Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Clean Flicks' Preemptive Strike For the Right To Edit 345

Posted by timothy from the between-knowledgeable-consenting-adults dept.
alanjstr writes: "We all hate how movies get 'edited for tv,' removing the sex, gore, and foul language that make them worth watching. A private firm decided to rent videos for private use after having made them clean. The Directors Guild of America doesn't like things like this (a la The Phantom Edit). CNN.com carries an article about Clean Flicks suing for the right to make edits. It's copyright vs. the first amendment as they battle over the right to censor and fair use." Since the equipment to make your own versions of movies is so ubiquitous, it would be interesting to see edit decision lists circulate for particular films.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clean Flicks' Preemptive Strike For the Right To Edit More

Clean Flicks' Preemptive Strike For the Right To Edit

Comments Filter:
  • I think it should be acceptable to make changes like this.

    Since it's not the Government doing it, there really isn't a Constitutional arguement here.

    Clean Flicks should be allowed to do this. When they do sell or rent these films, they are clearly marked as edited.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • If this is legal, the reverse should be true as well. I should be able to take a Disney movie and add violence, sex, and profanity.

        Or maybe television, that would be fun; Touched by an Angel or Seventh Heaven special edition on DVD. Add a shotgunning here, a shower scene there, redub the characters with sound-alikes who utter a profanity every sentence...
      • Then I think that I should be allowed to edit your posts prior to them appearing on Slashdot.

        This wouldn't bother me at all -- as long as the original post was still available to anyone who wanted to read it.

        In fact, this already happens to some extent -- to the comments as a whole. It's the moderation system. While it's not perfect, it has the merit of offering people customized views while letting others who prefer the raw format view it that way.

        Clean Flicks is offering the same service.

        I can take out anything I find offensive and then put the messages back together in such a way that it changes the entire tone and meaning of them.

        Red Herring. Do we know that Clean Flicks is doing this? That is, have you watched a Clean Flicks film where you felt the themes of the film was significanlty changed or lost because of the editing?

        Editing sensitive to overall themes and semantics expressed in a scenes is not exclusive with individuals psycho/social/emotional sensitivities.

        But I'll need your user ID so that people think that you wrote the edited version.

        More than a Red Herring -- this implies deception on the part of Clean Flicks, where NONE EXISTS. The films are clearly marked as edited by Clean Flicks, and since the whole premise of the business is founded on this awareness, it's impossible to argue someone might wander into their store and accidentally mistake a Clean Flicks version as the real thing.

    • The movies they sell or rent are also clearly marked as being the property of a film studio. And they're clearly marked as being "written by so-and-so" and "directed by whomever."

      Legally, because they do not own the films, they have no right to do this.

      Ethically, because they did not make the films, they have no right to do this.

      What's left? Whiny fair-use arguments that do not hold up, because Clean Flicks is a business making a profit.

      I can certainly cover up Venus on the clamshell's tits if they make me uncomfortable. But I sure as hell am not allowed to then sell it and claim it as anything close to Boticelli's original work.

  • Change and redistribution is illegal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Saturday August 31, 2002 @01:37PM (#4176856) Homepage
    I have no problem with people buying a copy of a movie and doing whatever they want to it. But when you redistribute that movie after changing it, that is just plain wrong. You are taking the work of someone else, changing it without their permission, and redistributing it as if it is still their work (yes there may be a sticker saying it was modified, but the consumer can't tell what has been changed). While the TV edits of movies are dumb, they are not done without the permission of the artist (whoever that may be for a movie). So do what you want with your own property, but as soon as you redistribute it to others, you are in the wrong.
    • What about physical things.

      Like AMG or Sallen or IAI.

      They take something that was made by someone else, in the case of AMG or Sallen it is a car. They change them, they then resell them for a profit.

      IAI takes old Soviet-bloc aircraft and upgrades them for clients with new systems and avionics, and redistributes them.

      In my mind, these are the same as someone in Utah taking a film, making an edit and reselling.

      If it is legal to do this to a physical object like a Mustang or a MiG-21, why not to a flim?
      • If it is legal to do this to a physical object like a Mustang or a MiG-21, why not to a flim?

        Because there's a law against it. That's the way copyright works - except for certain exemptions (the so-called Fair Use doctrine) only the copyright owner can authorise changes.
      • Blockquoth the poster:

        What about physical things.

