Blockbuster Video Editing
 

Hello
I know that they don't carry NC-17 and X rated DVD's.
I recall reading somewhere that BlockBuster would sometimes edit out sections of DVD. I was wondering if they still do that?
Reason being is I wonder should I restart my netflix subscription?
Or would you think it would be better to do a google or yahoo search to see if they edited a DVD before I rented it.

thx
john

Re: Blockbuster Video Editing
 

Edit DVDs? No... now, VHS was another matter entirely!

Re: Re: Blockbuster Video Editing
 

This was something I often relegated to Urban Legend. Is there credible confirmation that Blockbuster would, in-house, edit movies they had for rental? I don't see how this would be possible, either legally or practicaly.

Since the informatin isn't placed on video tape in visible installments like film frames, how could they produce videos that didn't have ugly, garbled cuts where ever they chopped out questionable material?

If Blockbuster was getting movies with parts cut out, I assume the cutting was done by the studio. Sort-of like when they make the TV version and the airplane version, they just cut together a Blockbuster version.

I don't know that they ever did this, but if they did, that's how I would assume it was done, rather than someone at Blockbuster re-editing their thousands of copies of the movie. And certainly Blockbuster was a big enough customer that the studios might well accede to such a demand.

False.

Funny, my Blockbuster carries NC-17 movies.

But no, Blockbuster never edited movies. Studios often push filmmakers for R-rated versions of films, both for Blockbuster and for wider theatrical release. Some Blockbusters will only carry the R-rated version, or not carry the film at all if there is no R-rated version. But Blockbuster doesn't edit movies.

I doubt they would have the resources to edit and then duplicate all the copies they would need. This would also be very expensive and probably illegal if the studio didnt agree with it.

I also cant see a studio making a Blockbusters only version. Then they'd need to do a Walmart version etc etc.

There were a couple of companies that tried to do this while ago, CleanFlicks and ClearPlay, that got their asses sued to high heaven by all the major studios because it violates trademark and copyright laws. I think the DGA also stepped in and said that it violates the creative vision of the films. So any rumor that you've heard about Blockbuster or Walmart doing this is completely false. They may stock only R-rated versions, but that is something released by the studios, not by the retailer.

Yeah, Blockbuster edits DVDs! Its true! We have a device in the back called "Crazy ass customers who think we edit DVDs because we have tons of free time and we always give them late fees" and it edits the DVD's.

No. They got sued and the plantif's <i>claimed</i> those things. But, even to a layman, the plantifs are clearly in the wrong with their charges. The right of first sale trumps them 100% here. Just as I can buy a book, tear out half the pages and sell that as a book with half the pages missing, so can anyone buy a movie and cut out whatever they want and then resell it as a modified version.

I went looking for the results of those lawsuits, could not find them in 2 minutes of googling. But what I did find is that the suits were filed in 2002 and cleanflicks.com is still in business doing exactly the same thing and so are a whole bunch of other outfits.

As usual, it was just Hollywood throwing a hissy fit because they want 100% control and (fortunately) they have not been able to buy enough of congress to achieve that. Yet.

Well, you're semi-right. The DGA has won at least one of the major cases, because the companies were selling modified versions of the movies. This is *not* legal for various reasons associated with intellectual property. Regardless of how *you* feel about it, they were misrepresenting the product they were selling. [To use an extreme example which makes the point obvious, their PG version of 'Requiem For A Dream' would be demonstrably different than Aronofsky's intentions yet would still be (falsely) associated with his name. This means that the movie is not what they would be advertising it as.]

However, the DGA has yet to be able to successfully sue to stop people from selling the technology to allow the players to (basically) edit the movies themselves. Nor should they be able to, IMO.

ThatGuamGuy is right.

Offering a service where people can bring in a videotape and have it edited is okay.

Selling an pre-edited videotape without the permission of the studio is not.

