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.

Comments

Not Sure This is Wrong

[Wyatt Earp]

I think it should be acceptable to make changes like this.

Since it's not the Government doing it, there really isn't a Constitutional arguement here.

Clean Flicks should be allowed to do this. When they do sell or rent these films, they are clearly marked as edited.

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[fmaxwell]

I think it should be acceptable to make changes like this.

Then I think that I should be allowed to edit your posts prior to them appearing on Slashdot. I can take out anything I find offensive and then put the messages back together in such a way that it changes the entire tone and meaning of them. But I'll need your user ID so that people think that you wrote the edited version.

An artist's reputation is based on their work. What right does some born-again-Christian-flat-worlder have to take out words and scenes that the director, producer, and actors felt were critical to the movie? That harms the reputation of all involved.

If a director feels that having a character scream "fuck" is key to expressing the magnitude of the situation, it should not be changed to "fudge!" or deleted in its entirety by some luddite. The people at "Clean Flicks" should be strung up by their thumbs for what they are doing.

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[Kwikymart]

"Its like the right of a pc maker to alter windows with custom programs and menus before sending it out on the street on a computer, the windows is licensed, just different."

So it is exactly the same, but completely different? The problem here is that movies are an artform, while an operating system is sold as a functional device. They are not the same, and equating them would be like equating apples and oranges. Making changes to one is unlike making changes to the other and are in no way related.

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[nomadic]

If this is legal, the reverse should be true as well. I should be able to take a Disney movie and add violence, sex, and profanity.

Or maybe television, that would be fun; Touched by an Angel or Seventh Heaven special edition on DVD. Add a shotgunning here, a shower scene there, redub the characters with sound-alikes who utter a profanity every sentence...

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[namespan]

Then I think that I should be allowed to edit your posts prior to them appearing on Slashdot.

This wouldn't bother me at all -- as long as the original post was still available to anyone who wanted to read it.

In fact, this already happens to some extent -- to the comments as a whole. It's the moderation system. While it's not perfect, it has the merit of offering people customized views while letting others who prefer the raw format view it that way.

Clean Flicks is offering the same service.

I can take out anything I find offensive and then put the messages back together in such a way that it changes the entire tone and meaning of them.

Red Herring. Do we know that Clean Flicks is doing this? That is, have you watched a Clean Flicks film where you felt the themes of the film was significanlty changed or lost because of the editing?

Editing sensitive to overall themes and semantics expressed in a scenes is not exclusive with individuals psycho/social/emotional sensitivities.

But I'll need your user ID so that people think that you wrote the edited version.

More than a Red Herring -- this implies deception on the part of Clean Flicks, where NONE EXISTS. The films are clearly marked as edited by Clean Flicks, and since the whole premise of the business is founded on this awareness, it's impossible to argue someone might wander into their store and accidentally mistake a Clean Flicks version as the real thing.

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[fmaxwell]

Your analogy is slightly off, the movies have already been released, and these arn't designed as replacements, but rather alternatives.

Not true. The people renting the "alternatives" will probably never see the originals, leaving them unable to tell whether the bad movie they saw was that way because of the edits or because the original director did a poor job.

You should have said, "Then I think that I should be allowed to edit your posts AFTER they appear on Slashdot."

I think that's perfectly acceptable, after all, I just did it to you....

No, you did not. You suggested what you believed I should have said. You did not try to pass it off as my words.

I regularly rent movies from Clean Flicks because I don't like vulgarity. I just get mad when they edit out scenes of child molestation. Sybil had some really hot bondage and sexual torture and I was really sorry to see that edited out in the Clean Flicks copy.

Dude, that's sick! But I'll have to think some more about your claim that others should be able to edit works attributed to you.

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[fmaxwell]

Does removing these things detract from the story? Very possibly, in many cases.

Does removing these things conflict with the director's/producer's vision or expression? Undoubtedly.

But it does this for one copy of a movie, to be viewed by one person or group of people. The majority of movie watchers will still be able to choose to watch the unadulterated movie. This just gives an alternative to the few who, for various reasons, don't want to view certain types of entertainment.

I guess what we finally get down to is how much control a director should have over his own work. I believe that the director has a right to determine what edits may, and may not, be made to his work. His films are his legacy. They define his vision, art, and even views.

Some films are made to upset people and stir the emotions. Taking that emotional impact away runs completely counter to the desires and rights of the artist. If Steven Spielberg wants you to be horrified by the atrocities you see in Schindler's List, then Clean Flicks has no right to edit it into a pseudo-Disney movie and distribute it with Steven Spielberg's name attached to it.

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[cheezedawg]

This is moronic. Don't like the content of a movie? Take the movie the way it is or don't watch it. End of story.

Your argument is moronic. If you don't like the edited version of the movie, then don't watch it. End of story. Nobody is taking away the original artwork (like your weak analogy of ruining artwork in a museum).

Clean Flicks petitioning for the right to censor.

This has nothing to do with censorship. The un-edited versions are still just as available as before.

Basically I think that the director's "artistic vision" is completely irrelevant to me. I want entertain myself as I see fit. Maybe I want to walk into an art museum with red sunglasses on so all of the artwork looks pink. I couldn't care less if the artist wanted me to see it differently.

I am not sure about the legality of this rental service, but the original business plan allowed people to bring in their own personal copies of a movie to have them edited. I think its a stretch even for hypocritical /.-ers like you to find something illegal about that.

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[fmaxwell]

Red Herring. Do we know that Clean Flicks is doing this? That is, have you watched a Clean Flicks film where you felt the themes of the film was significanlty changed or lost because of the editing?

No, I don't support companies that illegally tamper with artists' copyrighted material. And it's far from a "red herring." Directors spend hundreds of hours per film perfecting the subtle nuances in scenes, dialog, etc. to convey a message. You can't just lop off all the 'dirty words' and sexual content and end up with the same film. If you can't recognize that, then you lack the artistic judgement to contribute to this discussion.

More than a Red Herring -- this implies deception on the part of Clean Flicks, where NONE EXISTS.

Bullshit. When the film says that the director was Scorcese, the viewer has no way to know what Clean Flicks removed from the movie. The viewer normally does not have both the edited and unedited versions in front of them for comparison.

How many viewers of a Clean Flicks butchered movie will go to a party and say "I hated that movie -- but the only version I saw was edited by Clean Flicks to remove profanity, violence, and sexual content"? Answer: None. The work of the director, actors, and film crew will be maligned by people who have never seen the actual work.

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[Alien Being]

"movies are an artform"

Art schmart.

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[fmaxwell]

Why is this confusing? Do you think that Clinton said the second line? Is my disclaimer somehow vague?

