OSDN | Our Network | Newsletters | Advertise | Shop     X 
Welcome to Slashdot Music Games Hardware Sun Microsystems The Internet
 faq
 code
 awards
 journals
 subscribe
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 bugs
 jobs
 hof

Sections
apache
Sep 17

apple
Sep 23
(1 recent)

articles
Sep 23
(26 recent)

askslashdot
Sep 22
(4 recent)

books
Sep 23
(1 recent)

bsd
Sep 19

developers
Sep 22
(1 recent)

features
Sep 22
(1 recent)

interviews
Sep 23
(1 recent)

radio
Jun 29

science
Sep 23
(5 recent)

yro
Sep 23
(4 recent)

Directors Counter-Sue Movie Bowdlerizing Company
MoviesPosted by michael on Monday September 23, @04:59AM
from the see-you-one-lawsuit-and-raise-you-two dept.
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.

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
· Clean Flicks
· Salon
· USA Today
· FindLAW
· here
· here
· More on Movies
· Also by michael

<  Air Force to Test Aeroelastic Wings | Embryonic Stem Cell Research Legalized in California  >
Directors Counter-Sue Movie Bowdlerizing Company | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 820 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3 | 4 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
A poll? (Score:4, Interesting)
by compacflt on Monday September 23, @05:04AM (#4310097)
(User #230312 Info)
This would be a good story to base a poll on!

My vote is hung, can't decide.

Compaclft
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
While I'm not generally a fan of copyright law... (Score:3, Insightful)
by Corvaith on Monday September 23, @05:06AM (#4310100)
(User #538529 Info)
I think, on this one, they're solidly in the right.

Sure, people have a right to not be exposed to that sort of content. They're free to find other movies to watch, ones that mesh better with their ideals. The idea that they have some sort of right to take a knife to someone else's work... and then /market/ that... seems idiotic, to me. I'm hoping the directors win.

Now, I have no problem with people doing their own editing. The main issue, as I see it, is that all these little companies are making money off of the destruction of someone else's creative vision. And that... just sits very badly with me.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Question is... (Score:5, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23, @05:07AM (#4310101)
is there a sister company called Dirty Flicks, which makes films consisting solely of all the bits they cut out?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Whose Side (Score:5, Insightful)
by alistair on Monday September 23, @05:08AM (#4310103)
(User #31390 Info)
"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?"

This is an easy one, you quite clearly take the side of the consumer, even though in this case you may not agree with their use of their rights. Free speach is to be supported, even if no one person could support, say, the racist and anti-racist uses that this may be put to. So first you support the fundamental principle and then you critisise those who would use that right for what you may consider to be "the wrong ends".
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • But there IS no conflict, only an apparent one by MatthewDunbar (Score:2) Monday September 23, @06:26AM
    • Re:But there IS no conflict, only an apparent one by pediddle (Score:2) Monday September 23, @06:33AM
      • Re:But there IS no conflict, only an apparent one (Score:5, Interesting)
      by weslocke (someone@funny.name.org) on Monday September 23, @09:02AM (#4310711)
      (User #240386 Info)
      Hmm... don't get it.

      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?
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re:But there IS no conflict, only an apparent one by cheezedawg (Score:1) Monday September 23, @03:53PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Whose Side by AnimalSnf (Score:1) Monday September 23, @06:34AM
    • Re:Whose Side by Hope Thelps (Score:1) Monday September 23, @09:43AM
    • Re:Whose Side by On Lawn (Score:2) Monday September 23, @04:53PM
  • Re:Whose Side by squaretorus (Score:2) Monday September 23, @07:32AM
  • Are the films distributed under GPL (or similar) by obdulio (Score:1) Monday September 23, @09:55AM
  • Re:Whose Side and Spelling by alistair (Score:2) Monday September 23, @06:20AM
  • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
They're suing all over the place. (Score:2, Redundant)
by hatchet on Monday September 23, @05:08AM (#4310104)
(User #528688 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
Those silly americans are suing everyone for everything.. there is always only one winner in the end and that's a lawyer. He always wins.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Asshole consumers (Score:1)
by fleppir (arnic AT hi DOT is) on Monday September 23, @05:09AM (#4310107)
(User #563959 Info | http://www.hi.is/~arnic/CV.asp)
So, having items rated isn't good enough? Explicit Violence, Some Sex Slang, Full Frontal Nudity. sheez, I wouldn't have guessed anything in there would offend then moral MINORITY. Funny part is, the people who would like services like this are the people that say we are born guilty into this world.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • LDS by perfessor multigeek (Score:1) Monday September 23, @03:28PM
  • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.
What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
by hol on Monday September 23, @05:10AM (#4310108)
(User #89786 Info | http://www.mylinuxhelper.com/)
C'mon - this is not an issue. I will happily take the side of someone arguing for end-user rights. Full stop.

