Slashdot Mirror
Directors Counter-Sue Movie Bowdlerizing Company
crazyhorse44 writes "The lesser of two evils? 'The Directors Guild of America is suing more than a dozen companies that delete scenes depicting violence, sex and profanity from Hollywood films, saying the process violates federal copyright law. The lawsuit, filed Friday in Denver, was a response to a suit filed last month by Clean Flicks of Colorado, which is part of the Utah-based rental chain Clean Flicks. The company had asked a judge to rule its practice legal, despite protests from several well-known directors, including Robert Redford and Steven Spielberg. Clean Flicks argues it doesn't violate copyright law because it purchases a new copy each time it edits a film and because customers are technically owners of the videos through a cooperative arrangement. The edited tapes also carry a disclaimer that the film was edited for content, the company says.' Whose side to take? The DGA is defending the desecration of many of our favorite films, while Clean Flicks is strongly advocating for the copyright rights of the consumer to edit and/or alter the media that they purchase. At the extreme you have folks who want to eliminate all traces of sex and violence from the popular media against the movie industry who wants to eliminate all property rights of the consumer. Whose side would you take? Links at Salon, USA Today and FindLAW." We've had previous stories here and here.
I think, on this one, they're solidly in the right.
/market/ that... seems idiotic, to me. I'm hoping the directors win.
Sure, people have a right to not be exposed to that sort of content. They're free to find other movies to watch, ones that mesh better with their ideals. The idea that they have some sort of right to take a knife to someone else's work... and then
Now, I have no problem with people doing their own editing. The main issue, as I see it, is that all these little companies are making money off of the destruction of someone else's creative vision. And that... just sits very badly with me.
"At the extreme you have folks who want to eliminate all traces of sex and violence from the popular media against the movie industry who wants to eliminate all property rights of the consumer. Whose side would you take?"
This is an easy one, you quite clearly take the side of the consumer, even though in this case you may not agree with their use of their rights. Free speach is to be supported, even if no one person could support, say, the racist and anti-racist uses that this may be put to. So first you support the fundamental principle and then you critisise those who would use that right for what you may consider to be "the wrong ends".
C'mon - this is not an issue. I will happily take the side of someone arguing for end-user rights. Full stop.
Just because a company who is willing to defend this right decides to sanitize films for overprotective parents does not make them less worthy of it. Further, the fact they make those sanitized films puts me under no obligation at all to be their customer.
We should be supporting them if we agree with the goal of making copyright law more sane, and protecting the right to use products that we purchased, not questioning what they do with that right.
- - - Non Caffeine Drink or Drink Error
You're either "FOR copyright facism" or "AGAINST censorship." I think I'll choose against censorship.
I think we've had more than enough puritanism. If you don't want your kids to see violence or sex, don't show them the bloody movie. Read them a book or something. Or would that be too much work for parents?
.
Clean Flicks side. They've bought the video each time and no one is forced to buy the cleaned up version are they? What's the difference between this and with people doing their own editing. They are simply providing a service.
The studios release differing versions of movies for a number of purposes:
TV
airlines
for release in different regions
They release "unrated" versions of movies like American Pie on DVD.
Yet, somehow when consumer groups ask for versions of videos that are more "family friendly" (say, the same versions they provide for TV or airlines), the studios turn their noses up.
Finally, people get fed up with this and someone begins to profit by providing what people are asking for. The studios realize that someone else is making a profit and turn their lawyers loose.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
People are in a huff about Clean Flicks because what's being edited is sex and violence, which gets one side yelling "smut!" and the other side "censorship!". But really, if it's what the viewer wants to watch, cutting the sex scenes out of doesn't seem worse than cutting Jar Jar Binks out of Star Wars 1. Best of all (but probably not feasible) would be if the edited movie was delivered as an edit list on the same media (e.g. DVD) as the unedited original, so the viewer would always be able to choose which version s/he wanted to watch. The edit list would just tell the player to automatically skip parts of the movie, if the user enables it.
