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.
A free public showing of an altered, copyrighted work does infringe on the copyright without a profit. Personal use is not an infringement, IOW, you can view the altered copy all day in your home. You can show your friends at the office. But you can't play it on the big screen at the local play ground for the public to see.
Fine lines, yes, but profit is not the only infringement. Misrepresentation laws do kick in at a certain point.
Of course. You're not free to tell me what is considered clean or not.
Who is going to stop someone from murdering someone? Let's make murder legal so people don't break the law. It is the argument that proabortion groups make. Keep abortion legal so people don't get illegal back alley abortions.
Laws are in place to keep these things form happening. Laws keep honest people honest.
It is against the law no matter which way you look at it, and that is the bottom line.
Putting aside the copyright issue for a moment, you don't really find the artistic vision aspect of this debate compelling, do you? (Which is what the Hollywood libs are screaming about.) I think in that respect it is entirely hypocritical for Hollywood to whine about this. As I said in a previous post, the Directors and those actually involved with the making of the film usually aren't the ones making the decisions related to TV airtime. It's people who have no interest in maintaining artistic vision or integrity who make those decisions, and the decisons are based on money.
I wasn't aware that anyone was telling you what was clean or not clean. How does the availability of this service for those who want it do that?
Of course. Those are two seperate issues. You can't do that with an unaltered copy either... although in South-East Asia it is common to have movie nights where they show feature films for free at local temples and gathering places. I am sure the MPAA hasn't gone after them because they are not going to get much money suing poor farmers who can't afford to see the movie in the first place.
No one is telling you what is considered clean or not.
That's a ridiculous line of argument and you know it. That is in no way comparable to this article. Those companies are not taking products, altering them without authorization and then selling them without authorization. "Purchase CDs from the radio stations' web site" - surely you weren't being serious when you said this. They were selling the product - not making it to sell! Not the same context at all as what the person you responded to had been saying. Come on.
What does it matter, as long as the original is still available and as long as the sanitized versions are marked thusly and paying royalties? Reader's Digest and classic literature are edited and I've never heard of any lawsuits concerning such.
Hicksville Community College ROFL....
The town I used to go to when Billy Joel and my pal Joey Licari used to have battle of the bands back in the 60's! :-)
Getting back to this again. Why do you think those versions you mention aren't for sale to the general public? Because the alterted versions were contracted from the copyright holder for specific viewing. Where we once again delve into copyright laws.
I have to ask, why do you keep coming up with diferent analogies of the same question?
One of my biggests gripes is the "This film has been modified to fit your screen", and the overuse and abuse of the "pan and scan" during the film. All of my DVD's are widescreen, and since I have a widescreen TV, they fill the entire screen like a movie theater screen.
Films show on say TBS with the "This film has been modified to fit your screen" disclaimer most often appear stretched out sideways.
You once again respond to someone without justifying anything except to say, "That's the way it is." You have been asked, several times, by several posters, for the logical reasons behind an issue and everytime you either dodge the question or simply say, "Copyright law," neither of which answers the questions you've been posed.
OK then, my point was just made and I thank you.
Even if you sell the original DVD with a copied DVD, it is still violation of copyright laws.
You can scream all day and night "it ain't right!" but the law is the law.
I agree with all that, but what I was trying to point out was that the old "for profit" clauses have been re-written to include free public viewing for no-profit.
What justification would satisfy you?
Right - because you are selling two copies of the same movie for the price of one. That's an obvious problem.
For one thing the service this company provides is illegal, and has been since they started doing it in 1998. They knew what they were doing was illegal. All this time, they didn't even get permission from the movie studios.
Right. Nor should they.
I have a VHS copy of Titanic. I don't see anything on the box forbidding me from editing the tape in any way I please.
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.