Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films
AP ^ | Saturday July 8, 9:52 pm

Posted on 07/08/2006 9:24:52 PM PDT by BenLurkin

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Sanitizing movies on DVD or VHS tape violates federal copyright laws, and several companies that scrub films must turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios, an appeals judge ruled.

Editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an "illegitimate business" that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights, said U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch in a decision released Thursday in Denver.

"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection."

Matsch ordered the companies named in the suit, including CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms, to stop "producing, manufacturing, creating" and renting edited movies. The businesses also must turn over their inventory to the movie studios within five days of the ruling.

"We're disappointed," CleanFlicks chief executive Ray Lines said. "This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight."

CleanFlicks produces and distributes sanitized copies of Hollywood films on DVD by burning edited versions of movies onto blank discs. The scrubbed films are sold over the Internet and to video stores.

As many as 90 video stores nationwide -- about half of them in Utah -- purchase movies from CleanFlicks, Lines said. It's unclear how the ruling may effect those stores.

The controversy began in 1998 when the owners of Sunrise Family Video began deleting scenes from "Titanic" that showed a naked Kate Winselt.

The scrubbing caused an uproar in Hollywood, resulting in several lawsuits and countersuits.

Directors can feel vindicated by the ruling, said Michael Apted, president of the Director's Guild of America.

"Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor," he said.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: busybodies; christianmedia; churchlady; cleanflicks; copyright; directorsguild; fairuse; film; hollywood; restrictchoices; richardmatsch; sanitize; secularselfrighteous; unelectedjudges; video
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-712 next last

1 posted on 07/08/2006 9:24:54 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Hollywierd pumps out perverse dreck by the bushel and makes a fortune off of it.

Now some people with a modicum of taste cut unnecessary and prurient scenes and the pormasters of Hollywierd file suit.

If they are getting stiffed for the royalties then yes sue -- but if the royalties are being paid then this suit is just plain offensive.

They are saying, in effect, "We demand that we be allowed to poison your minds and the minds of your children -- if you wish to partake in the cinematic experience."

Disgusting.
2 posted on 07/08/2006 9:29:30 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films"

I pray that one day soon we will sanitize our nation of these punk judges who are hell bent on keeping America's moral compass pointing south all the time.

3 posted on 07/08/2006 9:32:46 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

This is such an obviously correct ruling it's hard to wrap my mind around the mindset of someone that thinks it isn't.


4 posted on 07/08/2006 9:33:23 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Please explain.


5 posted on 07/08/2006 9:34:22 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

They are only going to hurt their bottom line by this. I record my movies off channels like TBS because they take out the offensive language. I would rather deal with the commercials rather than the F word every few lines.

If I could find "clean" versions I would buy much more.

It's amazing to me how many "family" films are filled with curses and nasty comments.


6 posted on 07/08/2006 9:35:47 PM PDT by I still care ("Remember... for it is the doom of men that they forget" - Merlin, from Excalibur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I agree with the this ruling. If this practice was allowed to stand, who knows what would be next to be "scrubbed" from movies.


7 posted on 07/08/2006 9:36:31 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I still care

Exactly. AS long as the studios are getting the same money for each movie, cleaning them up can only be a good thing.


8 posted on 07/08/2006 9:36:57 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
I am going to have to agree with Hollywood on this one. I also agree with musicians who don't want their music downloaded for free. Just because the liberals in Hollywood have a lot of money does not mean they should not care that copyright laws are being violated. I agree that a lot of filth is put out by Hollywood, but it is their right t do so in this country.

To go as far as saying "poisoning the minds" is a bit harsh. We watch these movies if we choose to do so. We rent them, we buy them. If "minds are poisoned" we have no one to blame but ourselves. An artist doesn't paint a picture of a naked woman then let the museum put a black bar from her neck to her knees.

In my opinion this is not disgusting, this is the law. Even if it is broken with good intentions, it's still the law.
9 posted on 07/08/2006 9:37:57 PM PDT by albyjimc2 (If dying's asked of me, I'll bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don't come free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
What difference does it make.

the folks who want the full frontal offensive content will buy their copies from the conventional outlets.
10 posted on 07/08/2006 9:38:13 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Good! Films are pieces of art, and the director and producer should have the say as to whether they can be tampered with.


11 posted on 07/08/2006 9:39:13 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser ("You can't really dust for vomit.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albyjimc2
I agree that no one should work for free.

If these companies are making bootleg copies and selling them -- then they should be stopped.

But that isn't what the article says.
12 posted on 07/08/2006 9:39:52 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Thank you sir.

As I stated in my post, even if one breaks the law with good intentions, one ultimately still breaks the law.

After all the moral disputes and how they do this because they are liberals, all of that is void.


13 posted on 07/08/2006 9:40:07 PM PDT by albyjimc2 (If dying's asked of me, I'll bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don't come free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

No it's not. "Cleaning" is an arbitrary decision made by the "cleaner". The real rub is where do you draw the line? What if all references to "speeding cars" (since cars kill) are erased? How about a particular word such as Christianity? The list is endless.


14 posted on 07/08/2006 9:40:44 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

CleanFlicks produces and distributes sanitized copies of Hollywood films on DVD by burning edited versions of movies onto blank discs. The scrubbed films are sold over the Internet and to video stores.

As many as 90 video stores nationwide -- about half of them in Utah -- purchase movies from CleanFlicks, Lines said. It's unclear how the ruling may effect those stores.



Whether these discs are sold on the street in New York, or at a video store in Utah, they are still considered "bootleg copies" because they are not sold by the original company who put them out on disc (or VHS). You cannot burn DVD's or CD's and sell them. It is against the law and way you slice it.


15 posted on 07/08/2006 9:42:39 PM PDT by albyjimc2 (If dying's asked of me, I'll bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don't come free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: All
Let's make home DVD players fully programmable and place them on a LAN so that scenes can be marked for editing out on-the-fly through a simple download over the Internet. Hollywoods' precious libertine horse manure would retain its full stench on the DVD itself, but the smell wouldn't be emitted over the home screen.

Of course, the libertines would likely demand that the FBI break down the doors of the average citizens and confiscate their DVD players.

16 posted on 07/08/2006 9:43:33 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: albyjimc2

What about when a song that has a bad word in it gets bleeped when played on the radio?

Why is that different?


17 posted on 07/08/2006 9:43:37 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

What are you talking about?! They aren't cheating the studios out of any profits - for each film they scrub and sell, they buy a copy of the original and destroy it.

It's a great service. Take a fun movie like "Christmas Vacation" - 98% of it is clean and genuinely funny. There's a small portion that contains the f-word that I would rather not deal with around my kids. These businesses scrub it and I get a funny, clean film, the studio gets their cut and the scrubber gets a few dollars for editing services. No one forced me to buy their editing service.


18 posted on 07/08/2006 9:44:20 PM PDT by poindexters brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

Television has edited for time since the beginning.

Even those handful of movies that truly are art have been edited for television. I was pleased to see "Citizen Kane" and "Gone with the Wind" uncut for the first time on cable in recent weeks. I agree it is preferable for movies of that caliber to see then entire work.

By and large though, most motion pictures are just another product to be marketed.


19 posted on 07/08/2006 9:44:36 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
I agree with the this ruling. If this practice was allowed to stand, who knows what would be next to be "scrubbed" from movies.

Except that you would have the choice to buy a clean version or the original. This ruling states only the original is allowed. No one is getting cheated from profits.

This, because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression, from the article is a load of hooey!

20 posted on 07/08/2006 9:45:36 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
I understand your concern, however these are two small companies in Utah that are marketing to their niche consumers.

If I or anyone else wishes to see movies with speeding cars or that mention Christianity we need only go to Amazon.com and buy the full studio version.
21 posted on 07/08/2006 9:47:01 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: poindexters brother

It's still done without the permission of the director and the company that produced the movie. That's the whole point.


22 posted on 07/08/2006 9:47:01 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
... but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending.

Unhh, no. If someone is selling edited copies of a work without permission, THEY are "rewriting the ending". I've gotta agree with this ruling.

23 posted on 07/08/2006 9:48:37 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The controversy began in 1998 when the owners of Sunrise Family Video began deleting scenes from "Titanic" that showed a naked Kate Winselt.

The scrubbing caused an uproar in Hollywood, resulting in several lawsuits and countersuits.

Directors can feel vindicated by the ruling, said Michael Apted, president of the Director's Guild of America.

That's laughable. Movies on airlines and television are scrubbed in a similar fashion. The only question left unanswered is why are studios pursuing this action?

24 posted on 07/08/2006 9:48:47 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: poindexters brother
What are you talking about?! They aren't cheating the studios out of any profits - for each film they scrub and sell, they buy a copy of the original and destroy it.

Ok, so someone buys 1000 copies of the Passion of the Christ, adds in scenes of Christ uttering profanities and having sex, sells them, but destroys the originals.

Fine with you I presume.

25 posted on 07/08/2006 9:49:15 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

Edited Airline and TV films have negotiated rights with the movie companies. It's pretty clear none of this Clean Films stuff was done with the slightest attempt to get any approval or permission or licensing rights.


26 posted on 07/08/2006 9:50:21 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: albyjimc2
Whether these discs are sold on the street in New York, or at a video store in Utah, they are still considered "bootleg copies"

Except the ruling says nothing about bootlegging. It says: "Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection."

27 posted on 07/08/2006 9:50:28 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

The song on the radio is not being sold. A radio station is public and there are laws in place for decency. Buying a movie and watching it is a personal choice. You pay money for that DVD.

Same goes for edited compact discs at stores like Target. The musician puts those discs out and makes money off of wha sells. If Hollywood want to do the same, they should consider it. But editing a few words in a song is easy to do and still keep the song intact. But some movies, as we all know, could actually confuse people with a lot edited out of it.

I could see movies with a "PG" rating getting edited for the few swear words. Easy fix and the producers will still rake in money.


28 posted on 07/08/2006 9:50:57 PM PDT by albyjimc2 (If dying's asked of me, I'll bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don't come free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

If I choose to not watch part of a movie, have I violated the moviemaker's rights?


29 posted on 07/08/2006 9:51:01 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Typical AP story. There is no stating whether these movies are pirated copies or not. The Hollywood statements seem to be that they are not so then the question is was there some agreement that now is being rescinded? Were they allowed to edit some movies and presumed they could continue with subsequent releases but were not authorized?

This article is void of very basic facts which I guess means I will have to do further research to fill in the gaps.

AP blows.


30 posted on 07/08/2006 9:51:43 PM PDT by torchthemummy (Darwinists: Evolution is a theory that is proven fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

The decision is correct. That said, I really enjoy watching scrubbed movies on TV. They are hilarious. The best one--in Major League when Dorn says to Wild Thing "Strike THIS GUY out!", with "THIS GUY" in a clearly different voice than the rest of the sentence. Cracks me up every time I hear it, and I always utter it at baseball games.


31 posted on 07/08/2006 9:52:15 PM PDT by Cyclopean Squid (Being That Guy so you don't have to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
This is such an obviously correct ruling it's hard to wrap my mind around the mindset of someone that thinks it isn't.

I will try... my family doesn't rent movies because of the junk placed in it, but I would rent movies if the objectionable material was removed.. if the movie producers are getting paid, and the public given a choise to rent clean or dirty versions (and as far as I can tell both of these conditions are met)... I can't see where this hurts the movie producers in any way, as a matter of fact, the only thing that might be hurt would be those whos sole objective is to push smut in your face.

Other minor issues would be if the movies that these clean renters put out are more easily copied than regular disks. I have yet to find a disk I can't copy but perhaps for some others, the cleaned versions would be easier to copy.

The only good side I can find in this scenario, is perhaps the smut movies would be slightly less distributed and thus the producers of them would receive less money... I will stick with that hope and smugly laugh that these producers have now cut their own throats.

32 posted on 07/08/2006 9:53:07 PM PDT by LowOiL ("I am neither . I am a Christocrat" -Benjamin Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Perhaps the scrubber companies should take a hardware approach: sell a special DVD player that can apply the appropriate editing on the original disc on-the-fly.


33 posted on 07/08/2006 9:53:25 PM PDT by HAL9000 (Get a Mac - The Ultimate FReeping Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albyjimc2

I see. Thanks.


34 posted on 07/08/2006 9:53:35 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: albyjimc2
Now that makes sense. If the issue is illegal copies then the question of "sanitizing" is not the real problem at all.

But again, the article does not say that or that that is the concern of the studios in these lawsuits. Now, if you are in the industry perhaps you know whether tyhe studios ever do license out the production of discs under other circumstances.

The article states: Editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an "illegitimate business" that hurts Hollywood studios and directors . . . that hurts Hollywood studios and directors".

Who cares? Frankly their 'artistic expression' is all too often perverse and demented.

35 posted on 07/08/2006 9:53:52 PM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
No, the whole point is that Hollywood is selling poison.

Hollywood is full of America hating, Christian hating, hacks who when they are not chasing after $$$, want to destroy this country.

I agree with the decision, since it will make any right-thinking, patriotic American understand that "Hollywood" is their enemy.
36 posted on 07/08/2006 9:53:57 PM PDT by rcocean (Copyright is theft and loved by Hollywood socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

I think it's horrible. I was going to make a killing selling DVD's of just the parts they "scrubbed" out. :-)


37 posted on 07/08/2006 9:54:47 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

I believe you just explained to me what I just explained to you. Read what you copied me one more time, and notice the four words after the underlined statement..

"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection."


38 posted on 07/08/2006 9:55:16 PM PDT by albyjimc2 (If dying's asked of me, I'll bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don't come free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
So I guess that means I'm breaking the law now when I use that "mute" button on the remote to "edit" out words I don't want my kids to hear?

Ridiculous.

39 posted on 07/08/2006 9:56:35 PM PDT by Jotmo (I Had a Bad Experience With the CIA and Now I'm Gonna Show You My Feminine Side - Swirling Eddies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

So why not negotiate rights with these companies? It doesn't make any sense. There is money to be made by everyone.


40 posted on 07/08/2006 9:56:41 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

It is not being represented or sold as the original. I am knowingly buying "the original" along with editing services being performed on my copy.


41 posted on 07/08/2006 9:58:16 PM PDT by poindexters brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HAL9000
Perhaps the scrubber companies should take a hardware approach: sell a special DVD player that can apply the appropriate editing on the original disc on-the-fly.

That is available already.

See: www.ClearPlay.com

42 posted on 07/08/2006 9:58:29 PM PDT by A Mississippian (Proud 7th generaion Mississippian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: albyjimc2
Buying a movie and watching it is a personal choice. You pay money for that DVD.

And we can't have two different versions with full disclosure written all over them because people might not read the disclosure, and then they might make the "wrong" decision? So government must protect them from their decisions. I see.

43 posted on 07/08/2006 9:58:51 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
"Cleaning" is an arbitrary decision made by the "cleaner".

Actually each deletion is a very deliberate decision made by a firm so that their constumers will pay for both the original film and their service. My decision as a consumer to buy the "cleaned" version over the original is also a very deliberate decision.

The real rub is where do you draw the line?

As long as the studio gets their royalty, the consumer should be the one to draw that line and they should be allowed to draw it where ever they choose.

What if all references to "speeding cars" (since cars kill) are erased?

Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a version without it?

How about a particular word such as Christianity?

If I was as thin skinned as the very small but very vocal minority of secularists here on this forum, I should be allowed to buy just such a service.

The list is endless.

And equally irrelevant. The only issue here is the left's effort to force all of their perverse values on anyone who wishes to buy any of their products. This is no different than GM telling me I can't remove the pin stripe from my Corvette.

44 posted on 07/08/2006 9:58:54 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
deleting scenes from "Titanic" that showed a naked Kate Winselt.

Not good enough. They'd have to scrub every scene with Kate and/or Leonardo to make it close to palatable. In fact, everything not involving a boat or iceberg should be scrubbed.

45 posted on 07/08/2006 9:59:55 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jotmo

Now that is an interesting thought too.

I've previewed many shows and then fast forwarded thru the innappropriate content.


46 posted on 07/08/2006 10:00:41 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I definately agree that a lot of Hollywood movies have a perverse liberal agenda behind it. I despise it just like you do. But even when it comes to things like this, we live in a free country that has laws. We would be just as bad as liberals if we wanted them fixed to reflect our own opinions.


47 posted on 07/08/2006 10:01:49 PM PDT by albyjimc2 (If dying's asked of me, I'll bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don't come free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: poindexters brother
It is not being represented or sold as the original. I am knowingly buying "the original" along with editing services being performed on my copy.

Just want to make clear, you're fine with my Passion of the Christ example?

Or editing, say "Toy Story" to add several dozen F-bombs, and selling it as the Dirty version of "Toy Story", without consultation or the permission of the producers of the movie?

48 posted on 07/08/2006 10:03:39 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

Yes, but the original movie is still there at the major rental outlets. So, if they are paid for their copy, how are they harmed? Further, I think that language is edited in movies shown on US airlines. How is that allowed under this ruling?


49 posted on 07/08/2006 10:05:37 PM PDT by Binghamton_native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus; RadioAstronomer
Actually each deletion is a very deliberate decision

Slam dunk comment.

I think what Radio Astronomer meant when he said it is an "arbitrary decision" was that it is a decision he would not agree with. He's smart and rational; people who want the filth edited out of the movies they watch are stupid and arbitrary.

50 posted on 07/08/2006 10:05:54 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-712 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson