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.
I see it differently. If the scrubbers start taking out material their customers want left in, their customers will leave. If a given individual doesn't like the cuts made - or wishes to see the original Hollywood version, they still have that option.
With this being outlawed, that means that no customers who are interested in the story minus the garbage (as they define it) must forgo the story as well - or accept the crapola.
I guess it depends... On the one hand, the studio does own the IP of the movies. On the other hand, IF the "cleaners" purchase the original tapes or DVDs, make the changes, then record the "cleansed" version to blank DVDs or tapes, and do this on a one-for-one basis, and then sell them as a "cleansed" version that is not sanctioned by the studio, I'm not so sure that I see a problem here.
The key is that the "cleaners" would need to purchase one tape or dvd for every one sold, and the originals would need to be destroyed, so there are no additional copies on the market. And that the "cleansed" movies would need to be sold as such.
Mark
The key is that there's nobody telling the studios, directors, writers, etc, what they can and can't put on film. This is a third party that's buying movies, then filtering out "the naughty parts" and selling it as a "cleansed" version of the movie, for "family friendly" viewing. The originals, complete with the "naughty bits" will continue to be available.
This is sort of like when a broadcast TV station shows a movie with some editing for content.
Mark
You buy a copy, you own it. You can alter it in any way, and using whatever method (third party) you wish.
Are you allowed, under copyright law, to alter a personally owned copy of any copyrighted material?
Yes, you are. Therefor you are also allowed to hire a third party to do the modifications for you if you wish. Simple.
Where this company runs into a problem is they're doing the altering before the sale. While there's no material difference between the two scenarios, there is a technical difference, which may be enough to violate the strictest interpretation of the law. This is why I said they simply need to change there approach. Have the costumer buy it first, before they make a backup copy for the owners personal use, with some editing of objectionable content. Problem solved. There is no infringement of copyright law there.
However, you know as well as I do that the Hollywood types would never let this stand as well. They would fight it to the death, even though, just like this case, it provides a larger audience for their product.
That's because it's not about the money for them. It's about their childish pride and vanity.
I agree with it too, but more because I believe in property rights than anything else.
Bingo.
But we all know, this is NOT about the money. Never has been.
Or digitally removing all cigarettes from movies, or replacing guns with walkie-talkies WITHOUT the director's consent? This ruling limits attempts at left-wing censorship as well.
There was an ad for a Canadian pay tv station which used the police line-up scene from The Usual Suspects, where the line "fuzzy socksucker" was dubbed in. It ended with a voiceover-"Wouldn't you rather see it as it was meant to be?"
Oh, so the issue is not sanitization, the issue is money. Thank you.
Each filter can be turned on/off individually. I use all the filters when my children are watching, and use only a few when I am watching.
It is an excellent product.
Oh please. No one is forcing you to buy that version, of preventing you from buying the original one.
That has to be the most idiotic statement on this thread yet.
Get a grip.
But they are not adding scenes. They subtract the porn. Big difference.
Can I not alter something after I have purchased it?
Again, the answer is "No". By your own example, someone is doing the altering for you and selling you the service. You are free to tape off the TV for home use, and you can delete the parts you don't want to see, but you cannot purchase the same tape from a third party who sells it to you altered. Not without the owner's permission. That's not some liberal court spin, or movie lawyers talking. That's the plain meaning of our laws.
There are some interpretations of the copyright laws by the record industry and others that are stretching the law and trying to make criminals out of people for simply trying to maintain the integrity of their legal collections. The DMCC has caused some trouble, and will make things worse for people trying to copy DVDs in the next generation of movies. There is some room for interpretation on some of these things. But not on these services that alter the original and then sell it to consumers. That was illegal in 1799 and illegal today.
He/she certainly is! You are also free to ignore him/her.
(English really sucks when you don't know the gender.)
You're seriously confused. What's with this lame example? If you insist on a book analogy, here: Say you think a particular book would be more appealing if some pages or chapters were removed. So you create your own "better" version of the book; you make 100 copies, sell 90, and keep 10 for your rental business; you earn several grand for your efforts. *That's* a copyright infringement.
Where is the law that says this?
Here: 17 USC §106
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
I think one of the reasons that people are confused here is that when you purchase the DVD before selling the alteration, it may impact the damages sustained by the copyright holder. In an infringement case, the owner gets damages based upon the value of the item infringed. By buying the DVD first, these companies might not actually give rise to an award of money damages. But the copyright holder also has a right to control of his property. So another remedy that is always available to the owner is the right to injunctive relief. The can stop the sale of a product that infringes on their copyright, period.
So, many of the people out there are confused by the claim that the purchase of the DVD means there are no damages. That may or may not be true, the owner might be able to claim damages in the amount actually earned by the infringer, which is more than the cost of the original DVD. In any event, the owner is also entitled to injunctive relief, to prevent an unauthorized person from selling an unauthorized and altered version of a copyrighted work.
Apparently, very. This thread is somewhat scary.
Four hundred some-odd posts and Freepers don't agree. Fine.
I agree that these companies are violating copyright. I'm a lawyer I can't deny that.
But I think Hollywood is cutting off its nose to spite its face. The people who purchase these products are not all of a sudden going to start watching the Hollywood version--they simply won't buy it at all. So instead of getting paid for the version that is purchased for edit, the movie studios won't make a dime off of that consumer.
The industry should embrace this concept and issue family friendly versions of movies, labeled as such, for this market. Even the cutest family movie often has questionable language and/or cringe-inducing sexual reference or innuendo.
They need to get off their high horse and realize that if money truly is their bottom line, they'd make a bundle removing the nasty stuff from an otherwise wholesome and entertaining movie. But of course, some would posit that offering such content is not about the money, but for a far more nefarious purpose. Whatever!
You may have given permission to a nice old lady to rent out your downstairs apartment in the past, but that doesn't mean you don't mind if the motorcycle gang moves in. Even if they are paying the same rent as the old lady. It's your house isn't it? (Justice Souter aside).
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.