No. But you are making a gross oversimplification of all of this. In the case of Clean Flicks, they are removing dialog and scenes. The portions removed affect the artistic merit of the work.

In your example, you show the before and after messages. Clean Flicks does no such thing.

These people are renting these out as if they were the original unedited versions. It's clearly marked.

I assume you meant "not renting these..." And how is the viewer to know what was removed? Without that, it's impossible to know if a bad impression of a film was due to the work of the director or the unauthorized changes made by Clean Flicks. That is what hurts the reputation of a director. The people renting these movies will not go into work and say "Saving Private Ryan is a really bad movie, but the only version that I have seen is an unauthorized one in which all of the bad words, violence, and nudity were edited out by Clean Flicks, Inc." No, they'll just say "Saving Private Ryan was a really bad movie."

Idiot.

Thank you for signing your message.

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[sg_oneill]

Or maybe television, that would be fun; Touched by an Angel or Seventh Heaven special edition on DVD. Add a shotgunning here, a shower scene there, redub the characters with sound-alikes who utter a profanity every sentence...
Angel woman:I think it's time you learned that I was an Angel
Sad Guy:Holy FuCK!

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[fmaxwell]

The film could be easily rented uncut first... You are still missing the point.

"Could be" and "would be" are two different things. The vast majority of Clean Flicks' customers will never see the "real" version of a film as intended by the director, cast, and studio. And the reputation of all of those involved may be harmed by these amateurish edits.

Are you really concered for the well being and reputation of the director? Give me a break.

Yes. Because I am a writer (just a few magazine articles so far). I would not want my words mangled by some right-wing zealot with an agenda prior to being presented as my work. I see this as analogous.

I am also against editing works of art to make them comply with whatever notion each consumer has of "decency." War is indecent. What the Nazi's did in World War II was indecent. If Steven Spielberg wanted to portray this in "Schindler's List" to provoke thought, disgust, anger, or pity, it's nor right for some bunch of prudes at Clean Flicks to change that artistic vision.

If this were software, music or whatever, you'd be gung-ho for fucking whatever evil corporation was behind the creation of it in the first place.

Don't presume to know what I think or would do.

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[toast0]

I believe the association of people who make movies (whatever its called... this may be MPAA, but i'm not sure) has policies and names to change directors/etc to if the movie was edited and the original producer/director etc doesn't want their name on it....

for example the original theatrical version of Dune (2 hours or so from 1984) is a De Laurentiis film... however the 6 or so hour version they sometimes play on the sci-fi channel (not the new 'Frank Herbert's Dune', you can also find this version in dvd region 2 i think) is an Alan Smithee film.

Re:Not Sure This is Wrong

[namespan]

If you can't recognize that, then you lack the artistic judgement to contribute to this discussion.

All you really just said is that if I haven't come to the same conclusions you have, it's because I just don't have any artistic judgement. Brilliant. How about I just assert the reverse and we'll call it even until you can come up with anything better.

There are a broad range of reasons for including profanity, sex, and violence into a film. Some of them have nothing to do with artistic integrity. I have a number of friends who have worked (or still work) for Hollywood, and according to them, there really are times where directors and/or producers really do say "let's add some more gratuitous sex/violence/swearin' -- people love that stuff." Obviously the motivation has nothing to do with artistic value in cases like this. But let's say those situations are the small minority of cases. Even when there's a larger thematic element of the story that requires a semantic representation of a violent or sexual act, or strong language, there are an awful lot of possibilities for actual syntax (footage/dialogue) used to express it. Lots of thematic elements and important stories -- if not most -- survive intact when restrained or implicit syntax is used. Most people are remarkably good at reading between the lines. A few actually require explicit portrayal for accurate effect, but even then the director has to balance the inherent semantics in the syntactic elements with the larger intended them (and to complicate the matter, the weight and to some extent even meaning of inherent semantics vary from individual to individual).

I can think of more examples than I can possibly list in a slashdot posting. I've seen Good Will Hunting twice. The first time I saw it was with 'fuck' edited out. I didn't learn anything watching it the second time except people from some areas of the Boston Metro area use the word 'fuck' like punctuation. Big deal: I learned the same thing from living in South Central LA (and in either context, the word loses most of its semantic meaning anyway). No difference in my experience as a filmgoer whatsoever -- except the version with 'fuck' caused distraction and discomfort for the film viewers who had grown up in a place where using that word meant that you were treating a person like they didn't mean anything at all. Without it, it was actually easier for them to concentrate on themes of trust in others and faith in what life has to offer and risk and the interaction between Matt Damon's and Robin William's characters, and the obstacles they faced, and the transformations that each of them make to become more healthy people.

Or there's Fight Club -- absolutely brilliant story, full of fun questions and scenes. I love the mayhem. I love the interplay between the appeal of the idea of blowing the whole system to hell -- and the slow revelation of what we're really being protected from as far as anarchy goes. I love talking about the themes of the film. I can actually remember more of the scenes than people I talk to. But I might not see the film. Some of the images described in the script aren't on the top of my list of things to see. The references in the script are enough for me to get the overall experience.

Or if you want to draw an example from real life, there's the guy I met in Santa Monica who came home one night to find both of his kids murdered in his house, tortured to death, one of them tied to a chair with dozens of unbent coat hangers stuck into him. Do you really need to see that image -- or even worse, see the crime perpetrated -- to understand how that nearly completely unhinged the man, and shook his faith in humanity or any kind of good in the world? I'll bet your imagination is enough. It'd be enough in a film about the event, too. But some filmakers would, of course, show the whole thing. Some viewers wouldn't want to watch it. And they would be accused of lacking in artistic sensibilities by people like you.

Bullshit. When the film says that the director was Scorcese, the viewer has no way to know what Clean Flicks removed from the movie. The viewer normally does not have both the edited and unedited versions in front of them for comparison.

Bullshit yourself. While the viewer may not know specifically what was removed, they have a general idea of what kind of content was removed -- because that's what they asked for. And the whole points is: nobody is mistaking this for Scorcese's original work. People who walk into Clean Flicks know exactly what they're asking for: a cut of a Scorcese work, done according to THEIR preferences. There's no illusion that their getting anything else. You're welcome to identify this as a travesty of art -- just as they're welcome to identify leaving the stuff IN as a travesty of art. But there's no deception at all here.

How many viewers of a Clean Flicks butchered movie will go to a party and say "I hated that movie -- but the only version I saw was edited by Clean Flicks to remove profanity, violence, and sexual content"? Answer: None. The work of the director, actors, and film crew will be maligned by people who have never seen the actual work.

