Federal judge rules against "sanitized" DVDs such as CleanFlicks
07-11-06, 02:55 PM
#101
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
07-11-06, 03:07 PM
#102
Originally Posted by FilmFanSea
Allowing some (capitalist) moralist censor--no matter how well-intentioned--to scrub "objectionable" content from a film without the filmmaker's input or consent is just one step away from putting pants on Michelangelo's "David."
If the offended consumers (who, curiously, seem to have fewer objections to graphic violence than to non-erotic nudity) want a legitimate option, they should petition the studios to release films as edited for network TV (which at least have the contractual consent of the filmmakers, and often their direct input) onto DVD. If there's money in it for the studios, I'm sure they'd be happy to comply. Or they can create and invest in more production companies that are committed to producing the "family-friendly" movies they desire.
The First Amendment protects objectionable and unobjectionable material equally, but the dividing line between the two is both dangerously subjective and constantly shifting. The judge's ruling is good news for all of us.
If the offended consumers (who, curiously, seem to have fewer objections to graphic violence than to non-erotic nudity) want a legitimate option, they should petition the studios to release films as edited for network TV (which at least have the contractual consent of the filmmakers, and often their direct input) onto DVD. If there's money in it for the studios, I'm sure they'd be happy to comply. Or they can create and invest in more production companies that are committed to producing the "family-friendly" movies they desire.
The First Amendment protects objectionable and unobjectionable material equally, but the dividing line between the two is both dangerously subjective and constantly shifting. The judge's ruling is good news for all of us.
I totally agree with you. Why the hell should these people be allowed to not only change the content of a movie, but to also pirate it and sell copies. Its been a disgrace and i have been waiting for someone to put a stop to this.
07-11-06, 03:50 PM
#103
DVD Talk Legend
I don't know whether to laugh or..........really laugh. 
As said by others, what's the point of watching a movie edited for content?
And by the way, here's a novel missing pages 24-27, page 56, pages 100-125, etc. Enjoy your reading!
As said by others, what's the point of watching a movie edited for content?
And by the way, here's a novel missing pages 24-27, page 56, pages 100-125, etc. Enjoy your reading!
07-11-06, 04:05 PM
#104
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bunkaroo
And by the way, here's a novel missing pages 24-27, page 56, pages 100-125, etc. Enjoy your reading!
07-11-06, 06:08 PM
#106
DVD Talk Legend
I can kind of see both sides, but honestly if you can't handle the content of the movie due to your religious or moral views I don't see how someone cutting it up makes it better. Scarface is still about the same awful subject matter no matter how much of the bad stuff they cut away. Granted that is an extreme example, but I just don't see the point. Of couse I also don't understand how people can be so outraged by a woman's bare breast or words like fuck either.
07-11-06, 06:26 PM
#107
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by darkside
I can kind of see both sides, but honestly if you can't handle the content of the movie due to your religious or moral views I don't see how someone cutting it up makes it better. Scarface is still about the same awful subject matter no matter how much of the bad stuff they cut away. Granted that is an extreme example, but I just don't see the point. Of couse I also don't understand how people can be so outraged by a woman's bare breast or words like fuck either.
07-11-06, 06:36 PM
#108
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by darkside
I can kind of see both sides, but honestly if you can't handle the content of the movie due to your religious or moral views I don't see how someone cutting it up makes it better.
I have no problems with ClearPlay where the player is programmed to skip over the objectional content (though I disagree with the rational behind getting such a player). But altering someone else's content without their permission is taking things way too far and I'm thrilled to see this decision.
07-11-06, 07:25 PM
#109
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rockmjd23
Maybe the whole Marty lusting after his mother aspect. 
Back on the subject: if one thinks that CleanFlicks is okay, is it okay if I were to go out and take fullscreen versions of movies (e.g. Twins) and create anamorphic versions and sell them for a profit? Hey, these are cheapie discs, so I can get them for a song, include the original disc and my 16x9 DVD-R versions too for $20.
Here's another example: I'll colorize old movies. Of course, I'll include the original DVDs with my burned DVD-Rs, so that's okay?
CleanFlicks is profiting off of other peoples' intellectual property. Shut 'em down.
On another note: another thing that disturbs me is how companies such as these make it seem okay to edit a tame movie such as Back to the Future and the like. Across the pond, the Brits look at us in the US like we're fucking bonkers because of the uproar over Janet Jackson's nipple and things of that nature. In the UK, "fuck" is actually used on broadcast networks and there's nudity too. Here? The religious fanatics (IMNSHO) rule.
07-11-06, 08:08 PM
#110
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DVDude!
Across the pond, the Brits look at us in the US like we're fucking bonkers because of the uproar over Janet Jackson's nipple and things of that nature. In the UK, "fuck" is actually used on broadcast networks and there's nudity too. Here? The religious fanatics (IMNSHO) rule.
07-11-06, 08:38 PM
#111
DVD Talk Legend
Well to be fair Europe gets it more than we do. I would much rather see the rules strict on violence and relaxed on sexual content as far as the ratings system goes. We really don't have our priorities right in ths country when talking about protecting children. That said I still think its up to parents more than anyone to monitor the content our kids watch. Getting them edited rated R movies is not the answer.
07-11-06, 08:42 PM
#112
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Peoria, IL
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gijon213
I want to know if they were paying the studios for the ones they were selling. I would think that Hollywood wouldn't care if they were getting paid.
I don't have a problem with people who buy a DVD, and then use their computers to burn an altered copy for their own use or if they buy one of those players that does the work for them. Its when they change something & then sell multiple copies that breaks copyright law. Now, what these businesses COULD do to make money is this :
They could have a paid service where people could access a list of movies with instructions giving the timestamp for each violent scene, sex scene, bad language, etc... so they could more easily burn the movie without having to watch it first to know where to alter it & then burn. They could pay for the information that would allow them to alter it themselves in very little time. That way they would still have to pay for the original copy, but could then have their clean home made copy as well. The people running the service get paid for their knowledge, everybody's happy.
Last edited by fitlissa76; 07-11-06 at 11:20 PM.
07-12-06, 12:41 AM
#113
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Muskegon, MI
Posts: 5,199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I applaud this decision.
I'm in favor on watching movies in their original aspect ratio and unedited for time and content. If someone wants to watch the same movie on TV in fullscreen and edited for violence and sex, so be it. If however, said person purchases a DVD of the movie, alters the movie to their liking, and then sells the altered version, they deserve to be stopped. That's why CleanFlicks and the other companies need to be stopped.
As for Clearplay, I don't have a problem with what they are doing. The customer is still purchasing the original DVD and all Clearplay is doing is providing the customer with a player that contains software that tells the DVD when to mute the audio and fastforward the video past objectionable stuff. The difference between Clearplay and the other companies is that the DVD itself is not altered in any way, shape or form. Someone could watch the DVD on their Clearplay player with the filters on, eject it after they are done, let me borrow it and I can watch it unedited on my non-Clearplay player.
Ultimately, what I think will happen is that Hollywood will finally wise up to the idea of selling sanitized DVDs to an (unfortunate) increasing market. I think a day will come where there will be at least three SKU's of a DVD: Widescreen, Fullscreen, and Sanitized.
I'm in favor on watching movies in their original aspect ratio and unedited for time and content. If someone wants to watch the same movie on TV in fullscreen and edited for violence and sex, so be it. If however, said person purchases a DVD of the movie, alters the movie to their liking, and then sells the altered version, they deserve to be stopped. That's why CleanFlicks and the other companies need to be stopped.
As for Clearplay, I don't have a problem with what they are doing. The customer is still purchasing the original DVD and all Clearplay is doing is providing the customer with a player that contains software that tells the DVD when to mute the audio and fastforward the video past objectionable stuff. The difference between Clearplay and the other companies is that the DVD itself is not altered in any way, shape or form. Someone could watch the DVD on their Clearplay player with the filters on, eject it after they are done, let me borrow it and I can watch it unedited on my non-Clearplay player.
Ultimately, what I think will happen is that Hollywood will finally wise up to the idea of selling sanitized DVDs to an (unfortunate) increasing market. I think a day will come where there will be at least three SKU's of a DVD: Widescreen, Fullscreen, and Sanitized.
07-12-06, 02:15 AM
#114
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
OK, I finally read the decision. For anyone interested, it is available here.
I think the decision is awful. People seem to be misconstruing it as a victory for artistic integrity. It is nothing of the sort. It is a fundamentally conservative opinion, further entrenching the economic rights of copyright holders.
Keep in mind that the idea of artistic integrity is foreign to U.S. copyright law. Our system is based entirely on economic interests. We have essentially rejected Europe's system of moral rights.
Decisions like this one further erode consumer rights. The EFF filed an amicus brief arguing that when intermediate copies are necessary in order to develop transformative, non-infringing final products, those intermediate copies are themselves non-infringing. As usual, I agree with the EFF. This decision will make it even harder to assert fair use.
I understand that people want to be pro-artist and pro-director, but in our economics-based copyright model that amounts to a conservative view, as it basically boils down to pro-studio and anti-consumer. I believe it is important to be pro-consumer. Information is too important to allow even its legitimate creators to control it exclusively.
The real issue in these cases is one of First Amendment rights. The rights of directors to speak and be heard versus the rights of consumers to choose what they hear (yes, both are protected by the Constitution). That is a trickier issue for me; I am not sure where I come out on that. However, it is a moot point as the courts do not want to address the Constitutional implications of filtering. As long as they approach the issue from the perspective of economic rights, I will always be on the side of the EFF and against the strengthening of copyright control.
I think the decision is awful. People seem to be misconstruing it as a victory for artistic integrity. It is nothing of the sort. It is a fundamentally conservative opinion, further entrenching the economic rights of copyright holders.
Keep in mind that the idea of artistic integrity is foreign to U.S. copyright law. Our system is based entirely on economic interests. We have essentially rejected Europe's system of moral rights.
Decisions like this one further erode consumer rights. The EFF filed an amicus brief arguing that when intermediate copies are necessary in order to develop transformative, non-infringing final products, those intermediate copies are themselves non-infringing. As usual, I agree with the EFF. This decision will make it even harder to assert fair use.
I understand that people want to be pro-artist and pro-director, but in our economics-based copyright model that amounts to a conservative view, as it basically boils down to pro-studio and anti-consumer. I believe it is important to be pro-consumer. Information is too important to allow even its legitimate creators to control it exclusively.
The real issue in these cases is one of First Amendment rights. The rights of directors to speak and be heard versus the rights of consumers to choose what they hear (yes, both are protected by the Constitution). That is a trickier issue for me; I am not sure where I come out on that. However, it is a moot point as the courts do not want to address the Constitutional implications of filtering. As long as they approach the issue from the perspective of economic rights, I will always be on the side of the EFF and against the strengthening of copyright control.
07-12-06, 08:16 AM
#115
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by DVDude!
Back on the subject: if one thinks that CleanFlicks is okay, is it okay if I were to go out and take fullscreen versions of movies (e.g. Twins) and create anamorphic versions and sell them for a profit? Hey, these are cheapie discs, so I can get them for a song, include the original disc and my 16x9 DVD-R versions too for $20.
Here's another example: I'll colorize old movies. Of course, I'll include the original DVDs with my burned DVD-Rs, so that's okay?
CleanFlicks is profiting off of other peoples' intellectual property. Shut 'em down.
Here's another example: I'll colorize old movies. Of course, I'll include the original DVDs with my burned DVD-Rs, so that's okay?
CleanFlicks is profiting off of other peoples' intellectual property. Shut 'em down.
07-12-06, 08:53 AM
#116
DVD Talk Hero
I've never thought this was an issue of artistic integrity. It's about making bootlegs of popular movies and selling them as a legitimate business. That's it.
07-12-06, 09:28 AM
#117
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: I was here but I disappear
Posts: 8,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kgrogers1979
I wonder if there are CleanFlick versions of the Quentin Tarantino movies. They probably have a run time of 6 minutes.
http://cleanflicks.com/movieDetails.php?movieID=690
07-12-06, 09:47 AM
#118
DVD Talk Legend
Can someone rent The Libertine and let me know if it is, indeed, only fifteen minutes long as a cleanflicks sanitized movie? Honestly, their little description of the movie makes it look positively pollyanna. But it is the anti-pollyanna.
07-12-06, 11:38 AM
#119
Banned
Originally Posted by Gil Jawetz
That's awesome! Too bad it doesn't say how long the run time is though. I wonder what the CleanFlicks version of the fight against the Crazy 88 looks like.
I also noticed on that web site, they don't have any other QT movies, just Kill Bill Volumes 1 & 2. They don't have Scarface or Goodfellas either, but they did have The Godfather movies. Would the type of person who watches a CleanFlick even want to watch a movie about the Mafia in the first place?
07-14-06, 01:15 PM
#120
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by illennium
The real issue in these cases is one of First Amendment rights. The rights of directors to speak and be heard versus the rights of consumers to choose what they hear (yes, both are protected by the Constitution). That is a trickier issue for me; I am not sure where I come out on that. However, it is a moot point as the courts do not want to address the Constitutional implications of filtering. As long as they approach the issue from the perspective of economic rights, I will always be on the side of the EFF and against the strengthening of copyright control.
But if one company 'owns' a property, even an IP, I don't believe it's right for another company to alter that property without the IPO's permission, and profit by it, thereby cutting directly into the legitimate 'owner's' property.
And you're right, lots of copyright law is economic-based...America has a very strong tradition of property rights [at least before Kelo], though that does get a little tricky with digital formats.
And the director doesn't have a right to be heard. He has a right to not be thrown in jail or fined for saying something, but he does *not* have a right to be heard by anyone who does not want to hear him. I don't see anything tricky about it. If Walmart--a private company--decides to not sell Joe Blow's Blood'n'Guts Volume 4, that does not infringe upon Joe Blow's rights at all. If WM does sell it, and I don't want to buy it, that doesn't either.
I think the people who originally said "information wants to be free" were either trying to rationalize (free) Napster, or thinking about things like governmental budgets.
Draven: that's a good point. Anyone who supports Cleanflix [the one that sells the edited versions], how do you feel about bootleg dvd's? If information wants to be free, then I could sure save a lot of money buying bootleg anime series. Of course, if it wants to be free, I shouldn't have to pay for it at all, should i? Why is it better to buy it from someone who does not have the 'right' to cut it up, than from the legitimate owner?
01-29-08, 09:01 AM
#121
DVD Talk Legend
Here's an article some of you guys might enjoy. A guy who ran a franchise of Clean Flicks, later changing its name to Flix Club was arrested for paying two 14 year old girls for sexual favors. Actually a decent deal for only 20 bucks. 
He's such a nice upstanding moralist. Keeping kids away from movie sex, but giving them the real thing.
Link to Article
He's such a nice upstanding moralist. Keeping kids away from movie sex, but giving them the real thing.
Originally Posted by News Article
(CBS) A Utah retailer of family-friendly tapes and DVDs - Hollywood films with the "dirty parts" cut out of them - has been arrested for trading sex with two 14-year-old girls.
Orem police say Flix Club owner Daniel Dean Thompson, 31, and Issac Lifferth, 24, were booked into the Utah County jail on charges of sexual abuse and unlawful sexual activity with a 14-year-old.
CBS Station KUTV in Salt Lake City reports that the shocking discovery came when a mother found a $20 bill in her daughter’s room last week and questioned her about where the money came from.
The girl confessed that she and a friend had been paid for sexual favors by an older male.
Lifferth was additionally charged with patronizing a prostitute and was also in possession of a prescription drug medication without a prescription.
Thompson's Flix Club was one of several Utah-based video outlets that traded in edited versions of R- and PG-13-rated films, catering to clientele who wanted to watch hit movies without nudity, sex, language or graphic violence.
Such video editing operations came under the gun of Hollywood studios and the Directors Guild of America.
In a case brought by the DGA, a federal judge ruled in 2006 that editing out material (such as Kate Winslet's bare breasts in "Titanic") violated copyright laws. The decision was against a Utah company called Clean Flicks.
Thompson, who was a franchise operator for Clean Flicks, opened Flix Club last year, similarly trading in edited videos but claiming that such editing was for "educational use."
Threats of lawsuits from the Hollywood studios forced him to agree to shut down on December 31.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Orem police say Flix Club owner Daniel Dean Thompson, 31, and Issac Lifferth, 24, were booked into the Utah County jail on charges of sexual abuse and unlawful sexual activity with a 14-year-old.
CBS Station KUTV in Salt Lake City reports that the shocking discovery came when a mother found a $20 bill in her daughter’s room last week and questioned her about where the money came from.
The girl confessed that she and a friend had been paid for sexual favors by an older male.
Lifferth was additionally charged with patronizing a prostitute and was also in possession of a prescription drug medication without a prescription.
Thompson's Flix Club was one of several Utah-based video outlets that traded in edited versions of R- and PG-13-rated films, catering to clientele who wanted to watch hit movies without nudity, sex, language or graphic violence.
Such video editing operations came under the gun of Hollywood studios and the Directors Guild of America.
In a case brought by the DGA, a federal judge ruled in 2006 that editing out material (such as Kate Winslet's bare breasts in "Titanic") violated copyright laws. The decision was against a Utah company called Clean Flicks.
Thompson, who was a franchise operator for Clean Flicks, opened Flix Club last year, similarly trading in edited videos but claiming that such editing was for "educational use."
Threats of lawsuits from the Hollywood studios forced him to agree to shut down on December 31.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
01-29-08, 09:38 AM
#123
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Suomi Finland Perkele
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lastdaysofrain
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?
Now, with all it's graphic violence, think about how many christian parents took their children to see it.
No wait...thread necromancy! I am a victim of thread necromancy!
*writes a book*
01-29-08, 10:50 AM
#124
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Port Moody, BC
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by matome
Oh the irony! Then again, maybe statutory rape wasn't included in the Clean Flicks filter.
01-29-08, 02:09 PM
#125
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Yeah. Nice. Another prime example of "Methinks the lady doth protest too much". The extremist, ultra-conservative nutjobs are usually have the dirtiest, most corrupt morals out of anyone.