Joe Molotov

You people complaining about the artistic integrity being violated act like you've never heard of TBS, TNT, or USA before.

Mr. Salty

TBS, TNT and USA pay studios for the rights to air the films they show, the studios agree to sell them the films, and make whatever cuts they need to make themselves. If a studio or filmmaker doesn't want to make such cuts or sell the rights to those networks, they don't.

If a studio or filmmaker agrees to make a deal with one of these censorship services, then that is their right. But as it stands nowm the services are taking and selling something that is not theirs to sell.

How hard is that to comprehend?

lordwow

A recent Lordwow poll determined that 99% of all Americans are idiots.

Joe Molotov

Yeah, but how often does a director get to decide where the TV rights go and make the final decisions about what gets cut? I'm guessing not very often.

If you're arguing this from a legal standpoint, then yeah I'm right there with you. But to say it's wrong because they edit for content...well, that kind of stuff happens all the time.

Rockmjd23

Maybe the whole Marty lusting after his mother aspect.

sracer

What?!
When I buy a DVD I choose when I decide to watch it, whether I watch it in fast-forward, if I want to watch it in 5 minute segments spread over a few weeks. And what if I want to watch a color film in B&W?

When I press the next-chapter button or press fast-foward past a scene, I'm manually altering the playback of the film. ClearFlicks is simply making it convenient for me by preparing it in advance.

And I think that the court is wrong. The company is getting paid for the work it takes to dub and edit. They are not getting paid for the film itself... and the movie studios are not out any money because the original disc is purchased.

Would you also believe that a custom DVD player capable of processing dubbing cues and acting on them on standard DVDs is also illegal?

Jericho

Actually your thinking isn't too far off. There's a famous Monty Python case where Monty Python sued some American TV station (might have been ABC, can't remember) for showing editing version of their show. In the suit Python did not own the copyrights to the TV show (the BBC did), but they did own the copyright to the underlying scripts. Python won too (also suing under trademark law). However, part of the problem in that case was the American TV station was exceeding the scope of its license (or actually I think it was the BBC gave a license of something they didn't have right to give). Either way, it came down to the contract. As long as the contract says its okay, then editing is okay. In this case the contract didn't. But for a movie, it almost assuredly would be in the contract.

Plus, it should be pointed out that movies fall under "works for hire", which means studios automatically own the copyrights of the works produced in making the movies unless: either a) the works were produced prior the studio being involved or b) they have bad lawyers. Even in case a, a simple assignment of rights by Gilliam would remove any rights he once had.

Mod-Mod-World

The following will be edited from your copy of Walt Disney's Pinocchio

Wanton Violence/Crime
—images of attempted animal killing with gun and axe
—reckless gunfire
—slapstick violence, repeatedly
—opportunist luring child into other than proper
—child trafficking, multiple instances, two quintessential
—reckless endangerment with large blade
—threat with physical brutality "Knock-a you silly"
—kidnapping, multiple instances, two quintessential
—offer to commit murder for money
—hiring to do harm
—child jumping into ocean with weight tied to him
—long probably disturbing sequence of whale chase and attack
—shocking image of what is viewed as death in story

Impudence/Hate
—wishing upon a star to make dreams come true
—"I'll run home and tell his father ... that would be snitching"
—deceiving a child for personal gain
—lies, several
—leading child astray with promises of gain and greatness

Sexual Immorality
—portrayal of [accidental] inappropriate touch
—rear nudity - child
—shadow of nudity against inside of night robe
—can-can dance with observer getting excited about it
—attention to posterior and form of it

Drugs/Alcohol
—image of drunkenness
—smoking, repeatedly, most by children
—bar
—drinking, most by children

Offense to God
—portrayal of wishing on a star as prayer
—fairy as angel-looking being with the power to give life
—portrayal of unholy magic to do good, repeatedly
—lust for licentiousness and anarchy by child(ren)
—"Being bad is a lot of fun"
—children in licentious revelry
—shape-shifting, child to donkey
—fairy having the power to give life
—unholy magic to do "good"

Total running time: 12 minutes.
We hope you enjoy your movie.
CleanFlicks

Jericho

But what gives the company the right to alter these films? Answer: Nothing. And that's the main point. People (or companies) don't have the right to do whatever they want, however they like. It doesn't matter what they're getting paid for. Laws regulate all types of industries: drugs, gambling, megers, securities. Copyrights is just another area where the public can't just do whatever they want.

Snowmaker

All this because they're too lazy to monitor what their kids watch themselves.

dugan

Let's put it in perspective here. Everyone knows that the fan edits of The Phantom Menace are illegal. The only legal difference I see between them and CleanFlicks is that CleanFlicks didn't hide what it was doing.

CliffStephenson

The main point that most people don't understand is that when you purchase a DVD, you don't own the film, you own the physical media that contains the film accompanied by a limited licence to view the film (you can't show the film publicly...). So just because I own the DVD doesn't give me licence to alter its content. I can't buy a Rolling Stones CD and then recut or remix their songs and then hand them out all over the city (while making no profit whatsoever). We have been given a right to "backup" such media, but not alter the content.

