Edited movies

[nbs2]

The recent ruling against CleanFlicks

I think buying edited movies is kind of silly - taking out something that offends you still leaves the same message (kind of like why euphemisms are pointless if your state of mind is still the same). That being said, I don't see anything wrong with someone who is bothered by the material being given the opportunity to buy the product without the offending material.

Just looking for opinions - and I won't be surprised if this dragged in the the PF...

 

[ejb190]

I have mixed feelings about this one.

Imagine if you had written a book or published a photograph that someone else takes the liberty to change so someone else is not offended. The simplist way to go is if a movie offends you, don't watch it. That's what the ratings on the films are for.

On the other hand, this is a tool for parents. I remember hearing the kids at school talk about movies my parents wouldn't let me watch. Now that I'm an adult, I see that I really wasn't missing anything, but I digress. If the kids are going to see a movie, a clean copy would give parents a piece of mind. (And it also might give kids an incentive to see what was changed!)

My last point is a word of warning to the editors. Be careful. With a bit of editing, you can completly change the tone and message of a film. You are walking a very fine line in some cases between cleaning a film up and changing it completly. And this is the argument that the courts and directors are using.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Parents don't need this tool. If they think a film is one their kids should not see for some reason, then they should not let them see it. Nobody has the right to alter copyrighted materials except for the holder of the copyright. "CleanFlicks" was obviously going way beyond the bounds of what is allowed through fair use.

 

[dornoforpyros]

eh whatever, there's a market for it, so be it. I don't have a problem with a clean version of movies/albums persay, as long as the original director/artist is involved in the process.

I think Tool did it best with their barcode cover on the clean (aka:walmart) version of Undertow.

 

[Mr. Durden]

I dont see anything wrong with the "clean" version of movies. I have a DVD player that will automatically take out swear words if you turn the feature on. Whats the problem with the DVD player hitting mute when an F-Bomb is being dropped? Oh heaven forbid someone not want to hear the gratuitous use of vulgarities. And all these whinny directors complaining about the "editing" changing the "message" of a movie is pathetic and misleading. And I'm not so sure that hitting the mute button should be called editing. Its all about money.

"Allow someone to control a movie in the privacy of there own home for free? Hell no! Get paid a crapload of money by the networks to let them cut out offending material, and trim it down even more to "run in the time alloted"? Hell yes, where is my check?"

So I guess the next time my 6 year old is watching King Kong and wants to skip the island natives scenes that he thinks are too scary, I'll force him to watch it because he may be missing the director's "message".

Justice isnt being served here. The courts are pandering to the larger check books.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I dont see anything wrong with the "clean" version of movies.

This isn't the issue. The issue is, "CleanFlicks" was editing movies and reselling their own versions without authorization from the original creator. This is a violation of the creator's copyrights on the material, plain and simple. FWIW, it wouldn't matter if they were taking out all the "clean" parts and keeping in the "dirty" ones. The principle is the same.

 

[stonyc]

So I guess the next time my 6 year old is watching King Kong and wants to skip the island natives scenes that he thinks are too scary, I'll force him to watch it because he may be missing the director's "message".

You already have a tool readily available to skip scenes that he doesn't want/need to watch. Altering a copyrighted work goes waaaaay beyond that.

If you read the entire article, software-based filtering (I'm assuming this is what your particular DVD player has, from your description) options have not yet been challenged...

Because ClearPlay's technology does not involve making an altered DVD copy, it has been shielded from the copyright infringement claims. The debate over movie content filtering activities made its way into Congress, which passed the 2005 Family Movie Act that protects ClearPlay and other software-based filtering companies. Matsch noted that Congress at that time had the opportunity to also carve out legal protections for CleanFlicks and its ilk, but chose not to.

Though they may be challenged in the future, the distinction was made pretty clear... software-based filtering had not resulted in a product that physically altered and sold those copyrighted works.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I agree w/IJ. They took copyrighted material, changed it, and resold it w/o permission. That's against the law.

Justice isnt being served here. The courts are pandering to the larger check books.

Yeah, there is so much pandering going on towards the Entertainment industry right now. "Won't someone think of the children" has been a rallying cry for a while now. The MPAA recently got contacted yet again from Congress about it's rating system. The ESRB seems to be constantly on the other end of a phone call from the government. The FCC has network standards & practices freaking out. TV shows didn't have ratings until government pressure in the 90's produced the TV Parental Guidelines and later required manufacturers to include "v-chip" type technology in TV sets sold in the US. The 2005 Family Movie Act got signed into law and the Child Online Protection Act is a piece of craptacular legislation that just won't go away (in one form or another it's been getting pushed for over 10 years now).

Oh, and if your six year old gets cared watching King Kong maybe he's not ready for a PG-13 movie?

On another level I'm glad CleanFlicks lost because I'm not a big fan of censorship. A "non-offensive" version of a movie, book, song, or any other work of art is just stupid, IMO. If you don't like it don't look at it, buy it, or listen to it. That's pretty simple right? And since different people find different things offensive we could end up w/dozens of versions and the original work essentially becomes lost among plethora of "jew friendly" "child friendly", "black friendly", "hispanic friendly", "elderly friendly", "mentally retarded friendly", "christian friendly", "muslim friendly", "german friendly", etc., variants.

If the Klan started a CleanFlicks like business of creating and selling "non-offensive" versions of movies (and by "non-offensive" I mean they color corrected "The Color Purple" to get rid of all the black people) how many people would argue that the Klan's wanting to not be offended by seeing black people in leading roles should superseded copyright law?


Lethal

 

[Black&Tan]

On another level I'm glad CleanFlicks lost because I'm not a big fan of censorship. A "non-offensive" version of a movie, book, song, or any other work of art is just stupid, IMO. If you don't like it don't look at it, buy it, or listen to it. That's pretty simple right? And since different people find different things offensive we could end up w/dozens of versions and the original work essentially becomes lost among plethora of "jew friendly" "child friendly", "black friendly", "hispanic friendly", "elderly friendly", "mentally retarded friendly", "christian friendly", "muslim friendly", "german friendly", etc., variants.Lethal

Since when did we as a country be concerned with offending someone. The individual has far more power that the group, if he but writes a single letter. Its ridiculous. At this rate, we'll never produce another movie or television show, because everything's offensive to someone.

You notice no one's complaining because Walmart's movies are edited for sexual content....

 

[eRondeau]

Artistic Vision???

Like it or not, the final movie -- swear words, nudity, and all -- is the director's "artistic vision" every bit as much as the Mona Lisa was DaVinci's artistic vision, or the Eiffel Tower was that French architect's vision. One was shot on film, one was painted on wood, the other made of steel -- the medium doesn't matter. For a third party to unilaterally decide that the Director should not have included this word, or that shot, or whatever, and remove it from "their version" of the film is an outright insult. I personally don't like the Mona Lisa's eyes, they creep me out -- so I want to be able to sell copies of the picture with the eyes blacked out, and still call it the Mona Lisa. And the Eiffel Tower is too pointy at the top for my tastes -- the models I sell are round. And oh yeah, Scarface has too many F-words so I'll just replace them all with "fiddledy-doo" -- it won't really change the film, Tony will still be a pretty bad guy, he'll just talk a lot more politely, and 6-year-olds can now watch it without being exposed to bad words because Brian De Palma clearly wasn't worried about making it family-friendly when he filmed it. Must have been in a rush to get it done.

And when we're done sanitizing every grown-up movie the world has ever made, I really want to see the first part of Wizard of Oz colorized, and that one episode of M*A*S*H that was shot in black & white too, what were they thinking??? And Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon has way too many quiet parts, they're hard to hear -- it should really be remixed so everything is exactly the same volume........

 

[atszyman]

Count me in the "unsure" category on this one.

The stores in question (at least according to the article) purchased (and sold) the un-edited, legitimate, copy of the movie with their edited version.

If I buy a DVD and make a backup of it, that's fine, as I understand it under fair-use (let's not get into the decryption aspect/debate). If I buy a bunch of CDs and make one mixed CD with the songs I like that's fine as well. If I were to take a movie and only put the scenes I liked onto a DVD that should be fine. If a less tech savvy friend asks me to do this for them and gives me a few bucks for the effort/time I don't have any issues with that either.

Once you go mass production however I can see where the waters get murky quickly. Once they've done one movie they have their version to burn to as many DVDs as they like. Yes, they purchase a copy of the DVD to package with their edited version but their costs are the blank DVD and burn time, and I imagine the markup is steep based on that. Effectively they are modifying someone else's copyrighted work and selling it for profit. If I were to purchase a palate of the DaVinci code books for cheap and go in and edit out offensive text and then try to sell them at the store I can see how that should not be a legal business model.

 

[Black&Tan]

Nope, no mixed feelings. Its wrong to resell somebody else's work with your own editing. If you don't want to hear that bad words, or see the bumping, then don't watch it. And if you don't want your kids to see it, don't buy it.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[CorvusCamenarum]

Since when did we as a country be concerned with offending someone.

Ever since the rise of "politically correct" speech control. And now we're reaping the benefits of such a wonderful policy, especially at the government level - no one is really saying much of anything anymore out of fear of hurting someone's feelings.

You notice no one's complaining because Walmart's movies are edited for sexual content....

I knew about their CDs, but not movies. Makes me glad I don't buy movies from them.

To me this seems to be all about control. People can't be satisfied with looking after their own households, they have to look after other peoples' as well. Rather reminds me of my grandmother, who insisted when I was small that I should go put on a sweater when she was cold.

 

[mactastic]

Hmm... so if I put out my own "non-offensive" edited version of the Bible, I don't suppose any of the supporters of CleanFlicks would object?

 

[Black&Tan]

Hmm... so if I put out my own "non-offensive" edited version of the Bible, I don't suppose any of the supporters of CleanFlicks would object?

...or the Koran.

 

[Black&Tan]

I'd love to see what they would do to Mel Gibson's flick, The Passion.

As somebody on another forum said, its basically a two hour snuff flick. My first thought was harsh, but then I agreed.

 

[Mr. Durden]

Oh, and if your six year old gets cared watching King Kong maybe he's not ready for a PG-13 movie?




Lethal

OK. Let me clarify. Selling a physically altered version of the film, would be wrong in my opinion. However, my point remains that if people want to skip a portion of a movie because it is offensive to them for whatever reason, I think they should be able to. If I'm at a movie and half way through there is a scene I'm not comfortable with, I'm allowed to leave for a moment and come back, right? Or have I somehow "edited" and altered the "director's vision" by not seeing those moments of film?

And its exactly my point about King Kong. I screened it ahead of time and felt that the only thing my son shouldnt see is the island natives scenes. The rest of the film seems relatively harmless to me. So I dont mind him seeing the other portions, and trust that he isnt getting the "wrong message" from the movie because he missed that 5 minutes.

Either way, I guess its the studio and directors art, so they should have a say in how its handled. And I still feel its mainly a money matter.

 

[strider42]

This isn't the issue. The issue is, "CleanFlicks" was editing movies and reselling their own versions without authorization from the original creator. This is a violation of the creator's copyrights on the material, plain and simple. FWIW, it wouldn't matter if they were taking out all the "clean" parts and keeping in the "dirty" ones. The principle is the same.

exactly. This is a very cut and dry issue. These people don't have the right to make copies of the film. No matter what their intent, they just don't have the right to do so.

If the copyright holders want to do this, they can. The copyright protects their ability to do this themselves and make money off of it. What gives this third party the right to make money or in any way do anything with someone else's work.

 

[yg17]

Hmm... so if I put out my own "non-offensive" edited version of the Bible, I don't suppose any of the supporters of CleanFlicks would object?

If you did that, you'd have about 4 words left.

Back on topic:

I don't agree with the concept of edited movies to begin with. I think parents need to take some responsibility for their damn kids instead of having others do that for them. If you don't want your kids to hear those words, don't let them see the movie. If you really want them to see the movie, explain to them that the word they heard that begins with f and ends with uck should never, ever be repeated again, and punish them if they don't listen.

My brother works at a movie theater, and tells me about how all the time parents take their little kids, and by little, I don't mean 10 years old, I mean 2 and 3 year olds, to R rated movies. Well when the kid is 4 years old and starts dropping the F bomb left and right, they blame the entertainment industry. It's not the entertainment industry's fault. They came up with movie ratings, explicit content labels on CDs, and video game ratings so parents know what their kids should and shouldn't watch. If they completely ignore those ratings, it's not the entertainment industry's fault, it's the parents fault for their ****** parenting.

 

[vniow]

There was a similar tech called Clearplay which did something similar. While the company didn't sell DVDs which were already censored, they did make a DVD player which did it for them. It riled up the studios but as far as I know they didn't sue it out of existence. The difference between this and CeanFlicks is that they didn't resell edited versions of the DVDs they put through their process.

