Federal judge rules against "sanitized" DVDs such as CleanFlicks
 

<u>from today's NY TIMES</u>

"<i>A federal judge has ruled that sanitizing DVD or VHS versions of movies violates copyright laws, The Associated Press reported. Declaring the editing of films to delete objectionable language, sex and violence to be an "illegitimate business," Judge Richard P. Matsch of United States District Court in Denver ordered several companies engaged in such work to turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios. He said that the scrubbing of films hurts studios and directors who own the rights and does "irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies." He ordered three companies named in the suit to stop "producing, manufacturing, creating" and renting the edited movies. Ray Lines, the chief executive of CleanFlicks, one of the companies, said, "We're going to continue the fight." It burns edited movies onto blank discs and sells them over the Internet and to video stories. As many as 90 stores nationwide, about half of them in Utah, buy the CleanFlicks versions, Mr. Lines said. Michael Apted, president of the Directors Guild of America, applauded Judge Matsch's ruling. Mr. Apted said, "Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor."</i>


:up:

That is great news. I have been against these people since I have heard about them years ago.

I wonder if there are CleanFlick versions of the Quentin Tarantino movies. They probably have a run time of 6 minutes. :lol:

:up:

Outrageous! Now I won't be able to watch I Spit On Your Grave with my kids. :down:

:clap:

rotfl Can you imagine what they would do to films like I Spit on Your Grave and Showgirls? I have no problem with family-friendly films, but to take films that were intended for a mature audience - films that don't belong to you - and edit them down to your personal liking so that they're "safe for the kids" and then to profit on said edited films - like they're your own - by selling them to consumers and video stores, that is a clear violation of copyright laws. There's a reason some films have violence, nudity, sex scenes, and profanity. They're for adults, not children.

<b>Munich</b> is a "featured rental" on their homepage. :lol:

Awesome, I should try to go rent one of their hatchet jobs from the store down the street, and when they ring me up let them know they broke the law.

:thmbsdwn: on the decision.

anyone have a list of cleanflicks and what was removed??

Why?

sracer, care to explain? I really would like to hear why you think this was a bad thing.

Don't worry, though. HBO's "Big Love", when available on DVD will be featured uncut...only in Utah.

I'd like to know why people think this is such a good thing. If some people in Utah want to watch Munich with the bad language cut out, it's of no concern to me.

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.

Yeah, I don't have any problem with their editing movies, but they're copying them onto DVDRs and selling them? I can't possibly see how that is legal.

I don't see the issue. It is not like anyone will be effected by having edited films availiabe. People here won't rent from these stores so why should people that might want to watch a film but not hear swearing have to not have that option.

...who the hell said it was just "language" that was being censored in "Munich"? If it were as much of the violence being toned down, what's the point in watching the movie?

Jeez.

It's the selling them for profit (which is highly illegal) that got them in trouble, I'm sure.

Good News!

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.

I work about 5 minutes away from CleanFlicks. I think I'll go down on my lunch break and see if they have any "comment".

I laugh at everyone who thinks that places like Cleanflix are...okay.

As a filmmaker (sort of), I'd be pissed if someone chopped up something I created and sold it how they wanted to.

= J

I can't *believe* there are people who think this is OK. This is such a blatant copyright violation it's ridiculous. I'm surprised it took this long to get the ruling.

Well said FilmFanSea. Well said.