and pays a small fee for the editing (not paying CleanFlicks for the movie, they paid for the movie in the orginal purchase)
3) CleanFlicks sends them a new copy back with all the naughty parts taken out.

If its legal to buy your own dvds and edit them under fair use (however, even that is illegal now thanks to the DMCA). Is it legal to pay your friend a couple bucks to edit it for you? Is it legal to pay a company to do the same thing?

[Bridget Burke]

107. Are you sure?

The customer does NOT buy the video & send it to CleanFlicks.

CleanFlicks produces and distributes sanitized copies of Hollywood films on DVD by burning edited versions of movies onto blank discs. The scrubbed films are sold over the Internet and to video stores.

As many as 90 video stores nationwide -- about half of them in Utah -- purchase movies from CleanFlicks, Lines said. It's unclear how the ruling may effect those stores.

Of course, CleanFlicks does buy some original DVD's for making their copies. If the public (& the moral folks who run CleanFlicks) truly want to oppose evil films--they should stop buying ANY objectionable DVD's.