Directors Counter-Sue Movie Bowdlerizing Company 889
crazyhorse44 writes "The lesser of two evils? 'The Directors Guild of America is suing more than a dozen companies that delete scenes depicting violence, sex and profanity from Hollywood films, saying the process violates federal copyright law. The lawsuit, filed Friday in Denver, was a response to a suit filed last month by Clean Flicks of Colorado, which is part of the Utah-based rental chain Clean Flicks. The company had asked a judge to rule its practice legal, despite protests from several well-known directors, including Robert Redford and Steven Spielberg. Clean Flicks argues it doesn't violate copyright law because it purchases a new copy each time it edits a film and because customers are technically owners of the videos through a cooperative arrangement. The edited tapes also carry a disclaimer that the film was edited for content, the company says.' Whose side to take? The DGA is defending the desecration of many of our favorite films, while Clean Flicks is strongly advocating for the copyright rights of the consumer to edit and/or alter the media that they purchase. At the extreme you have folks who want to eliminate all traces of sex and violence from the popular media against the movie industry who wants to eliminate all property rights of the consumer. Whose side would you take? Links at Salon, USA Today and FindLAW." We've had previous stories here and here.
A poll? (Score:4, Interesting)
My vote is hung, can't decide.
Compaclft
As long as proper age restrictions are there... (Score:4, Interesting)
When we have the "proper" age restrictions (where it's another story to decide how to set them), I definitely think we should have no censorships. I can decide what to watch and not. If I had bad experiences from an extremely violent movie, I would never think "Oh, why didn't they protect me from that scene by censoring it!?" but instead "Why did the director keep that unnecessarily violent scene".
GPL (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This *is* a tricky one... (Score:4, Interesting)
Can this be a chance to overturn MAI Software? (Score:5, Interesting)
Clean Flicks is presumably copying the original film in the course of making its edit. If they win this case, it shows that such temporary copies aren't infringement after all. That could get rid of the MAI ruling, which would in turn make a lot of awful EULA's unenforceable.
I am supporting Clean Flicks on this one.
Re:Who's side? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is not censorship. Only a government can censor. This is unauthorized re-editing, then re-selling that product you didn't produce, but modified.
I think we've had more than enough puritanism. If you don't want your kids to see violence or sex, don't show them the bloody movie. Read them a book or something.
If only more people would do this....
Or would that be too much work for parents?
Sadly, in many cases is the answer is "yes." That's why we've got V-Chips in televisions, a television rating system that was created under duress (Senator Lieberman said Washington would act if Hollywood didn't do something), and the Communications Decency Act.
I agree, though, editing films to remove sex and violence without permission is wrong. If the directors want to target the audience these editors are serving, they'll edit the films themselves. In fact, it would be in their benefit to do so, as it expands the available market for their product.
...as much as I despise the practice... (Score:5, Interesting)
In practice, however, I get a sinking feeling in my belly at the idea that censored versions of "cultural works" (movies, books, whatever) will be going into wide distribution (not sure how wide, but certainly wider than it currently is should this be judged a legal practice). this uneasiness is compounded by the realization that community pressure will push people towards only renting from the "nice store" that doesn't push "dirty movies" (yes I'm caricaturing, but social pressures _do_ work this way).
I would much prefer that the original version of the movie be distributed on DVD, along with a DVD playlist that can be used to playback a "niche audience" version (similar to "play widescreen/fullscreen").
I see this as actually being a significant enough market that some sort of modified DVD player that accepts a separate CD (containing one or many "alternate cut" playlists for a film) could be a strong seller, with several bonuses:
As far as this case goes (IANAL etc. etc.), I see the achilles heel as being the cooperative ownership aspect. That seems to fall right in the zone of judicial judgment (please correct me if I'm off), and the entertainment industry has all those scary lawyers who know exactly which judges to push the case in front of, not to mention plenty of other dirty tricks.
(In short, both sides suck, and everyone should listen to me.)
Censorship vs. DRM? Hardly! (Score:3, Interesting)
Lacking the know-how to do it themselves, they happily employ the services of this company, which has made big inroads among certain communities, and is making this business of chopping films for consumption very profitable. It's getting to the point where the movies the directors make are not getting to the end audience they way they intended.
Traditionally, the way the directors handled these cases was pretty much - tough, that's my film, if you don't like some of the material, you're welcome not to watch. It was up to the individual. Here, you have what arguably is a distributor (the "co-ownership" agreement aside, which I would argue is purely a legal device), dictating what the audience sees.
