Thank heaven for small favors. The bowdlerizers will of course continue in their repressive efforts to make their pointy-headed version of reality a fact for the rest of us.
After a bitter three-year legal battle involving Utah companies that sanitize movies on DVD and VHS tape, a federal judge in Denver ruled Thursday that such editing violates U.S. copyright laws and must be stopped.
In a ruling in the case involving CleanFlicks vs. 16 of Hollywood’s hottest directors, U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch found that making copies of movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence hurts studios and directors who own the movie rights.
“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 in a 16-page decision. “There is a public interest in providing such protection. Their business is illegitimate.”
No shit. Illegitimate and stupid. Either don’t watch at all, or be prepared for everything the creator of the art wanted to present the viewer. (The people in question could buy a regular copy for their personal use and fast-foward past the naughty bits, but we all know these wackjobs only really want to control the behavior of others.)
What a strange item for a blog that takes other people’s work, edits and uses the result to sell the peripheral advertising. Not to mention being in an environment (the web) desperately trying to eliminate all copyright.
RBG
For everyone who starts out stating that the “thumpers” are repressing people, shut up. If they were really repressing art or anything they are against, then they wouldn’t have anything left to complain about. This doesn’t mean that I agree with their ideas or their tactics for getting them across, but I do feel they have the right to their opinions and to express them, and you in turn have the same rights. That’s what keeps forums like this blog running, both the extremists and everyone in between.
Morally, I have no objection to providing the ability to watch movies with content they don’t want to see censored out, as long as it’s not pushed on those who don’t want it. Unfortunately the methods used were not legally proper. What I’d like to see is either a company that would work with the production companies to produce edited material for those who want it, or see the studios get a piece of the action and do it themselves in a similar fashion to the recording industry. Yes there are ways for people to do this, but most are just too lazy to do it, or too scared of technology like the clearplay player, they just want an easy way to watch the newest shows, without compromising their morals. A censored DVD for purchase alongside an unedited copy for purchase would be such a method.
“…be prepared for everything the creator of the art wanted to present the viewer.”
Come on – what director gets everything in the movie they want without the studio interfering for ratings, public acceptance, or otherwise? I have yet to hear a director say ‘this is exactly what I wanted and no one interfered with my vision’.
This is about control of copyright – and money – from the studios.
What I find peculiar is that movies can be edited for ratings on television to support the targeted audience (of the studios).
Let market demand dictate if the studios should have “G” or “PG” rated versions for rental. Call it the ‘Suitable for Broadcast TV’ version. After all, they offer “Director Cuts” and “Unrated” versions all the time for the thrillseekers…
How many of you realize, with companies like this, you buy the DVD for YOURSELF? They edit it for YOU. No body is controlling anyone. You want to edit “The 10 Commandments” for an atheist? GO AHEAD. Damn short movie, but go ahead. This is the stupidest decision of all time and it’s broader implications are staggering once some hollywood studios and cable companies realize advertising is “art”.
Wow, the lack of intelligence in the comments on this story is staggering. I really don’t understande why the film companies care… these are people that they would not sell to otherwise. From a business point of view, their position is ridiculous.
So if someone takes the DVD, and puts in online, you’ll be upset if the studios complain, but if they edit out parts of the movie, then its OK for the studios to complain?
Either don’t watch at all, or be prepared for everything the creator of the art wanted to present the viewer.
So you don’t watch broadcast TV then I take it? Perhaps the directors should take them to court too.
Yeah, No Shit – Everyone one of these individuals that want to protect their children have drug use, disgusting language, violence should have their children taken away. Shit, what kind of prude would keep a four year old from seeing two guy doing the fudggie, really. Here are the top reason’s that a director is hurt by this type of action:
1.) Movie directo’s have much too much money and it would be better that any director that puts any such stuff into their movies doesn’t really need to recoup their money from such reantals.
2.) Hollywood has on more than one occasion shown that their own personnel morality is superior to those of the average American that doesn’t have more than one divorce or marriage or Bi-Sexal relation.