        OK, class, let's do this again. Repeat after me: "Intellectual output is not the same as physical property." It is not the same in just about any way. The bullheaded attempt to force Intellectual Output to conform to the norms of physical property law leads to all the confounding, confusing, and ultimately contradictory contortions that make up the utter legal mess we laughingly call intellectual "property" law.


        When someone sells you a refurbished MiG, they surrender the physical object and the ability to use it, since only one person can use it at a time. When a company sells you a DVD, they do not surrender ownership of the content. They provide a copy. You can do what you want with that copy except make another.


        Here's an interesting take: If CleanFlicks makes the edit on a per-tape basis and destroys the original, are they actually in violation of copyright? Or are they protected by First Sale? The correct analogy is not to physical property like MiG fighters. The correct analogy is to editing a book by going through and blacking out all the objectionable words. It seems clear to me that, if you do that to each and every book, then re-sell the book, you're on safe ground. But if you do it to one book and then photocopy or otherwise reproduce your edited version, you're infringing.


        The real issue becomes, what if you edit one book, reproduce the edited version, then buy and destroy one copy of the actual book per edited coy you sell? Is that infringing? What if someone else buys a copy of the book and brings it to you to edit? What if they buy a copy of the book, bring it to you, and then destroy it in return for your edited copy?


        The insanity of intellectual "property" laws -- which rest upon a demonstably false assumption -- inevitably leads to headaches like this.

    • It's been a while since I lived in Utah, but I knew many patrons of the original store in Pleasant Grove. At the time CleanFlicks' policy was that customers had to purchase the unedited movie, then they would provide the service of editing the purchaser's copy of the tape.

      That is to say, the person already owned the tape being edited. CleanFlicks was not redistributing altered copies.

      I see nothing wrong with providing the service of editing someone's purchased copy of a video.

      Yes, the result is a version of the film that perhaps doesn't match the director's original vision. Now consider, how many movies out there actually match the director's vision after studio execs get finished with them? I can't count the number of tales I've heard from directors about meetings where they had to sit and listen to execs tell them what changes they needed to make to their films to make them more profitable.

      Now let's assume that CleanFlicks distributes pre-edited editions of these films. I have a hard time believing that anyone will be duped by the folks at CleanFlicks into thinking that they're getting the original version of the film. If you're going to CleanFlicks, you're going in knowing that you'll get an edited version of whatever you buy.

      Looking at it in personal terms, if you've purchased my film edited, I don't care if you edit out language you find offensive, or remove violent or sexual content that offends your sensibilities. I've had the opportunity to express myself to those that want to see the original version of my work, and you've paid to see a version that's more compatible with your own sensibilities. Just don't redistribute it in such a way that other people believe it's the original version of my work, we'll be fine.

      Beside that, so long as you've paid for your copy of my film and had it edited, either before delivery or after, thanks for the revenue. I'm glad you've found a way to enjoy my work and provide me monetary support you wouldn't have given me otherwise.

    • I hate modified films as much as anyone, but I don't think Clean Flicks is as clearly guilty as you make them out to be.

      I don't believe that the exclusive rights granted to copyright owners ensure that no one sell your intellectual property, only that they cannot do so without first purchasing it from the exclusive rights holder.

      Copyright is not intended to ensure someone's creative vision, only to ensure that creators can profit from their creations. Since it appears that Clean Flicks is purchasing copies of the copyrighted material from the original copyright holder and, in essence, selling their modifications as an add-on, I don't believe that the original copyright holder's exclusive rights are being violated.

      The issue here may be with Clean Flicks ability to advertise the resulting work under its original title and as created by the original creators. They may have to sell it as "A Clean Flicks production based on the film X by Y"
    • I agree with you its wrong to just put on a sticker. I think a fair solution is giving the studio of a choice of titiles putting the emphasis where they prefer:

      Clean Flix's The Matrix
      a modification of the original Warner Bros version

      or
      The Matrix
      modified by CleanFlix originally be Warner Bros.

      For that matter the same thing for the TV, Cable and BlockBuster versions wouldn't be bad either.

  • Fair Use?? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RatFink100 ( 189508 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @01:45PM (#4176891)
    Its copyright vs the first amendment as they battle over the right to censor and fair use

    Since when is editing someone else's copyrighted work and re-distributing it commercially fair use?

    • You're exactly right. That's the big problem that a lot of people seem to be missing -- these people don't just want to edit the movies, they then want to resell the movies. I think (hope) most people here can see the problem with that, and not just reflexively jump on the tired old knee-jerk anti-copyright bandwagon once again.
      • I think this should be allowed, as long as they license the rights to do this from the original copyright holder. That way, if a director doesn't want this done to their work, they can negotitate that with the film company when they sign their contracts.

        One way around this might be to design some nifty features into a DVD player (either software or hardware), and then ship edit lists (& voice dubs, etc.) to be applied dynamically in separate files (software) or smartcards (hardware). These edits would be applied during playback only. If this isn't illegal now, it probably will be soon (seeing the sorts of laws Hollywood is buying), but it would involve people buying the movie as shipped by the company and applying changes themselves as they watch it.

  • Call me kinda weird, but from a former internship at the Dept of Rehab and Corrections point, I believe that they show these movies to inmates: Why? They feel like the sex, violence, drugs, and whatever-else they cut out of here would make a sex offender repress and try to screw with someone or the violence could get someone who is in for a violent crime be violent to the guards.

  • Edit Lists (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Saint Aardvark ( 159009 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @01:49PM (#4176904) Homepage Journal
    Sweet idea:

    Since the equipment to make your own versions of movies is so ubiquitous, it would be interesting to see edit decision lists circulate for particular films.

    Imagine passing around the equivalent of a shell script...or wait, no, a *patch*...to edit movies to your taste. This one takes out the filth, that one makes The Phantom Edit, t'other one puts in that steamy sex scene from The Golden Girls Cut Loose (gah!).

    It'd require the equivalent of patch for video, of course, but I bet with Unix at least you'd be able to put something very much like that together right now. And then, imagine if Clean Flicks just sold those li'l scripts. What would the directors do then?

    (Another lawsuit, duh. Silly question.)

    • You'd need to have the redistribution rights for whatever you put in. So you could cut something to make it PG or whatever, but you can't put scenes back to make it the "Special Edition" or whatever, unless the person you're selling the script to has the scenes already, which makes the entire idea moot IMO.

      Kjella
  • Its about time someone provided this service. For years parents have been asking the Hollywood Studios for access to the edited versions that are used on airlines and television, only to be rebuffed with the idiotic 'artistic license' excuse.

    There is a huge market for these films, and if they won't fill it then obviously someone else should. There's nothing wrong with wanting to edit out the 'dirty bits' so your kids can enjoy some good movies.

    For example, Doc Hollywood is a pretty good Michael J. Fox movie, but right in the beginning it has a full-frontal nudity shot that really doen't add anything to the movie. Clip out that bit and you've got a PG rated movie suitable for all the munchkins (don't quote me on this, there may be a few other bits that need to be removed).

    Noone is forcing you to rent these or view them, all it is doing is providing a choice to those of us who want some of our favorite films to be a little bit cleaner.

    • Full frontal nuditiy? How dare they!?!? The human body should be hidden from view at any time! Sex should be enjoyed in the dark. (No, blindfolding doesn't count, that's perverse!). Children shouldn't know how the adult body looks like until they are at least 16! Kick in the teeth is ok, naked bodies are a total no-no!
      J.
      • The typical full frontal nudity scene from Hollywood is about treating women as mere objects of pleasure and treating sex as a mere act of self-gratification with no meaning and no consequences.

        Isn't it ironic that those arguing that sex and violence in moves and video games have no influence on children were same ones who lobbied to have Joe Camel banned?
    • Blockquoth the poster:

      There is a huge market for these films, and if they won't fill it then obviously someone else should.

      Whaaa? That's a pretty extreme form of capitalism: Solely because there's a market for something, there's an implicit moral imperative to provide the desired goods? A lot of people want heroin ... does that by itself justify either legalization or the black market that currently exists?


      Indeed, there's a pretty strong market desire for, say, a small nuclear tactical device. You could find a lot of people interested in acquiring an old Soviet one. So are the efforts of the civilized world, to interdict such arms transfers, morally wrong?


      Look, there might be a market but that doesn't mean it has to be satisfied. We usually lambaste Hollywood for its profit motive and its sacrifice of artistry for cash. If there is such a market, and if they could make such a killing meeting the demand, then they must be pretty principled to stand their ground. Is that necessarily wrong?


      Noone is forcing you to rent these or view them, all it is doing is providing a choice to those of us who want some of our favorite films to be a little bit cleaner.

      No one is forcing you to rent or view the original versions, either. I'm not sure I side with the DGA, and I'm not sure that I buy their rhetoric about the "integrity of the vision". But I also view most of the "let us do this" arguments as boiling down to, "In this cold, evil world, a righteous parent must make hard choices... but could you make mine a little easier?" If the language, sex, or violence offend you, then don't rent or watch the movie.


      It seems simple enough to me.

  • I've been there (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Will_Malverson ( 105796 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @01:55PM (#4176935) Journal
    I live in Boise, Idaho, and there's a Clean Flicks near my grocery store. I walked in a couple of weeks ago to see what the hubbub was about.

    At first glance, it looks like a regular (albeit small) video store. They stock mostly VHS. Most (but not all) of them are edited, and clearly say so on the outside of the box. This business does not pass off their movies as being the original. Their edit method is to take the original tape, physically remove the offending section of tape, and splice it back together.

    They also stocked a number of DVDs. Those were done a bit more interestingly. They had the original DVD case. Riveted to the DVD case was the original DVD. There was a sticker on it saying that it had been rendered unwatchable, it was only there as proof of purchase, and any attempt to remove it would result in a $30 charge against your account. Where you would normally find the DVD was a DVD-R disk, presumably with a digitally edited version of the movie on it. On the disk was a standard CD Label with info such as the movie run time and the like.

    While I like my movies with all the sex and violence, I can understand that some people do not. These people are not on a mission to clean up all of Hollywood. They admit that some movies can't be "cleaned up" without destroying them. But, if they want to try, as long as they're not being deceptive, or engaging in copyright violation, I have trouble caring.

  • Movie critic argues for editing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by quintessent ( 197518 ) <my usr name on toofgiB [tod] moc> on Saturday August 31, 2002 @01:55PM (#4176937) Journal
    Here's an excerpt where Deseret News critic Chris Hicks makes a couple of interesting points about editing:

    Over the years, a number of companies -- some based right here in Utah -- have tried to persuade movie studios to release the versions of their movies that are already edited for airlines and commercial television, and therefore apparently sanctioned by the filmmakers and studios. But it's always fallen apart, usually over "artistic reasons."
    Filmmakers think of themselves as artists, but how can they argue that removing profanity or nudity or gore harms a film when it's done all the time for airlines and TV? How are video versions any different?
    What's more, they already release videos of movies edited in the other direction. There are harsher, "unrated" video versions of "Basic Instinct," "Nutty Professor II," "American Pie" and many others lining video shelves right now.
    (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,405025852 ,0 0.html)

  • interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dr. Awktagon ( 233360 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @01:56PM (#4176942) Homepage

    Well, distributing the content after changing it is pretty fuzzy, they shouldn't misrepresent someone else's work.

    But I wonder if it would be possible in the future to distribute only the edits to the movie. Then you buy/rent the original movie and then apply the edits. In fact you could probably come up with some interesting satirical mash-ups this way (imagine turning a long movie into a 15-minute short about some incidental character). Kinda like distributing a source code patch, it could even include new content. But never actually distributes the original.

    They'd try and shut it down like everything else, but morally I think it would be in the clear.

  • Ignore legalities (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gmhowell ( 26755 ) <gmhowell@gmail.com> on Saturday August 31, 2002 @01:57PM (#4176943) Homepage Journal
    Ignore the legalities, and listen to some of the rhetoric. The DGA is full of shit. Totally. "These films are for a certain audience" "We can't tolerate random cuts and edits"

    Bullshit. Look at any movie that makes it to broadcast tv (and channels such as TBS, TNT, TNN on cable) and you will see movies shown and marketed to a different audience. Look at movies shown on planes, and you will see random cuts and edits.

    The directors don't care as long as they get their money.

    This has nothing to do with artistic freedom. The DGA has shown that the artistic integrity of the members can be bought and sold.

    I'd like to see the product being rented by the plaintiffs. Is it marketed as an original, or is it clearly marked? If the latter, how is it any worse than what is done by broadcast and cable stations 1000x per day? Oh, yeah, they probably didn't write a big fat check to the studios.

    There are solutions. In some cases, the studios do the editing. They should make these tapes available to rental shops looking to cater to... whatever invented market they cater to. There could be a flat, low cost, fee to allow the shops to do their own editing, provided it is very obvious to someone renting a movie.