Just because a company who is willing to defend this right decides to sanitize films for overprotective parents does not make them less worthy of it. Further, the fact they make those sanitized films puts me under no obligation at all to be their customer.

We should be supporting them if we agree with the goal of making copyright law more sane, and protecting the right to use products that we purchased, not questioning what they do with that right.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Side against the directors... (Score:2, Troll)
by Critical_ on Monday September 23, @05:10AM (#4310109)
(User #25211 Info | http://www.ucla.edu/)
Unfortunately, these days I wouldn't be surprised if an infants first words were "sex" instead of "mama" or "papa". Why? Most media has gone way too overboard with sex and profanity in films. Sure, when I'm with the guys its fine but if there are little kids even around in the house, I don't want to have to censor that stuff. Before anyone goes off on me about censoring content let me just say that it is my children who I deal with and raise so I *will* censor anything even remotely obscene. Movie houses such as these allow movies to be played without the worry of junior sneaking around when watching such films at night.

Anyway, I fail to see how profanity/sex is an art form in films. Without those scenes, I don't lose any meaning to the film. If I wanted that stuff, I'd rather go get pr0n instead. Furthermore, I can still censor this stuff w/ a fast forward feature. How is hollywood gonna stop me now? Oh wait, some DVDs don't allow you to time advance!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Who's side? (Score:3, Insightful)
by RumGunner (rumgunner AT hotmail DOT com) on Monday September 23, @05:11AM (#4310110)
(User #457733 Info | http://www.mrmcfeely.com/)
You're either "FOR copyright facism" or "AGAINST censorship." I think I'll choose against censorship.

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. Or would that be too much work for parents?

.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I'd take (Score:2, Insightful)
by job0 on Monday September 23, @05:11AM (#4310111)
(User #134689 Info)
Clean Flicks side. They've bought the video each time and no one is forced to buy the cleaned up version are they? What's the difference between this and with people doing their own editing. They are simply providing a service.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • GPL by fleppir (Score:2) Monday September 23, @05:16AM
      Re:GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
      by OrangeSpyderMan on Monday September 23, @05:58AM (#4310218)
      (User #589635 Info)
      I don't remember directors releasing movies under GPL, so why should anyone be able to tamper with their work?

      I genuinely believe that I should be able to do what I want with a product once I've bought it, as long as I do not tred on the toes of the person I bought it from.

      Example: I buy a book. I should be allowed to lend it to a friend, tear pages out, write notes in the margin, strike out paragraphs I don't like or aren't interesting to me. Hell I should even be able to sell or give away my copy because I freakin' paid for it. People may not want to buy my copy if I've torn pages out or struck out certain paragraphs but if they know I've done this and still want to buy it then no-one should try and stop them buying it or me selling it.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      • Personal =! Business by Sycle (Score:1) Monday September 23, @10:51AM
      • Re:GPL by tshak (Score:2) Monday September 23, @12:24PM
        • Re:GPL by Piquan (Score:1) Monday September 23, @03:30PM
        • Re:GPL by Saeger (Score:2) Monday September 23, @04:40PM
    • Re:GPL by richieb (Score:2) Monday September 23, @08:17AM
    • Re:GPL by SN74S181 (Score:1) Monday September 23, @11:47AM
    • Re:GPL by Anonvmous Coward (Score:2) Monday September 23, @04:24PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
which side to take? (Score:1)
by chegosaurus (cheggy_peg@hotmail.com) on Monday September 23, @05:12AM (#4310115)
(User #98703 Info | http://www.thecatflap.co.uk/)
err.. the one with the T&A?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
As long as proper age restrictions are there... (Score:4, Interesting)
by Jugalator (jonas.nordlund@hotpop. c o m) on Monday September 23, @05:14AM (#4310118)
(User #259273 Info | http://jugalator.cjb.net/)
I've always wondered why censorship is needed if proper age limits are set. Perhaps the discussion shouldn't be whether we can see the movie without censoring or not, but if they have the proper age restrictions. I've found it strange that here in Sweden, we have the highest normal restriction at an age of 15 when we are minors until 18. Still, movies with extreme violence are shown without problems to 15 year olds. Heck, I'm sure 14 year olds can watch the movie without too much trouble as well.