3.) No one has the right to exercise their own freedom of speech by not watching the director’s own freedom of speech. It’s either watch it all, and like it or leave the country.
4.) The director’s have a meaningful political message to put accross to America, and with all their own higher education and indepth research they put into movies they have a right to shove it down your throat. Afterall , look at how acurately the protray computer’s, the ability of cars to race through a city and hit people and other cars and still work. and we know that a director would never, ever alter reality just for the effect.
5.) Finially, director’s have an innate right to go around the parent’s remote control. If a director doesn’t get to present their sexual content to the smaller generation, where will their next market’s come from. You have to start getting people used to toliet scenes, violence and casual sex when they are young. If you don’t when they become adult themselves they might object and keep their children from watching such creative content. If the were to continue where would all the pedophiles, criminals, pimps and fun loving dirty old men get their partners.
Really, no one has the right to stop someone from expressing their creative content. If someone put’s the cross or Virgin Mary into a jar of piss, then not only should have look at it, you should also have to taste it!!!
28 Clean versions of films have been made for the airlines since they first put a projecter on an airplane. The airlines have been buy special versions. Why can’t end consumers?
Airlines and broadcast TV are well-established markets for movies and TV shows, so allowing movies to be edited for those markets should be a standard part of any movie directors contract with a studio.
Those two markets are unique in that:
1. Airlines have no way of preventing all the passengers from seeing what is being displayed on-screen. They can’t show anything that is not “plain vanilla” for risk of offending passengers who are being forced to watch it, or look away.
2. Broadcast TV is restricted by the FCCs requirements for content. If a studio wants to sel the broadcast rights, it has to provide an edit that meets FCC criteria and local “decency” standards.
The directors are sueing becuase the “sanitizers” because the director’s never authorized that particular “sanitation” of their work.
30 Wal-Mart does similar things.
No, it doesn’t.
Walmart is an example of true market power. Not the marketing power the “sanitizers” wish they had.
If the “sanitizers” had sufficient marketing numbers they could work deals the way Walmart does – because Walmart can’t “sanitize” anything without permission, either.
But since Walmart is the 800-pound gorrila of retail sales, they can refuse to carry anything they find “offensive” – and thereby force the copyright owners to decide how badly they want their content distributed thru Walmart’s vast retail empire.
You can’t compare Wal-Mart to these sleazebag outfits on this topic.
For example, as many artists do, Nirvana willingly edited album text because they realized Wal-mart was a significant avenue. Wal-mart is Wal-mart, but the comparison isn’t valid here.
#25 Floyd…..
*********Finally, most thumpers are indeed bigots.
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own–like yourself apparently. And the great majority of people don’t watch bowlderized films, as most people are far more tolerant of ideas other than yours. ********
Your guilty of your own statement, your showing intolerance of these people opinions.
#27 Glen
************repression leads to disfunction and obsessive compulsive behaviour, lack of knowledge or exposure to these perspectives, regardless of whether you like what is being shown or not, leads to a youth incapable of dealing with the real world***************
I was raised in a Christian household. I never saw movies with excessive violence, obvious sex, swearing etc., nor did I listen to much of the popular music that has been out since the 80’s when I was born.
When I went to college and on to University in England I chose to see what I wanted to see, I was an adult and that was my right. But, I am not repressed, obsessive/compulsive, dysfunctional, or incapable of dealing with the real world, and I’m sure as heck not lacking in knowledge. Try a little less generalizing(a clue given to me by a couple of wiser , and slightly older, people in this blog). Some of the most repressed, screwed up people I know had all the *advantages* of the last 20 years that I didn’t have.
We are argueing about something that would all disappear in a flash if the Hollywood Producers, directors etc., etc., were getting their cut of the action. In the entertainment industry, money speaks louder than ideology or princible.
The Studios already put out edited versions of their content for consumption in other countries and on TV. All they want is the authority to determine *how* that content is edited to maintain as much of the artwork as possible for prudes that get easily offended. At some point, you have to accept that a movie cannot be dumbed down enough for reasonable viewing by the happy-shiny crowd. Scarface comes to mind. If you edited Scarface to the point of it being accepted by the BJU loons, it would be a shell of the original form and would lose a major character development point of the movie.