    But here's the very best idea. DVD. The studios spend some time making sure that it's near impossible to skip the FBI warning, the Interpol notice, and the ads for the next 12 Disney films to come out. So why not program a 'safe for kids' title? Same disc, you just hit the 'for kids' option, and it automatically skips and/or edits the title on the fly.

    There is obviously a market for this. First, there are the plaintiffs in this case. Second are the airlines, cable networks, broadcast networks, etc. Clearly, some people disagree with the 'artistic vision' of the studios.

    This is another case of technology being available, and large (powerful), entrenched organizations being afraid of it. Anyone with an ounce of sense would see this, not as something to be afraid of, but something to embrace, a new market to tap.

    Artistic vision be damned. It's all about the Benjamins.

    • In general, the final rights to a film are owned by the studio, NOT by the director. The director is typically hired to do a specific job, and is usually NOT the "creator" of the film per se. In a few cases the director has creative or distribution control, but that's relatively rare. Beyond that, it depends on the current union contract and any perks picked up with an individual film's contract.

      Anyway, point being in most cases the director is long since out of the loop, and most simply take their paycheck and go home when the job is done. A few get their knickers in a twist over "artistic integrity" and those are the ones who run around filing lawsuits when the studio or distributor (such as television) re-edits "their" work.

      The ironic thing is, in my experience (having worked in Hollyweird for several years), the directors with the biggest rod up their ass about their vaunted "artistic integrity" are often all but incompetent on the set, and dependent on the subsequent work of good staff to produce a marketable end product.

      • There's an interesting couple of things that arise out of your comments (which I was aware of, but chose to ignore, when I wrote the original comment that you replied to. Shame on me for doing that. Kudos to you for mentioning that.)

        Where are the studios in the lawsuit and the proposed suit by the DGA? It looks like those mentioned (Scorcese, Spielberg) do have 'final cut'. And I'm pretty sure Spielberg retains ownership and is both technically and legally the films 'creator'.

        So my question is: on average, does the DGA have any dog in this fight? Sounds like this should be the studios' battle, not that of the directors.

        I read that Hopper's first cut of Easy Rider was around 6 hours long. And that Lucas was lucky that he stumbled upon some good script editors prior to American Graffitti (and had the sense to hire a director for Empire and Jedi). I'm sure you've heard much more than that. Could make a good book.

  • previous posting on /. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by garcia ( 6573 )
    August 7th boys.

    I can't remember what I had for dinner last night but I could remember seeing this [slashdot.org] on the main page.

  • C'mon, guys - Fair Use!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ArticulateArne ( 139558 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @02:04PM (#4176981)
    (My karma is currently "Excellent," so I'm prepared to lose some precious points to argue for an unpopular idea. So mod/flame away, though I'd prefer to get flamed.)

    This is an excellent example of fair use, and everybody here should be standing up in support of it. Particularly for those who believe that all IP should be Free, this is quite analogous to the GPL for movies. The movies, of course, should not be distributable without some kind of notification that "this is not the original version - it has been modified by X person/organization." For that matter, I'm not even saying that they should be freely redistrubitable - let the organizations pay the same fees that they would for the original movies.

    The thing is, some of us don't want our (in my case still hypothetical) children hearing every curse word, seeing every head blown off, and seeing every sex scene in every movie. In many cases, those things simply aren't necessary and are thrown in for the sheer gratuity of it, and to give it more credibility as an "R" movie versus a "PG-13." "Ooh, they got an R, they must be really pushing boundaries, therefore this is a better movie." I don't want my kids to get the idea that using the F-word every other sentence is a normal thing. I know that they'll run into it at some point, and I'll explain it to them as much as they are able to handle, but the more they hear it, the more likely they are to use it.

    Perhaps this is illegal right now. But then, a lot of stuff that should be legal is illegal. (DMCA anybody?). All I want to do is filter what comes into my house. It's like setting up a filter on my incoming net connection to filter out the things that I choose - it's my house, my net connection, so I should be able to control it.

    Ok, my asbestos is firmly attached. Flame away.

    • Fair Use and TIVOs (Score:3, Insightful)

      by crath ( 80215 )

      Before anyone objects to your assertion that Clean Flicks is engaged in "fair use", they should check out how Clean Flicks runs its operation: About Edited Movies [mycleanflicks.com]. I agree with you, it's fair use.

