mbs

If CleanFlix paid royalties, I'd be fine with it (if people really want to watch movies this way, so be it). But as others have said, to make a profit off it and paying nothing to the studios is ridiculous. I cannot see why CleanFlix thought they had a prayer in winning this case.

Dexter Douglas

I went down to where CleanFlicks used to be in Colorado Springs, but they've apparently cleaned out and skipped town or something. Their phone numbers don't work and the store front is empty. Granted, I haven't driven by there for a few weeks, so they may have known this was coming down and closed up shop.

I'm right there with ya, mbs. If they had made arrangements to do this legally with the filmmaker and the studio, I wouldn't like what they were doing but I wouldn't be against them nearly as much. I think there would be a market for them if they were to even license the broadcast versions of movies, even if they weren't as sanitized as they wanted. As they operate now, though, I hope every single one of these leeches operating under the guise of morality get shut down.

pro-bassoonist

It is the interpretation that would hurt the consumer. Having seen how Blockbuster imposed their preference on the consumers with a similar in my view moralistic philisophy, as they were the only game in town for many people, you should be able to see why so many on this board are happy with the decision.

Ciao,
Pro-B

Quatermass

I guess the same argument could be applied to Widescreen movies that are presented in Fullscreen. By the way, on a completely unrelated note, Richard Matsch was the judge that presided over the OKC bombing trial.

basaro

I can't believe they were still debating and it had gotten this far. Censorship is going too far these days.

sracer

I'm going under the assumption that CleanFlicks actually purchased a copy of the original unaltered disc of the particular title for each of their customers, and in turn sent their customers a burned copy of their modified version. (and either destroyed the original, or sent it to the customer along with the modified version) I remember reading a while ago that was how they were going to operate.

Consumer rights are constantly being eroded.

If I buy a DVD off the shelf and I want to have it converted to LaserDisc for my own personal use, I should be able to hire a company to do that for me, and be able to pay them for the work they did.

If I buy a DVD of a B&W film and I want it colorized, I should be able to hire a company to colorize it for me for my personal use.

This ruling says that I may own the physical medium, but that I now have less rights on how I can view it.

What's next? Making it illegal to pause and fast-forward?!

Groucho

I think if the company in question was called DirtyFlicks and they were adding violence, nudity and swearing to family films, some of the reactions to this thread would be entirely opposite of what they are now.

canaryfarmer

srcacer,

I'm sure someone can explain better than I, but basically, navigating content and modifying said content for individual profit are completely separate matters, I would think.

Rockmjd23

Blockbuster doesn't edit its films, despite what many people say.

dx23

They don't edit movies but they will put their viewing preferences over the consumers. Their corporate preferences include full screen (which in my point of view, is very close to editing)DVDs, and sanitized (R-rated or lower)versions of foreign and erotic films like Lucia y El Sexo and Y Tu Mama Tambien. With their corporate mentality of dumbing down things for Joe SixPack and not insulting up the religious right, Blockbuster does business without caring for what is right in the film industry.

Rockmjd23

I don't know where to begin. There is so much inaccuracy in your post. I worked at BBV for 6 months and there were only 2 or 3 movies that I can think of that were in full screen only (not counted dvd releases where that is the only option). One was The Great Raid, another was Honeymooners. I'm not sure why those 2 were in full screen, but every other movie was widescreen only. My store carried the unrated versions of Y Tu Mama Tambien and most other foreign films. I know BBV doesn't carry NC-17 films, but most movies nowadays when they are released on DVD just say 'unrated' instead (since NC-17 is box office kiss of death) and BBV does carry those.

Breakfast with Girls

When was the last time you were at a Blockbuster? Every Blockbuster I've been to in the last few years has only had widescreen. My local one also has an independent section and a smallish anime section.

FilmFanSea

Amen to that, Groucho (appears you live at Ground Zero on this issue).

louiseb

from Reuters

CleanFlicks and others purchase an official DVD copy of a film on DVD for each edited version of the title they produce through the use of editing systems and software. The official release disc is included alongside the edited copy in every sale or rental transaction conducted. As such, the companies argued that they had the right on First Amendment and fair use grounds to offer consumers the alternative of an edited version for private viewing, so long as they maintained that "one-to-one" ratio to ensure that copyright holders got their due from the transactions. Matsch disagreed.

Dexter Douglas

I just checked their site and looked at buying the Libertine (so what, it's 15 minutes in its edited form?) and you have two options to buy it. If you own the DVD, it's $10 for the DVDR. If you don't, it's $20 for the DVDR and the original.

Sracer, I think the argument that this is the same as transferring to Laserdisc or VHS isn't anywhere near the same as the content is the same in a transfer. I agree that the rest of your arguments hold some validity and the fact that they say that you need to own a copy of the original in order to buy a copy does cloud the subject some (granted, I'm guessing that most people who buy it say they have a copy whether they have one or not).

My issue comes in with intellectual rights. When a filmmaker makes a movie, he knows that it will more likely than not be edited into a broadcast-safe version. I'm guessing it would be in any contract. With companies like these, the filmmaker and the studio that spent the money putting it out have absolutely no say in the matter. If anybody has any say as to what happens to a movie, why wouldn't the person/people responsible for putting it there in the first place have a say? It would cut too much into the bottom line.

I think someone taking a movie to a film company to be colorized or transferred to another medium, or that same person doing it themselves has just that outcome, it's for themselves. These guys are out there making a profit, and I think that's where it crosses the line.

As an aside, I love something I came across on their site:
"Guaranteed In-Stock
Our commitment is to send you the movie you ask for in the order you ask for them. We understand that other on-line DVD rental providers don't offer this same guarantee and insist that you wait for someone else to send back a movie you want to watch before it is sent to you. We believe that your priority is our priority!"

It's pretty easy to make that kind of statement when you just rip another copy when someone asks for it.

Groucho

So, how do they know you own the DVD? Word of honor?

Dexter Douglas

Exactly. It's definitely some shaky ground to base a business model with. They would have helped their case a ton by only selling with the original.

i86time

If what louiseb quoted sums up the judges reasons for the ruling, this is pretty scary. When you purchase content, you purchase the right to view the content in any way you so desire as long as it is not for profit (monetary or otherwise). If (for some strange reason) I decide to show my children a movie with questionable content, I have the right to skip said content. While I don't agree with what they do (why buy a film just to cut parts out? If someone is that morally opposed to certain content then I don't think they can justify watching the remaining content), under what Reuters reports as the judge ruling, they have the complete legal right to do, just not the right to do it with dvd's. Decrypting the dvd, and circumventing the DRM, is a huge no-no in this day with all the big lawyers movie companies have, and I'm surprised he didn't just give his ruling on that alone and avoid the firestorm he's about to create. If the judge can find that editing without the approval of the artist destroys artistic vision and wrongs the creator, yet doesn't create any financial damages (because they sold the original dvd along with it), looks like Gilliam will have a case against Universal (or any other director that gets his/her film chopped up).

Groucho

Incorrect. Final cut is part of the contract on any film. So, Gilliam would have only had a legal case if he had final cut in his contract (he didn't). On the other hand, neither Gilliam nor Universal have given CleanFlicks permission to edit the film in any way.

lordwow

As a filmmaker, I can't support anyone who edits anothers' works for-profit without permission.

tonyc3742

I agree with the concept of CleanFlicks, but I don't support the editing of other's IP and profiting therefrom. If they sold a dvd player and 'data disks' that automatically updated data like 'skip 1:23:02 to 1:23:58', so when you put the disk you buy or rent from Blockbuster or Netflix in it skips certain content, that's not the same thing, and I think that would and should be legal.
If *I* did it to a disk that I own, while it might technically be illegal, I don't think it is immoral/unethical, and I'm not profiting from it.
Re: BBV and Walmart: they don't technically edit the films. If anything, they say "We won't sell/rent it unless *you* edit it." I'm not saying that's moral or ethical, but I don't think it's illegal/editing/censorship.
Same thing with edited-for-tv. I would think somewhere down the road is a contract saying "ABC can edit this" or "You will edit it to comply with ABC's standards" in return for lots of money for the replay rights.

dx23

Remember that not all Blockbusters are alike. The Blockbusters here in PR carry 95% of their films in full screen and when they take them off the main new releases walls, they sell the few ws releses on the used section and keep the several copies of the full screen release for future rentals. They don't have an independent film are, but they have a foreign film section, and like I told you, if they have an option between an unrated and rated-R version of a film, they will get the R one. This is the reason why I prefer to rent DVDs on the competition, which is Video Ave. here in Puerto Rico. They carry widescreen DVDs, unrated, nc-17 films and porn.

Rockmjd23

Must be a franchise store then. Corporate stores would never work that way.
Either way, if you knew that not all BBV's are alike, then why would 'corporate preference' be the cause?

lordwow

Editing something down is a strange concept to any starting filmmaker. You produce something, you're happy with it, and then someone says you need to remove something (whether it be for (MPAA-type)ratings, legal reasons, or network beliefs (such as the TV-edits you talked about)). It sucks to have to edit your own work. It's disgusting if someone else does it for you. It often makes your movie cringe-worthy, or absolutely non-sensical. We've all seen it. The most blantant example of a network stepping in was the broadcast of Blazing Sadles (I think) where the "farting noises" were removed from a long scene that centered around it. Now your comedy is not even funny (or at least intentionally).

While I don't even agree with Wal-Mart's "we wanted an edited version" stance, I'd rather have the ball in my court to edit my own films than find a poorly cut version that someone made.

You may wonder what my solution is as far as dealing with the kids and such. I can understand the parental response to a lot of this (I don't have kids, but I wouldn't want them watching most of my DVDs if I did.) But I have to wonder what the point is in even buying an edited version of a movie. Why on Earth would you show an edited version of American Beauty or Pulp Fiction to a kid? I have to point my finger towards parental control and personal responsibility. If a movie needs to be edited to show to kids, it probably shouldn't be shown to kids in the first place.

Maybe there's some other reasoning people want these edited DVDs, and I'd be happy to hear an arguement for them.

The ONLY instances I would allow my works to be edited would be for non-comercial usage (such as fan films/montages, not that I have any) but even then, you're walking a thin line, and if you're employed by a larger studio they'll step in and squash a lot of those for fear of where they could go next. I have my own qualms about the MPAA's reaction to a lot of this online edited stuff for YouTube and such, but that's a whole nother arguement.

In conclusion. Editing films you create is a pain in general (and painful when you're dictated to what can be included and not), Having people edit your work for personal use (as you said) is acceptable (despite being possibly illegal) as long as it's for Personal Use. Having someone edit it like these companies are is not acceptable by any means. I'm not standing up for the studios who are going after the little guy, I'm standing up for the filmmakers who get shafted either way.

Groucho

Which is one reason why a lot of first-time films are so bad. The filmmaker is so much in love with everyframe that he or she can't let anything go. The best amateur/student films I've seen are often those where the filmmaker brings in an impartial, merciless editor.

(sorry for the sidebar)