This pretty much started here in Utah with a company that edited the VHS tape of Titanic for customers. Cut out the nudity, but not the dead babies. :confused: At any rate, it's harder to do now that DVD is the standard and you can't just "cut" parts out.

It is also because of the Requiem for a Dream issue that Lynch made his blurred version of Mullholland Drive. Rather than make two versions of the DVD, they only made the one that would meet Blockbuster standards.

Also, the Requiem for a Dream version at Blockbuster is still far from a PG cut. They only removed some of the more graphic images in the final scene. If submitted to the MPAA, the film would still be an R.

The Blockbuster editing R rated movies for content issue is an Urban Legend. The stories were all the same "My brother's friend rented CASINO and this scene was cut out". It spread pretty widely, places like Film Threat and filmmakers like Paul Thomas Anderson believed it (he complained to Ebert in an interview about it). But, it was never true.

They do carry edited cuts of NC-17 movies (or did, some stores now carry NC-17) but those were all created for them by the studios.

And you should go with Netflix. They have a much wider selection than BB does.

I thought that was at the request of the actress?

That isn't the reason Lynch blurred it. Lynch added the blur, not for Blockbuster or the MPAA, but because he knew that on the DVD, people would freeze frame it and post it on the internet so he didn't want the actress to be embarassed. The scene could have stayed unblurred and be in Blockbuster, but Lynch was afraid of what would happen.

The blurring in Mulholland Drive WAS at the request of the actress, it had nothing to do with earning an R rating, since the unblurred theaterical cut was rated R.

Blockbuster never has edited movies before, just an unfortunate urban myth.

Blockbuster doesn't carry NC-17, but they do carry "unrated and NC-17 equivalents". Almost all the new releases from the past few years that have had an unrated DVD released have had that version stocked at Blockbuster stores.

I think that was his bullshit cover story so as to not appear to be folding under the pressure of the world's largest video retailer. There was an article in Variety back when this happened and they didn't believe that story at all.

Thank You for the help

john

Got a link for that ruling? I'd like to read the details. Like I said, cleanflicks.com is still selling modified versions of the DVDs, just go to the site and see. So, at a minimum, whatever the ruling was, it apparently has set no precedent.

I'm not sure, but I think Cleanflicks has to get permission from the studios for every movie they edit.

my bb has a few nc-17

I've never heard that, and yes no NC-17 or X rated movies or AO rated games. But they due carrying soft core porn like "Red Shoe Diaries", "The Sex Substitute" and "The Seventh Sense" ;) .....no seriously!

Ah, you misread what I wrote; I was using it as an extreme example, not using the actual R-rated cut. Aronofsky did, to my knowledge, prepare the R-rated cut, so that wouldn't apply to what I was saying. My point was that, in theory, a PG-cut of 'Requiem' could be prepared, but it would, by neccessity, include little of the original footage other than the "directed by" credit that it invalidated.

OIC :)

Not quite; you're missing a fine point on the website. cleanflicks.com is selling the original cuts *along with* a DVD-R containing an edited version of the movie. Very, very different than what you said. While the DGA is still (correctly) complaining that this is taking power away from parents and giving it to unknown third parties, they're not complaining about the distribution (in this case).

from their FAQ: "...you can add the quantity you would like to purchase, and then click the buy button. We will then mail you the master and a brand new edited DVD."

There was no cover story. Blockbuster would have carried the film with that scene unblurred. It wasn't explicit. The MPAA gave it an R, played theatrically without a problem. It was just a quick shot. Nothing to freak out BB. Many R rated films they carry are far worse.

See, this is the way that Urban Legend about BB editing got spread. People don't want to believe the real story.

I didn't say that BlockBuster MADE them edit Mulholland Drive at all. According to the Variety story (I wish I still had it) the video release was right on the heels of the Requiem for a Dream issue and the producers of Mulholland Drive just assumed that BB would refuse to carry it if they submitted it, so they made the change upfront and never released the true theatrical cut to save money on two separate releases like Requiem.