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".
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
This *is* a tricky one... (Score:2)
by Gordonjcp (gordonjcp@alta.byebyespam.vista.net) on Monday September 23, @05:15AM (#4310119)
(User #186804 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
On the one hand, you have the movie companies protesting at their films being hacked about in the name of "decency", and on the other you have the people who claim the right to chop rude bits out of films if they want.

Clean Flicks don't seem to expect us all to watch their films. If it was the BBFC or its American equivalent, stating that *all* prints of these films must be edited, that would be different. However, they seem quite happy to leave others alone and give customers the choice to watch an edited version.

Now, that's fair use, isn't it? It sounds like fair use to me. The company aren't passing off the films as their own, just removing bits their customers may find offensive. I'd say they had the right to do that - as long as, as they say, they have one copy of the complete film for every one copy of the edited film.

I can't see many of the films making much sense afterwards, though. You could watch "9 1/2 Weeks" in about 20 minutes...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
At least let me know ... (Score:1)
by imperator_mundi on Monday September 23, @05:16AM (#4310123)
(User #527413 Info)
Besides the legal issues when I watch a movie I would like to know if any sort of adaptation was made.

But I fear that no editor would put a "we reedited the movie because we are better than directors and censorship in deciding what you should see" sticker on it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Hubris (Score:5, Insightful)
by quintessent (my usr name on toofgiB [tod] moc) on Monday September 23, @05:17AM (#4310125)
(User #197518 Info)
The studios release differing versions of movies for a number of purposes:

TV
airlines
for release in different regions

They release "unrated" versions of movies like American Pie on DVD.

Yet, somehow when consumer groups ask for versions of videos that are more "family friendly" (say, the same versions they provide for TV or airlines), the studios turn their noses up.

Finally, people get fed up with this and someone begins to profit by providing what people are asking for. The studios realize that someone else is making a profit and turn their lawyers loose.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I feel in my gut that lean flicks is right. (Score:1)
by miffo.swe (hedblomNO@SPAMdjupo.com) on Monday September 23, @05:18AM (#4310132)
(User #547642 Info | Last Journal: Monday September 23, @03:39AM)
Even if im against censor this isnt really censorship. You can choose if you want your kids to see blood squirting 3 feet or if you want them to just see a movie without gore that (mostly) hasnt any real connection to the story. I can also see a great demand for this among people from religions where nekkidness is something dirty.

Many religions and groups have stayed where we wore some 50 years ago when it comes to violence and sex. What says that we are right and they are wrong?

Just as i dont want anyone to force censor upon me i dont want anybody to be forced to watch things thy dont want to see.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Obvious comment... (Score:5, Funny)
by weave (slashdot@weaverling.org) on Monday September 23, @05:20AM (#4310139)
(User #48069 Info | http://www.weaverling.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday September 14, @06:45AM)
Broadcast TV does this all the time.

btw, I'm almost tempted to buy Pulp Fiction from them. I think the entire movie would be about 5 minutes long -- the scene where honey bunny is talking about blueberry pankakes.

Nah, scratch that, they aren't married and are in a hotel together. OK, the boring cab scene.

"I'm American, our names don't mean bleeep"

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
The Phantom Editor may be the next one sued (Score:4, Insightful)
by phr2 on Monday September 23, @05:21AM (#4310145)
(User #545169 Info)
People are in a huff about Clean Flicks because what's being edited is sex and violence, which gets one side yelling "smut!" and the other side "censorship!". But really, if it's what the viewer wants to watch, cutting the sex scenes out of doesn't seem worse than cutting Jar Jar Binks out of Star Wars 1. Best of all (but probably not feasible) would be if the edited movie was delivered as an edit list on the same media (e.g. DVD) as the unedited original, so the viewer would always be able to choose which version s/he wanted to watch. The edit list would just tell the player to automatically skip parts of the movie, if the user enables it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
How can this even be a question? (Score:5, Insightful)
by C=64 on Monday September 23, @05:22AM (#4310146)
(User #130005 Info)
If you really feel that watching a movie the way you perfer it even though it differs from the original presentation is wrong, well, listening to a CD outside of it's original presentation on the CD is wrong, too.

For all the babbling that goes on here at Slashdot about fair use, for someone to even question what ClearFlicks is doing is "right" really blows my mind (Well, it would if this weren't Slashdot).