If you really feel that watching a movie the way you perfer it even though it differs from the original presentation is wrong, well, listening to a CD outside of it's original presentation on the CD is wrong, too.
For all the babbling that goes on here at Slashdot about fair use, for someone to even question what ClearFlicks is doing is "right" really blows my mind (Well, it would if this weren't Slashdot).
Do I like what they're doing? No.
Do I have plans on buying movies from them? No.
Is it wrong for people to do what they want with their PROPERTY for their own private use? NO.
I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways people - either you agree that we have our fair use rights, or we don't. So what if someone is doing something that you feel is Bad(tm) on artistic grounds? It's their choice to make - let them waste their money how they see fit, just as I should be allowed to waste mine as I see fit.
No one's forcing me to watch their bastardized verion of a movie - I see no reason someone should be forced to watch the original.
Who does it hurt if people want to purchase (rent) a mutilated copy of a movie to watch? While I think most would agree they are short-changing themselves, I hardly see how this could be hurting anyone else. A legitimate copy of the movie has been purchased, so Royalties have been paid. A disclaimer is shown so people don't blame the inevitable crappiness of the movie on the directory. Honestly, I ask, what is wrong with this?
I frankly don't see any victims(other than the suckers renting this watered-down crap). And if you do see a problem with this, What about other movie edittings (I recall a certain edit of Star Wars Episode 1 that was rather popular involving, or should I say lacking, in a certain Mr. Binks)?
Anyone remember Woody Allen's _What's Up, Tiger Lily_ film?
He took a terrible Japanese film and redubbed it with his own words to make the film considerably more enjoyable. Pretty heavy editing, that could have gotten him in some kind of trouble if Hollywood manages to succeed in their bid to keep people from editing movies.
Then there's Mystery Science Theater 3000...
And so it goes.
No, this is a clear misstatement of what's going on here. Clean Films, etc, are not removing anything from "the popular media". They're producing an alternative version of the popular media, for consumption by their customers.
In the past, the US-based religious right has launched verbal attacks on Hollywood. The response of many people to the religious right's arguments has been that if you don't like it, don't go and see it. Now, Clean Films are providing a third way: you can now see a version without the bits you don't like (a bit like the "Phantom Edit" does for Jar Jar Binks haters).
What Clean Films is doing is in fact an example of the classic liberal remedy for "bad speech": more speech. For myself, Clean Films' products, like "Christian Rock", will no doubt be aesthetically unpleasant. But I applaud their creativity in finding another way forward besides the bigoted "Clean Up Hollywood" crusades of the past.
The Director's Guild's actions here are plain and simple attempts at control, in an era when the technology has opened up new avenues for participation in popular culture. They're trying to maintain a simple "push" model of production, and a extremely simplistic and philosophically untenable notion of the director as solitary "creative genius". I REALLY hope they lose this one.
P
This discussion has nothing to do with 'artistic control'. It is about money.
The studios do not like a third party assuming any kind of editorial control over their content.
Someone has discovered a good market and is making money from it.
The studios are suing to try to regain control. As usual, Hollywood is reacting to events instead of leading them.
It is hard to sympathise with either party here: the studios are using lawyers instead of their imagination.
Clean Flicks are acting like mullahs. But no-one is being forced to chose their versions. Maybe a better comparison would be DJs who remix other's music.
The obvious solution is for the studios to give consumers the choices they want and are willing to pay for.
Knowing Hollywood, this is unlikely to happen fast.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
What Clean Flicks are doing is really just about expanding the choices consumers have.
Directors do not really get the final say on the cut of films anyway, the studios do, thats why there are so many 'directors cut' editions released when a film becomes 'big'.
They are marketing the films in a completly upfront way and they are not selling via 'normal' outlets. People are not going to confuse these films with the 'real thing'(tm) so its a non-problem.
Whats next, fast forwarding and leaving the room being made illegal as you may not get the directors true 'vision'?
c.
This is very different than the TV Stations showing edited versions for one important reason:
When you see something in an edited form on TV, it has been edited with the direct consent of the Director of the movie, and they often had a hand in the editing themselves.
Clean Flicks takes a movie that is not theirs, edits it, often poorly, without anyone's consent, and resells it to customers. And that's the other important point.
Fair-use is fine, as long as I am not trying to make a profit from the movie. If I want make a copy of tape to give to a friend offended by more pureile parts, and I leave them out, that's fine. But if I'm trying to sell the copy, and pass it off to people then I am infringing on a copyright.
It would be no different than if someone were to take an O'Reilly book, replace a few words here and there, remove a chapter, and try and sell the thing as the original. It's not legal, and it should be stopped. Clean Flicks should get consent from the directors before doing what they do.
Anime fandom has the well-known process of fansubbing -- making home-made subtitled versions of Japanese videos. This involves changing what is put up on the screen (by overlaying subtitles) and then distributing the output to the end consumer.
If CleanFlix can't sell paid-for copies of movies that have been altered, regardless of poor taste, then where does that put fansubbers?
I agree that CleanFlix have used their legal powers for evil, but these powers are ones to which they should be entitled, regardless of intent.
I don't remember directors releasing movies under GPL, so why should anyone be able to tamper with their work?
I genuinely believe that I should be able to do what I want with a product once I've bought it, as long as I do not tred on the toes of the person I bought it from.
Example: I buy a book. I should be allowed to lend it to a friend, tear pages out, write notes in the margin, strike out paragraphs I don't like or aren't interesting to me. Hell I should even be able to sell or give away my copy because I freakin' paid for it. People may not want to buy my copy if I've torn pages out or struck out certain paragraphs but if they know I've done this and still want to buy it then no-one should try and stop them buying it or me selling it.
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
Really, if they are placing a beard on Captain Kirk why not? I mean people have paid for this work. It's theirs.
If someone buys software from me and takes a chunk out. And resells it why should I care, I'm getting paid for my work. If they were buying one copy editing it and reselling it a million times sure sue em.
But isn't this what we bitch at MS for every week. The ability to not be able to make changes to suit you needs. Freedom isn't about protecting what we like, it's about protecting what we don't like.
We become just as bad as the people we complain about when we oppose companies like clean flicks.
I'm sure if MS was taking someone to court because they were removing Win32 from it and replacing it with X and Gnome and all the things we like we would be vehemetly opposed. You cannot set arbitary limits on freedom.
The rules we set have to be applied in a broad and general sense.
"I do not agree with what you say but I defend to my death your right to say it" -- Voltaire
Umm... almost none of the companies that use apache source code market it as apache, and it looks to me like Clean Flicks simply edits the video for the customer, or provides pre-edited videos, which they inform the customer of. They are not just reselling a different version as their own. What is the difference between Clean Flicks and the fast forward button?
Now, I have no problem with people doing their own editing.
What Clean Flicks do is nothing more than provide a service editing movies that their customers own. Really, buying from Clean Flicks is no different from renting time in an editing suite and hiring someone to show you how to operate it.
The main issue, as I see it, is that all these little companies are making money off of the destruction of someone else's creative vision
By that argument, so is any company that makes equipment allowing someone to edit any tape. All Clean Flicks do is facilitate; it's not as if they are editing, then reproducing the edited movie without the studio getting paid. Every copy they sell is owned.
And that... just sits very badly with me.
The question is: do you own the movie, or just the right to watch the movie? If the studio retains control of the media, then that means you only have an license to watch the movie, you don't own it. Clearly that is an indefensible position: if it were true, and you damaged your copy, the studio would replace it for no more than the cost of duplication. That doesn't happen, which suggests that there is plenty of precedent for the movie being owned by whoever buys it, and thus they are free to do with it as they please.
I am usually proud of being a geek, and I've worked quite a bit at trying to fight geek stereotypes throughout my life, but for God's sake it is exactly this kind of story that makes me embarassed to be part of this community.
How can anyone here seriously take the position that the consumer is wrong here? After all our fights against the DMCA and DeCSS and GPL code that supposedly empowers us, why is this community suddenly getting cold feet when someone decides to use those rights to produce a product that we happened to find silly?
I mean, really, isn't this the kind of behavior that we should be encouraging? The religious right sees a bunch of movies that they don't like. And for once, their reaction is to simply fix what they find wrong for viewing within their own community of interested viewers. They aren't trying to get movies banned; they aren't trying to get YOU to stop going to the movies. They aren't even asking you to watch their edited version of the movies! (Though, of course, you are free to do so if you wish.) Isn't this exactly the kind of consumer-centered decsion making that we are supposedly fighting for? Wouldn't you prefer this solution, rather than this group trying to somehow force their edited-down versions to be official?
Besides, where was all this sudden concern over the sanctity of movies when geeks were making spoofs like TIE-tanic, or recutting the Star Wars trilogy, or making any of the thousand Star Trek "lost episodes" by putting new dialog to old footage? Oh, but someone uses this same technology and allowance of law to recut a movie in a way that you happen to not care for, and suddenly you're on the side of the RIAA?
Please.
Before anyone goes off on me about censoring content let me just say that it is my children who I deal with and raise so I *will* censor anything even remotely obscene.
I completely agree, they are your children and you have every right to decide what's appropriate and inappropriate for them.
Anyway, I fail to see how profanity/sex is an art form in films. Without those scenes, I don't lose any meaning to the film.
You don't watch too many movies, now do you? Have you seen American Psycho? What would that movie be without sex? Sure you could take the profanity out of that movie with a slight problem, but the sex? I really sugest reading the book, there's alot of stuff that WASN'T in the movie. Also, how do you determine what words to take out of a movie? What happens if you're watching a movie about the KKK? Will you take out the word "nigger" and any other racial slurs you find?
Foul language is much stronger than regular words (otherwise they wouldn't be considered "naughty" and no one would care who said them), it helps show great conflict and hostility. If you heard someone in a movie say "Stop you big jerk! Hey you big jerk why don't you listen to me!" you'd think "well he's asking the guy to stop and he's kinda annoyed at the person." now if you heard the same person say "Hey you fscking a**h*l* I told you to fscking stop! Why the fsck won't you listen to me!" the message becomes MUCH stronger and you think "WOAH he's REALLY pissed!"
Fsck is a hard word to replace, it can be used many times in one sentence to make the sentence much stronger, there aren't many words like that. You could say "Hey you stupid fsck, what the fsck is wrong with you, you stuck the PCI card in the wrong fscking slot and you fried my fscking ram!" which would be way more effective (at showing anger, not saying people will respect you for this language, it's just easier to show an emotion this way) than "Hey you stupid idiot, what the heck's wrong with you, you stuck the PCI card in the wrong darn slot and you fried my stupid ram!" That sentence doesn't sound like you just lost $800 in computer equiptment, it's just terrible.
Then what happens when you've got a movie, and one of the character's is a "bad" person (drug lord, gang leader, theif, pop singer, you get the picture)? They're supposed to use words like "shoot", "darn" and "crap"? That would be WAY out of character.
Sorry for the rant, it's just that you don't seem to understand movies are usually a reflection of the real world, when people in the real world stop using profanity then people in movies will stop using it, when people in the real world stop having sex, there won't be any movies cause we wouldn't be able to continue the species (duh!).
I happen to be a sometimes-writer, and I have good friends who're far more serious about it than I am.
By your token, because I buy a book, I should therefore own all the contents of the book. This is the reason that copyright law exists--to protect the people who create things.
Cleanflicks obviously has to be making a profit off of this, or else they wouldn't be in business. (Well, one assumes, though you can never tell anymore.) If they're making a profit, they're making that profit because of the work of the people who created the movies... while not respecting that those people created a specific vision. Yes, sometimes that vision includes violence. You have plenty right to go see something else.
Ooh, I know. I'm going to go buy a bunch of big long books and cut out all the violence and sex and maybe the boring passages, too, and re-sell them. Of course, I'm not going to stop to ask the author what they think of this; it's my right to free speech, right? Forget the rights of the original creator. Forget, for that matter, their feelings, or that they're even human beings at all, because it's so much easier to think of them as the Evil Movie Industry whose sex and violence are so damaging to our precious little children.
In personal use, you're not making money for doing it. You do it for yourself, your family, sure. When you start doing it to make a buck, then you're doing the very thing that copyright law is designed to prevent.
Exactly. And nor should people be distributing modified versions of (say) Pulp Fiction as Pulp Fiction, not unless the director is ok with it. That's just straight-forward misrepresentation.
What is the difference between Clean Flicks and the fast forward button?
The fast forward button is private, Clean Flicks is not.
Note that I'm not saying people shouldn't be free to modify, parody, etc. films as they feel free - I just don't think copyright is the only issue.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
"At the extreme you have folks who want to eliminate all traces of sex and violence from the popular media against the movie industry who wants to eliminate all property rights of the consumer. Whose side would you take?"
Step back and look at it carefully. These are TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.
The first one is simple. It's censorship.
And while you're right that we need to support free speech, you've got exactly backwards who we need to support. Here, in order to protect free speech, we have to support the directors.
Editing the films against the express wishes of the directors and copyright holders is simultaneously a violation of copyright law AND censoring their creative works.
Censoring someone else is NOT an exercise of free speech, but an infringement of it. You have every right not to watch a film if you don't like it's content, but that does NOT mean you can chop out what you don't like and then redistribute it.
In order to protect the fundamental principle, which you are correct must be the priority, the only choice is to side with the creator, not with the censor.
The SECOND issue here is what constitutes fair use.
Under fair use, it might be argued that as long as you paid for a copy of the film for your use that you might be able to edit a copy of that copy and watch it yourself without what you didn't want to see, but that's still not at all clear.
But fair use doesn't ever permit you to redistribute any copy of the film to anyone else, regardless of whether there is any profit at all, because it's NOT YOUR FILM. It's only your COPY of the film. Possesion of the copy doesn't give you the right to edit the original work.
That's why copyright is called copyright to begin with. It spells out who has the right to control both the distribution AND THE CONTENT of a work.
The only reason TV stations are permitted to alter content without express consent of the director is because there are statues that dictate what content may be shown on broadcast television, and it is understood that when a network pays for the right to broadcast the film that a certain amount of editing may be required in order to meet the statutory guidelines. Within that context they are granted a certain amount of leaway that they sometimes take advantage of in ways that also leave directors unhappy, but that they usually tolerate.
This is an entirely different scenario than the one under debate related to rental distribution. Since there is no overriding legislation regarding content with rental distribution, there is no legal basis under which to alter content without express consent of the copyright holder.
This doesn't mean that we should by any means support the Directors' Guild uniformly in all of their arguments about fair use. Some of the restrictions they want preventing users from making any copies whatsoever for their own use DO violate fair use, but this particular issue is not one of those.
"The DGA is defending the desecration of many of our favorite films, while Clean Flicks is strongly advocating for the copyright rights of the consumer to edit and/or alter the media that they purchase. At the extreme you have folks who want to eliminate all traces of sex and violence from the popular media against the movie industry who wants to eliminate all property rights of the consumer."
First, where does Clean Flick's plan suggest that they want to eliminate all traces of sex and violence from the popular media? You are assuming too much simply beause you don't agree with what Clean Flicks is doing (how open minded of you).
Second, you claim that Clean Flicks is "desecrating" these films. I call bullshit. The directors themselves will edit their own films to be shown on commercial airplanes all in the name of making a buck. The reminds me of Metallica's insistence that Napster commoditizes their "art" while they are allowing people to press plastic discs with their "art" and *gasp* selling them.
I've never understood how come when people exercise a modicum of their constitutional right and there is a hint of religion, that such a large population feels threatened. If you people are truly believed in the Constitution, you would be loudly praising Clean Flicks use of their Constitutional rights.
-bk
The Romans? In that case, the lesson is "become a Christian society, and promptly collapse".
Or have we been reading Xtian revisionist history off the back of a pamphlet again?
I think you are confusing the point. This is not censorship. The original is stll readily available to anyone. This is more artistic license - taking a product you own and having it reshaped for your own enjoyment. Not at all unlike colorization.
Profanity - The sign of a small mind trying to express itself.
If the director's case is uphelpd, then wouldn't it also be a breach of copyright to sell any book that didn't contain each and every letter it originally contained?
What you describe is exactly what copyright is designed to prevent. Modifieing a copyrighted work for profit. "Adding value" to an original copyright work is not covered under fair use.
Regarding value added software: In such cases the value added reseller has permission from the copyright owner to resell the value added version. Obviously this is the opposite of the Clean Flicks case.
By your token, because I buy a book, I should therefore own all the contents of the book.
Yes, that's right. If I buy a book and I want to tear out pages or cross through the boring bits or color in the pictures or fold over the corners where the dirty bits are, or write in the margin why the author was wrong... yes, I can do all that because it's my book.
This is the reason that copyright law exists--to protect the people who create things.
Copyright law prevents me from copying your works, it doesn't (or shouldn't) stop me tearing out the pages in copies made with your permission and purchased by me.
Cleanflicks obviously has to be making a profit off of this, or else they wouldn't be in business. (Well, one assumes, though you can never tell anymore.) If they're making a profit, they're making that profit because of the work of the people who created the movies... while not respecting that those people created a specific vision.
That's right, just like I can buy a car, respray it, replace the seats and resell it. Oh no, profiting without respecting a 'specific vision' how terrible. If you don't want me to modify a car don't sell it to me, clear?
Yes, sometimes that vision includes violence. You have plenty right to go see something else.
Yes, including the right to watch the bits of this I like and not the bits I don't.
Ooh, I know. I'm going to go buy a bunch of big long books and cut out all the violence and sex and maybe the boring passages, too, and re-sell them. Of course, I'm not going to stop to ask the author what they think of this; it's my right to free speech, right?
Yes, go ahead.
Forget the rights of the original creator
No, they keep all their rights intact. What's that got to do with you mutilating the books you own?
Forget, for that matter, their feelings, or that they're even human beings at all, because it's so much easier to think of them as the Evil Movie Industry whose sex and violence are so damaging to our precious little children.
What are you on? This has got nothing to do with them being evil. By all means respect their feelings BUT people really really are entitled to buy books and burn them specifically to hurt the feelings of the author if they want to. No, not pleasant, but hard to believe though it may be hurting people's feelings isn't a crime and I hope it never will be.
In personal use, you're not making money for doing it. You do it for yourself, your family, sure. When you start doing it to make a buck, then you're doing the very thing that copyright law is designed to prevent.
Rubbish. Copyright law was about protecting an income stream in order to encourage the creation of works. It was never about protecting people's feelings from people who were making money without
"respecting their vision". The idea is completely without foundation.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
if TV networks can insert ads in a movie (I highly doubt the director meant for those tampon commercials to be in there), then cleanflicks can remove offensive content. both change the content. I fail to see the difference.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
So what's the big deal here anyway?
They should absolutely be able to do this if they want to. They probably started this just to be able to show it to their kids or something.
Are people out there going to honest say that there IS NOT too much sex, violence, profanity in movies nowadays?
Besides, any time any one of these movies were to be aired on some general broadcast company (ABC, NBC, CBS..etc) it'd be the same thing.
Profanity, nudity, violence... they'd all be cut for the TV version of it. and hey, it's not like they're hiding the fact that these are editted versions...
Apparently, those against this - don't have kids. If you had, you'd realize how difficult it is to find new movies for them that aren't full of profanity, nudity, and violence.
I've been saying for a while now, that I can't believe someone hasn't put this ability into DVDs already. It'd be great if I could show my 4 year old Lord the the Rings by simply enabling "G-mode" on the DVD (that is... if that option existed).
Let's imagine that you've just made a small film on a shoestring budget. For the sake of argument, let's say that it's a biting socio-political expose of the corruption in industry and goverment.
Now here comes Microsoft. They buy copies of your film, redact the parts that they don't like, and release them with your name on it, and slap on little "Edited to remove adult themes" stickers.
If they have the marketing muscle to make their version more readily available than yours (and they do), then they can de facto change what you said. Sure, if they're buying a copy of your original every time they sell a redacted version then you make money, but perhaps that wasn't your intention. By bringing money into it - whether you ask for it or not - they also paint you as a whore ("We've already established what you are, now we're just discussing price"). They can simply buy your rights away from you, even if you don't want to sell.
That's perhaps an extreme example, although you can take it further (what if they start adding scenes?). But it illustrates the limits of fair use rather nicely. While I'm fiercely in favour of individual fair use, I do not believe that fair use covers commercial editing and duplication, simply because allowing it for arguably good intentions opens it up to abuse for rather henious ones as well.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The problem is that the producers of this content are not interested in the marginal revenue that could be generated by producing edited versions of their creations. Sadly, this leaves a gap in what people want to view as compared with the products that are offered by the studios. As a result, people turn to a company that is offering what consumers want. I have no issue with cleanflicks in this case.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Rental and sales of already edited movies is another thing entirely. Just as I should not be able to edit The Lord of the Rings, then sell it, and just as I should not be able to change Perl to no longer have regexes and still distribute it as "Perl", I shouldn't be able to edit out the good bits of a movie and distribute the movie. Unless, of course, I got the permission of the copyright holder.
Fair use is good. Further, Cleanflicks could still stay in business, albeit with a change of focus to the editing business. Further, with appropriate automation, they should be able to turn things around nearly as fast as if they just stocked edited movies. I think preserving the distinction between stocking edited movies and actually producing an edited version of the owner's copy is important.
Broadcast TV gets permission to do this, therein lies the difference.
What I'd really like to see is Clean Flicks version of The Fountainhead. Would they remove the scene where Roark destroys the buildings he designed because someone else altered his design?
I wish these people would edit the sex out of their own lives, it would do wonders for the gene pool!
My other sig is extremely clever...
What you describe is exactly what copyright is designed to prevent. Modifieing a copyrighted work for profit.
No, it isn't. Copyright is designed to prevent you from making entirely new copies and selling those, not modifying ones that have already been sold.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
If there's seriously a market for cleaned-up movies, I believe it should be something that Hollywood should WORK WITH rather than attempt to quash. And I think that there IS a market - think of it. Your kids want to see some movie like Terminator 2, but of COURSE you won't rent it for them if they're say, 8 years old - you don't really want your kids watching Arnie ripping his forearm skin off to show the terminator underneath. Wouldn't it be a nice touch for kids to be able to keep the morals & story of the movie intact without subjecting them to the gore ?
I respect director's rights to get their movie out there, but really - they could glean increased sales by making seperate, "cleaner" versions of movies for family viewing, increasing the range of people that can watch it, and Clean Flicks can stay in business, perhaps as a subsidiary or tier in the movie business. Otherwise, people may have to pirate^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htape the movies off network TV, where movies ARE edited (usually for length, but sometimes for content).
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
If I buy a book and I want to tear out pages or cross through the boring bits or color in the pictures or fold over the corners where the dirty bits are, or write in the margin why the author was wrong... yes, I can do all that because it's my book.
Granted. But what if you want to sell that book later? Is it still the same book you bought?
Used college textbooks sell for 1/2 to 2/3 of the price of new texts, even if they're the same edition and only a single semester old, for this reason: by applying your edits to the book, you're decreasing its value to anyone but yourself.
That's right, just like I can buy a car, respray it, replace the seats and resell it. Oh no, profiting without respecting a 'specific vision' how terrible. If you don't want me to modify a car don't sell it to me, clear?
A car is not a copyrighted work. Your analogy is poor and misleading.
the point is that a bookstore cannot sell you a book that's been altered.
Granted. But what if you want to sell that book later? Is it still the same book you bought?
Discussion over. You agree with his point.
Used college textbooks sell for 1/2 to 2/3 of the price of new texts, even if they're the same edition and only a single semester old, for this reason: by applying your edits to the book, you're decreasing its value to anyone but yourself.