RE: 28
The VChip would simply block or not block an *entire* movie based on content. It wouldn’t edit the content on the fly.
RE: 39 Airlines can’t prevent everyone from seeing…
Not entirely true. Many airlines have personal players now but I believe the content shown on those personal players is also edited.
IMO, people that want to watch main stream movies but hack out the bits they find offensive are reminiscent of the Christian yahoos that wanted to put a fig leaf on the statue of David. If you do not care for the content in main stream movies, then choose a different form of entertainment.
OK. OK. Flame me but I think these guys have the right to mute or skip past scenes they don’t want to see.
I do it all the time with my remote control, this higher tech version is effectively the same thing.
I’ll surely never buy one of these DVDs but I think people should have the right to self-censor… as long as they are REMOVING stuff, not adding content.
( Don’t let your dislike of Christians turn you into Luddites! How would you like it if FOX could disable the mute button on my remote every time Coulter came on with her vile, in the name of protecting their copyrighted content?)
Methinks she doth complain too much. Why are you frightened by people who take morality seriously?
Beause then they try and apply it to me. Keep your morals to yourself.
I’m not going to get into the religious zealotry aspects of this, as I don’t live in the US but in the UK where religious groups have much less sway (which is weird given that church and state in the UK are indivisible, not separated as they are in the US)
What concerns me are the artistic aspects of this – except for those films where sex scenes etc are entirely gratuitous (which, I grant you, there are many examples of i.e. a scene that adds *nothing* to the story) to remove parts of the film like this completely hobbles it – imagine watching Sin City or American History X etc without the violence – what would be the point?? Physical violence is integral to the story in these films
I think the answer here is for those that object to such things as sex and violence in films to go buy something else, and leave the rest of us who are apparently sick, perverted and depraved to watch ground-breaking, thought provoking movies that win critical acclaim
I don’t think they even bother editing some films if it can’t be done the way they want.
So what you’re saying is that if these guys started a TV network, and put their content online, then it’s OK for them to distribute their edited material? Right now, you can videotape the edited versions on TV, and you now have an edited copy for yourself to watch whenever. Why shouldn’t they be able to distribute directly(with the studios getting MORE money)?
>Airlines and broadcast TV are well-established markets for movies >and TV shows, so allowing movies to be edited for those markets >should be a standard part of any movie directors contract with a
Parents who like their movies a little tamer are a well-established market for movies, so allowing movies to be edited for those markets should be a standard part of any movie directors contract.
>1. Airlines have no way of preventing all the passengers from seeing >what is being displayed on-screen. They can’t show anything that is >not “plain vanilla” for risk of offending passengers who are being >forced to watch it, or look away.
Realistically, neither can parents, barring editing. They can fast-forward a little or tell their kids not to watch. The airlines could instead just not put such movies.
>2. Broadcast TV is restricted by the FCCs requirements for content. If >a studio wants to sel the broadcast rights, it has to provide an edit >that meets FCC criteria and local “decency” standards.
Parents TV is restricted by their own standards. If a studio wants to sell the viewing rights, it has to provide a copy that meets parents criteria, their ‘very local decency’ standards.
>All they want is the authority to determine *how* that content is edited to
Not true. Generally it’s not the studios doing the editing. They don’t control what the TV stations put out.
I’m really surprised by the responses here. All your other posts have been complaining when studios try to restrict technology, but for some reason this is a special exception. Is the problem that the companies are charging money? If they just put these versions online, are you OK with it?
All your other posts have been complaining when studios try to restrict technology
Please clarify, and show how those posts demonstrate a philosophy counter to the position made here.
You are free to control what you and yours watch without trying to create a movement.
Next those Bowdlerizers will start pushing for their versions to become official alternate versions. Then they’ll push to have the “clean” version used as the official “sanitized” versions for TV, aircraft, and other public venues. Then they’ll push to make the “dirty” version the alternate one.