Do I like what they're doing? No.
Do I have plans on buying movies from them? No.
Is it wrong for people to do what they want with their PROPERTY for their own private use? NO.

I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways people - either you agree that we have our fair use rights, or we don't. So what if someone is doing something that you feel is Bad(tm) on artistic grounds? It's their choice to make - let them waste their money how they see fit, just as I should be allowed to waste mine as I see fit.

No one's forcing me to watch their bastardized verion of a movie - I see no reason someone should be forced to watch the original.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Lets Be Reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
by Cyberllama (RyanMercado@mad.scientist.com) on Monday September 23, @05:24AM (#4310148)
(User #113628 Info)
Who does it hurt if people want to purchase (rent) a mutilated copy of a movie to watch? While I think most would agree they are short-changing themselves, I hardly see how this could be hurting anyone else. A legitimate copy of the movie has been purchased, so Royalties have been paid. A disclaimer is shown so people don't blame the inevitable crappiness of the movie on the directory. Honestly, I ask, what is wrong with this?

I frankly don't see any victims(other than the suckers renting this watered-down crap). And if you do see a problem with this, What about other movie edittings (I recall a certain edit of Star Wars Episode 1 that was rather popular involving, or should I say lacking, in a certain Mr. Binks)?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Could quickly get hairy... (Score:4, Insightful)
by fleeb_fantastique (fleeb@spam.no.fleeb.com) on Monday September 23, @05:24AM (#4310149)
(User #208912 Info | http://www.fleeb.com/)
Anyone remember Woody Allen's _What's Up, Tiger Lily_ film?

He took a terrible Japanese film and redubbed it with his own words to make the film considerably more enjoyable. Pretty heavy editing, that could have gotten him in some kind of trouble if Hollywood manages to succeed in their bid to keep people from editing movies.

Then there's Mystery Science Theater 3000...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
This is not censorship: Go Clean Films, Go! (Score:5, Insightful)
by pvanheus (pvh@GUESSWHAT?NO.spam.egenetics.com) on Monday September 23, @05:33AM (#4310165)
(User #186787 Info)
"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."

No, this is a clear misstatement of what's going on here. Clean Films, etc, are not removing anything from "the popular media". They're producing an alternative version of the popular media, for consumption by their customers.

In the past, the US-based religious right has launched verbal attacks on Hollywood. The response of many people to the religious right's arguments has been that if you don't like it, don't go and see it. Now, Clean Films are providing a third way: you can now see a version without the bits you don't like (a bit like the "Phantom Edit" does for Jar Jar Binks haters).

What Clean Films is doing is in fact an example of the classic liberal remedy for "bad speech": more speech. For myself, Clean Films' products, like "Christian Rock", will no doubt be aesthetically unpleasant. But I applaud their creativity in finding another way forward besides the bigoted "Clean Up Hollywood" crusades of the past.

The Director's Guild's actions here are plain and simple attempts at control, in an era when the technology has opened up new avenues for participation in popular culture. They're trying to maintain a simple "push" model of production, and a extremely simplistic and philosophically untenable notion of the director as solitary "creative genius". I REALLY hope they lose this one.

P

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
As usual: follow the money (Score:3, Insightful)
by ites on Monday September 23, @05:36AM (#4310174)
(User #600337 Info)
This discussion has nothing to do with 'artistic control'. It is about money.
The studios do not like a third party assuming any kind of editorial control over their content.
Someone has discovered a good market and is making money from it.
The studios are suing to try to regain control. As usual, Hollywood is reacting to events instead of leading them.
It is hard to sympathise with either party here: the studios are using lawyers instead of their imagination.
Clean Flicks are acting like mullahs. But no-one is being forced to chose their versions. Maybe a better comparison would be DJs who remix other's music.
The obvious solution is for the studios to give consumers the choices they want and are willing to pay for.
Knowing Hollywood, this is unlikely to happen fast.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
How about pr0n? (Score:4, Funny)
by NightWhistler (kuiper@@@hio...hen...nl) on Monday September 23, @05:39AM (#4310181)
(User #542034 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
So let's get this straight: the directors want you to watch every part of the movie, just because they made it?

So when I watch pr0n I can't fast-forward the 'dialogs'?
Better start stocking up on good books... ;-)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Choice (Score:2, Insightful)
by beswicks on Monday September 23, @05:39AM (#4310182)
(User #584636 Info)
What Clean Flicks are doing is really just about expanding the choices consumers have.

Directors do not really get the final say on the cut of films anyway, the studios do, thats why there are so many 'directors cut' editions released when a film becomes 'big'.

They are marketing the films in a completly upfront way and they are not selling via 'normal' outlets. People are not going to confuse these films with the 'real thing'(tm) so its a non-problem.

Whats next, fast forwarding and leaving the room being made illegal as you may not get the directors true 'vision'?

c.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Neither nor. (Score:2)
by Noryungi on Monday September 23, @05:40AM (#4310186)
(User #70322 Info | http://www.multimania.com/frenchbsd | Last Journal: Wednesday July 17, @06:51AM)
I honestly hate both. They are both treating customers as clueless children, that must be beaten into submission.

Also, I am not surprised the Clean Flicks company is based in Utah.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
...as much as I despise the practice... (Score:5, Interesting)
by jdbo on Monday September 23, @05:41AM (#4310187)
(User #35629 Info)
...of censoring films, I have little problem with this "in concept", as it is voluntary on the part of the renter.

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:

  • variable cuts could be made for different community standards (some people don't like sex in movies, some don't like violence. some don't like both, some are OK with both, but hate the dirty words. this system could serve all of these groups without having to dub multiple copies for each audience, or use complex controls (and no, it is not reasonable to ask someone to update a text-based config file in order to watch a movie. sheesh.)

  • the "closeted" uncensored-movie viwer (living in areas where the censored store is the only video outlet) could watch their PG+ fare with impunity

  • the studios can't claim distribution-based copyright infringment, and (once more) the original cut option is still there...

  • unlike the 100 posts discussing how one could do this using DeCSS + misc. linux utilities, this could be watched on a home entertainment system without having to deal with the fershluggin' computer.

  • no generation-loss transfer issues


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.)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Censorship vs. DRM? Hardly! (Score:3, Interesting)
by silentbozo on Monday September 23, @05:43AM (#4310189)
(User #542534 Info)
The slashdot blurb is misleading - the DGA represents the directors, not the corporations - hence the crap about robbing consumers of their rights by pushing DRM is complete hogwash. What we have here is a bunch of people who want to watch the latest movies, but who are unwilling to watch the whole thing (due to hang-ups about sex, violence, etc.) They want to live nice "clean" lives, and don't want to see the movie as the director intended.

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. :P
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Anyone else -hate- Utah? (Score:2)
by Aqua OS X on Monday September 23, @05:44AM (#4310190)
(User #458522 Info | http://www.ghostalmedia.com/)
I don't mean to sound like a troll, but I h-a-t-e Utah. Visiting Utah is like visiting a state governed by the senior management of Walmart Inc. It's a big Wonder Bread eating, media censoring, money hungry slab of land that has produced one too many Osmond kids.

I hope those directors win. I don't care how crappy or violent modern movies are... film is an art, and censoring art is ridiculous. People need to learn how to interpret art properly. Moreover, people need to teach their kids how to interpret art properly.

Let me put it this way. Pulp Fiction needs Sam Jackson saying "freak'n" and "heck" no more then the statute of David needs a pair of boxer briefs.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Jar-Jar (Score:1)
by Pivot on Monday September 23, @05:45AM (#4310191)
(User #4465 Info)
Anything that would make it legal to edit away Jar-Jar would be welcome... Or?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Turn it around then...and play it again Sam (Score:1)
by madmarcel on Monday September 23, @05:45AM (#4310192)
(User #610409 Info)
Ok, let's turn the whole thing upside down/ around then...
(*Sometimes* this can give you a better view of the problem/situation ;^)

Let's say there _is_ a video rental company called
eh...'Dirty Flicks',
which buys (crappy :) films and inserts more smutty & violent & offensive scenes.

(Hmm...that might actually work - quick! patent it! :)

Obviously the directors would sue the company and
the company would sue the director...for exactly the same reasons...

NOW which side do you take?

"By next week Friday...I could have my own Pr0n video empire!"
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Exactly where do I get the edited-for-tv version? (Score:2, Interesting)
by fwc on Monday September 23, @05:47AM (#4310194)
(User #168330 Info)
Let me see if I can boil this down a bit:

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?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Whose side? (Score:1)
by Ambush (rfabre@NOsPam.consultant.com) on Monday September 23, @05:48AM (#4310196)
(User #120586 Info)
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?

Whose side? I'd take the side of Clean Flicks any day, and not necessarily because I advocate censorship. If Clean Flicks offer an alternative 'version' of the film, then I have the choice of which to purchase (or hire?). If I prefer not to see certain content, then I may choose to purchase it from Clean Flicks, or I could still buy it from the usual channels if I want the original in all it's glory.

Heck, it's not as though you have no choice people! This is not censorship, it is choice.

By the way, censorship is evil.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
pedantic (Score:1)
by SmokeSerpent (benjamin AT psnw DOT com) on Monday September 23, @05:49AM (#4310197)
(User #106200 Info | http://www.psnw.com/~smokeserpent/gm.html)
I doubt that "...the DGA is defending the desecration..."

Perhaps you meant "The DGA is protesting the desecration..." or "The DGA is defending films against desecration..."?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Simple technological solution (Score:2)
by richieb (richieb@netlabs.nIIIet minus threevowels) on Monday September 23, @05:50AM (#4310198)
(User #3277 Info | http://www.netlabs.net/~richieb)
Imagine a DVD player that can be programmed to skip scenes or to bleep out sounds for a second or two. Now imagine that the instructions to do this can have be downloaded into the player.

Then all Clean Flicks can do is to sell the edit instructions, and not touch the DVD at all.

Clearly the player should be set up that a movie without edits could not be played, unless you knew sme password...etc. Then we could all see the alternate edit of "Phantom Menace"...

I wonder how this would be made illegal? :-)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Hey, Remember the 80s? (Score:2)
by mshiltonj (mshiltonj.free-market@net) on Monday September 23, @05:53AM (#4310206)
(User #220311 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday August 16, @09:05AM)
In the 80s, before mainstream net, and definitely before mp3 and streaming radio, I and my friends would buy lots of CDs.

We all know at, at most, only half of the songs on each CD were worth listening to. What we did was make compilation tapes from various CDs.

You would not believe the care and consideration that went into the making of hese tapes. Each tape had a theme. Each tape was designed for a specific experience.

We would borrow each other's CDs to get the right songs -- and in the right order. The tapes ended up being quite personal in nature, so we usually didn't end up sharing the tapes -- unless the tape was made specifically for that other person (usually of the opposite sex).

But, everyone once in a while, usually while riding in a car, someone would ask, "Hey, that's a good tape! Can you make me a copy?"

I even had a mixer and two CD players so I didn't have to pause between tracks. I just time it right and the tape was one continous muscial experience.

What Clean Flicks is doing is not at all fundamentally different from what I did in junior and high schoool. They have my support.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Anime fansubs? (Score:2, Insightful)
by Froobly on Monday September 23, @05:53AM (#4310207)
(User #206960 Info)
Anime fandom has the well-known process of fansubbing -- making home-made subtitled versions of Japanese videos. This involves changing what is put up on the screen (by overlaying subtitles) and then distributing the output to the end consumer.

If CleanFlix can't sell paid-for copies of movies that have been altered, regardless of poor taste, then where does that put fansubbers?

I agree that CleanFlix have used their legal powers for evil, but these powers are ones to which they should be entitled, regardless of intent.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Rights (Score:1)
by m0rph3us0 on Monday September 23, @05:54AM (#4310209)
(User #549631 Info)
I'd have to side with Clean Flicks on this, its not as if they are copying the films, and its not as if they are forcing people to watch the edited versions, they are simply making them available. If you want to cut out the last 30 pages of a book or the last 30 minutes of a movie. Or maybe you just ask your kids to close their eyes during a part of a movie. Is this really a bad thing? Do we no longer have the right to edit the the things we purchase?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
misrepresenation the issue - software analogy (Score:2)
by danny on Monday September 23, @05:56AM (#4310212)
(User #2658 Info | http://danny.oz.au/index.html)
It's perfectly legal to take free software and modify it. But it's not ok to take (say) the Apache code, introduce a few thousand security holes into it, and then distribute the resulting binaries as "Apache".

Similarly, whether you think it should be ok to do anything to films, surely it's not ok to take Citizen Kane, cut arbitrary portions of it out, and then redistribute the result as Orson Welles' Citizen Kane...

Danny.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I wouldn't let them if this was my work ... (Score:2)
by YeeHaW_Jelte on Monday September 23, @05:57AM (#4310216)
(User #451855 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
I'm a writer myself, and if someone would do that to my stories I'd go tell them to go and read something else. It's my brain child, and if I put scene thus and so in it, I did it for a reason, and if you don't like it, bad luck. Write something yourself, but don't rape my story.
However, a screenplay/ scenario-writer is making a half-product. He knows it's going to be altered in many ways before anybody ever sees the film based on his work. In this case I'm not sure where the artistic responsibility lies, but I guess in Hollywood, this would be with the producer and/or director. They have last say, and if they're all right with people changing things in their stories which might alter the gist and meaning of a film, well, so be it. It does say something I guess about which way of the balance you're on: artistical integrity don't touch my baby or fork over the money please are the two extremities of this balance.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
It's the law: (Score:1)
by Futurepower(R) (futurepower@NOTTHISmyrealbox.com) on Monday September 23, @05:59AM (#4310220)
(User #558542 Info | http://futurepower.org/)

It's the law: If you own a copy, you, or anyone, can do anything you like with that copy. You could edit Sylvester Stallone from a movie and put in yourself. You cannot do a public performance of an altered work without permission, but you can do anything you like that does not involve a performance.

Robert Redford and Steven Spielberg complain. However, if they didn't make such poor quality films, this would not be an issue. I don't think that cutting something from their films will improve them much, but if people want that, I'm sympathetic to their wanting something that, while it is still not good, is less objectionable.

This is a fact: Many older people are so annoyed by the fake sentiments and foolish thinking of movies that they don't watch them. Most movie goers are young.

Most films made in the U.S. show losers. Since I'm (mostly) successful, I don't identify with the characters in the films.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I am taking the side of The Guild (Score:1)
by paja on Monday September 23, @06:03AM (#4310230)
(User #610441 Info)

I remember when communist censors edited a movie called Silkwood [imdb.com]. The problem was sex (better traces of sex), and the movie lost a lot of its plot and became really stupid.

I understand DGA problem: what if the movie looses an important point in plot or just the feeling of the movie? I think good example of this is Blade Runner [imdb.com], where we have a release made by producer of the movie and a release made by Ridley Scott , which is IMHO much more better.

As of the copyright law, I think that from the "money paid" point of view, it is ok. The question is: can they (Clean Flicks) sue me for starting a company called Dirty Flicks, which will buy Clean Flick version of the movie, add twice ammount of violence and sex and resell it? WOW, I am going to be millionare - imagine this movie [imdb.com] full of porn, betiality, blood and shooting

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Just two . (Score:1)
by spacefight on Monday September 23, @06:06AM (#4310233)
(User #577141 Info)
This has modified the "Clean Slashdot Flick" in to any they not . mod down .
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Hey, this is odd...(and probably offtopic :) (Score:1)
by madmarcel on Monday September 23, @06:08AM (#4310237)
(User #610409 Info)
Just checked the 'mycleanflicks' site...
There's a list of movies that they will NOT edit
nor offer as E-Rentals.
(In the FAQ at the top)

Most of titles on the list are pretty obvious,
editing those would leave at most 5 minutes of filem (if that :)
but...'Liar liar'???

(Mind you, I haven't seen that film, but I was under the impression it's just a comedy???)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Why would they even care? (Score:1)
by Erpo (tint14@@@hotmail...com) on Monday September 23, @06:11AM (#4310245)
(User #237853 Info)
I have to take the side of Clean Flicks on this one - there's no reason anyone should be restricted from buying bits, modifying them, and selling them. However, it makes me wonder why the directors even care. They can't be worried about their "vision being corrupted" as they don't complain about the TV versions of movies. The issue can't be money either - Clean Flicks buys a copy of the movie for every edited copy they sell. The directors, not to mention the MPAA, are making more money because the market for their products is broadened by Clean Flicks. I'm rather bewildered as to why they're so upset.

This story makes me think about that DVDSynth article slashdot had a few days ago. While the software is currently for geeks only, it doesn't seem like all that much effort would be required to implement a similar capability in set-top DVD players. If Clean Flicks were to distribute "mod cards" containing rom chips with info to patch the .ifo and .bup files on the DVD, the copyright gestapo wouldn't have a leg to stand on - Clean Flicks wouldn't be distributing copyrighted content, and they wouldn't have to buy a copy of the movie for every mod they sold. The directors and the MPAA would make just as much money as consumers would need to buy a copy of the original DVD for the mod roms to patch against.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
How long? (Score:2)
by erroneus on Monday September 23, @06:14AM (#4310256)
(User #253617 Info | http://www.d-n-a.cc/)
I have to wonder how long these films are after processing on average?

So long as this company doesn't affect the whole industry, that's no worse than someone buying into one of those "protect your children" censorship companies. (The parallel stops when legitimate sites become censored without the consumer's knowledge...but then again, what other things ARE being blocked besides sex and violence? Product placement too? The consumer may never know...)