And I wonder how many times a customer took the original DVD and sold it used while keeping the sought after "scrubbed" version. Seems like that would throw off the 1:1 ratio just a bit and with no real way for CleanFlicks to reliably insure that ratio.

shumway

I have actually, intentionally watched some movies that were edited by Clean Flicks. I did not rent them so that my children could watch them. I rented them so that I could watch them without seeing the excess cursing, sex, etc. You may not agree with that, but, hey, I really don't care if you like the way I want to watch a movie or not.

I can see the merits of both sides of the argument, and, while I understand the judges ruling, I definitely agree with many of the statements made by sracer. As long as the studio is being payed for the original in each and every sale, I don't think there is anything wrong with being able to sell the DVD-R along with it.

Kevin Phillips

Yes, as far as I'm concerned $$$ is the answer. Noone is being prevented from having the original version, so the author's intent is available for those who want it.

MovieExchange

DING DING DING! Somone hits the nail on the head.

Let's repeat it, I think it'll be necessary...

This exact same argument can be used against bootleggers. You may feel that you have the right to purchase The DaVinci Code on DVD right now because the guy on the street has it for $10 and you don't want to wait until the official release date, but your so-called "consumers rights" lose to the rights of the owner of the intellectual property.


Furthermore, I'm tired of parents (in other threads that I've been in) whining about how they don't want their kids to see sex and violence, or hear cursin. How sending the kids to another room doesn't work because the sounds from the TV can carry throughout the house. Hey folks - welcome to being a parent. It's a job you chose to have, now you get to deal with the drawbacks.

sracer

Look a little deeper, there's a greater difference.
The Phantom Edit is illegal because there is no linkage between the officially released DVD and the distribution of PE. CleanFlicks is purchasing and packaging the original disc for each editted one they sell. Is that the case with the Phantom Edit?


No. Everyone understands that we don't own the intellectual rights to the film on DVD. The main point that most people don't understand is that no on is handing out anything. The original untouched DVD is sent along with the altered disc.

And no again, we DO NOT have the right to a "backup" of such media if that media has been copy-protected and haven't been given express permission and method to circumvent that protection. See the DMCA.

sracer

Now we see the REAL reason why so many are applauding this decision.

Lastdaysofrain

If you don't want to watch a movie with "cursing, sex and violence" than you don't want to watch the movie. So don't. If you have such a delicate, easily offended disposition, then you shouldn't be watching things that contain that. That's something that YOU need to do (or not do) the film dosen't need to be changed to satisfy your inability to handle things.

The studio is being paid for that individual DVD but not the rights to do whatever you want with the movie. This company is ridiculous and their stupid "change the world to suit me" attitude finally bit them in the ass. Just as it should.

If people didn't want to see these things in movies, then they wouldn't be in movies. Simple as that, these movies make money, because people see them.

If you delicate souls can't handle them then stick to the "Left Behind" series. Come to think of it, I may start a company that actually edits IN footage of sex, violence and swears to Christian movies for people who find them too boring. Would that be acceptible in your eyes?

ianholm

marty888

Ok, now we know what value system you live by. Fortunately, not everyone has such a callous attitude towards artistic integrity.

dugan

If it was, would it have made the Phantom Edit less illegal? I don't think so. If the Phantom Editors had put up a webpage saying they would sell you their fan edit for profit--$10 if you already have the Phantom Menace DVD and $20 for both a DVDR and a Phantom Menace DVD if you don't--then I think we both know that would have lasted.

And, of course, you cannot create your own edit of a Hollywood movie without circumventing the DMCA. That means that CleanFlicks and The Phantom Edit are both illegal in countries that honor the DMCA.

Anubis2005X

I was in a used DVD store and came across a used copy of The Rookie, yes, the G-rated movie. All I could think was WTF!

That said, I really couldn't care less about Cleanflicks existing or not. I would never rent there, but I really don't care if others choose to. It's like how I usually choose to not watch movies on tv because a) they have commercials jammed in there messing up the flow, b) it's all edited, c) full screen, etc. But if someone else wants to watch that crap, then hey, this is America.

Now I think I'll go dub a Led Zeppelin song over the opening credits of Star Wars, and buy a copy of the Mona Lisa just so I can draw a moustache on it...

Draven

sracer and others: do you think it was okay that CleanFlicks was:

a) Profiting off the editing of other people's creative work
b) Circumventing copy protection to do so (and, I'd guess, creating an easily-duplicated "bootleg" in the process)

rdclark

No, they are not simply doing that. They are also advertising and promoting their business, which could not exist without the action of copying and editing other people's intellectual property. There's a big difference between what you do in the privacy of your own home, and what what a business does when it publically solicits trade for profit.

Guns don't kill people, yadda yadda. The company would not be getting paid for anything if they didn't solicit your business and then commit the actual crime. And be careful about your characterizing of this as "you hiring them to edit the movie for you." If that were true, you'd be guilty of soliciting the commission of a federal crime.

RichC

Simpson Purist

Damn, I was hoping I'd get to see the clean versions of Clerks, Pulp Fiction, and The Passion of the Christ.