The latter I guess came up as illegal, since they were selling modified works without the owner's position which if I were a producer/writer/director I would feel a bit insulted. The former where its just technology in the DVD seems more acceptable and I suppose legal. People can do whatever they want in the pricacy in their own homes and if that emans censoring movies than so be it. They should not however be able to buy edited versions themselves since that involves bypassing copyright law. While I despise the idea of a V-chip and other technologies which I will never ever subject my kids to since I believe it is an attempt to make up for poor parenting, people do have the right to fast-forward or mute whenever objectionable material comes on.

Clearplay and the V-chip just make that easier. CleanFlicks goes one step further and bypasses the law in doing so. Of course not watching the movie in the first place is far less of a hassle than anything previously mentioned.

 

[stonyc]

OK. Let me clarify. Selling a physically altered version of the film, would be wrong in my opinion. However, my point remains that if people want to skip a portion of a movie because it is offensive to them for whatever reason, I think they should be able to. If I'm at a movie and half way through there is a scene I'm not comfortable with, I'm allowed to leave for a moment and come back, right? Or have I somehow "edited" and altered the "director's vision" by not seeing those moments of film?

...and there are already tools readily available for you to do that (read: remote).

 

[CorvusCamenarum]

OK. Let me clarify. Selling a physically altered version of the film, would be wrong in my opinion. However, my point remains that if people want to skip a portion of a movie because it is offensive to them for whatever reason, I think they should be able to. If I'm at a movie and half way through there is a scene I'm not comfortable with, I'm allowed to leave for a moment and come back, right? Or have I somehow "edited" and altered the "director's vision" by not seeing those moments of film?

The difference here is that you're making a concious choice based on your beliefs that affects only you; you're not censoring for the so-called "benefit" of others (and to make a buck).

And its exactly my point about King Kong. I screened it ahead of time and felt that the only thing my son shouldnt see is the island natives scenes. The rest of the film seems relatively harmless to me. So I dont mind him seeing the other portions, and trust that he isnt getting the "wrong message" from the movie because he missed that 5 minutes.

Wow, an example of real parenting. Radical concept. Good on ya.

Either way, I guess its the studio and directors art, so they should have a say in how its handled. And I still feel its mainly a money matter.

Agreed, and agreed.

 

[Black&Tan]

My brother works at a movie theater, and tells me about how all the time parents take their little kids, and by little, I don't mean 10 years old, I mean 2 and 3 year olds, to R rated movies. Well when the kid is 4 years old and starts dropping the F bomb left and right, they blame the entertainment industry. It's not the entertainment industry's fault. They came up with movie ratings, explicit content labels on CDs, and video game ratings so parents know what their kids should and shouldn't watch. If they completely ignore those ratings, it's not the entertainment industry's fault, it's the parents fault for their ****** parenting.

One of the best things I did as a manager at a movie theater was tell a family they could not bring their 2-3 year old into the midnight showing of Hellraiser. They argued with me right and left, told me the child would be sleeping, but I told them it was NC-17, that means NO ONE under 17 is admitted. I shudder to think what environment that child will be raised in.

But if you look at the ratings system, it is up to the theater to enforce, or not enforce, the ratings. Its not a law, just a guideline. And theaters have to deal with parents who don't want to follow the rules and parents who want the rules strictly enforced.

 

[Thanatoast]

And its exactly my point about King Kong. I screened it ahead of time and felt that the only thing my son shouldnt see is the island natives scenes. The rest of the film seems relatively harmless to me. So I dont mind him seeing the other portions, and trust that he isnt getting the "wrong message" from the movie because he missed that 5 minutes.

Just out of curiosity, why were the natives too scary, but Kong getting shot up by machine guns was okay? One part is scary, one part violent - how do you make the decision?

I mean, if you want to edit movies for your children I suppose it's good that you're being an active parent, but I don't see the point of watching an edited film. If the part with the natives is scary, that's because it's supposed to be. It heightens the tension. The movie is the experience, and if you cut out pieces of the movie, then you're not getting the full experience and range of the art.

Would you watch the TBS-edited version of Die Hard?

 

[SharksFan22]

I think an underlying theme here is that it's a responsibility of the parent/guardian to keep kids away from objectionable material or explain to them what's really going on. I too have seen under-10 kids in R-rated movies (far too often actually) and can't believe it.

There's nothing worse than watching something that's been edited or changed to be "politically correct". I'm a fan of the old Warner Borthers cartoons -- the ones shown on TV today are so chopped up that they make no sense whatsoever.