Slashdot Mirror
Clean Flicks' Preemptive Strike For the Right To Edit
alanjstr writes: "We all hate how movies get 'edited for tv,' removing the sex, gore, and foul language that make them worth watching. A private firm decided to rent videos for private use after having made them clean. The Directors Guild of America doesn't like things like this (a la The Phantom Edit). CNN.com carries an article about Clean Flicks suing for the right to make edits. It's copyright vs. the first amendment as they battle over the right to censor and fair use." Since the equipment to make your own versions of movies is so ubiquitous, it would be interesting to see edit decision lists circulate for particular films.
I think it should be acceptable to make changes like this.
I think it should be acceptable for it to rain ice cream.
Since it's not the Government doing it, there really isn't a Constitutional arguement here.
It's a copyright issue.
Clean Flicks should be allowed to do this. When they do sell or rent these films, they are clearly marked as edited.
Nothing gives them the right to violate copyright laws, particularly for profit.
Ignore the legalities, and listen to some of the rhetoric. The DGA is full of shit. Totally. "These films are for a certain audience" "We can't tolerate random cuts and edits"
Bullshit. Look at any movie that makes it to broadcast tv (and channels such as TBS, TNT, TNN on cable) and you will see movies shown and marketed to a different audience. Look at movies shown on planes, and you will see random cuts and edits.
The directors don't care as long as they get their money.
This has nothing to do with artistic freedom. The DGA has shown that the artistic integrity of the members can be bought and sold.
I'd like to see the product being rented by the plaintiffs. Is it marketed as an original, or is it clearly marked? If the latter, how is it any worse than what is done by broadcast and cable stations 1000x per day? Oh, yeah, they probably didn't write a big fat check to the studios.
There are solutions. In some cases, the studios do the editing. They should make these tapes available to rental shops looking to cater to... whatever invented market they cater to. There could be a flat, low cost, fee to allow the shops to do their own editing, provided it is very obvious to someone renting a movie.
But here's the very best idea. DVD. The studios spend some time making sure that it's near impossible to skip the FBI warning, the Interpol notice, and the ads for the next 12 Disney films to come out. So why not program a 'safe for kids' title? Same disc, you just hit the 'for kids' option, and it automatically skips and/or edits the title on the fly.
There is obviously a market for this. First, there are the plaintiffs in this case. Second are the airlines, cable networks, broadcast networks, etc. Clearly, some people disagree with the 'artistic vision' of the studios.
This is another case of technology being available, and large (powerful), entrenched organizations being afraid of it. Anyone with an ounce of sense would see this, not as something to be afraid of, but something to embrace, a new market to tap.
Artistic vision be damned. It's all about the Benjamins.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
(My karma is currently "Excellent," so I'm prepared to lose some precious points to argue for an unpopular idea. So mod/flame away, though I'd prefer to get flamed.)
This is an excellent example of fair use, and everybody here should be standing up in support of it. Particularly for those who believe that all IP should be Free, this is quite analogous to the GPL for movies. The movies, of course, should not be distributable without some kind of notification that "this is not the original version - it has been modified by X person/organization." For that matter, I'm not even saying that they should be freely redistrubitable - let the organizations pay the same fees that they would for the original movies.
The thing is, some of us don't want our (in my case still hypothetical) children hearing every curse word, seeing every head blown off, and seeing every sex scene in every movie. In many cases, those things simply aren't necessary and are thrown in for the sheer gratuity of it, and to give it more credibility as an "R" movie versus a "PG-13." "Ooh, they got an R, they must be really pushing boundaries, therefore this is a better movie." I don't want my kids to get the idea that using the F-word every other sentence is a normal thing. I know that they'll run into it at some point, and I'll explain it to them as much as they are able to handle, but the more they hear it, the more likely they are to use it.
Perhaps this is illegal right now. But then, a lot of stuff that should be legal is illegal. (DMCA anybody?). All I want to do is filter what comes into my house. It's like setting up a filter on my incoming net connection to filter out the things that I choose - it's my house, my net connection, so I should be able to control it.
Ok, my asbestos is firmly attached. Flame away.
At least not in the way the poster intends it to be. If it is, then *any* sort of edit should be considered censorship too. The differnce is that they edit what some people don't want to see, but they don't force the edit on those who do.
It's no differnt than somone cutting out jar-jar from the phantom menace.
"We all hate how movies get 'edited for tv,' removing the sex, gore, and foul language that make them worth watching."
No, "We all" don't. Some of us could frankly care less, and some of us prefer it. And of course that has nothing to do with Clean Flicks suing. TV flicks are *already* edited post production (and frequently in production).
Whaaa? That's a pretty extreme form of capitalism: Solely because there's a market for something, there's an implicit moral imperative to provide the desired goods? A lot of people want heroin
Indeed, there's a pretty strong market desire for, say, a small nuclear tactical device. You could find a lot of people interested in acquiring an old Soviet one. So are the efforts of the civilized world, to interdict such arms transfers, morally wrong?
Look, there might be a market but that doesn't mean it has to be satisfied. We usually lambaste Hollywood for its profit motive and its sacrifice of artistry for cash. If there is such a market, and if they could make such a killing meeting the demand, then they must be pretty principled to stand their ground. Is that necessarily wrong?
No one is forcing you to rent or view the original versions, either. I'm not sure I side with the DGA, and I'm not sure that I buy their rhetoric about the "integrity of the vision". But I also view most of the "let us do this" arguments as boiling down to, "In this cold, evil world, a righteous parent must make hard choices... but could you make mine a little easier?" If the language, sex, or violence offend you, then don't rent or watch the movie.
It seems simple enough to me.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Going into post, film editors have far more material than goes on screen. They'll have multiple takes, and often multiple camera viewpoints of the same scene. So they can play with how much is shown of sex, violence, or whatever, without losing timing.
In post, the audio hasn't been mixed down yet. The dialog is still separate from the music. So whatever edit decisions get made, the music can be inserted and timed to fit.
After-the-fact censorship cutting can't do either of these things. So the result will usually suck. The timing will be off.
On the other hand, few people have seen the original Star Trek series with proper timing in decades. The reruns on TV have been cut to fit in more commercials than were allowed in the 1960s. But TV has less rigid timing conventions than cinema does.
Before anyone objects to your assertion that Clean Flicks is engaged in "fair use", they should check out how Clean Flicks runs its operation: About Edited Movies. I agree with you, it's fair use.
If Clean Flicks' editing procedure isn't fair use, then a TIVO's ad-skipping feature is also not fair use. The broadcasters have released their video stream, and any automated editing of that video stream by the TIVO is not too dissimilar to what Clean Flicks is doing: Clean Flicks is simply inserting another mechanical method in place of what the TIVO does in one's home.
It is also worth checking out this Boston Globe article, which provides background on a number of Clean Flicks' competitors---some of which work solely through the distribution of edit lists that you use on your PC or through a controller to a standard DVD player: ClearPlay and Family Shield Technologies.
To reiterate, their current business model is fair use.
When? Did he cross the line when I paid him to sit in the corner and press the FF and mute buttons at his discretion?
I don't believe so.
Did he cross the line when he automated the process of FF'ing and muting with a computer program?
I don't think so, but I don't know for certain. I am not a legal scholar.
Or did he only cross it when he REPLACED my legally purchased (and owned by me) copy of the movie?
That was definitely over the line. But it wasn't the replacement. It was the unauthorized alteration of a copyrighted work that was over the line.
If I own a copy of a movie, can't I edit it myself?
Yes. That falls under fair use.
If so, then can't I pay someone else to edit it for me?
Yes, you can pay someone to edit it for you. But that person/company must obtain the permission of the copyright holder.
Now, I answered all of your questions honestly and fully. I would like you to answer mine:
1. Do you believe that it is legal for Clean Flicks to edit out scenes and dialog based on consumer demand?
2. Do you believe that it is legal for a firm to record sex scenes, scenes of violence, and profane language and edit same into movies that did not have them? For example, could the hypothetical firm edit the Disney movie Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, inserting a new animated scene in which Snow White is gang-banged by the dwarfs, and offer it for rent?
I contend that both uses are analogous. They are taking an existing copyrighted work and editing it to turn it into a substantially different product.