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 previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 701-712 next last
To: BenLurkin

I doubt this will affect Clear Play, as they simply have filters loaded onto the DVD player, and original films are edited as they play by computer.

We love our Clear Play DVD player.


81 posted on 07/08/2006 10:47:24 PM PDT by Politicalmom (Nearly 1% of illegals are in prison for felonies. Less than 1/10 of 1% of the legal population is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

CleanFilms maintains in their inventory one copy of each un-edited film for each copy of the edited film. Certainly must not be a money issue for the studios. In fact, I think a case could be made that they sell more copies because of this arrangement.


82 posted on 07/08/2006 10:47:26 PM PDT by Binghamton_native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Well I had no idea they come in a two pack.

I will ask this question though, isn't it against the law to make a copy of anything the is copyrighted. Even if you burn a copy of your own CD to listen to in your car so the original doesn't get torn up, isn't that against the law?

I understand the FBI will not bust into a car and take someone to jail over a few burned CD's (priorities would be rather mixed up!) but the fact still is, it is against the law to make copies of any copyrighted materials, even if it is solely used for your own personal use.


83 posted on 07/08/2006 10:47:58 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 78 | View Replies]

To: I still care

Buy a Clear Play DVD player. They are wonderful.


84 posted on 07/08/2006 10:48:11 PM PDT by Politicalmom (Nearly 1% of illegals are in prison for felonies. Less than 1/10 of 1% of the legal population is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
I was going to make a killing selling DVD's of just the parts they "scrubbed" out. :-)

Have you seen Cinema Paradiso?

85 posted on 07/08/2006 10:50:36 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
Exactly.

Copyright laws are to protect intellectual property for the sake of the revenue it generates for the owner.

Not because their feelings are hurt that someone is watching what they consider to be a superior version of the work.

This is just narcissistic Hollywood brats throwing a hissy fit, demanding to be loved,"Just the way they are".

86 posted on 07/08/2006 10:52:12 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 78 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

So you believe that a person or company cannot purchase something, then change the content? So once it is bought, it still belongs to the seller?


87 posted on 07/08/2006 10:53:57 PM PDT by jeremiah (How much did we get for that rope?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
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?

Have the studios allowed that anywhere else? It's important because in this case the studios have already approved the exact same cuts these companies are making in the versions they already sold to network TV and the airlines.

88 posted on 07/08/2006 10:54:05 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: albyjimc2

If the museum buys the picture, they can put whatever they want over it. If you buy a book, you can take pages out of it, and resell it. If you buy a movie, you can edit some scenes out of it. All three instances are of an owner changing his property.


89 posted on 07/08/2006 10:55:49 PM PDT by jeremiah (How much did we get for that rope?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: torchthemummy
In the world of home-viewed movies, the next step could be changing an image on the screen to match a user’s preference. In one display of the power of emerging technology, a company showed a revised version of the nude-sketch scene in “Titanic,” in which the actress Kate Winslet appeared, not unclothed as in the original, but clad in a computer-generated image of a corset.

That's exactly what the TV version of "Showgirls" does. There are drawn-in tops covering the girls breasts in many a scene. That TV version is "approved by the director and studio."

90 posted on 07/08/2006 10:56:25 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

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

There is nothing stopping you from purchasing the movie and editting it yourself before showing it to your family. You can't do it and sell it to someone else.

91 posted on 07/08/2006 10:56:33 PM PDT by Rightwing Conspiratr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: albyjimc2
CleanFilms’ defenses to the Studios’ lawsuit and their Summary Judgment Motion are wrapped up in the “First Sale” and “Fair Use” doctrines.

Do we know this law well enough to say that this was a slam dunk against the company? Yes, at this point the District Court has ruled against them. I think we all know how we feel about some Court decisions. In reading the Clean Films response, this case may yet have to go to the USSC.
92 posted on 07/08/2006 10:56:33 PM PDT by Binghamton_native
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: albyjimc2
I like how you refuse to answer anything I posted, you just do a horrible job of quoting me. I think MSNBC is taking applications.

I stopped taking you seriously. Your view is the only one and if someone doesn't agree, you get insulting. You don't debate. You insult and browbeat.

93 posted on 07/08/2006 10:56:35 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

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

Why is that different?

Because the artist approves the bleep of their song, otherwise it would not get played on the radio and they would not get their royalty. It's probably part of the standard BMI language.

94 posted on 07/08/2006 10:57:17 PM PDT by Defiant (MSM are holding us hostage. Vote Dems into power, or they will let the terrorists win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Because you dance around my questions and I ask if OJ killed Nicole I am insulting? I believe I am pretty laid back when it comes to debateing these subjects. You misquote me and then expect me answer your question without mentioning it? Be rational here, please.


95 posted on 07/08/2006 10:58:51 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 93 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Wow, people are remarkably dense on this thread. The airline and TV edits are done with permission of the copyright holders. This stuff by the companies in this suit was completely unauthorized. Comprende?

The versions sold by these companies have the exact same cuts as the TV and airline versions. Those are "approved" already. Comprende?

96 posted on 07/08/2006 10:59:46 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

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

Why is that different?

1) the radio stations aren't selling the songs; B) it's done with the permission of the record labels (which usually do the radio edits themselves) and III) deleting foul language is required by federal law.

97 posted on 07/08/2006 11:00:00 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Excellent point! Most TV/Cable movies starts with "this movie has been edited to fit time constraints blah, blah, blah"
98 posted on 07/08/2006 11:03:05 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: albyjimc2
That does make sense, but here is the problem. Let's say that this company does this, and someone buys the original and sends it in. The purchaser then gets his scrubbed movie back. What is going to stop him from burning a copy of that disc and giving it to his friends? Then his friends giving it to his friends?

What's to stop anyone from doing that with an original movie from Netflix or Blockbuster? Answer: nothing. So then why should it be any different if the movie comes from CleanFlix than if it comes from Netflix or Blockbuster?

99 posted on 07/08/2006 11:03:21 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: albyjimc2

You are such a Rube.

Hollywood laughs at the drug and immigration laws.

But don't violate that copyright law! That takes money out of their pocket.

There's a sucker born every minute.


100 posted on 07/08/2006 11:03:37 PM PDT by rcocean (Copyright is theft and loved by Hollywood socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 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