And to the customers of this service, the edited version has a greater value(or else they would not pay for the service).
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Granted. But what if you want to sell that book later? Is it still the same book you bought?
Used college textbooks sell for 1/2 to 2/3 of the price of new texts, even if they're the same edition and only a single semester old, for this reason: by applying your edits to the book, you're decreasing its value to anyone but yourself.
You seem to be opening a whole new can of worms. If you sell a book that you have torn pages from or written in, should that be illegal? You say it is of less value? What if Jim Morrison wrote poetry in the margins? Isn't that more valuable?
And what about the used book sellers? They are buying used books and reselling them at a profit and the author never sees a dime. How many times can you resell Darwin's The Origin of Man before it's worn out? Should the publisher be paid for each resale?
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
- clean flix is a service that does what you tell them to do with your media
- clean flix does not redistrubute films
- clean flix does not add scenes
- clean flix is not try to create new a "de facto" version of the film
The concept of your test is great, but your application is horrible.I have often wished for a slightly cleaned up version of "A Clockwork Orange" to show to someone who has issues around sexual violence (other kinds of violence are OK). Let's say I buy a copy on VHS, physically trim out the rape scene and splice the tape back together. Imagine being Stanley Kubrick now. How would you feel? Imagine not being able to make a physical modification to media that you purchased? You know what, I don't fucking care how Stanley Kubrick would feel about me editing his film, anyway. He can make his art, he can make his money, people can see it the way they want to. Everybody wins.
What rights are those? If you don't want someone cutting up your movie, and possibly reselling it, don't sell them a copy. That goes whether "them" is Joe Blow or Microsoft.
What duplication? You seem to be talking about situations that do not exist.
> In practice, however, I get a sinking feeling in my belly at the idea that censored versions of "cultural works" (movies, books, whatever) will be going into wide distribution (not sure how wide, but certainly wider than it currently is should this be judged a legal practice). this uneasiness is compounded by the realization that community pressure will push people towards only renting from the "nice store" that doesn't push "dirty movies" (yes I'm caricaturing, but social pressures _do_ work this way).
As long as the original is available, then there can't by definition be censorship.
Yes, social pressures do work this way, but that's what supposed to happen - that's what the phrase "community standards" is all about.
Most of the debate here appears to be less about Clean Flicks itself and more about the legal precedent that this case will take. While Clean Flicks is doing something relatively benign to the original material, there are other routes that third parties could take here.
Imagine, for instance, that instead of editing bits out of a movie, someone decided to add their own material to a work and sell the resulting composite for a profit. It's not really any different in that you're altering a piece of creative material to suit your own vision, and then reselling it. If you do this with books, you'll get your ass sued very quickly, and rightfully so. I really don't see how it's any different between books and movies. Furthermore, I don't see any distinction between removing and adding content. You're still profiting from a derivative work without the consent of the original creator.
What happens when this becomes common practice, and 100 years from now, nobody has seen the original version of the Godfather? The only copy available is the CleanFlicks version that omits all violence and otherwise 'offensive' material? These people are trying to Disney-fy mainstream media. I'm with Scorcesse on this one... if violence offends you, then don't watch the Godfather, go rent The Mighty Ducks.
. SLASHDOT: Home of the vicious nerd.
Just a question to toss out to everyone--how might the legal ability to modify without permission and then legally distribute (albeit with a disclaimer notifying the buyer of changes) apply to software? Wouldn't it be legal, then, for an OEM to sell a version of Windows or something, and rip out parts or modify it? It might work better and not have as many hooks in it then... but what if some company distributing Linux did the same thing? A consumer who is willing to give it a whirl because of its improvements and price (free!) could be easily turned off. Okay, okay, maybe I'm getting a little conspirational here, but it's possible too for MS to hatch their own little Linux divison and market it as, say, "Red Hat with some minor mods". If it worked like crap, do you think the average consumer would be miffed at MS or Linux? Just trying to see different ways this could apply to us...
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.