But back to the original question: How long are these videos after editing? I think it would be interesting to see what happens to the story when you remove the violence from, say a Steven Segal movie. I have this eerie feeling there are a lot of 'trailer' sized movies with really bad acting as a result.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Let's try this metaphor (Score:1)
by Trolan on Monday September 23, @06:15AM (#4310258)
(User #42526 Info | http://www.trolans.net/)
Ok, for those defending Clean Flicks 'right' to market an edited version of a movie, how would you like this situation:

Let us postulate a company: Clean Books. They buy a copy of a book, epoxy it sealed, and attach an 'edited' copy of the book with the offending content taken out. Would you be supporting the publishing house going after the company, or would you support the company editing the book?

Or somone going through the Linux kernel source and removing all the 'colorful' comments. Does not the creator of content have the sole right to determine how their content is presented? Is this precept not intrinsic to the idea of software licenses, the subject of which tends to be of most discussion here? (Discounting First post and the trolls, of course)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
I really hate this place sometimes (Score:5, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23, @06:16AM (#4310259)
I am usually proud of being a geek, and I've worked quite a bit at trying to fight geek stereotypes throughout my life, but for God's sake it is exactly this kind of story that makes me embarassed to be part of this community.

How can anyone here seriously take the position that the consumer is wrong here? After all our fights against the DMCA and DeCSS and GPL code that supposedly empowers us, why is this community suddenly getting cold feet when someone decides to use those rights to produce a product that we happened to find silly?

I mean, really, isn't this the kind of behavior that we should be encouraging? The religious right sees a bunch of movies that they don't like. And for once, their reaction is to simply fix what they find wrong for viewing within their own community of interested viewers. They aren't trying to get movies banned; they aren't trying to get YOU to stop going to the movies. They aren't even asking you to watch their edited version of the movies! (Though, of course, you are free to do so if you wish.) Isn't this exactly the kind of consumer-centered decsion making that we are supposedly fighting for? Wouldn't you prefer this solution, rather than this group trying to somehow force their edited-down versions to be official?

Besides, where was all this sudden concern over the sanctity of movies when geeks were making spoofs like TIE-tanic, or recutting the Star Wars trilogy, or making any of the thousand Star Trek "lost episodes" by putting new dialog to old footage? Oh, but someone uses this same technology and allowance of law to recut a movie in a way that you happen to not care for, and suddenly you're on the side of the RIAA?

Please.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Cliff Notes Must be Illegal (Score:1)
by montesquieu on Monday September 23, @06:16AM (#4310260)
(User #162203 Info | http://eigenvision.com/)
By logic of Redford and others Cliffnotes are illegal. They are obsessed with the slippery slope of censureship. But by that argument you can't turn a movie off in the middle either. The whole thing is just silly. As long as the modified product is clearly marked 'modified', it is up to the consumer to decide the content that comes into his livingroom. Why can't hollywood distinguish between their medium and others? You shouldn't modify a portrait, because there is only 1.You always modifiy games because that's the nature of the play and the medium. Movies are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. It's true that one can radically change the message of a movie by a deletion here and a deletion there. It's probably a bad idea to deliberately modify the main message. But poor modification practise will probably not sell anyway. Battles between directors and studios are already a kind of mortal combat. I think the directors just cant figure out when to stop fighting.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
copyright infringement is copyright infringment (Score:1)
by gilleyj on Monday September 23, @06:18AM (#4310267)
(User #558373 Info | http://www.whamcat.com/)
A director or producer or whatever develops a movie and in good faith means it to be shown to a public in the mannor in which they made it. This company is altering the films and reselling them WITHOUT rights.

Wait a minute? What about fair use and all that? That applies to an end user, the final purchaser, not to a middle man.

A copyright is a device that allows the original holder of a copyright to actually control the fate of his/her material.

I hold the copyright of my story. I never gave that particular magazine the right to publish it. And I certainly never gave that christian magazine the right to take words out and republish it. And if you go out an purchase a magazine that has my story in it, it does not give you the automatic right to cut up my story and republish it for sale or any other way other way.

But what about rebroadcasts of the old superman movie on ABC "edited for content"? ABC purchased the rights to show that crappy movie and were allowed to edit for content as terms of that purchase.

Clean Flicks or whatever, have not purchased the rights to edit these movies and return them for rental or purchase from the copyright holders. Too bad, they have infringed on the rights of the holders of the copyrights.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 11 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • (1) | 2 | 3 | 4 (Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
    		  "...Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly)." (By Matt Welsh)
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq ]