Federal Judge: Sanitizing Movies is Illegal

have a look.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/top/federal-judge-sanitizing-movies-is-illegal-186464.php

:thumbsup: for the judge. Official editing is bad enough (store-specific CD releases--Target does this, don't they?--or editing for US prudism--Leon/The Professional).

The major networks do this frequently with a preliminary announcement that a movie has been "edited for content".

Big Bob said:

The major networks do this frequently with a preliminary announcement that a movie has been "edited for content".

Click to expand...

Yes, but they also made agreements with the rights holders that allow them to do that.

These companies are acting like puritans (well, and politicians in general, not that they are mutually exclusive) tend to: "we think it's best for you, it's what you should have done yourself, so you should have no problems with it" (unum necessarium); rather than "may we license your titles such that we may rent out versions that are edited to fit the desires of ourselves and our potential customers?".

Or, more simply: because they are 'right', the same rules should not apply to them. From the Reuters article:

CleanFlicks and the others maintained their edited DVDs were legal under fair use guidelines that allow for the use of copyrighted material in criticism, news reporting, parody and other circumstances.

Click to expand...

Do note that I think our current IP laws go way overboard in about every way possible; but this is just the sort of thing they actually should be protecting rights owners against.

Because the very small minority known as "Hollywood people" wish to portray their lifestyles, which include immorality, perversion, vulgarity, profanity and blasphemy as normal and acceptable, that does not mean a majority of their audiences agree with them, or appreciate the trash.

Shorn of vulgarity, many movies are excellent.

Many do what I do: Vote with my $$, and don' t attend, or walk out and leave a complaint with the theater management if something is really offensive.

Respectfully sniper, I have to disagree. Some movies are purposfully violent/vulgar/graphic because they need to be. I'm not talking crap like "Hostel" or "American Pie", I mean, those are movies that'll never show up at cleanflicks no matter how much they edit it (probably be the shortest film they've got).

I'm talking about movies like "Saving Private Ryan" or "Clockwork Orange", which require a no-comprimise assault on your sensibilities. They would not have the impact intended by the filmmakers if they were PG-13. War and Ultraviolence are not family affairs, and to remove "offensive content" would be betraying the filmmakers' visions.

Of course, it's your right to choose not to watch these movies, but I do not think it's anybody's right (and neither does that Federal Judge aparently) to edit somebody else's intellectual property and profit from it.

sniper said:

Because the very small minority known as "Hollywood people" wish to portray their lifestyles, which include immorality, perversion, vulgarity, profanity and blasphemy as normal and acceptable, that does not mean a majority of their audiences agree with them, or appreciate the trash.

Shorn of vulgarity, many movies are excellent.

Many do what I do: Vote with my $$, and don' t attend, or walk out and leave a complaint with the theater management if something is really offensive.

Click to expand...

Hollywood people want to make money, pure and simple. Don't confuse the politics of individual Hollywood personalities with the product they produce.

As others have mentioned, editing a move for TV isn't a problem because there's a (presumably) mutually-beneficial agreement between the producers of the film and the TV network.

In the case of Clean Flicks and the like, there was no such agreement. For whatever reason, the content producers did not agree to license the content yet the would-be editors went ahead with their editing and distribution. Arguments about criticism and parody don't hold water when what you're distributing is a wholly derivative work. Regardless of their intent, they were in clear violation of very basic copyright law.

Perhaps there's a market for what CleanFlicks and the likes do, but they're going to have to find another way. If ot doesn't happen, it certainly won't be the first instance of content producers turning down money in exchange for editing or revision; there are plenty of books that never make it to books-on-tape because the authors won't stand for the brutal editing required (the wordcount typically has to be reduced by at least 50%).

sniper said:

Because the very small minority known as "Hollywood people" wish to portray their lifestyles, which include immorality, perversion, vulgarity, profanity and blasphemy as normal and acceptable, that does not mean a majority of their audiences agree with them, or appreciate the trash.

Click to expand...

Many of these things are normal, and where not, may be used for effect. Or, it could just be crap--not every movie is going to be up there with Citizen Kane. Some, thogh, are, and are still railed against and completely misunderstood, like Eyes Wide Shut.

Shorn of vulgarity, many movies are excellent.

Click to expand...

Or that could be the point. I'm trying, just trying to imagine a clean edit of Reservior Dogs. I think it might make for a poor 10 minute short film .

Many do what I do: Vote with my $$, and don' t attend, or walk out and leave a complaint with the theater management if something is really offensive.

Click to expand...

Always. Though I have now finally decided not to step into a theater again; because the experience has not been positive for years.

Too bad you can't unvote with your $$ (Wal-Mart, Target, alternative movie releases). My only personal experience with that has been The Professional, but I do keep my eyes open for such things now.

Of course, another interesting point is that by obvious absence, those things removed only become more desired.

I think that there's something else going on here, maybe there's another hidden edge -- probably political. (No surprise there -- the hole thing reeks of politics.) IMO issues like these never have any legs and we never would have ever heard of this at all if someone didn't have some other axe to grind that caused them to pump this up to what it is -- which is still not a ripple.

I recall a couple decades ago some very vocal groups tried to make big noise about Turner colorizing the films that he owned. At the time there was very much wringing of hands and very reverant sobbing about the original intent of the poor artists.

I don't know what they were really after but when you consider that none of them even let out a wimper about the same films being chopped up and panned for TV screens it sounded pretty phoney. Colorization was NOTHING compared to the reformatting of films for TV. It is interesting to note that the viewer could easily defeat the colorization at his set -- but he was stuck with the chopping and panning, and yet it was colorization that got the traction. That story from nowhere went on for a couple of years until it was no longer useful to those hyping it.

This is all about posturing on an entirely different issue, IMO.

IMO.

Also, any author who won't release his works as audiobooks because he won't cut them down needs to look around for a more savvy publisher. Books On Tape may cut them but that would be very far from universal. I have scores and scores of UNABRIDGED audiobooks. ( I just finished one 45 min ago) I wouldn't waste my time on one that was abridged.

I think as long as these companies aren't producing additional copies without permission, it should be allowed. As long as they are purchasing individual copies, editing out scenes/dialog to suit their customers, and then reselling them, I don't see where anybody is being hurt. If these customers were purchasing the movies and then just Fast Forwarding or Chapter Skipping past the "objectionable" material, they sould still be violating the filmaker's "vision" and nobody objects to that. These customers are just paying these "cleanup" companies to do the work ahead of time for them. A movie is just a product for sale, like a car. Nobody considers it illegal if I buy a truck, add mud tires and a lift kit, then resell it to somebody else at a profit.

That being said, I would never buy one of these "cleaned" movies. A cople years ago I was channel surfing and came across Blazing Saddles on a channel. I started watching but after a few minutes started wondering what was going on with the movie. Then I realized that it was playing on the Family Channel and had been "edited for content" which apparently not only included profanity but also anything that was not "politically correct". Since the main focus of the movie was a parody, everything was Non-PC. Editing made it unwatchable for me. But if someone wanted to pay extra for a "clean" version of this movie, even though I thought it was garbage, I say have a ball. The movie makers get paid for a copy of the movie, the "cleaning" company gets paid for their work, and the customer gets the movie he wants. No harm is done to any party in the transaction. Once the product is purchased, the customer can do what he wants with it to make it suit his tastes.

Colorization by Ted Turner was (is? he still doing that?) not much different in a moral sense (butchering an artist's work), but very different legally. If you don't want someone else to have that kind of power over your work (or works that you admire, in that case), then accept that you will likely not get significant monetary success. Same deal in music. Pleae note, however, that Ted Turner does not own any of these movies any more than someone else who has a copy of them. He owns rights to them that give him the priveledge of doing that.

Politics: it's about IP! Such a situation could not exist without an active legislature and legal system. Both sides have political axes to grind. This is merely a case where the large corporations are, incedentally--on the right side.

Aside: are abridged audio books really common? I don't get audio books very often, but when I have, they've been full length. I'll be on the lookout next time I consider one.

DonShock said:

I think as long as these companies aren't producing additional copies without permission, it should be allowed. As long as they are purchasing individual copies, editing out scenes/dialog to suit their customers, and then reselling them, I don't see where anybody is being hurt. If these customers were purchasing the movies and then just Fast Forwarding or Chapter Skipping past the "objectionable" material, they sould still be violating the filmaker's "vision" and nobody objects to that. These customers are just paying these "cleanup" companies to do the work ahead of time for them. A movie is just a product for sale, like a car. Nobody considers it illegal if I buy a truck, add mud tires and a lift kit, then resell it to somebody else at a profit.

Click to expand...

False premise: you cannot edit a DVD; you also cannot easily make a copy of the truck without permission from the owners of trademarks and patents involved in its parts and construction precesses, much less sell said copy legally.

Please read the Reuters article; all three pages (well, maybe 2.1 ).

DonShock said:

But if someone wanted to pay extra for a "clean" version of this movie, even though I thought it was garbage, I say have a ball. The movie makers get paid for a copy of the movie, the "cleaning" company gets paid for their work, and the customer gets the movie he wants. No harm is done to any party in the transaction. Once the product is purchased, the customer can do what he wants with it to make it suit his tastes.

Click to expand...

No, the customer may not do whatever he, she, or in this case, it, wants. The customer can especially not rent out copies of derivative works that it has made without permission, which is what happened. If it were parents using the editing software on DVDs they purchased, it would be fine (this is how the software itself is legal--it allows for fair uses). Note: sending your DVD in, having them make an edited copy, and sending both back to you, or you buying an edited copy and the original, should be legal.

Ah Yes, as an early DVD adopter, one of the things we were PROMISED was that DVD's would be content edited, so that if I wanted a PG version of a movie to show my school age kids, I would be able to do so by selecting that on the DVD.

Never happened, nor did the "multiple angle option" also promised. (I have heard that some porn DVD's allow that option, but as I don't buy/rent them, I have NO idea.)

As for CleanFlicks, I would disagree with the judge, paying someone to edit MY purchased films should be MY option, not ANYONE elses. If I want to repaint my car, and pay someone else to do it, that's OK.

If I buy a book, and ask someone to tear out the pages that are offensive to me, no judge will complain. Video medium is the same.

I've seen Schindler's list and Saving Private Ryan, the last 2 "R" movies I have seen. You certainly could not have portrayed the power of either and not gotten an R rating.

However, if I chose not to see those scenes, and wanted them edited out, I should be able to do so, whether it was me who did the editing or someone I paid.

I do generally vote with my wallet. Truthfully, very few movies that are rated "R" have any interest for me. 99.9% of the time, the language or other offensive material is NOT necessary for the storyline, but added to create prurient interest. As the judge so famously said, "I may not be able to give you a definition for pornography, but I know it when I see it!"

Many directors have lost the ability to tell a story WITHOUT resorting to nudity, violence, foul language, etc. My dad used to say that vulgar language is the sign of a mind unable to express itself due to a poor vocabulary, I tend to believe the same thing about movie directors!

Bill

bwaites said:

If I buy a book, and ask someone to tear out the pages that are offensive to me, no judge will complain. Video medium is the same.

Click to expand...

It is not the same, though. If you buy the DVD, and have someone make an edited copy for you, that is legal. That is not what they're doing. What they are doing, to make a similar book analogy, is this:
1. Buying the book.
2. Making a copy of the book.
3. Tearing pages out of the copy.
4. Selling/renting the copy without those pages, while keeping the original.

OK,

So what you are saying is that it is bad because they keep a copy AND the original? If I buy an original and rent it, that's OK, right?

If I make a copy and rent it, while throwing away the original, is that OK?

If I make a copy, edit it, and throw away the original, is that OK?

What is the REAL issue the judge is addressing? I've read the above article and I'm not quite sure what his argument is.

Bill

I did stuff up here, but I think the lower part is better, and longer.

What is the REAL issue the judge is addressing? I've read the above article and I'm not quite sure what his argument is.

Click to expand...

That these companies are selling something that is not what the rights owners decided was what should be released.

Forget analogies: I'll use my favorite example (though the way it has been done is legal), already mentioned, that is one of the best movies ever: Leon (132 min).

Leon is a hitman. Illiterate, but not stupid.
One day, one of his neighbors' families is gunned down by DEA agents. A pubescent girl, Mathilda, survives, because she went to the grocery store
when this went down. She wants revenge for her brother being killed.
Not having real caring parents, and developing, she mistakes the paternal companionship of Leon for something sensual, and eventually goes as far as asking him to take her virginity.
In the end, there is much shooting, Leon dies, and Mathilda goes to some school for wayward girls.
P.S. "EVERYONE!"

Most of the subplot was considered too much for the U.S. audiences. So, a theatrical cut was made, by the studio, that removed most of the sexual content (also some good cleaner training scenes!), and this theatrical U.S. release is title The Professional (109 min).

Let us suppose this alternate U.S. release did not happen, and you wanted a more sanitized version. You cut out those 20+ minutes, and make a nice little copy for yourself (derivative version). At this point, all is well. If you had someone else make that copy and give both back, all would be well.

Now, you find there is a market for such versions, and wish to sell your edited one. You sell it or rent it, giving out only the edited DVD. You've now crossed the line.

Now, if you sold or rented both the edited and original, this might be an interesting case, because while you would be distributing an edited copy, you are also giving up the original, which is what renters and sellers usually do. In such a case, I would argue for the backwards Utahans.

To show how they are backward, and lack understanding of what they're doing (can you tell puritan-like behavior is a real button for me? ), here's a small snippet from the home page of (www.clean-edited-movies.com):

As it stand right now, in order to edit movies legally, companies must keep a 1:1 ratio between original versions and edited versions. So, for every edited copy of The Matrix, movie providers must retain one original copy.

Click to expand...

What's important about that? This is. The Family Movie Act is a bit disturbing, though--I had not seen anything about that before (what it specifically allows should have already been allowed). AFAICT, BTW, "fixed copy" refers to any nonvolatile record (paper, tape, file on HDD platter, DVD-R, etc.).

Sure it's fine for you to edit a copy of a movie you purchased for yourself. Just copy the film and sit there and edit it. It's also fine to send your purchased material to have someone edit it for you. It's a completely different question to market someone's licensed material that is edited without approval. Why is it that the self proclaimed 'moralists' can justify without bounds for their cause? Could a Surefire dealer change a Surefire flashlight and then sell it as a Surefire without permission? What is the difference? In fact they couldn't even buy a Surefire and then change it even if they changed the name as well. Is there perhaps a reason we write M*g in this forum? It's because we are forced to respect the rights of others whether we like it or not.

I would ask which part of our world is G rated? No person on this planet lives a G rated life. The most self proclaimed 'moral' adult is doing something in every day of their lives that would produce an X rating if photographed. This is all pretending your **** doesn't stink. Norman Rockwell created an illusion. It's really sad to think some can not only justify, but can even advocate censorship. If you don't like 'some' of the content of a movie, guess what? You don't like the movie! Whether art mimics life or life mimics art, if there is no life in your art you are living a two dimensional existence indeed! But guess what, that's your right to exercise your freedoms and live within whatever box you build for yourself. However the creator has just as much a right to see their material isn't *******ized because of crusaders. What's next, sending sculptors to carve out the bosoms or castrate our classical marble sculptures? How about tearing out the pages or burning books? No, there is no difference. Of course this is political. This is about defending liberties from those who would tear them down. It doesn't take a concise legal opinion or interpretation thereof to illustrate the issues here.

Hollywood learned long ago that "R" rated films don't sell as well because it cuts out most of their potential audience. Of the top 25 blockbusters of all time, only one is rated "R" and that's "The Passion of the Christ." It's the directors who want to make "R" movies that just barely avoid an "X."

These editors were not for the most part sanitizing "R" movies. I mean just try to imagine a sanitized "Kill Bill." They were removing the gratuitous nudity and F-words from movies that were suited to such editing, for people who wanted that done. But they neglected to purchase the rights to those movies first like Ted Turner.

:goodjob: To the judge

If a director is editing an interview can the interviewee come back and say his/her words or actions were used in a way they didn't intend or agree too? Yes the interviewee understood and agreed their interview would be edited but they certainly weren't told their intent or meaning would be altered. What about when a director edits video of an event and makes it appear to be something completely different than what it was, is that covered?

I ask the questions rhetorically because we all know every media outlet edits and changes everything they choose to their liking under the guise of artistic expression or freedom of speech. If their movies were being pirated or edited in a way to intentionally alter their story then I would see the problem.

I don't see how the people making the movie are harmed except maybe their inflated egos. The people going out of their way to buy the edited movies probably wouldn't see them otherwise. Couple that with they are just movies made by and acted in by people with imagination, the flair for the dramatic, big muscles or pretty faces. They are no more special than any cop, fireman or teacher, actually less so, but let's give entertainment some credit. We already give far too much credit, praise and money to the Hollywood types and are forced to listen to them as they preach from their bully pulpit. I bet the top 25% of Hollywood are less educated AND intelligent than the bottom 50% of people here at CPF but many of us look at them as people to admire and take advice from. You can't blink your eyes without seeing another awards show where they pat themselves on the back. More times than not it seems the big award winners are chosen by ideology or shock value rather than quality. Yea I'm on a rant but John Wayne is still not happy about the beer commercials they put him in without his express approval.