      If Clean Flicks' editing procedure isn't fair use, then a TIVO's ad-skipping feature is also not fair use. The broadcasters have released their video stream, and any automated editing of that video stream by the TIVO is not too dissimilar to what Clean Flicks is doing: Clean Flicks is simply inserting another mechanical method in place of what the TIVO does in one's home.

      It is also worth checking out this Boston Globe article [boston.com], which provides background on a number of Clean Flicks' competitors---some of which work solely through the distribution of edit lists that you use on your PC or through a controller to a standard DVD player: ClearPlay [clearplay.com] and Family Shield Technologies [movieshield.com].

      To reiterate, their current business model is fair use.

      • "If Clean Flicks' editing procedure isn't fair use, then a TIVO's ad-skipping feature is also not fair use."

        I fail to see how this comparison holds. In the Clean Flicks case, they are editing the original in-house and then redistributing an edited product to the consumer. While TiVo doesn't have the ReplayTV's controversial ad-skip feature, such a feature still only removes the ads temporarily (the original content is available to the viewer), and that edited version is never redistributed.

        • ...such a feature still only removes the ads temporarily (the original content is available to the viewer)...

          At any time the viewer can borrow the unedited version of the movie and view it. Albeit, there is a longer time delay than one would experience with ReplayTV, but given the business model Clean Flicks is using---where members of the coop use a temporary copy of the original DVD---the essence of the transaction is the same.

          BTW, thanks for correcting my incorrect product reference (i.e., TIVO when I should have written ReplayTV).

  • Do these people have a dialogue dubbing studio? I used to love those TV edits:

    "Suck my (much deeper voice) socks you murderous mother trucker. You wanna mess with me? Lemme show you who you're messing with, you corn-eating son of a librarian.
  • At least not in the way the poster intends it to be. If it is, then *any* sort of edit should be considered censorship too. The differnce is that they edit what some people don't want to see, but they don't force the edit on those who do.
    It's no differnt than somone cutting out jar-jar from the phantom menace.

    "We all hate how movies get 'edited for tv,' removing the sex, gore, and foul language that make them worth watching."

    No, "We all" don't. Some of us could frankly care less, and some of us prefer it. And of course that has nothing to do with Clean Flicks suing. TV flicks are *already* edited post production (and frequently in production).
  • Seems people are overlooking a basic question here... if the content of something offends you, why do you want to view it?

    Is there some unalienable right to watch the same movie as everybody else that is being violated by having nudity/profanity/evolution/whatever shoved down your throat by those oppressive writers/directors/actors/whatevers?

    If you want a movie/book/song/whatever that meets certain criteria, shouldn't you produce/write/sing one of your own? And frankly, if a content creator is creating content to which you object, why would you want to give them your money? That is, after all, how we as a society assign moderator points to creative works.

    Of course, we live in a culture that thinks adults viewing sex is harmful, yet sees no problem with children witnessing gunshots to the head. So maybe slashdot's moderation system isn't the only one that's broken.
  • Haven't these Clean Edit guys been paying attention recently? The law is really decided by case history, and given the recent history on copyright cases, it's clear that copyright trumps free speech.

    If you want to give a speech, but it would violate or potentially allow to violate some copyright, then the speech is forbidden by law.

    There are a number of other fundamental rights that are now trumped by copyright as well. Simply read the case history.

    Welcome to the new millenium! The Digital Millennium, as defined by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act!
  • When it comes to art, I think the viewer should either take it as it comes, or not listen/watch/view at all. I would be PO'd if someone distributed my photographs that were changed in some way.

    These self rightous people kill me! If you are so offended by the words fuck, shit, and goddamn, naked ladies or violence, then why do you SUPPORT the producers by buying/renting those films? Why don't they take a stand and NOT rent/buy the films they find offensive?

  • No! (Score:2)

    by psicE ( 126646 )
    This is the entire point of copyright!

    Copyright law is designed to give people the exclusive rights to their work. They can license it at will, but without license, other people can't use it.

    Obviously, no one would want exclusive rights to their work - that would make it pointless. Instead, they generally want money. But there's something else very important involved in copyright - the sanctity of the original. These directors created works, and have the right to prohibit people from modifying them.