You forget that by and large we're talking about people here who would have disliked the film if the stuff had been left in. There's no loss here if these people see an edited film and don't like it.

As a final (though not necessarily conclusive) note, I might add that I've developed these theories not only from years of thinking about this, but from having actually watched both edited and unedited versions of these films. Clean Flicks makes every effort to preserve continuity of the films within the editing parameters their customers have asked for, and very rarely have I seen edits where an important semantic element is lost from the story and there's a problem with flow. In the few cases where I have, the semantic loss has never made it up to the thematic level. I can think of a few films where that would be a problem, and the only choice people there is to watch most all of the film or not watch. Thank goodness that's still OK... apparently the right to view, listen, or read only PART of a work isn't.

Edit Lists

[Saint Aardvark]

Sweet idea:

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.

Imagine passing around the equivalent of a shell script...or wait, no, a *patch*...to edit movies to your taste. This one takes out the filth, that one makes The Phantom Edit, t'other one puts in that steamy sex scene from The Golden Girls Cut Loose (gah!).

It'd require the equivalent of patch for video, of course, but I bet with Unix at least you'd be able to put something very much like that together right now. And then, imagine if Clean Flicks just sold those li'l scripts. What would the directors do then?

(Another lawsuit, duh. Silly question.)

Good for Clean Flicks!

[libertynews]

Its about time someone provided this service. For years parents have been asking the Hollywood Studios for access to the edited versions that are used on airlines and television, only to be rebuffed with the idiotic 'artistic license' excuse.

There is a huge market for these films, and if they won't fill it then obviously someone else should. There's nothing wrong with wanting to edit out the 'dirty bits' so your kids can enjoy some good movies.

For example, Doc Hollywood is a pretty good Michael J. Fox movie, but right in the beginning it has a full-frontal nudity shot that really doen't add anything to the movie. Clip out that bit and you've got a PG rated movie suitable for all the munchkins (don't quote me on this, there may be a few other bits that need to be removed).

Noone is forcing you to rent these or view them, all it is doing is providing a choice to those of us who want some of our favorite films to be a little bit cleaner.

I've been there

[Will_Malverson]

I live in Boise, Idaho, and there's a Clean Flicks near my grocery store. I walked in a couple of weeks ago to see what the hubbub was about.

At first glance, it looks like a regular (albeit small) video store. They stock mostly VHS. Most (but not all) of them are edited, and clearly say so on the outside of the box. This business does not pass off their movies as being the original. Their edit method is to take the original tape, physically remove the offending section of tape, and splice it back together.

They also stocked a number of DVDs. Those were done a bit more interestingly. They had the original DVD case. Riveted to the DVD case was the original DVD. There was a sticker on it saying that it had been rendered unwatchable, it was only there as proof of purchase, and any attempt to remove it would result in a $30 charge against your account. Where you would normally find the DVD was a DVD-R disk, presumably with a digitally edited version of the movie on it. On the disk was a standard CD Label with info such as the movie run time and the like.

While I like my movies with all the sex and violence, I can understand that some people do not. These people are not on a mission to clean up all of Hollywood. They admit that some movies can't be "cleaned up" without destroying them. But, if they want to try, as long as they're not being deceptive, or engaging in copyright violation, I have trouble caring.

Movie critic argues for editing

[quintessent]

Here's an excerpt where Deseret News critic Chris Hicks makes a couple of interesting points about editing:

Over the years, a number of companies -- some based right here in Utah -- have tried to persuade movie studios to release the versions of their movies that are already edited for airlines and commercial television, and therefore apparently sanctioned by the filmmakers and studios. But it's always fallen apart, usually over "artistic reasons."
Filmmakers think of themselves as artists, but how can they argue that removing profanity or nudity or gore harms a film when it's done all the time for airlines and TV? How are video versions any different?
What's more, they already release videos of movies edited in the other direction. There are harsher, "unrated" video versions of "Basic Instinct," "Nutty Professor II," "American Pie" and many others lining video shelves right now.
(http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,405025852 ,0 0.html)

Re:Movie critic argues for editing

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

There is an interesting analogy to open software... the[sic] preserves the integrity of everyone's IP, including the author of the edit list. Everybody's happy!?

Sure, if the creator of the work agreed to your Open Source License. But it wouldn't be right to take Microsoft's code and "open" it via, say, the GPL, against the express wishes of Microsoft. Likewise it wouldn't be right to take someone's film and "open" it without express permission.

Open software is about giving the user more choices, not about seizing the decision from someone else. People choose to release a program as open. Unless a director chooses to release his/her film "open"ly, then you don't have the right to "fork" his/her vision.

Re:Movie critic argues for editing

[Jeremy Erwin]

It's perfectly legal to reedit films you own-- first sale rights and all that. The distribution of such edits is where it gets thorny. An editing list is, to a certain extent, derived from the original DVD/video tape...

Monty Python tried to use trademark law to prevent ABC from re-editing the Flying Circus, on the grounds that their reputation in America would be damaged by an editing hack job. ABC claimed that the BBC had given them permission to do so, and MP had given certain redistribution rights to he BBC, so a copyright infringement case was not feasible. But the court said that the Lanham Act could not be used to inject moral rights into copyright.

My own personal feeling is that the directorial intent should be primary. The judgment that certain scenes and bits of dialogue serve no purpose other than to "change the rating from 'G' to 'PG'" is itself an artistic judgment.

(And in cases where an artistic vision can be recognized in a film, it most commonly lies with the director.) The DGA believes it has a certain stake in this "autuer theory"-- thus the threats of lawsuits.

Don't confuse the DGA (which is (at least publically) stridently anti-censorship) with the MPAA (which itself rates/censors films).

interesting

[Dr. Awktagon]

Well, distributing the content after changing it is pretty fuzzy, they shouldn't misrepresent someone else's work.

But I wonder if it would be possible in the future to distribute only the edits to the movie. Then you buy/rent the original movie and then apply the edits. In fact you could probably come up with some interesting satirical mash-ups this way (imagine turning a long movie into a 15-minute short about some incidental character). Kinda like distributing a source code patch, it could even include new content. But never actually distributes the original.

They'd try and shut it down like everything else, but morally I think it would be in the clear.

Ignore legalities

[gmhowell]

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.

Re:Ignore legalities

[Reziac]

In general, the final rights to a film are owned by the studio, NOT by the director. The director is typically hired to do a specific job, and is usually NOT the "creator" of the film per se. In a few cases the director has creative or distribution control, but that's relatively rare. Beyond that, it depends on the current union contract and any perks picked up with an individual film's contract.

Anyway, point being in most cases the director is long since out of the loop, and most simply take their paycheck and go home when the job is done. A few get their knickers in a twist over "artistic integrity" and those are the ones who run around filing lawsuits when the studio or distributor (such as television) re-edits "their" work.

The ironic thing is, in my experience (having worked in Hollyweird for several years), the directors with the biggest rod up their ass about their vaunted "artistic integrity" are often all but incompetent on the set, and dependent on the subsequent work of good staff to produce a marketable end product.

Re:Ignore legalities

[gmhowell]

There's an interesting couple of things that arise out of your comments (which I was aware of, but chose to ignore, when I wrote the original comment that you replied to. Shame on me for doing that. Kudos to you for mentioning that.)

Where are the studios in the lawsuit and the proposed suit by the DGA? It looks like those mentioned (Scorcese, Spielberg) do have 'final cut'. And I'm pretty sure Spielberg retains ownership and is both technically and legally the films 'creator'.

So my question is: on average, does the DGA have any dog in this fight? Sounds like this should be the studios' battle, not that of the directors.

I read that Hopper's first cut of Easy Rider was around 6 hours long. And that Lucas was lucky that he stumbled upon some good script editors prior to American Graffitti (and had the sense to hire a director for Empire and Jedi). I'm sure you've heard much more than that. Could make a good book.

Re:Ignore legalities

[Reziac]

I thought you might be aware by the tone of your previous comment :) And I thought about mentioning Spielberg and Lucas as examples who HAVE reached the point where they now have pretty near total control.

But yeah, that was my real point -- *if* a battle exists, isn't it the studios' business? WTF does the DGA have to do with it, other than a few big egos who can't stand anyone else's fingers in their picture? And I really don't see why the studios would care, so long as they get paid everything they're due. (I vaguely recall that movies sold for rental requires a different purchase path than movies sold for home use, but the article did point out that this re-editing outfit has made all-legal purchases.)

You're dead on about Lucas (as The Misadventures of Jar Jar amply demonstrated). A great many famous Hollywood higher-ups got there on their underlings' shoulders.

previous posting on /.

[garcia]

August 7th boys.

I can't remember what I had for dinner last night but I could remember seeing this on the main page.

Re:previous posting on /.

[mblase]

I can't remember what I had for dinner last night but I could remember seeing this on the main page.

Been there, done that. You know you've gone uber-geek when Slashdot stories take precedence over food in your long-term memory.

OMG!!! Think of the children!!!

[jonr]

Full frontal nuditiy? How dare they!?!? The human body should be hidden from view at any time! Sex should be enjoyed in the dark. (No, blindfolding doesn't count, that's perverse!). Children shouldn't know how the adult body looks like until they are at least 16! Kick in the teeth is ok, naked bodies are a total no-no!
J.

Re:OMG!!! Think of the children!!!

[Arandir]

The typical full frontal nudity scene from Hollywood is about treating women as mere objects of pleasure and treating sex as a mere act of self-gratification with no meaning and no consequences.

Isn't it ironic that those arguing that sex and violence in moves and video games have no influence on children were same ones who lobbied to have Joe Camel banned?

Re:OMG!!! Think of the children!!!

[treat]

Maybe if you had primary responsibility for rearing some children, you'd have a different perspective.

I have indeed seen this. Previously rational people become completely irrational when the issue at hand is "protecting" their own children. It is pretty excessive to believe that preventing your children from seeing naked people is in some way protecting them.

C'mon, guys - Fair Use!!

[ArticulateArne]

(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.

Re:C'mon, guys - Fair Use!!

[cpt kangarooski]

That it's for profit is only one factor in the analysis. People often make parodies for profit, and they constitute a fair use.

Re:C'mon, guys - Fair Use!!

[cheezedawg]

Your argument supposes a non-existent right to watch movies the way you want to see them.

Non-existent right? What the hell are you talking about? That has to be one of the most basic rights that we have. Or do you live in a world where bathroom breaks during a movie is strictly prohibited and there are no power/mute/channel buttons on your remote?

If I choose to rent a movie, then put on the newest Back Street Boys CD and fast forward the movie pretending that the people are dancing to the music, nobody in this world is going to stop me. I couldn't care less how the director wanted me to see it- I will watch the movie how I want to watch it.

Parents that are watching edited movies are accepting the consequences- they are watching edited movies!!!

Re:C'mon, guys - Fair Use!!

[ArticulateArne]

Ok, this may not be exactly fair use (IANAL, though ironically, I've been summoned for jury duty next month, so I will be seeing the inside of the courtroom), and I had just gotten up and was in a hurry when I wrote the original post, so my legal analysis may be off.

But I think the idea of allowing people to make their own edits of movies should be legal. Specifically, I think the following would allow both parties to be happy: people could watch clean(er) movies, and nobody would lose any IP rights. This idea is not original to me, but I don't remember exactly where I heard it.

What we need is some kind of movie markup language, essentially a "template" for showing a given movie. The markup language would have instructions for certain places and certain operations, such as, perhaps, "mute the audio from 34:54.093 to 34:56.398," or "skip from 45:12.582 to 48:29.416." DVD players would know how to follow these instructions, and it would essentially replicate sophisticated remote-control jockeying by a parent. None of the actual movie content would be contained in the files, just the editing instructions. (Alternatively, this could be used to let people make their own cuts of movies and distribute them without distributing the actual content.)

I think this idea would be the best of all worlds for everybody involved. Nobody's redistributing movies, Hollywood still gets all of their precious dollars, and people get to watch cleaner movies.

What do you guys think?

Re:C'mon, guys - Fair Use!!

[ArticulateArne]

The other option, of course, is to not rent or watch any movies that have things in them you disagree with.

Yeah, I know. That's pretty much the default action now. I'm just saying, it would be really nice if my (still hypothetical) kids could watch certain things without being exposed to all the garbage that winds up in there these days. For that matter, it'd be really nice if I could watch the stuff myself without, say, the f-word every other sentence.

Incidentally, I don't think people should be able to redistribute them entirely for their own profit. See my response a little farther down about a movie markup language that would essentially allow "templates" for movies to edit arbitrary language/sex/violence. I was going to put that in the original post, but I ran out of time.

Re:C'mon, guys - Fair Use!!

[evilviper]

I have to agree. It is fair use for me to edit out what I do not want to watch, why is it not fair to allow someone else to do so for me?

Since fair use gives me the right to make a backup copy, would paying a couple bucks to some company to have them make me a copy vilolate fair use? That sounds just like what this company is doing.

Of course, this is Slashdot. The majority don't really want fair use. They just want everyone under-age to have free access to porn no matter what.

