Federal judge rules against "sanitized" DVDs such as CleanFlicks
07-10-06, 07:20 AM
#1
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Federal judge rules against "sanitized" DVDs such as CleanFlicks
from today's NY TIMES
"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."
"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."
07-10-06, 08:34 AM
#6
Senior Member
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. 
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.
07-10-06, 10:27 AM
#13
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As many as 90 stores nationwide, about half of them in Utah, buy the CleanFlicks versions.
07-10-06, 10:36 AM
#14
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by canaryfarmer
sracer, care to explain? I really would like to hear why you think this was a bad thing.
07-10-06, 10:45 AM
#15
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Out of the sandbox!
Posts: 1,609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
07-10-06, 10:52 AM
#16
DVD Talk Legend
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.
07-10-06, 11:03 AM
#17
DVD Talk Limited Edition
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.
07-10-06, 11:07 AM
#18
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...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.
Jeez.
07-10-06, 12:01 PM
#20
DVD Talk Special Edition
Good News!
07-10-06, 12:08 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
07-10-06, 12:55 PM
#23
DVD Talk Legend
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
As a filmmaker (sort of), I'd be pissed if someone chopped up something I created and sold it how they wanted to.
= J
07-10-06, 01:23 PM
#25
DVD Talk Limited Edition
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.