' Naughty Bits' Decision Not So Nice

Many readers found stifling Judge Richard P. Matsch's decision yesterday that Cleanflix, a service selling versions of popular movies edited (some would say censored) to remove violence, nudity and other elements, was in violation of U.S. copyright law for selling these edited versions, while others welcomed the decision as appropriately respecting the intent of those who made the original movies. Read on for the Backslash summary of the conversation, with some of the best comments of the more than 1200 that readers contributed to the story.

While some comments evaluated the decision as a victory for filmmakers as artists rather than merely as copyright holders, some readers aren't so sure that directors' and studios' interests have much to do artistic integrity, and suggest that it's primarily their commercial rather than aesthetic interests being served here. TheFlyingGoat makes a case for this view:

"I understand where the movie companies are coming from in terms of copyright... they don't want people taking a DVD, adding additional clips/features/menus/etc, and selling that for a profit. ...

As for the directors and producers that claim their artistic vision was impeded upon, they sure don't have an issue with those movies being modified in the exact same way for broadcast on network tv. All they care about is the large amount of money the networks give them.

So, what this really comes down to is the movie studios wanting complete control over their works, which I'm surprised to see much of the Slashdot crowd backing up. Seems it's better to hate "the red states" than to hate the MPAA."

Whether even the financial interest of the studios is being served by nixing the Cleanflix service, though, is a point that the same reader finds ambiguous, too. [the studios are] "getting just as much money from each DVD sale, so it's not like they're losing any business. In fact, they're probably gaining business from those people who wouldn't normally buy a certain movie due to violent/sexual/etc content, but will if they get an edited version of the movie."

MarcoAtWork says he doesn't swallow the "artistic integrity" argument either, and notes the bizarre script deviations which licensed showings on broadcast or cable television sometimes end up with: "Something tells me that the director's 'artistic vision' for example didn't include Bruce Willis saying 'Yippee-ki-yay Mister Falcon.' in Die Hard, or 'This is what happens whey you find a stranger in the Alps!' in the Big Lebowski."

Anticipating a "kneejerk reaction," reader Brian_Ellenberger has a more aggressive reaction of his own, writing

"Don't approve of this action just because you think it only hurts a bunch of 'right-wing Christian zealots.' Remember fair use! There was a one-to-one copy sold with each of these DVDs---the original and the edited. The filmmakers did not lose one dime, and in fact made money with each copy sold. ... So if we are to argue that, if you bought something you have the legal right to do whatever you want to it (Fast Forward through commercials, play on a Linux box, rip to a hard drive), then you cannot allow Hollywood to start acquiring new rights for their so-called 'artistic vision.' Otherwise, you will find yourself unable to fast forward through scenes (or commercials) because that would violate the 'artistic vision' of Hollywood."

More concise is reader Raul654's capsule description of the result: "If I own a DVD, I cannot pay someone to make a copy of that movie for me sans parts I might find offensive. It's not censorship, because I'm the one asking him to do it for me."

There are plenty of mixed feelings about motives and results in this discussion, though: reader m874t232 says he doesn't like people who "scrub" movies, but he still doesn't like the outcome because of the short-sightedness he perceives in it, writing "For millennia, art has progressed and evolved by taking some prior artist's work and modifying it, often in ways that the original artist didn't agree with. Except for possibly receiving financial compensation for a limited time for each copy created, artists should not have the power to control what happens to their creations after they have released them to the public."

Reader zakezuke took issue with that viewpoint, arguing instead that

"Fair use would be you making a backup copy, putting the one you bought into storage, and using the backup. This is fair use. Heck, even taking a film that you own, making a copy and cutting out scenes you don't like... that is also fair use. What's not fair use is making a copy, cutting scenes, and selling it as a new version without any consent. This is not a one to one copy as there are scenes cut. Money is beside the point... a copyright holder has every right to choose how a work is distributed. This would include not wanting some bozo cutting scenes on a work that took time to create. Any flaws, mistakes, anything which affects the overall presentation can damage the reputation of the respective studio and artists that created the work. It's like taking spray paint to a piece of fine art and going over the bits one finds offensive, this affects the quality of the piece and the viewer might assume the artist is sloppy dolt or doesn't have the technical skill or is too reserved to make a winkle."

Reader spencer1 offers some insight into why people might want to watch movies in other than their all-killing, all-cursing original versions:

"As others have already stated, this has absolutely nothing to do with Walmart. This applies to services such as CleanFlix, which are very popular in Utah and Idaho. I am a Mormon, and I frequent Cleanflix often. Some movies are very enjoyable, but contain bits that I don't wish to see. If the mainstream want to see those bits, fine, go ahead; these services are not for them. If I don't want to see it, how does it affect you? Cleanflix allows me to rent movies that I would not otherwise rent, they are now turning away a potential customer. This does not hurt the copyright holder, they still receive the full purchase price for all the movies that Cleanflix uses. Their revenue is not altered in any way by this editing."

For anyone who has reason to desire a version other than the theatrical release of a film, the decision against Cleanflix doesn't mean the end of expurgation; reader jambarama points out a technical solution which seems much less legally fragile (and which seems to meet zakezuke's objection above), in the form of another service with a similar practical result, but without the messiness of reproducing a derivative work, writing:

"A good alternative for those who don't want their young children to see 'bad' stuff is Clearplay. We've had it for a while, here is how it works:

1. Buy a normal DVD with all the "naughty bits"
2. Get the filter from the clearplay website for that DVD
3. Transfer the filter via USB or CD to the clearplay DVD player
4. Watch your DVD - the filter tells the DVD player where to skip the naughty bits - no editing, just timecodes to be skipped."

Something similar could probably be put together fairly quickly using programs like Avidemux or VirtualDub for those who don't mind distributing the work of classifying and sharing the necessary edit-decision lists. Reader OYAHHH outlines how such a system might be implemented for those unlikely to apply hand-edited EDLs:

"What somebody needs to do is to devise a DVD player that can read a file delineating where the objectionable parts are on the particular DVD. Once the bad parts are known to the player the player simply skips them.

People who want to view the unedited version are happy and those that don't desire to see whatever content can be happy as well.

The original content on the original DVD is not altered in any manner. Copyright is protected.

Religious groups could then produce the "files" to correspond to their own needs and distribute these files via the Internet. The files are uploaded to the special DVD player."

Thanks to all the readers who contributed to this discussion, especially those quoted above.

Comments

More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

I'm a vocal anti-copyright advocate and I repeatedly try to get people to realize what most Federal legislation does, especially regulatory legislation: it removes rights from the individual and creates cartelization: legal monopoly. It has happened in every industry that has any form of federal regulation: oil refinery, content distribution, medical licensing, campaign finance rules, even the stock market is cartelized now moreso than every before. Regulation at the national level is unconstitutional regardless of what people think of the non-applicable "interstate commerce clause."

Cartels exist because they have the legal monopoly to do so. Copyright only helps create and empower the cartels -- it has never helped an individual unless that individual was protected by a cartel. If you created a movie and someone wanted to hack it so that more peopl could watch it -- and they paid you for each and every hack -- you'd love it because you are getting income, you're gaining a new audience, and even more profitable: you're learning what people want. DVD players already allow for multiple versions, and maybe companies would start taking advantage of it had it not been for the big cartel that controls the flow of movie productions and releases.

Consider you're that same small movie maker -- if someone copies your movie (with or without hacking it), how would you battle them in court? What money would you use to fight the hacker/pirate/modifier/copyright violator? Is the financial risk of losing in court worth the reward? Definitely not -- more proof that cartelization is always bad.

Stephan Kinsella made a great case as to why intellectual property restrictions are anti-consumer in his free PDF titled Against Intellectual Property. (PDF WARNING) Stephan is a IP lawyer, as well, and has offered dozens of great articles on the problems with IP and how more laws aren't going to support more consumer freedom, better quality products and more competition. When you create federal regulations, you create cartelization. He also has a great non-PDF article from last year titled No such thing as a free patent, which goes beyond copyright but makes very good arguments for why they're all bad. This guy makes his living with the law, amazing that he cries out against it.

While I'm anarcho-capitalistic, I do understand that the Constitution DOES allow regulation of some sort to be created at the state level. This is preferably where regulations "should" be, if at all. The states that over-regulate will see less choice (and higher prices due to decreased supply). The states that don't over-regulate would likely see better choice, safer products and better pricing.

As usual, the federal government oversteps its bounds predictably -- in the direction of cartels. I won't call them "big business" because no real business exists with the help of government. Thankfully the future of the free market is proving to the world that copyright is insignificant to most people: they'll continue to find new ways to distribute all media products "for free," and the producers of content will have to learn the reality of supply and demand: if it is digital, it has a virtually unlimited supply. Put infinity in the supply/demand/price equation and the price will always fall to zero. This means it is time to find new ways to promote value added products along with your content.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[raehl]

There are many cases where the only thing worse than one regulation is 50 different sets of regulations.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

And, for what it's worth, protecting the integrity of artistic works strikes me as a worthy use of copyright

I agree, it strikes me as a worthy use of the law, too. But does it work? No. Does public welfare at the national level work? No. Does retirement funding at the national level work? No. Nothing seems to work at the national level -- all national laws sound great when you read their titles, but the descriptions show the fallacy of a large central government.