Great Moments in Dubbing

[David Wong]

Do these people have a dialogue dubbing studio? I used to love those TV edits:

"Suck my (much deeper voice) socks you murderous mother trucker. You wanna mess with me? Lemme show you who you're messing with, you corn-eating son of a librarian.

Rip out ok, but put in?

[Kjella]

You'd need to have the redistribution rights for whatever you put in. So you could cut something to make it PG or whatever, but you can't put scenes back to make it the "Special Edition" or whatever, unless the person you're selling the script to has the scenes already, which makes the entire idea moot IMO.

Kjella

Re:Rip out ok, but put in?

[dillon_rinker]

Why would you need redistribution rights for the following...

Cut 0:12:14-0:12:53
Cut at 0:38:51. Insert into this cut 1:11:05-1:13:26

Re:Rip out ok, but put in?

[Fjord]

Man, if you don't see 0:12:29-0:12:43, you won't understand the rest of the movie!

It's not "censorship"

[Ted_Green]

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).

Don't Like It? Don't Watch It.

[BandwidthHog]

Seems people are overlooking a basic question here... if the content of something offends you, why do you want to view it?

Is there some unalienable right to watch the same movie as everybody else that is being violated by having nudity/profanity/evolution/whatever shoved down your throat by those oppressive writers/directors/actors/whatevers?

If you want a movie/book/song/whatever that meets certain criteria, shouldn't you produce/write/sing one of your own? And frankly, if a content creator is creating content to which you object, why would you want to give them your money? That is, after all, how we as a society assign moderator points to creative works.

Of course, we live in a culture that thinks adults viewing sex is harmful, yet sees no problem with children witnessing gunshots to the head. So maybe slashdot's moderation system isn't the only one that's broken.

Copyright trumps Free Speech

[philovivero]

Haven't these Clean Edit guys been paying attention recently? The law is really decided by case history, and given the recent history on copyright cases, it's clear that copyright trumps free speech.

If you want to give a speech, but it would violate or potentially allow to violate some copyright, then the speech is forbidden by law.

There are a number of other fundamental rights that are now trumped by copyright as well. Simply read the case history.

Welcome to the new millenium! The Digital Millennium, as defined by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act!

Movies are art

[jchristopher]

When it comes to art, I think the viewer should either take it as it comes, or not listen/watch/view at all. I would be PO'd if someone distributed my photographs that were changed in some way.

These self rightous people kill me! If you are so offended by the words fuck, shit, and goddamn, naked ladies or violence, then why do you SUPPORT the producers by buying/renting those films? Why don't they take a stand and NOT rent/buy the films they find offensive?

No!

[psicE]

This is the entire point of copyright!

Copyright law is designed to give people the exclusive rights to their work. They can license it at will, but without license, other people can't use it.

Obviously, no one would want exclusive rights to their work - that would make it pointless. Instead, they generally want money. But there's something else very important involved in copyright - the sanctity of the original. These directors created works, and have the right to prohibit people from modifying them.

Bringing in freedom of speech is absurd. If someone wants to show a clean movie, go put on "Pay it Forward". Or write your own damn movie. There is no speech, no "message", being blocked here; this is just saying that you can't alter a movie without someone's permission.

Re:No!

[bnenning]

this is just saying that you can't alter a movie without someone's permission.

Except that's not true. Copyright is the exclusive right to copy and redistribute a work, it was not intended to grant absolute control over how it it is used by customers. It is perfectly legal for me to alter a videotape I bought by splicing out portions I don't want to see. Why should it be illegal to pay a third party to do this for me?

Re:No!

[psicE]

Like you said, copyright is the exclusive right to copy and redistribute a work. So, though someone who has a licensed copy of a copyrighted work can feel free to edit it, redistributing that edited copy, in the form of "edited-for-TV" movies, isn't legal.

Duh-huh, WHAT?? Re:Good for Clean Flicks!

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

There is a huge market for these films, and if they won't fill it then obviously someone else should.

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 ... does that by itself justify either legalization or the black market that currently exists?

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?

Noone is forcing you to rent these or view them, all it is doing is providing a choice to those of us who want some of our favorite films to be a little bit cleaner.

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.

After-the-fact cuts

[Animats]

The problem with after-the-fact cuts is that they're done from the shipped version, not the source material. So they'll usually look or sound bad.

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.

Re:use your imagination here...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

imagine the uproar that would occur if the mona lisa was copied, altered, and then passed off for the original. this is just wrong.

Indeed. But let me do a little editing of my own:

imagine the uproar that would occur if the mona lisa was copied, altered, and then clearly and prominently labelled as edited for language, sex, or violence. this is just wrong.

Now, it's not so clear-cut. Editing the Mona Lisa destroys a work of art. Editing the master print for a film would be the same. But are you really going to sic the law on the guys who transformed the Mona Lisa into a "Got Milk?" ad?

Look at it this way.

[pythorlh]

Since copyright law is so obviously screwed up right now, anyway, I'll ignore wheteer or not this is legal, and discuss whether it should be.

Copyright law was intended to allow creators to make a profit from their creations, but still allow the public to benefit. In this case, the creators still make a profit, since every edited copy is bought from them before being edited. In fact, the creators are getting more profit than before, since some of the people buying the Clean Flicks version would refuse to buy the original.

On the other hand, the public is also benefiting, by having access to a range of moveis that they otherwise would have felt obligated to ignore.

As such, this is a win/win situation, and should be legal, whatever the current law has to say.

Re:'moral rights'

[Jeremy Erwin]

Yeah, but the US doesn't recognize moral rights, except in certain limited circumstances, mostly related to unique works of art.

I really don't like this...

[Junior J. Junior III]

I think it's one thing to "sample" another artist's work or to "quote" it in the context of another body of work. It's another thing entirely to completely subvert the intent of the author and re-tell a story they came up with the way you'd like it to be told.

I mean, OK, you've got me with The Phantom Edit. I guess these powers *can* be used for good and not just evil.

But how would you like to see a "re-edit" of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle paid for by the meat industry, in which a completely unregulated meat industry leads to magnificient quality, safe and well-paid workers, and low, low prices for everyone?

Even if they were to take another author's characters and write a completely new story, such as with Nora Zeal Hurston's Their Eyes Were Watching God, at least this is a derivative work and not trying to reproduce or supplant or replace the original. It's a respone to the original, not a remake or re-edit.

How about this for an idea: You want to tell a clean story? Fine. Make one up yourself. Create an original work. It's not that hard.

Click Flicks Membership Agreement

[omnirealm]

Some of you may be interested in Clean Flick's membership agreement terms.

I'm confused

[Com2Kid]

MPAA VS Censors.