    Bringing in freedom of speech is absurd. If someone wants to show a clean movie, go put on "Pay it Forward". Or write your own damn movie. There is no speech, no "message", being blocked here; this is just saying that you can't alter a movie without someone's permission.
    • this is just saying that you can't alter a movie without someone's permission.


      Except that's not true. Copyright is the exclusive right to copy and redistribute a work, it was not intended to grant absolute control over how it it is used by customers. It is perfectly legal for me to alter a videotape I bought by splicing out portions I don't want to see. Why should it be illegal to pay a third party to do this for me?

  • After-the-fact cuts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @03:06PM (#4177278) Homepage
    The problem with after-the-fact cuts is that they're done from the shipped version, not the source material. So they'll usually look or sound bad.

    Going into post, film editors have far more material than goes on screen. They'll have multiple takes, and often multiple camera viewpoints of the same scene. So they can play with how much is shown of sex, violence, or whatever, without losing timing.

    In post, the audio hasn't been mixed down yet. The dialog is still separate from the music. So whatever edit decisions get made, the music can be inserted and timed to fit.

    After-the-fact censorship cutting can't do either of these things. So the result will usually suck. The timing will be off.

    On the other hand, few people have seen the original Star Trek series with proper timing in decades. The reruns on TV have been cut to fit in more commercials than were allowed in the 1960s. But TV has less rigid timing conventions than cinema does.

  • Since copyright law is so obviously screwed up right now, anyway, I'll ignore wheteer or not this is legal, and discuss whether it should be.

    Copyright law was intended to allow creators to make a profit from their creations, but still allow the public to benefit. In this case, the creators still make a profit, since every edited copy is bought from them before being edited. In fact, the creators are getting more profit than before, since some of the people buying the Clean Flicks version would refuse to buy the original.

    On the other hand, the public is also benefiting, by having access to a range of moveis that they otherwise would have felt obligated to ignore.

    As such, this is a win/win situation, and should be legal, whatever the current law has to say.

  • I think it's one thing to "sample" another artist's work or to "quote" it in the context of another body of work. It's another thing entirely to completely subvert the intent of the author and re-tell a story they came up with the way you'd like it to be told.

    I mean, OK, you've got me with The Phantom Edit. I guess these powers *can* be used for good and not just evil.

    But how would you like to see a "re-edit" of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle paid for by the meat industry, in which a completely unregulated meat industry leads to magnificient quality, safe and well-paid workers, and low, low prices for everyone?

    Even if they were to take another author's characters and write a completely new story, such as with Nora Zeal Hurston's Their Eyes Were Watching God, at least this is a derivative work and not trying to reproduce or supplant or replace the original. It's a respone to the original, not a remake or re-edit.

    How about this for an idea: You want to tell a clean story? Fine. Make one up yourself. Create an original work. It's not that hard.

  • Some of you may be interested in Clean Flick's membership agreement terms [byu.edu].

  • I'm confused (Score:2, Funny)

    by Com2Kid ( 142006 )
    MPAA VS Censors.

    Help head hurt.
  • I've seen the clean-flicks version of Black Hawk Down ...

    it's three minutes long.


  • I know that religious groups in Utah (Morman country) keep having problems with custom edits.

    Usually "protect the children" pre-empts almost everything in politics, so why can't children-friendly edits get past the law?

    Something even more powerful and annoying than the Religious Right? Now that is frightening.
  • I have described a marketplace for media [mediagora.com] at mediagora.com. In particular, I propose that anyone can make an edited derivativce work, as long as the customers for it buy the original at full price.

    more detaisl here [quicktopic.com]
  • At issue here, in my humble non-lawyer opion, is not copyright but the license agreement between the video store and the copyright owner. If the license does not allow editing, then the store would be violating the license agreement - just as someone who buys the DVD then shows it in their studio would be violating the license agreement. Which is why I think the store should be prevented from making unapproved edits.

    Why is that important - because the ability to enforce a license aggrement would potentially impact all software distributed under a license - whether it is by MS or the GPL. If the courts decide that licenses are not held to all terms of a license, that would weaken the ability to enforce the GPL. So while I may agree with why a video store may want to edit tapes, I don't think they should be allowed to do it without the copyright holder's agreement, thereby sticking to the license they agreed to when they bought the tape/DVD/etc.

    As a side note, people have used blacking out parts of a book as an analogy - one i don't think apples because books aren't sold with a license.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close