Think about it when you consider the "worthy use" of the feds -- they really have no use other than true national defense and the protection against the individual states of trampling basic human rights.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[wall0159]

Well, I think you're right in parts...

"Cartels exist because they have the legal monopoly to do so" - my (somewhat naive) understanding of economics is that the unregulated free market tends towards mega-corporations - which are basically cartels. I think this has been shown using many computer models, and many initial conditions and that the only way to prevent it is to add some other factor (like regulation/legislation). While free-trade (or libeterianism) seems like a nice ideal, I think that (like other nice ideals: communism, capitalism) it would be horrible in reality (horrible like a boot stamping on a human face, forever).

Anyway, back to the point, I agree that copyright law, as it stands, isn't working. However, I think this is a problem with the implemtation rather than the concept. Copyright law is about respecting the creations of others - it doesn't have to be about killing the market. There are several problems with copyrights, as I see it:
1. They last too damn long
2. They're transferable (can be sold / given away). This comes from the idea of 'intellectual property'. If this wasn't the case, things would be better, I reckon.
3. The big companies that own a majority of the copyrights also own our governments, and bribe them to enact stupid legislation (DMCA).

However, I reckon having a non-transferable copyright that lasted say 10 years would work much better, and would be a better result than just scrapping copyright altogether.

Having said all this, I dind't read your links, but will sometime! ;-)

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[yali]

I do understand that the Constitution DOES allow regulation of some sort to be created at the state level.

Actually, that power is specifically granted to Congress as far as intellectual property is concerned. The Constitution is pretty clear that it's a federal power.

Of course, the Constitution is also pretty clear that artificial monopolies (patents, copyrights, etc.) on intellectual property are supposed to be granted "for limited times." And it's also pretty clear that the rationale for granting such monopolies is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," not to promote business interests. Both of those have been pretty much ignored by Congress.

I think this whole current controversy over sanitized DVDs would be much less of a big deal if Congress had been actually taking those things seriously from the getgo. If the "limited times" were actually limited in a meaningful way -- only for enough years as is necessary to establish an incentive for scientists and artists to continue creating -- it would be much less worrisome for copyright holders to exercise the kind of control they've been granted.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

In a free market without regulation, we do see SOME mega-companies that grow into being a majority of the market provider. On such "monopoly" was Standard Oil, which was never a monopoly -- they were large because they lowered the price of oil to the end user every few months. They were never an evil company, but they were sued and dissassembled due to the competitors who could not produce oil as cheaply. When we think of monopoly, we think of high prices and restricted products. The free market of competition seems to give us MORE choice, LOWER prices and HIGHER quality everywhere that it still exists. Look at PC hardware. Look at the new online media. We have more choice because of the lack of regulation -- and competition keeps quality and prices in check (and forces things to get better with time).

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[raehl]

Well, it's not a statement on who is right, merely that you can't allow your constitutional rights to be taken away just because you're not interested in that particular right, because then when the leadership changes, they'll make off with the rights you do want.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

That is the problem with all concepts that entail using the monopoly of force that we call government -- things don't exist as you or I would wish. We could vote for people with our ideas, but they'll never enact them exactly as we wish. Even worse, with time we end up living with laws that our fathers, grandfathers or great-grandfathers created to deal with limited problems but are now existing in manipulated versions to help a select elite few.

I'll accept government with one condition: a sunset clause on that government every new generation (10-12 years). Destroy all laws and regulations, and force society to regroup and attempt to make new ones. Maybe even create a 2 year period where there are no laws at all except for the basic property rights: don't hurt someone's physical body or property. I think we'd see amazing growth in human development and charity rather than tyranny and disregard for basic rights.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

if someone copies your movie (with or without hacking it), how would you battle them in court?

How do you battle anyone who has reneged on a contract with you and has more access to lawyers than you? There is nothing particular to IP here.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[Abcd1234]

Umm... that's quite the randroidian rant, you have there, but I fail to see how it answers my question. You stated that copyright doesn't work. Why?

And before you start, I should point out that the copyright system, as it exists *today*, is buggered up not because it's enacted by the government, or that it's a federal law, but because the US democratic system itself is broken, thanks to the acceptance of institutionalized bribary by it's citizenry. Quit equating money with speech and make bribary illegal, and I guarantee you, the US will be better off.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[The Snowman]

So, we should have massive social programs and regulations and raise taxes to support them? If we don't have a tax and spend government, it doesn't work?

Bullshit. Cut taxes, cut spending, let states and private organizations handle most of what the government does. I'd cut half the federal government and throw it in the garbage, and take the other half and shrink it to essential functions. THEN our government would work at the national level, and people would get the services they need closer to home, where they can be more effective. All massive taxes, spending, and regulation does is redistribute wealth -- federal taxes beyond the bare Constitutional duties are basically welfare.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[zotz]

"I would think these things would be legitimate in a "totally" free-market, without legislation."

MS's market is by definition not a free market...

Just about everything I know that they sell is protected by copyrights and patents.

And what are copyrights and patents?

Government interventions in the market... Think about it.

"Your example of PC hardware is interesting."

Here again, this is not a free market. There is so much that is patented in a PC it is not even close.

all the best,

drew
(da idea man)

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

So you think that the individual states have done better in the past?

We did do better -- 1776 to 1865. The dollar was stable for nearly 200 years, the individual states as a whole were very competitive and prosperous, and we were the wealthiest nation in less than 100 years.

The last time the individual states ran things before the national government got involved we had: the worst stock market crash of all time,

Created by the Federal Reserve, my friend. The dollar was stable for almost 200 years until the FEderal Reserve destroyed it. Since 1913 the dollar has lost 96% of its value. How can the poor save, now?

states that would not recognize another state's currency,

Good, currency should be a free market provided product, preferably 100% gold reserves. Read Rothbard's free e-book: What Has government done to our money? to learn more about free market currencies and why we had a Great depression.

race and gender segregation the likes of which you have never seen,

Most of which occured because of the White Supremecist Abe Lincoln and his hatred of the black race. Too much proof there to even begin. Lincoln created the worst segregation which continued up until even the 80s in the south and the north.

and a host of other screw the other guy mentalities. We weren't a country but rather a loose confederation of oligarchy's out to make the most buck they could. Anarchy-Capitalism at its finest.

Competition, growth, a growing country of entrepreneurs and freedom advocates. Slavery was bad EVERYWHERE in the world -- only in the US did it take a war to "end" and the war didn't even end slavery -- the free market of industrialism did. Lincoln hated blacks, he wanted to deport them after the war. He supported the law in Illinois that prevented blacks from entering the state!

Of those who answer yes, how many of you actually paid for it out of your own pockets, up front? Grants, most of which are funded by the government, stafford loans are backed by the government, the majority of the programs you were involved in at any school were funded mostly by the national, not the state, government.

Before government grants, most education was EASILY afforded by people who wanted to go. In fact, there are FEWER people getting value of out college since its liberalization. The Federal government destroyed college affordability through licensing and grants (supply and demand).

Would you really like to see air rates triple because each state now emposes their own air traffic tax that is different from everyone else's? Or how about when you just drive across the boarder to the next state, but oh, since you aren't a citizen of that state you have to pay a toll, it keeps their taxes down you know. Or how about frieght costs quadrupeling because each state has their own driver's licence requirements and now a cdl is something you have to have a certification for in each state you plan on driving through? There is no more FAA because we have cut federal taxes for it, so now the airlines can do whatever the hell they want. Or even worse there are now mini-faa's in each state that do things just slightly differently and to be allowed flight through their airspace the airline has to conform or fly around, taking rates up even further.

Competition means most of these things would exist in a competitive market rather than a federally union-monopolized one. The FAA in Canada was privatized and it is one of the most efficient ones ever -- in fact, it is safer and cheaper than the US' FAA. Freight costs are cheaper to ship from LA to China than from LA to New York (I know, I just started an import/export business). Driver's licenses are another state-created regulation that makes costs higher -- I believe that insurance companies can do a better job of providing driving priviledges in a free competitive market than the DMV or the Feds could offer.

Much of what you're ranting about are problems created BY the state, not fixed by it. More research is available, if you want links.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Copyright law is about respecting the creations of others

That claim is false.

At least it is false in countries that, like the USA, follow the Anglo-Saxon common law definition of Copyright. The US Constitution says so explicitly -- "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." There is nothing in there about "respect" - it is quite simply 100% about increasing the body of public knowledge.

While you, like many others, may disagree with the US constitution. You might feel that an author has "moral rights" to the result of his labors. You would still be wrong.

Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright

[dada21]

I appreciate it!

I think that _most_ of my anarcho-capitalist thoughts (and convictions) comes down to the end game: if a law is to work for an individual (like yourself, or like me), how do we take advantage of the law if someone commits a crime regarding that law? Will the police work on our behalf? Will we be financially responsible to hire a legal team?

When my store was robbed (almost $50,000 gone in one night) and my insurance policy wasn't modified properly (my fault!), the police did NOTHING to track down the robbers. They were too busy radaring speeders that night to patrol my area. What good are they?

When my wife almost died after a glass pan kitchen explosion, she was saved by a private ambulance company -- the public one came 4-5 minutes late, and she'd have been dead from loss of blood. I'm glad I called 3 companies.

I don't see how the law can help me -- I can't afford to fight anyone with power. In a free market, I could fight anyone through competition -- especially if I didn't value my time as much as they did! I could plan on saving for the future because the government wouldn't be destroying my savings and wealth through fiat currency inflation, and I could try my luck at a new industry because I wouldn't have to go through elitist and monopolistic licensing schemes (and my customers would be taking a chance, but might get a huge savings in the process).

Government IS evil, but most people think it works for them. Wait till you need them for some reason, then you get the real picture.

A helpful demonstration by Slashdot

[Ckwop]

At the bottom of most of Slashdot's pages it says:

"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2006 OSTG."

Since the copyright to each post is owned by the posters and the editors quoted entire posts verbatim, I doubt that their use qualifies as fair under US Copyright law.

It is ironic then that the editors are trying to stoke up discussion on what represents a reasonable limit to copyright while unintentionally demonstrating why the law as it currently stands is horribly broken.

Just a thought for a Tuesday evening!

Simon.

Re:A helpful demonstration by Slashdot

[Jerf]

There is an implied license granted to Slashdot when you post to do what Slashdot does. I think you'd have a hard time standing up in court and claiming damages from Slashdot doing exactly what you expected Slashdot to do.

Could that be a little more bullet-proof? Yes. Does it matter? Not until someone sues them and tries to make this argument. I don't think that's going to be anytime soon.

Copyright's broken, but this isn't one of the ways in which it is broken.

Who cares about their original intent?

[MikeRT]

This is no better than a car company banning its customers from modding their cars on the grounds that it distorts their original aesthetics. Funny how the corporatists turn property rights into a mechanism for controlling others rather than as a foundation for individuals to control themselves...

Re:Who cares about their original intent?

[professionalfurryele]

Kinda a technical point but this is actually slightly different. If the judge hadn't ruled the way he has, the GPL would be dead. Here is what I see as being the problem. This company is selling a derivative work. They are not modifying an existing work without distribution, they are selling a derivative. Sure, they require you to bring in an existing copy, but they do not use that copy, they give you a new one.

If they took that copy and modified it on behalf of the owner, and did not distribute the work, or if the person who bought the work did the same, then I think this should be counted as fair use. However, you have to hand over all copies of the work at the end, and if another client wants to job done, then you have to do the work over again.

Consider the following situation. I want to make a closed source version of Linux, so I ask that people bring me a copy of Ubuntu and then sell them my modified version. See the problem? If this ruling was allowed then close sourcing GPL code would be as easy as giving someone a copy of the code, asking them to give it back to you, then burning the CD.

The judge got it right in this case. You can modify works for your own use, and you can modify other works if you don't distribute, but you cant modify and distribute.

Re:Who cares about their original intent?

[dave420]

It's not really a question of corporatists trying to control the people - if you sign your name to a document, would you want someone fucking with it afterwards, to make it appear as if you signed something detrimental to your image? That's what this ruling is protecting against, in this case. If Mr. Director directs a film, then some christian guy in the midwest decides he doesn't like something and cuts it out of the film, then Mr. Director no longer directed the film. I certainly wouldn't want my work being modified to shit with my name still attached. Try to think of all the parties involved, and not just the consumer.

The question seems to be...

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

whether or not you can basically take a knife to someone's work, reshape it to an audience and then make money from it. The answer quite clearly is no.

This is very important to remember: Your intention in violating copyright law is irrelevent.

This sword cuts many different ways.

Re:The question seems to be...

[Moofie]

"whether or not you can basically take a knife to someone's work, reshape it to an audience and then make money from it. The answer quite clearly is no. "

Spoken like somebody who's never heard of a "hot rod". The answer, quite clearly, is "Yes, yes you may take the Ford frame you found in a junkyard, refurbish it, do whatever you want to it, make it sparkle, and sell it for many tens of thousands of dollars."

Re:The question seems to be...

[igy]

I don't think so, the question is more akin to "Whether you can take a knife to someone's work, reshape it to an audience and make money from it, after the artist has already been paid for their work".
If I want to pay a company to edit a DVD I've paid for and remove objectional content, that's my choice;
I've already paid for the original DVD and the artist's been paid!

Collages, et cetera

[rjstanford]

Money is beside the point... a copyright holder has every right to choose how a work is distributed.

Have you ever seen an artist make a collage? You know, cut up portions of photographs, text, whatever and incorporate them into a new creation (assuming that they purchased them in the first place, that is)? Well, this ruling takes a big step towards forbidding that in the future. Hell, ever purchased a pair of used jeans that weren't exactly in brand-new condition, maybe were missing a piece or two? Nope, that'll be illegal too.

Am I taking this to an absurd conclusion? I hope so, but think about it for a minute. Heck, let's go back to the original comment, as it relates to movie distribution. Let's say that Lucas releases Star Wars again, but this time it will only play on THX-certified stereos. After all, if he's allowed to forbid you from editing it (after purchasing a copy), isn't he also allowed to forbid you from "editing out the sound" that he thinks you'd get from an approved stereo system? Now what if you replace THX with Windows, is that still okay? Same legal issue, methinks.

Beware the slippery slope.

Well then..

[GmAz]

Well then, lets see what the movie companies think when the people that buy the clean version of the movie quit buying the movies all together and they start to lose revenue. Its a person's choice to watch a movie or not if it offends them and if they can't watch a clean version of it, well then they just won't watch it. Will this be a lot of revenue. I don't know, but but I bet it will make a small dent.

Re:Other Censoring Technology is Okay

[Overzeetop]

You know, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

What it really comes down to is selective enforcement. By making everything unlawful, the power that be can cherry pick the "violations" that suit their agenda or revenue stream. Convenient for them, but not for the general population. It's all about the golden rule, and I'm not talking about the one that has a "thou shalt not" in it.

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[Just Some Guy]

That sounds ok, but when the intent of the movie is changed, I don't think they should be watching the movie in the first place.

Who said anything about intent? My kids love the movie "Twister", but I wish it had a few less "goddamns". Am I really "religious frek" and a "moron" because I'd prefer not to hear gratuitous bad language?

Look, I did my time in the Navy, and have heard (and uttered) more than my fair share of profanity. It's all about context, though. My wife and I liked Pulp Fiction, but I wouldn't dream of censoring the language there. The cursing is appropriate in that context. However, I'm sure we could both list otherwise family-friendly movies that just had to drop a few F-bombs to earn a PG-13 rating.

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[Itninja]

then get get pregnant, or a STD at age 16 and then guess what, their life is screwed.

It's not just their life that got screwed. hehe.
But seriously, teen pregnancy rates are much lower in countries (like England) that have a much more open view of human sexuality. If you have cable in England or Australia, you probably have a 24-hour porn channel thown in with your regular cable service. Billboards in Frace encouraging breast feeding of babies just show two enormous bare breasts with a tagline below.
My 12 yo daughter has caught my wife and I fooling around a few times. But she is in no hurry to have sex just because she witnessed it. She has been informed about it since she was 5 years old. There is no titillating curiosity. It's just where babies come from.

Who decides?

[ortcutt]

These discussion of whether the studios release their own expurgated versions of movies are totally beside the point. The question is who gets to decide what gets edited. Maybe some copyright-holders make terrible decisions on how their works should be edited, but that is their choice. It certainly isn't the right of some third-party like Cleanflix to decide how a movie is edited. I also don't see how what this has to do with fair use. This doesn't relate to what the viewer of a work can do non-commercially with his or her own copy of the movie. This has to do with a for-profit company making money by making edited copies of someone else's work and selling those copies.

Broken my ass.

[Abcd1234]

It is ironic then that the editors are trying to stoke up discussion on what represents a reasonable limit to copyright while unintentionally demonstrating why the law as it currently stands is horribly broken.

How does this demonstrate that the system is broken? What if I don't want the Slashdot editors to use something *I've* created in order to push their agenda? How is this any different from, say, Microsoft taking parts of the Linux kernel and then not respecting the license by refusing to release the source? A license, I might point out, which is only enforceable due to copyright law.

The fact is, there are many people around here who like copyright as long they can get what they want for free, preferably under the GPL. The minute someone wants to exercise their rights in any other way, the system is 'broken'.

Frankly, I think the copyright system, as it stands, is still workable, as long as copyright terms don't get continuously extended. What's broken is the government, thanks to institutionalized bribary, and the laws that were passed as a result, such as the DMCA, which work to break the system entirely by allowing the media cartels to effectively hold exclusive control over their works indefinitely.

Note, I don't feel the same way about, say, the patent system. Unfortunately, around here, patents, copyrights, and trademarks seem to get mashed together and demonized equally.

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[MrShaggy]

How is one's entire life screwed because they got an STD at 16? I got a couple then too. You go to the free clinic and got your shots. It becomes a learning experience. There has been recent discussions on how the younger generation is developing problems with being able to act independently. The studies seem to point to that the over-zealousness of the parents in wanting someone else to take the responsibility of their kids. As well as the fact that the parents are directly over-looking their kids behavior. Why do you really want to where little Johnny drives the car? With GPS you can. All kids are looking for their own lives, and are sorely let-down when they realize that they might never be able to. Maybe its the fact that America is so repressed as a society sexually, that is causing the problems. If your kids want to run out and have sex, I think is called PUBERTY, and HORMONES! Its do easy to blame the movies for portraying something as dirty as your own sexuality. Sex is messy, and dirty, and smelly, and wonderfully so. If you have a hangup why pass it onto the kids?