I rented the movie Spun from blockbuster (on dvd) awhile back. The movie had beeps masking out certain toilet words and a blur effect over the naked girls croch. Having never seen the movie before I don't know if that was how the movie was made or if it was edited. Anyone know?

That really doesn't make any sense, as MD with unblurred crotch was rated-R.

Requiem is a different case as the movie was un-rated.

While rated versions of movies primarily exist so stores like Wal Mart and Blockbuster will carry them, these stores do not edit their own discs. And I only mention Wal Mart because they do carry edited CDs, but do they do that themselves or does the studios who put out the CDs offer those cut up versions of CDs as an alternative to them not carrying the music at all?

And has anybody else noticed that lately when two versions of a DVD are released, the chances are BBV will carry the UNRATED DVD for rental? Just about every time.

Requiem was released theatrically in the US at NC-17, but that's not the issue. I don't know if BlockBuster has or ever had a corporate policy against NC-17 films. I think it was just a decision made about a certain scene that had content they didn't like.

These days, I think BB is really changing their policies because there was quite a bit of backlash over the RFAD issue.

Look, I don't work for BB or the producers of these films. All I know is that I hate BlockBuster and I will NEVER use their services.

Related question:

Seems like half the Netflix discs I get these days aren't the commercial version, but specially manufactured rental-only discs. Why are they doing this? Are the other major rental places like Blockbuster this way now too? What financial good can it do them? Is there less content--extras, etc?

Just a theory, but they may be starting to sell versions that are like OEM software. Versions without packaging (since NetFlix doesn't use it anyway) that are slightly cheaper for them to buy.

I would imagine if they were sending out versions that had less or no special features or reduced quality, we would have heard about it already.

Sorry, I thought that was obvious, since you can't physically edit a read-only DVD. If your whole point was that right of first sale did not apply to reselling the original DVD and/or license to the material on the DVD then I apologize for misleading you with my original statements.

Either way, the DGA and the rest are still suing cleanflicks and the other 8 or so companies providing similar censorship services in various forms. The original suits are still pending and with no other evidence than hollywood's pretty clear desire that right of first sale would just go away, I believe that hollywood is the side stalling out the case. It is more useful for them to have it pending than decided because as long as it is pending they can point to it and jump up and down about how cleanflicks, et al are doing this only for the money (an argument that can't help but make me smirk at the irony).

As for the suppossed ruling in utah in favor of the DGA on some other case regarding vhs tapes of the titanic, well I'm pretty confident it didn't happen because the DGA would almost certainly have something about it in the archives on their website and they don't. While they do have info on the current cleanflicks suit,

Yes they are. Both Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video get most titles as bare discs and a box full of cover inserts. I think blockbuster assembles them into their own funky lockboxes at their distribution points while HV does it in store (I just saw them doing it for "Bush's Brain" the other day).

No, it wasn't. The distributor rejected the NC-17 rating and released the film unrated to theatres.

DJ

Laymen probably aren't the people I'd turn to for legal advice, but maybe that's just me.

Quote:

---

The right of first sale trumps them 100% here. Just as I can buy a book, tear out half the pages and sell that as a book with half the pages missing, so can anyone buy a movie and cut out whatever they want and then resell it as a modified version.

---

First Sale trumps the studios' 17 USC § 106(2) exclusive right to preprare derivative works? First Sale trumps the directors' 15 USC § 1125(a)(1)(A) right against having their names used without their permission in a way that implies origin, sponsorship, or approval of versions of films they weren't involved with?

Wow.

Let's see what the so-called First Sale Doctrine really says in 17 USC §109(a):

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."

To make the above clear, § 106(3) is the exclusive distribution right. Thus, the First Sale Doctrine provides an exception to the distribution right by allowing lawful purchasers to re-sell their purchases. This is all that it provides. It grants no other exceptions to any other laws. It trumps no other rights. First Sale does not trump the exclusive right to prepare derivative works, and it doesn't even remotely involve, no less trump, the right against confusion of origin in commerce. You're going to need just a tad more than invented colloquial guesses about tearing pages out of a book to prove otherwise.