That isn’t even as stretched a line of causalty as some right-wing wackjobs make about gay marriage causing beastiality.
The problem is, those people aren’t satisfied with controlling what they watch, they want to control what we watch.
Matt said But it’s a good point about networks sanitizing films for broadcast. Seems like the same thing in essence.
Yes.. and it is similar to not allow us to fast forward through commercials. If the copyright owner decides, they will disable your fast forward button. After all, fast forwarding is “altering” their editing decisions, right?
The whole argument about “prudes” is besides the point. This ruling is yet another give-away to big business over the desires of the consumer.
See I edited your comments, how do you feel now?
Comment by Kamatari Honjou — 7/10/2006 @ 12:53 pm
I feel fine. My original work is intact and those who wish to view it are welcome to. You are not selling my original work and making money from it and thus encroaching on my profits (if I were to be making money selling the viewing of my comment.)
Yes, the news story butchered what CleanFlicks does (and I have used Clean flicks before, so I am familiar with them). If you want an edited video, you have to buy the original (through them or bring in your own copy) and then they will edit it. You pay for their labor, not for the resulting work. You are “hiring” them to do the labor of editing and the only thing you have purchased is the original.
I agree that the studios should release a clean version just like they now release “unrated” versions. I really don’t care what you watch, but let me watch what I want.
If you come into my house, I’ll ask you not to use profanity, expose yourself, or commit gross acts of violence while certainly allowing you to express yourself in other appropriate ways. Is it too much to ask the same thing of entertainment media?
Why not just fast-forward through the parts you don’t like?
How do you feel about placing the judgement as to what’s appropriate for your children in the hands of an outside organization?
What do you think they’ll do with the new Pirates of the Carribean? Do you think there’s a chance that your opinion as to what is appropriate (especially in a movie with many “borderline” concepts and sub-plots) may diverge from theirs?
Because if I have to fast forward through it myself, my children could never watch it when I am not present.
I would never blindly have them edit the movie. I could easily rent a copy from them (and they do have 1 to 1 originals for what they have on the shelf) and check it out for myself first. However, after seeing a number of their edited films, I have come to trust their editing. I saw an edited version of Minority Report from them that was fantastic. I thought the movie was great and didn’t realize how much they had taken out until I happened to be working a graveyard shift and watched an original copy. I hadn’t missed the virtual sex scene or the profanity one bit. They do quality work.
As for the new Pirates, I haven’t seen it so I don’t know what they would do with it.
Oh, and one other thing…some movies that may have borderline concepts or subplots may not be suitable for kids at all, edited or not.
Part of responsible parenting involves not just sanitizing everything, but helping them avoid what they don’t need to see until they are mature enough to handle it (and no, I am not one of those parents who thinks that you shouldn’t even address the topic of sex until they are 29 and about to get married…I am a bit more realistic than that).
The Movies you watch at the movie theather and on DVD are already sanitized….If you want to see everything the creator wanted to present the viewer you need to watch Hollywood movies in foreign countries…
I saw Gladiator in the UK then purchased the DVD in the U.S, many scenes are completely edited down.
I have the right to purchase a DVD in the U.S. exactly the way the director intended to present it, where can we get these non-edited movies?
Would not this affect film profits? Airlines and television (major networks) won’t be able to show the movies due to content.
>”clean” version used as the official “sanitized” versions
Umm, TV and airlines already use edited versions, and their edited for very similar reasons.
Yes, they do use edited versions. But we are not paying to fly to watch a movie, and a TV studio cuts less than these Bowdlerizers do. I already have problems with bureacratic censors, and want nothing to do with the morality patrol.
48 Parents who like their movies a little tamer are a well-established market for movies, so allowing movies to be edited for those markets should be a standard part of any movie directors contract.
You would think…, so there must be something else at play in this?
The studios and investors should be keen to tap-into what you claim is a sizeable market – and yet they don’t….
I think it is the director’s reluctance to allow anything other than the least amount of “censoring” that studios & investors demand.
The director’s have bargaining power because they are the ones who “deliver the goods” for the studios & investors.