Help head hurt.

I've seen the clean-flicks version of Black Hawk D

[CySurflex]

I've seen the clean-flicks version of Black Hawk Down ...

it's three minutes long.

Fair Use and TIVOs

[crath]

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.

Re:Fair Use and TIVOs

[Erasmus Darwin]

"If Clean Flicks' editing procedure isn't fair use, then a TIVO's ad-skipping feature is also not fair use."

I fail to see how this comparison holds. In the Clean Flicks case, they are editing the original in-house and then redistributing an edited product to the consumer. While TiVo doesn't have the ReplayTV's controversial ad-skip feature, such a feature still only removes the ads temporarily (the original content is available to the viewer), and that edited version is never redistributed.

Re:Fair Use and TIVOs

[crath]

...such a feature still only removes the ads temporarily (the original content is available to the viewer)...

At any time the viewer can borrow the unedited version of the movie and view it. Albeit, there is a longer time delay than one would experience with ReplayTV, but given the business model Clean Flicks is using---where members of the coop use a temporary copy of the original DVD---the essence of the transaction is the same.

BTW, thanks for correcting my incorrect product reference (i.e., TIVO when I should have written ReplayTV).

"F the children, protect the money"

[Tablizer]

I know that religious groups in Utah (Morman country) keep having problems with custom edits.

Usually "protect the children" pre-empts almost everything in politics, so why can't children-friendly edits get past the law?

Something even more powerful and annoying than the Religious Right? Now that is frightening.

We need a new sales model that permits this

[epeus]

I have described a marketplace for media at mediagora.com. In particular, I propose that anyone can make an edited derivativce work, as long as the customers for it buy the original at full price.

more detaisl here

License

[Registered Coward v2]

At issue here, in my humble non-lawyer opion, is not copyright but the license agreement between the video store and the copyright owner. If the license does not allow editing, then the store would be violating the license agreement - just as someone who buys the DVD then shows it in their studio would be violating the license agreement. Which is why I think the store should be prevented from making unapproved edits.

Why is that important - because the ability to enforce a license aggrement would potentially impact all software distributed under a license - whether it is by MS or the GPL. If the courts decide that licenses are not held to all terms of a license, that would weaken the ability to enforce the GPL. So while I may agree with why a video store may want to edit tapes, I don't think they should be allowed to do it without the copyright holder's agreement, thereby sticking to the license they agreed to when they bought the tape/DVD/etc.

As a side note, people have used blacking out parts of a book as an analogy - one i don't think apples because books aren't sold with a license.

It's NOT A VIDEO STORE'S MOVIE!

[fmaxwell]

I've seen news stories on this. I don't know if this is exclusively so, but all the movies features in the stories I've seen were DVD's, so basically, when you play the DVD, you select the version you want to see: unedited, PG-13'ized, PG'ized, G'ized, etc.

Then "find out what's going on before making a fool of yourself in public." Read on.

Do you have kids?

No, and it's kind of scary that you do since you can't seem to understand the following from the CleanFlicks web site:

IMPORTANT: Although edited for content, MyCleanFlicks' edited movies may contain subject matter that may be inappropriate for younger viewers. Parents please use discretion.

These edits aren't for children. They are for bible thumpers that want to pretend that they are part of mainstream society when everyone at work is discussing movies.

There are a lot of good movies out there that you just can't show them and the reason you can't isn't because of the plot, but irrelevant nudity, language, etc.

What credentials do you have to decide what scenes and language are "irrelevent." Have you ever directed a film? Are you a respected film critic?

No R-rated movies come into our house, but I've sure been wantin' to see that latest Arnold flick. Would be nice, since it is MY choice after all, eh?

If you can't control your children well enough to allow you to watch a movie in private, then you should have used birth control.

That's just flat stupid. That's not at ALL what these folks are doing. Why don't you go find out what's going before making a fool out of yourself in public?

You just made a fool of yourself. Go to www.cleanflicks.com and you will find that they rent both VHS and DVD movies that they have edited. So how do you just press a button on a VHS deck to choose the version you want to see?

Re:It's NOT A VIDEO STORE'S MOVIE!

[fmaxwell]

Wow, you're right. I did miss that. Thanks. What page was that on?

Blockquotes are indented. My comments are not. That's how Slashdot works. Now go reread the original message armed with that new knowledge.

Simple. I'm the customer. That gives me total, unbridled control over what I see.

I asked what gave you the artistic license to label scenes or language "irrelevent". I never disputed that you have a right to choose what you see. But before you twist that around, it does not mean that a company can legally alter copyrighted videos as a for-profit venture just because there is a market for it. Someone may want to see a version of Snow White in which she has sex with all seven dwarves, but that does not mean that a company called "Dirty Flicks" has a legal right to buy the Disney version, edit in such scenes, and rent the altered movie out to the general public.

So you presume that I want to see the nudity and hear the foul language too then?

You are the one that used kids as the explanation of why you needed edited versions of films:

Do you have kids?

There are a lot of good movies out there that you just can't show them and the reason you can't isn't because of the plot, but irrelevant nudity, language, etc.

No R-rated movies come into our house, but I've sure been wantin' to see that latest Arnold flick. Would be nice, since it is MY choice after all, eh?

You claimed that kids were the reason for the "no R-rated movies" rule in your house and then when I address that, suddenly the kids are not the reason. If you are offended by profanity, nudity, and violence in movies, too, then I suggest that you rent something from Disney since it seems like movies made for an adult audience really won't be your cup of tea.

Umm... does your mouse have a button (or have you found it yet)? Let me know if you don't get that. I can explain it for you more slowly later.

Instead of pretending you were talking about a mouse button, just be a grown-up and admit that you were wrong when you wrote:

all the movies features in the stories I've seen were DVD's, so basically, when you play the DVD, you select the version you want to see: unedited, PG-13'ized, PG'ized, G'ized, etc.
[...]
It's more like, "Here's a movie, press this button for the unedited version, and this for the one that we edited for your 16 year old, and this for the one that we edited for your 12 year old..."

I really don't want to waste my time playing semantics games with you. You know what you wrote. I do, too. They rent out VHS tapes, too, and those don't have unedited versions that the user can choose.

Re:It's NOT A VIDEO STORE'S MOVIE!

[fmaxwell]

It's how smart folks condescend (that means, talk down) to people like you, but it sure can leave you spinning if you don't keep your eye on it. Please try to keep up. I'll go slower.

Statistically speaking, based on IQ tests and standardized test scores, it's VERY unlikely that you are my intellectual equal, much less superior. In fact, you appear to be lacking in both logic and knowledge compared to the average person with whom I converse. So I'd suggest that you leave the "smart folks" techniques for those qualified to use them. And if you go any slower, I'll fall asleep since you are not even keeping up as it is.