This should even be obvious to a layman. It's probably much less obvious to someone with an axe to grind who would rather believe in what they want to be true rather than in what is true.

Quote:

---

I went looking for the results of those lawsuits, could not find them in 2 minutes of googling. But what I did find is that the suits were filed in 2002 and cleanflicks.com is still in business doing exactly the same thing and so are a whole bunch of other outfits.

---

So? I regularly work on litigation that is much older than this suit. This means nothing regarding the merits of the suit.

Quote:

---

As usual, it was just Hollywood throwing a hissy fit because they want 100% control and (fortunately) they have not been able to buy enough of congress to achieve that. Yet.

---

No needs to "buy" Congress in order to make the studios' and directors' position on the Clean Flicks, et al., practices illegal. It already has been for quite a long time.

DJ

<i>It's probably much less obvious to someone with an axe to grind who would rather believe in what they want to be true rather than in what is true.</i>

You went to law school and you are appealing to "truth?" You know quite well that there is no truth in the court room, the antognistic process assures that. There is only he who tells a better story. ESPECIALLY with copyright law, being one of the most twisted, labyrinthine areas of code on the books.

For example, you have two basic points, here is a better story:

1) Confusion of origin - This argument is completely specious. Cleanflicks makes no attempt to hide the fact that they are editing the original works. Right there at the top of Cleanflicks page it says, <i>"As your premier source for edited DVDs and Videos..."</i> In fact, they are marketing their editing as the value-add that they provide. No one is going to mistakenly purchase a Cleanflicks edited version believing it to be an original work, that's why they go to the cleanflicks website in the first place.

2) Exclusive right to prepare derivative works - The editing that Cleanflicks does really isn't all that different from what you might see in a parody or long excerpts used in a critical review or scholary analysis, all well protected by that nebulous catchall of "fair use." Which could conceivably be stretched to allow Cleanflicks to distribute the results of their butchery completely without the permission of the original publisher.

But, just in case "fair use" won't quite bridge that gap, every edited version comes with a full-blown license for the material in question and that's where right of first sale applies. Cleanflicks bought a license and resold the license, included a repackaging of parts of the original licensed material. Just as it is perfectly legal to resell a book that has had half the pages removed, or every other word redacted because the original license is inherently included, so too is reselling the license for a movie with every other word bleeped out. There is certainly no basis for any claim of economic harm since, at the very least, Cleanflicks's action does not in any way reduce the total number of sales by the copyright holder. Instead it almost certainly increases them because certain people who would never have made the purchase without the edits are now buying a a fully paid for and licensed copy.

<i>So? I regularly work on litigation that is much older than this suit. This means nothing regarding the merits of the suit.</i>

The original statements that I was responding to were, <i>"There were a couple of companies that tried to do this while ago, CleanFlicks and ClearPlay, that got their asses sued to high heaven by all the major studios because it violates trademark and copyright laws. ... So any rumor that you've heard about Blockbuster or Walmart doing this is completely false."</i>

Clearly the second statement does not follow from the first because there has been no ruling and thus no precedent. If Cleanflicks is still doing it, then Walmart or Blockbuster could certainly be doing it too.

<i>No needs to "buy" Congress in order to make the studios' and directors' position on the Clean Flicks, et al., practices illegal. It already has been for quite a long time.</i>

So says, YOU and Hollywood. Not really the best, or even particulary rational, company to be keeping.

FWIW, Wal-Mart does sell edited versions of PC games, although AFAIK, they received these versions directly from the manufacturers. I assume the same would apply to music cds, and videos, if they actually have edited versions of the videos. Of course, that is half the reason you see "Rated" and "Unrated" versions now, with the other half being a marketing ploy.