"So what?", you say? "The audience wants them to edit the films for them!" Well, there are several different takes on this issue, so let me re-frame the situation. People want web-filters to block "unsuitable" sites as well. Does that mean we should support web-blocking, since the blocking only happens by request of the end-user? Perhaps.
What about a bookstore with "sanitized" versions of popular works? Would you support that, even though it violates the writer's moral rights (after all, you have changed their work WITHOUT their permission.) Some of you would probably find that distasteful, or even disingenuous.
Personally, I find the practice disturbing. It's bad enough people choose to ignore history and reality, without enabling a practice that effectively filters out ideas and images, on popular media. What's next? Editing out minority populations (language and violent situations are already a casualty on movies and cartoons screened on network and even cable TV), replacing dialogue, or even characters?
Yes, much of this already happens with the blessing of the media companies (partially because they want to cater to this restrictive audience.) The directors gripe and grumble, but in the end, they can try and deliver DVDs and Videos that capture the vision of what they wanted to deliver. This service takes that control away, and puts it in the hands of a third party censor, who then effectively controls the vision of what is seen by this particular population.
In the end though, I guess what really bothers me is the attitude that these people have. It's the kind of attitude, I want to consume all I want, but I don't want to deal with the consequences of my consumption. Or, to rephrase it for these folks, they hate Hollywood and everything that it stands for, but they want to be entertained anyways. Arguably a good business opportunity, but not one that I would personally support.
Exactly where do I get the edited-for-tv version? (Score:2, Interesting)
Note: I haven't seen a cleanflicks film but have heard about them from others who have. Please read the following accordingly.
Clean Flicks takes a video owned by their customer, cuts a few specific chunks out of it, splices it back together (minus the chunks) and gives it back to the customer.
There has been no duplication of the video. In fact, the video has been legally purchased from a legal source. The only modification was the removal of the material, and perhaps a sticker stuck on the front of the tape to say "hey this isn't the full version, we've removed some stuff from it".
I can understand why a director might not like people messing with the content of their movies. What I don't understand is what leg the copyright holders think they have to stand on. If I buy a video and decide to cut chunks out of it before I watch it what business is it of the directors? Similarly, if I want to pay someone else to cut chunks out of it, again, what business is it of the directors?
I could possibly understand the complaint if CleanFlicks were marketing these as the uncut, unedited versions, but they aren't. In fact, they are being very up front about what they are doing. The cutting service is what they are in fact selling, not the videos themselves.
Personally, I think the studios/directors/etc. have brought this on themselves. Back when DVD's first were coming out, part of the selling points was that movie studios could release multiple copies of a movie on a DVD, say a edited-for-tv version and a regular version.
Where are the edited-for-tv versions? There are a LOT of movies I would buy if I could purchase a copy on DVD which was somewhat cleaned up. I'm sorry, I just don't need to see or hear some of the images and/or language which hollywood seems to feel they need to put in movies (I get enough of that reading slashdot).
Technically, providing a cleaned up version alongside the full version on a DVD shouldn't be a big issue. Putting a edited-for-tv soundtrack on a disk as an additional language track alongside the commentaries and the half-dozen languages wouldn't be a big thing space-wise. Likewise, I suspect that setting up some sort of automatic "play only these scenes" when in "edited" mode should be doable, although I'm not a DVD mastering expert.
Note that I'm not trying to say that noone should watch these things. What I am saying is that I would like to have a choice over whether I watch a complete, unedited version, or say a complete version but without every other word being something you wouldn't say in mixed company, or even a "hacked up for TV" version that I might dare recommend a family watch with their kids.
The only two options the studios have provided for me today is to watch the movie or to not watch the movie. Cleanflicks is trying to provide a third option for those who want it. If the studios would have provided this option via DVD or some other technology, CleanFlicks probably wouldn't even exist.
I also would submit that a lot of the people that buy movies from CleanFlicks probably wouldn't buy the same movies if they weren't edited for content. As a result, I suspect that CleanFlicks is probably *improving* the bottom line cash-wise for the directors and for the studios. How can this be a bad thing?
Re:Hubris (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't like what's in a movie, you're within your rights to not watch that movie. There are good movies out there that don't have all those elements in them. Your desire to not see anything violent does not mean that Peter Jackson has a responsibility to cut out all the battle scenes in Lord of the Rings in order to let you watch it.
Nor does it mean that another company should be able to change Jackson's work to better suit your tastes.
I think more movies without the overload of sex and violence that we often see today would be a great thing. I don't think that gives third parties the right to cut out all the bits they don't like and then re-market films that they don't own the rights to.
Re:How can this even be a question? (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny, that's not generally what I consider private.
It's one thing for, say, a mother with some A/V experience to edit out a few scenes she doesn't want her son seeing. It's another for a business to edit things out and then sell them.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Speak for yourself. I don't support them, and I don't believe you should either. Despite all the bile that's been spewed up here, this has nothing to do with end user consumer rights. No one is attempting to restrict personal editing here. The changes aren't being made for personal use. What they're objecting to is a commercial company modifying and then reselling (or republishing, if you like) their copyrighted work without their consent. That seems a pretty reasonable objection to me. After all, you don't expect Readers Digest to be able to publish an abridged version of a book without the consent of the original author and/or publisher. So why do you expect Clean Flicks to be able to do it?
Problems with people doing their own editing. (Score:2, Interesting)
"In a federal lawsuit, the guild is requesting an injunction against 13 companies that either rent movies that have been edited or sell software that allows consumers, through computers or DVD players, to edit movies themselves." from Salon [salon.com]
According to the salon article the Directors guild does have a problem with people doing their own editing, or at least companies selling them the kit to do it with. This is what the
On another note if you've spent time editing a film to remove all the bits that offend you, it would rather spoil the plot and ruin your subsequent viewing pleasure, so of course you want someone else to do it. The argument here that people should be able to edit films for their own use, but not edit them for someone else for profit seems stupid, and based on the irrational dislike of profit based enterprise. If it's ok for you to do something you should surely be able to ask someone else to do it for you and then financially compensate them for it (as long as they are willing and not harmed).
Just because most people here don't want to see cleaned up films doesn't mean we shouldn't support the minority who do. Most rational people will surely agree that many films, survive the slight editing they receive in the UK, to allow them to be shown on television pre-watershed. (Obviously many of Tarentino's films wouldn't...)
--
If you laid all the lawyers in the world end to end around the equator, 2/3 of them would drown.
Re:This *is* a tricky one... (Score:3, Interesting)
One time, when I was visiting the US, I had the unfortunate experience of watching it on TV with all the naughty words altered. It completely ruined the emotional impact of the movie.
Such editing should not be done without the permission of the director. Not by Clean Flicks, and neither by TV stations.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2, Interesting)
How many people can possibly believe it's cool for company B to take company A's work, mess around with it, and resell it?? That's obscene.
Let's say, for instance, SomeCompany took Microsoft's Windows 2000 Server product, changed a few things around, messed with some settings, and re-sold it as "Clean Windows". Would they not deserve to be sued out of existence?
And your nonsensical bit about "forcing" people to watch bits they don't want to see... No one forces anyone to watch anything, last I checked.
Speilberg is in on this and why? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is already in done with books. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:But there IS no conflict, only an apparent one (Score:5, Interesting)
Censoring someone else is NOT an exercise of free speech, but an infringement of it. You have every right not to watch a film if you don't like it's content, but that does NOT mean you can chop out what you don't like and then redistribute it.
So this means that I can sell a copy of Ender's Game (Great book by Orson Scott Card, btw) on Ebay (Since I bought it) when I'm done. But since the shower scene was disturbing, I ripped those 5 pages out. So now I can't sell it?
You're telling me that the only way I could get rid of this book is by throwing it away then? Aren't you forgetting the fact that I would be clearly letting people know that those pages are gone, and that those people would actually have to come to me to get this copy with a brutal murder removed from the book?
Is it censorship when the people viewing the material have to make an effort to have it that way? Or is it simply a matter of choice for them? They'd rather watch a hacked up movie than one with those scenes in... You and I wouldn't want to, but then again we wouldn't be patrons in this store in the first place.
But fair use doesn't ever permit you to redistribute any copy of the film to anyone else, regardless of whether there is any profit at all, because it's NOT YOUR FILM. It's only your COPY of the film. Possesion of the copy doesn't give you the right to edit the original work.
Hmm... you can't redistribute originals of the materials you buy? Did you check that out?
They go buy a tape. They edit that tape. They sell/rent that tape. Selling/Renting copies is not a factor here.
Personally, I'm squarely on the side of the rental store.
1) They bought the tapes, they can do with them what they like short of selling/renting copies of those tapes.
2) They aren't pushing for censorship of the source material (unlike 5,000 other groups out there). They have their own 'acceptable copies' and quietly rent those out to people of like minds.
3) They aren't forcing their views on others, indeed customers have to seek them out.
After all, what are they doing that a fast-forward button in the hands of some evilly moralistic moviewatacher couldn't do?
It's amazing how innaccurate the posts are here (Score:1, Interesting)
If you do know fair use rights, let me start by giving you a Q&A from the web site of the rental company:
Subscribe as member is the key. This is a cooperative. There are NO "profits".
Before reading further, if you don't understand cooperatives, I'd suggest talking to your local small supermarket or grocer chain. Excellent examples in the northeast are KeyFood, CTown, Gristede's (last one may be company owned chain, and therefore doesn't apply).
In the above supermarket examples, if I am a distributor or manufacturer, I sell to the main warehouse. I sell to the main warehouse at my selling price. The supermarket chain then sells my product to member supermarkets at my selling price, plus an "upcharge". The upcharge is determined by how large of an order I place. Who owns the main warehouse? All the member supermarkets. Who gets the upcharge "profit"? It is held by the COOPERATIVE. What does the COOPERATIVE do with it? They deduct operating expenses for the warehouse. Deduct shipping expenses of merchandise from warehouse to individual stores. Deduct advertising of the supermarket chain in the local/national media. Deduct payroll and other overhead of the people necessary to run the warehouse, trucks, media office, communications, LEGAL FEES, LAWSUIT SETTLEMENTS, INSURANCE PREMIUMS, and everything else related to the COOPERATIVE. What happens when "profits" are left over? They either get reinvested back into warehouse or other assets for current or future expenditures, or they get redistributed back to individual members at the end of each quarter or yearly. How is the formula for the redistribution figured out? Simple. You buy more, you get more back. You buy very little, you get very little back. What "profit" is left to the "company" at the end? NONE TO THE COOPERATIVE.
What is the goal of the COOPERATIVE? To take very little "profit" over the actual cost of operations. Why? Who wants to loan money to another entity and wait months to a year before getting it back without interest? Supermarket margins are slim enough that they can't afford to pay any extra upcharge/"profit".
How does this apply to the dvd place? If they price too much of a "profit" into their dvd, they won't attract as many members. And someone will be sitting on their money. Will "profits" be redistributed to members? In all likelyhood not, I suspect it will be reinvested into the web site, into the media costs, etc. Why would they want to attract more members? Pricing power. Negotiating power. Lower individual legal costs. Getting the studios to do what they are doing for the airlines, basic cable channels and television.
There's a lot of chatter about profit. But very little mention in most of the posts about the fact that the dvd company is a COOPERATIVE. I suspect most posters don't know how a COOPERATIVE works, and are panicking at the word censorship. It also shows the age of most of the viewers of this site.
When you have kids, you'll understand why it would be nice to find some movies that are similar to what you find edited on television, airplane trips, and even basic cable channels.
And when you learn about how a cooperative works, you'll understand why it is completely legal under fair use provisions what the COOPERATIVE in the story is doing, at the behest of its membership. What 70, 80, 90 year old judges will do with the case is subject for another
This isn't about forcing you to watch an edited movie. This is about being able to watch new releases with your family. Studios intentionally stick F*ck and other similar words into movies, counting how many times, in order to get the R rating. Why? PG means lower sales, and R means higher sales according to their research. So they make sure they put in enough profanity to get that R rating. And more often, the violence/sex or whatever is central to the storyline, according to the vision of the writer/screenwriter/director/whoever. But it may not be central to the vision of the storyline to a family sitting at home with young viewers.
I just saw trading places for maybe the hundredth time last night on basic cable. I saw it first on premium cable, with all the profanity. It was funny then. It was funny last night. I couldn't watch the premium/screen release with young kids, but I could watch the basic cable version. So the studio releases edited versions for basic cable, and that's OK with the posters here. But if I, through a cooperative, decide to rent/purchase an edited version of trading places so I can watch it with my family when I decide to watch it, you have a problem with that? I don't own any video editing equipment. Am I stuck because you have the capability and I have to farm it out?
Grow up.
Movie companies sold copies to CleanFlicks (Score:2, Interesting)
The irony lies elsewhere, I think... (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe the real irony of this story is that, by patronizing CleanFlicks, its customers are creating a greater market for the films that offend them!
If a large segment of the population "voted" with their pocketbooks by simply not renting films with violent/sexual content, then Hollywood would likely sense a market for more family-oriented films.
However, thanks to CleanFlicks, that segment can continue to happily fork over money for "sanitized" versions of violent films and Hollywood can continue to churn out enough to meet their demand.