Posted on 07/08/2006 9:24:52 PM PDT by BenLurkin
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Sanitizing movies on DVD or VHS tape violates federal copyright laws, and several companies that scrub films must turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios, an appeals judge ruled.
Editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an "illegitimate business" that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights, said U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch in a decision released Thursday in Denver.
"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection."
Matsch ordered the companies named in the suit, including CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms, to stop "producing, manufacturing, creating" and renting edited movies. The businesses also must turn over their inventory to the movie studios within five days of the ruling.
"We're disappointed," CleanFlicks chief executive Ray Lines said. "This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight."
CleanFlicks produces and distributes sanitized copies of Hollywood films on DVD by burning edited versions of movies onto blank discs. The scrubbed films are sold over the Internet and to video stores.
As many as 90 video stores nationwide -- about half of them in Utah -- purchase movies from CleanFlicks, Lines said. It's unclear how the ruling may effect those stores.
The controversy began in 1998 when the owners of Sunrise Family Video began deleting scenes from "Titanic" that showed a naked Kate Winselt.
The scrubbing caused an uproar in Hollywood, resulting in several lawsuits and countersuits.
Directors can feel vindicated by the ruling, said Michael Apted, president of the Director's Guild of America.
"Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor," he said.
I am debating a company that doesn't want another company t break the law and you quote me in a manner that would make Chris Matthews proud.
You have NO argument so you attack me instead of the subject. Liberal tactics and I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but so be it. Don't dance around questions people ask then say, "Oh you hrt my feelings by telling the truth so I quit."
Wah. Give me your address and I'll send a box of kleenex. Otherwise, don't get into a conversation with baseless points.
The legal term is "video piracy".
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.
Re: baseball cards, not sure, I haven't read the copyright agreement on that. I assume that it is in the interest of the card companies to allow it, but I don't know their agreements.
Just as it's in the interest of the movie studios to allow these edit companies to exist as they create sales where none would have existed otherwise.
I'm not sure what company we're talking about. The company I'm talking about did not open up shop until 2002. I'm not sure (are you?) that this company is doing business the same way as the 1998 case that was ruled illegal.
Quit using circular arguments. You are not arguing in the context of this article or issue. If you want to play around with your personal copy of the movie in your home, I guess there's nothing that can be done about it. However, if you start distributing this alteration in stores and putting it on sale, that would indeed be a problem. Do you understand the difference now, or will you just keep up this nonsense?
What? But it's a liberal agenda, therefore we should be allowed to break the law! *sarcasm
Some things are just the law, plain and simple. Yes, there are many liberals in Hollywood, so it's easy to point the finger. But my gosh, it is written in the law!
The company I am talking about started in 1998, based in Utah, which the ruling is based on.
Same thing for DVD's.
http://www.clearplay.com/
There's a perfectly legal way for folks to get rid of the junk in the movies - essentially an automatic "fast forward through that scene" or "hit the mute button" while the movie plays. So some people need to quit defending what is going on in this article, which is clearly illegal, and get the same (worthwhile) job done in a legal manner.
In other words, you made a statement that is not grounded in any fact, it's just something you made up.
But anyway, here you go:
Federal copyright law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
Utah copyright law:
http://le.utah.gov/~code/code.htm
Click on "Search by keyword", then enter "copyright", click the search button and there you are.
There are no local copyright laws in Utah.
You own the physical object, whether it's a DVD, a book, or a CD. You have every right to treat that physical object as you see fit.
You do not, however, own the content. You have a license to use it for your own amusement or edification, but you do not have the right to repackage or resell it.
If you know anyone who runs a bar or restaurant, ask about this. If I buy a CD, I can't legally play it over the sound system in my bar, because buying a CD confers a private listening license, not a public performance license.
That's why so many bars have jukeboxes -- the jukebox companies deal with the ASCAP and BMI licensing so the barkeep doesn't have to go through the hassle. When the jukebox isn't playing, it usually kicks over to the radio. Folks who play CDs in the bar either have done their licensing homework or haven't gotten the nastygram yet.
As far as your defacement of book covers, it might be in technical violation of some law, but it's not worth the hassle and no one cares. However, if you set up and advertised a company whose business plan was based around re-editing and reselling someone else's work, you'd wake up in the morning to find more lawyers on your lawn than there are squirrels on mine.
Wildcat? Are you from KY?
On subject, I never said I thought it was a problem. But it IS against the law, therefore yes, it is a problem!
One point of clarification...can't sell or distribute (otherwise, the original Napster was legal because they weren't being sold, just "shared.")
The question is about legality, not about channelling a dead author's wishes. It my not be what he wanted, but is it legal?
Oh, I wasn't meaning to sound like I was rebutting you, just continuing the conversation.
And yes, that's the flag flying on my profile.
So in your eyes, it is legal to buy a movie, it is legal to sell an old DVD to a used DVD store, it is legal to sell my old movies on ebay, it is legal to splice a new version of my VHS at home, but if I sell my legally re-edited VHS movie, then it becomes illegal?
I agree! I have been arguing this point all day! A law broken is a law broken, regardless of the motive behind it.
Selling his work after you "defaced it" with your sanitized version is not legal.
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.