' 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

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually copyright (and patents) is explicitly mentioned in the constitution as something the Federal Government is responsible for. I'm not sure legislation at the state level is even constitional, not without an act of Congress anyway.

And, for what it's worth, protecting the integrity of artistic works strikes me as a worthy use of copyright. Nor is it necessary to be a giant cartel to win, as Gilliam vs ABC (one of the first "moral rights" cases) proves.

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

[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

[dada21]

Nothing works. Thanks to the Mises Institute for battling all your fallacies of working government:

The FAA Is a failure PDF WARNING
The Government's Highway System
The FCC and telephone tragedies of government
NSF irresponsibility
NAS PDF WARNING
The Trouble with NASA
PTO
USGS failures
NOAA
National Park Service - more
NEA

and as for education, let's look at No Child Left Behind and the Department of Education PDF WARNING.

That enough?

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.

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...

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.

New Use for the Clearplay DVD player

[ReverendLoki]

You know, it seems to me that the Clearplay DVD player mentioned above could become popular, but only if those outside of Clearplay can generate the necessary filters. I can't help but think that there's a market for a DVD player that can skip everything else and play JUST the naughty parts of a DVD...

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.

Re:Collages, et cetera

[Vellmont]

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.


Exactly how is taking a movie and editing out a few minutes of it while keeping the rest anything like a collage? A collage uses multiple sources and bears little resemblence to any single one of the works used in the collage. If you want a valid analogy, look no further than the music sampling world. Fair use means you can take short parts of the song without violating copyright. It doesn't mean huge portions that resemble the original work. There were multiple lawsuits over this in the 80s/90s. See Negativeland being sued by U2 for an example of a derivative work. Negativland lost (settled out of court) and copies of the album were destroyed. The song was largely similar to the original U2 song. On the other side there's all kinds of music that has samples in it that are small enough to not be a deriviate work, so no one ever bothers suing. There's a gray area in-between, and that's where you'd see court rulings that would effect what's fair use and what's a derivative work. This lawsuit is nowhere near that gray area.

What's happening here is nothing at all like a collage. It's quite obvious it's a derivative work, and distributing it therefore violates copyright law.


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"


Why are there so many people that make this out to be a limit on what you can edit and view yourself in the privacy of your own home? These companies were DISTRIBUTING this content. That has nothing to do with making your own version of Star Wars and taking out the sound.

You will pay the price for your theft of "vision"

[0xdeadbeef]

It is a violation of "artistic moral rights" to select specific posts and re-present them according to an agenda that was not part of the original posters' vision.

As your attorney in this matter, I recommend that you all sue.

What part of...

[Overzeetop]

...the submitting user grants OSTG the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

don't you understand? I mean, it's right there in the terms of service at the bottom of every page, just below the "owners" text you quoted. ;-)

Re:What part of...

[raehl]

...the submitting user grants OSTG the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide

1) Post on Slashdot
2) Wait for someone to read Slashdot in Space
3) Profit!!!

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[GmAz]

You say religious freaks. How about just moral people. You know, morality; that thing that used to exist in the majority of people instead of the minority.

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

How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. Everyone wants their kids to experience everything, well guess what...they do experience everything when they are young, then get get pregnant, or a STD at age 16 and then guess what, their life is screwed. And why is it screwed...because mommy and daddy let their kids watch sex scenes in movies at age 10 and their kids wanted to do it as soon as they could.

A good action film is still entertaining to watch without hearing the 'F' word every 5 seconds.

Gee, that was a biased summary.

[Abcd1234]

Not that that should be terribly surprising. Despite the summary stating that "others welcomed the decision as appropriately respecting the intent of those who made the original movies", not a *single* comment was referenced which took this stance. What about this comment, which is one of many that points out that this ruling can be considered consistent with existing copyright law, which holds the right to create a derivative work as exclusive to the creator. Or this one, which points out that the derivative work rights assigned to a copyright holder are what give the GPL it's teeth.

But, hey, it's a lot more fun to editorialize, in this case by selectively choosing user comments in order to manufacture a perceived concensus.

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.

One reason for why studios would care

[JimBobJoe]

A studio sells a normal R-rated version of a film for $20 on DVD. It decides to sell a censored PG version for $30 (it's a niche market, people are willing to pay more for the censored version.)

An outfit in Utah comes along, buys a copy of the $20 R-rated version, edits it to PG level, and sells it for $25.

The studio is out $5, and it's an easy to argue copyright violation.

Now my issue is that the studios are not taking advantage of their full copyrights and issuing the PG version. I feel that if they don't after a few years, they should relinquish those rights and let the company in Utah innovate appropriately (by buying the $20 DVD and then editing it.) It'd really only take a law to change, and in today's political environment would be an easy sell to Congress.

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.

MPAA et al not happy with Clearplay, either

[Thagg]

At the end of this feedback summary, the Clearplay solution is mooted.

The studios purport to be every bit as unhappy with Clearplay as the re-recording service providers that were the subject of this lawsuit. They are currently suing Clearplay in the case Huntsman v. Soderbergh/a? which is pending.

You can read all about it at the linked EFF site.

Basically, the arguments are almost all exactly the same -- except that the copyright issue is obviously different as there is no copy being sold. With Clearplay, you buy or rent the regular disk, and the Clearplay-supplied DVD player and service skips the naughty bits. The directors filing the lawsuit complain that their names and trademarks are applied to a "created" movie that is not their original movie -- and they are attempting to use trademark as well as copyright law to fight Clearplay.

From the pace that this case has been proceeding through the courts, it's going to be a very long time before it is resolved.

Thad Beier

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.

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.

Ugh

[tnk1]

I dislike this decision, but I think I see why it was decided in this way. A copyright holder has some right to not only make money from their films, but also to grant licenses to who they choose. Part of that licensing structure is how they protect themselves and their works from being altered in a way that they did not intend and at the same time the altering person makes money doing that.

Let's say that you were a director and released a fairly hum-drum movie about life in the 'hood. You would probably have some violent scenes in there, where people of various minorities were vicious criminals. At the same time, you show how people of the same minorities are trying to fight back against gang violence or whatever. Indeed, that's the point of your movie.

What happens when someone's Neo-Nazi cutting service takes your movie and figures out how to cut out the sympathetic parts so that it almost turns into a modern-day Birth of a Nation? Then, they market the 'altered' version in much the same way that this cleaning service market's their services.

Now, technically, you got paid for what turned into Birth of a Nation II, but now your work, and your actors' performances are now on the Aryan Nation's hit parade. What if, due to the clever editing, your movie ends up being a more popular Neo-Nazi parapaganda film than it ever was before editing. Well, guess what? You're fucked. Your movie and actors are being clucked about on Oprah. I'm sure she'd be all upset that your well-intentioned movie was mangled in this way, but in the end, you're the guy who made Birth of a Nation II, or Triumph of the Will: The Next Generation.

I think there needs to be a careful line drawn about that can be done professionally. I agree that this service is probably completely harmless, and I HATE the fact that the studios are probably simply looking to make sure they *they* are the ones who make the money from any sanitizations done, but they have a point. Its probably something that needs some better definition within copyright legislation.

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:Redistributing work of others without permissio

[roman_mir]

Lets remmember the point of the copyright privlidge. To keep people from claiming your material. It had nothing to do with 'artistic vision'. Also, it did not deal with media that could easily be altered. - well, copyright deals with distribution of material, and this is where the case in question fails. They are redistributing modified copyrighted material for profit without a license from the copyright holder. It doesn't matter whether this is done for artistic purposes or any other purposes. At the end it is done to make money on other people's work.

We should allow content altered DVDs if it is clearly marked, the original credits are given, and who did the editing. - we should allow what with content altered DVDs? Should we allow distribution of content altered DVDs without permission from copyright holders? I don't think so. Whether you changing your DVD content and using it yourself falls under fair use or not, I am not sure, but I am certain that noone can legally take a DVD, modify its content and redistribute it without permission.

This case is not about someone modifying their own DVD and using it, it is about a firm that redistributing modified content for profit without permission.

Re:Should be legal, but still stupid.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

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?

No, but you can't redact the dvd and resell it. That's what this is all about.

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.

Linux

[Lehk228]

if the court had gone the other way, the GPL would be fucked

each copy of linux would be aquired legally then modified and resold, perhapse loaded with DRM or otherwise corrupted, and since the company no longer needs permission to resell legally aquired but modified works the GPL would have no teeth

this was a good decision

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:netweork tv does it but I cant?

[Corydon76]

Network TV gets explicit permission to edit the movie before showing it. It is well known, for example, that Steven Spielberg withholds permission to show 'Saving Private Ryan' with any cuts whatsoever. If network TV wants to show 'Saving Private Ryan', they have to show the whole movie or not show it at all.