Now go reread MY comments and do explain how your bible-thumpers comment is a supportable derivation of their warning.

It is not a derivation. It is my characterization of them based on their actions. It's what us smart folks refer to as an "editorial comment."

The company is a CO-OP.

No, they are not. The are a for-profit Limited Liability Company (LLC) that rents and sells movies without the trappings of a co-op. In fact, they don't even require membership. You can go to their web page and buy a movie outright: As your premier source for edited DVDs and Videos, we have over 400 titles available to buy online. .

Everyone owns all the titles, and they all agree to have them edited.

So, if "everyone owns all the titles", what happens when I buy one online? Do each of the "members" get a fraction of a cent from the sale?

You just don't seem to get it. They don't "[own] all the titles." Want to see who owns the titles? Look for the © symbol and that will give you a good clue. The only thing that Clean Flicks owns are copies of the movies on DVD or VHS.

But you are intentionally blurring the line between an modified edition and a derivative work. One is primarily characterized by deletions made specifically in such a manner as to preserve the essence of the work, the other additions made specifically to alter that essence.

It looks to me like you are making things up again. Show me supporting evidence for your claim that deletion of multiple scenes and pieces of dialog makes it a "modified edition" but that the addition of a single scene makes something a derivative work. Why don't you ask the directors whose works have been "edited" by Clean Flicks if the "essence" of the movies has been preserved?

Interesting, so then, it's my fault for tricking you into making a wrongful assumption then...

Yes, it is. "Tricking" someone through intentionally implying something untrue is not a valid form of debate.

This is a very basic point. Every day people press the mute or FF buttons on movies. They must do so manually, and the effect is crude. All this company has done is make that process more efficient.

Untrue. When someone manually fast forwards or mutes dialog, they are aware of it. When Clean Flicks does it, they often are not. The viewer often has no way to know what he/she was missing or even that material was deleted.

You just can't seem to understand the difference between fair use and copyright infringement. Your rights to do something in the privacy of your own home does has nothing to do with what a for-profit company can do. For instance, I can make a compilation CD-R disk with MP3s that I encoded from my CD collection. But I cannot rent that CD out to the public or sell it -- even if I have destroyed all of the originals from which it was created.

Oh, so now, in addition to telling me what I should and shouldn't see, you're telling me what I have and haven't seen... ?

Still playing games, I see. Why don't you just admit that your comments were based on the incorrect belief that Clean Flicks only rented out DVDs?

THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE DMCA!!!

[fmaxwell]

I've seen news stories on this. I don't know if this is exclusively so, but all the movies features in the stories I've seen were DVD's

So Clean Flicks takes a copyrighted DVD, runs DeCSS (or its equivalent) on it to circumvent the encryption, and then edits the DVD. I bet that the DVD they write does not include region coding, meaning that they have violated the DMCA twice!

Finally, a good use for the DMCA!

Re:THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE DMCA!!!

[fmaxwell]

Wow, the DoJ obviously blew it on this one.

Yes, they did. From a ZDNet article on the DeCSS decision:

The DMCA, passed in 1998, prohibits the circumvention of copy protection and the distribution of devices that can be used to bypass copyrights--even if people using the devices don't do anything illegal once they've broken the security. Software makers, Hollywood and the music industry make up the core proponents of the law.

The actual wording of the DMCA Section 1201 is:

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.-(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

CSS "effectively controls access" to the work, limiting playback to authorized, Macrovision-equipped devices and preventing the work from being copied to a computer hard drive.

Now consider section 1204 of the DMCA:

1204. Criminal offenses and penalties5

(a) In General.-Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain-

(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and

(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.

It appears to me that Clean Flicks is violating section section 1201 for the purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.

is your bet admissable as evidence? If not, be careful. Because if you're wrong, you've just accused them of criminal misconduct without a shred of evidence. That's simple libel.

If you are going to play Perry Mason on Slashdot, do some research and get your terms correct. Libel is not an accusation made without evidence. It is a written, false accusation. But I never accused them of anything. I expressed my belief (as in "I bet") and did not state it as fact.

Re:THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE DMCA!!!

[fmaxwell]

I stand corrected, they should monitor /., you, and ZDNet. What was I thinking?

Apparently that you are the ultimate authority on the DMCA.

Note that a successful prosecution would have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that this is a non-infringing use

Non-infringing? Huh? I read that as saying that the only persons exempted were those who had a noninfringing use that would be adversely affected by the law. Why would the prosecution want to show that they had a legal noninfringing use? The whole point of this is my contention that their use infringes on the legal rights of the copyright holder.

The following, from an article on Findlaw, summarizes the anticircumvention provision of the DMCA rather well:

The studios invoked the "anticircumvention" provision of the DMCA. That provision states that "[n]o person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

What does it mean to "circumvent" under the Act? The Act defines it this way: "to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner."

And that's how the DeCSS case against 2600.com was won. That seems to sum up this use rather well, too. Clean Flicks is decrypting an encrypted work without the authority of the copyright owner. When you buy a DVD, you are authorized to decrypt the movie for viewing only, not for copying to your PC, making edits of same for profit, etc.

But I'm sure the DoJ, not having your keen legal intellect at their disposal

I don't know why you are so certain that you understand the DMCA better than I do. I've looked at your snippets, arguments, and interpretations and, frankly, I don't find them particularly compelling.

neglected to willfully ignore the laundry-list of exceptions to 1201(A).

I did not "willfully ignore" it. I read it and realized that it was irrelevent to this case.

If only all laws were 5 lines long... then you would make perfect sense.

And if all laws were interpreted as "rough paraphrase[s]", then you'd be on the Supreme Court.

per se: I bet XXX, meaning XXX. e.g. The fact that I bet means they have violated.
That's what your statement says. What you intended is irrelevant. You've put it in writing in a public forum.

Yes, I saw my error, but I really don't care. They can sue me if they want. It was an obvious error made in an informal online discussion. It is not germane to this discussion, anyway, is it?

Re:THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE DMCA!!!

[fmaxwell]

--only that the DoJ does. I wonder why it is that every time an issue like this crops up, armchair lawyers like you come out of the woodwork and tell the people who have devoted 30+ years to interpreting and enforcing these statutes how to do their jobs.

Did it occur to you that, perhaps, the DoJ may not have looked at this matter? That had been my assumption from the beginning. You portray their lack of action as a profession rejection of the points I made.

You're obviously running out of things to pick on.

And, based on your unwillingness to address the points and questions I raised in my previous post, you apparently are unwilling to continue the discussion.

Re:THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE DMCA!!!

[fmaxwell]

Sorry for the typo (actually editing mistake). I meant to write:

"You portray their lack of action as a rejection of the points I made."

Re:What happens to the GPL?

[Todd Knarr]

Not quite. I suspect the loophole they're using is the one that cost the movie studio the case when they tried to sue the Utah video store editing copies of Titanic: if it's legal for the copy owner to do, it's legal for them to hire someone to do for them. My guess is that they're selling an original copy of the movie edited per the buyer's request before delivery. It's a fine distinction, but one the courts have consistently recognized.

As for the GPL analogy, the equivalent would be someone selling Linux kernels with a non-GPL'd custom modification. They couldn't legally do what you describe, but they could legally distribute the original Linux kernel accompanied by non-source-available binaries (which could not be further redistribued because of the conflict with the GPL) containing modifications done at the receiver's request.

Re:Someone Tell Me This...

[crath]

How does someone decide, ahead of time, without seeing a movie, that he or she wants to see an edited version?

How does anyone decide ahead of time whether or not a XXX rated film contains the advertised porn?

I too find it very disturbing that anyone trusts the information presented on the cover of the movie, or that people trust the rating agencies. People have no business trusting anyone except themselves. Never delegate anything!

Moreover, it is truly frightening that people are censoring their own inputs. What right do these viewers have to limit their daily intake of smut, violence, and profanity? If Hollywood produced it, they must be forced to watch it!

Re:It's the END-USER's Choice

[fmaxwell]

So lastly, instead of doing the latter myself, I pay someone to do it for me.

So where did I cross the line?

You did not cross the line. But the person who took the copyrighted film and edited it for profit, without the copyright owner's permission, crossed the line.

"Fair use" refers to your personal use of the film. It does not protect a for-profit venture that modifies films without the permission of the copyright owner.

DMCA violation?

[ptbrown]

So, wouldn't they have had to use DeCSS or similar technology to decrypt and edit the movie? And, AFAIK, there's no ReCSS, so the movie would have to be written as region-free, right? And what about formats like SuperBits?

As to the DGA, I think the problem is that the directors shouldn't have signed over their rights to the studios. It's the copyright owner who has to say yea or nay on whether someone is not doing the right thing with his work. But it's the studios that own the copyright to these movies, not the directors or the DGA. And I don't believe that CheapFlicks should be allowed to sell edited movies without the permission of the copyright owner. But they should be allowed to operate, so long as they are up-front about it. (Which they seem to be.)

Wow, that's frightening

[DragonMagic]

If you counterfeit a CleanFlick movie, then CleanFlick, not the original owner of the movie, can confiscate it, destroy it, and fine you...

Uh, wait a minute, I didn't think that CleanFlick owned the movie at all?

Re:It's the END-USER's Choice

[fmaxwell]

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.

Re:It's the END-USER's Choice

[fmaxwell]

Well that's what cleanflicks does. Go read their site. They're a co-op.

I have read their site fairly thoroughly. I see no evidence that they are a co-op and, in fact, substantial evidence to the contrary. Clean Flicks offers over 400 movies for SALE. So the co-op argument clearly does not cover their business model.

Even if you disagreed that that was their objective, it would certainly be easier to convince judge and jury that a movie edited for cleanliness by say, broadcast TV standards, maintains that essence, than it would be to convince them that the adding of content as you describe does.

I used an extreme example to make a point. Suppose that I believe that directors are making changes to get PG-13 ratings and that I want to "spice up" the movie, while maintaining its "essence."

Out of respect for your tastes, I will not give graphic examples, but suppose I were to dub in the "F" word in place of phrases like "have sex", "make love", etc.? What if I hired body doubles to make the existing sex scenes more explicit or to replace an implication that the characters had sex with an explicit scene?

In both cases, whether deleting content or adding content, the party doing so is making a subjective judgement as to the intent and vision of the film's director.

This is the slippery slope that I see when you allow private firms to modify copyrighted material that they don't have the rights to.

Re:It's the END-USER's Choice

[fmaxwell]

Side note: MyCleanFlicks is the rental side, while CleanFlicks is the sales side.

Thanks for that clarification. But the important point is that they sell movies (whatever the name of that web site might be) and that's not a co-op operation.

As for the sales side, as I asked already, what does happen to your argument once DVD players become sophisticated enough to run complex programs and people start writing one that recognize DVD's and skip over and mute particular scenes on the fly.

Then they will have found a legal way to do what they are now doing (IMNSHO) illegally.

I'll be sorry when that happens, but I'm a purist and I think that films should be viewed as intended by their creators and copyright owners. I was a vocal opponent of colorizing old movies, too.

What Business is it of yours?

[Kenneth]

There seem to be two questions going on here. Is it legal? and Is it moral? I cover the second first.

It is absolutely moral. They are not passing it off as an original unedited version. They are saying it has been edited with explicit criteria. Criteria designed to match the sensibilities of the intended audience. There is no attempt to prevent the movie from being published, there is no attempt to tell people that their version is the only one that can be seen. Someone who wants to see the unedited version is totally free to rent it.

As far as any critic here is concerned, what business is it of yours? You are not affected in any way by such businesses. It isn't even the director's business what parts of his movie that I watch. He might have a legal concern, but for the moment I'm talking ethics.

Convince me why I shouldn't be able to see an edited movie. I reject out of hand any crap about artistic integrity, or the director's ability to divorce himself from something, as anyone with a nonnegative IQ would be able to know that an edited version is not what the director originally planned (whether edited for content, or simply to put in an extra 20 minutes of commercials). I also reject the lame argument that the context might be lost. So what? If I choose to watch an edited movie, I know full well that there may be context and continuity problems. What I choose to watch is none of your business.

I find it ironic that some of the same people who clamor for the right to do what they want with the software they buy, would clamor just as loudly that you shouldn't be able to do the same to a movie.

From a legal perspective, I believe they are likely safe with the vhs, but may run into problems with the DVD's. From what I've been able to gather, the VHS tapes are edited by actually cutting the offending tape off of the original, and blanking out the audio for offending dialogue.

There is no real copying of the tapes. Rather there are physical modifications to a physical object.

The DVD's are another matter as they can not be edited so easily. They are apparently coppied, however even in that case, the original is rendered unplayable, and kept with the copies. There can be no possible piracy charge, since each copy is legitimate.

In the end however, I am brought back to my original question. What business is it of yours? How are you damaged if someone decides to utilize one of these establishments? I've read everything so far in these article, and found not a single compelling argument.