Redistributing a copyrighted work for profit

[Zelucifer]

I think the point that the vast majority of people are missing, is that at it's essence, this third party company is creating a derivative work For Profit. If this was a non-profit group, such as a church this would be 100% legal. However, editing a work in any way makes the current iteration of the production a Derivative and that changes the copyright statutes and precedents that apply to this. Think about it this way, what's the fundamental difference between removing scenes from a movie and adding them? With the latter, you have the possibility of a satire, or parody, yet even with that you do not have the right to use more then a few minutes of the original, if any at all, even in a not-for profit production. The issue would be different if, the defendant were to take the dvd that had been purchased by a consumer and edit that specific dvd, yet the simple action of buying (or acquiring through other means... specifically former trade-ins), involves a transfer of licenses, not just a service. In affect, the trade-in is actually a new purchase (the cost being your old dvd and the money), which is where the illegality comes into play.

without giving any royalties to the artist?

[SharkJumper]

If I bought a movie or music CD

Oops, you just gave them royalties.

I don't think royalties is really the issue at hand. Apparently, the DVDs were being purchased by the scrubbing companies on a one-to-one basis. The artists were making their money. So the question becomes one of the "fair use" rights involved in having a company edit a copy of a DVD for a person versus the reputation of the artists who have their names attached to that DVD. I don't think royalties entered into the suit.

... and be careful throwing around the word "theft" when speaking of copyright law; you're liable to go down in flames, here.

SharkJumper

The American slant on morality...

[expro]

No exposed breasts, but all the violence you want. Why is "kill" or "murderer" or "liar" not a swear word and killing and lying not more shocking to the American mainstream. It carries over into their public life as well, supporting wars of agression killing hundreds of thousands, and continuing them on past the point of obvious failure so that the soldiers who fought didn't do it for nothing, but being shocked at other indescressions that involve far less moral evil.

I am an American, but mainstream morality of the Christian Wrong rings very hollow. I support the right to edit, but it stems from Religious (not moral) positions that often do not resemble any reasonable sense of morality. Hearing the 'F' word or 'bitch' does nothing to diminish the morality of myself or my children, any more than my wife showing her face without a Burqa does. But in either case, people who try to use religions to define morality will object strongly, so it should be their right to adapt content to suit their religions.

Either that, or America is an enormously immoral nation for allowing women to show their faces in movies. I believe even early Christianity had similar (not identical) rules of moral behavior for women covering themselves and so on, and their list of swear words was probably of a completely different nature, as it also varies from language to language and also permits alternative ways of saying the same thing, which just don't have the "offensive" tag. It is dictated by the traditions of particular religions and groups, having little to do with morality. As America increases in diversity, do you want to restrict the cultural definition of "morality" to be the subset of what is allowed by all participating groups, each of which can make a good case for their choices? You go do it yourself, but don't expect me to believe it has any significant correlation with morality.

It is cute to see you referring to "The 'F' word" as though it is unspeakable, but using the word "screwed" which has a nearly-identical slang meaning and usage, where "screw" means "fuck" and "screwed" means exactly "fucked", but it doesn't have quite the same derogatory tag.

In Europe, for example, exposed breasts and related swear words, etc. may be acceptable in prime time, but the violence makes many action films that would slide past "Clean Flicks" completely unacceptable and not even obtainable at the video store without heavy editing.

It is your tradition speaking, not any real defensible sense of morality.

Re:The American slant on morality...

[atomic_toaster]

...it also varies from language to language and also permits alternative ways of saying the same thing, which just don't have the "offensive" tag. It is dictated by the traditions of particular religions and groups, having little to do with morality.

It's not just a moral/religious issue; it's a regional/language one as well. A native French speaker may not see anything wrong with the F-word while they would have serious problems with religious-based swearing (tabernacle, chalice, etc.). British film/TV uses the word "fag" frequently (meaning "cigarette"), but and American person could be offended by the word's use, assuming that it meant something else. Aussies use the word "root" as synonymous with the F-word. I could go on, but I'd guess you get the idea.

The real question is, do we all want one (or a small group of) Americans deciding what should be acceptable viewing for our children? The rating system, while it can be flawed, pretty much gives us an idea of the age level that a TV show/movie was intended for. However, if I want to be a cautious parent and be sure that nothing I consider inappropriate is watched by my children, I pre-screen everything first.

Hell, your kids don't have to watch TV all the time, and if you don't want to take the time to pre-screen things, send them outside to play! Then they'll only have to contend with the violence, sex, and rude language in the real world.

Re:The American slant on morality...

[Just Some Guy]

Hearing the 'F' word or 'bitch' does nothing to diminish the morality of myself or my children, any more than my wife showing her face without a Burqa does.

I agree, but don't presume to make that decision for me and my children.

It is cute to see you referring to "The 'F' word" as though it is unspeakable, but using the word "screwed" which has a nearly-identical slang meaning and usage, where "screw" means "fuck" and "screwed" means exactly "fucked", but it doesn't have quite the same derogatory tag.

"Shit" and "poop" are nearly perfect synonyms as both nouns and verbs, but my preschooler can say one of them without getting in trouble. That you think this is "cute" or unusual speaks more to your distorted view of society than the way the rest of us experience it.

Erm...

[POKETNRJSH]

I still don't know why people can't just not watch things that offend them...I know that this case was mainly for the money, but I've made a couple short films and I would be somewhat offended myself if someone said "Yeah I want to watch your work, except for these 3 minutes here and 4 near the end." Why is it that we have to change things for everyone because certain people don't want to have to deal with them? When do people take personal responsibility? It seems never, nowadays.

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[Moofie]

"You say religious freaks. How about just moral people"

Not the same set. The loudest religions are frequently the least moral ones. That's certainly not a causal relationship, but it's a decent correlation.

"How about people that don't want their 6 year old calling them a bitch because they heard it on TV."

Don't have a TV. Explain to your child why that word is a wrong thing to say, and that they will be punished if they say it.

"How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies."

The number of sex scenes that cause teenage pregnancies is zero. The number of teenage pregnancies that are made more likely by parents abdicating their responsibilities to the TV and/or the federal government is not zero.

At the end of the day, I happen to agree with you: I think that CleanFlix or whatever is absolutely within their rights to buy a movie, re-edit it, and sell the movie to a different audience. However, I deny you the moral high ground. There are plenty of people who are a) not religious and b) moral. These two characteristics are not strongly correlated.

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[DragonWriter]

How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies.

How about improving sex education, so people don't think pregnancy is caused by watching sex on TV.

decsion based on same principle that powers GPL!

[anwyn]

This decision is based on the same principle that powers the GPL: The right to control Derivative Works! The GPL could not control the terms licences of derivative works without the basic right to control derivative works!

Besides, authors do not necessarily write only for money. Without the right to control derivative works, anyone can come along and butcher your work which was intended to be a thing of beauty!

Re:Some of those aren't bad.

[Valdrax]

You don't think people should be able to see some kind of doctor when they are sick when they can not afford one covered by YOUR preferred level of licensing? In the meantime, the rest of us can choose to use only doctors who opted in to some kind of voluntary licensing and history reporting system.

You have to be crazy if you think that AMA licensing is a significant portion of any physician's business expenses or even of the expenses (including education) to get to be a doctor in the first place. In exchange for it, we get a nation mostly free of snake oil peddlers, quacks, frauds and unethical experimenters like we had back in the 19th century before medical licensing. Read your history. It's amazing how so many people who are trying to drag us back into the Guilded Age are so ignorant of what life was like back then before the people demanded the government step in and "interfere" in their lives.

What about books?

[pico303]

How would everyone feel if instead of movies, they were editing the "naughty bits" out of books like Catcher in the Rye and Lady Chatterley's Lover? Wouldn't we all be crying censorship?

I think an artist, actor, publisher, producer, or studio has every right to say, "I don't want you to sell a derivative of my work." Doesn't matter if it's just taking out the bad words, or deleting scenes they don't think are right, such as a scene where a woman gets an abortion; a discussion about evolution; or a character that hates Mormons. It dilutes the value of the original product, or outright changes the story the person is trying to tell, probably to meet a certain religious belief system.

I'm sure if these services worked with the studios to determine what changes were acceptable to both parties, the studios would be more than happy to license these works to them. Heck, they do it on airlines all the time.

I don't know why I bother

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAA in Canada was privatized and it is one of the most efficient ones ever -- in fact, it is safer and cheaper than the US' FAA.

Since they appear to have signed on to most of the FAA's regulations (either through EUROCAE, who did much of the same, or through treaty), I can't say I'm surprised that it is cheaper to copy the efforts of the FAA instead of spending time and money inventing their own. Not to mention that the number of flight paths in Canada is easily half that of the US.

Freight costs are cheaper to ship from LA to China than from LA to New York (I know, I just started an import/export business).

And that has nothing to do with the immense size and power of the Pacific fleet (which does drive down costs), the painstaking process in the 1980's of hammering out shipping container rules and international shipping doctrine (which are regulations you conveniently forget to mention), or the fact that naval shipping is at least an order of magnitude cheaper than ground over any useful distance (diesel ships are cheaper than diesel trucks - they can ride with currents and there are not appreciable geographic obstacles in an ocean).

-- Anonymous because /. has disabled log-ins from this IP.