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.
Ever seen that "Illegal Operation" message come up when you try to ff the stuff before the movie on some DVD's?
Yep...
Yes, if clean films had an agreement there would be no lawsuit. That's so obvious that it's a nonargument.
Man, do I hate hypocrisy.
Tell "Cleanflix" or whoever to make their own damn films and market and distribute them if they don't like what is out there. Don't steal somebody elses work and "fix" it.
These people would snap the penis off of the statue of David because it offended them - then sell the emasculated reproductions - and you think they are noble!
I'm just sick of the Hollywood Elites pumping their vile, perverted product into society earning billions of dollars apiece while they party atop the St. James hotel in California, throwing scraps of food to the homeless gathered below, before returning to their giant houses in compounds guarded by their armed minions with automatic weapons with laser sights ready to cut down orphan children eager for a simple autograph or running down crippled kittens on Hollywood Blvd in their fancy Italian cars...
As much as I hate the garbage Hollywood pumps out, I actually agree with this ruling. The work is theirs and they should have control over it.
Our choice is whether or not we want to partake of it.
With the myriad entertainment options out there today, I believe that we actually have it better than many previous generations in our opportunities from which to choose.
While that's all very interesting, it's a justification for your own dislike, and nothing more. There is nothing there that stands as a defense for altering a work without the permission of the copyright holder.
Probably religious references.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who owns a single article of clothing made by Armani has given up all rights as a U.S. citizen.
That's completely irrelevant. If Hollwood (taken in en toto as you seem to prefer) is indeed liberal, it doesn't matter. One isn't automatically wrong just because one is liberal anymore than one is automatically correct just because one professes conservatism. It doesn't work that way.
Zactly.
The studios are losing a big market just because they throw in a bunch of F words so they can get the rating pushed from G to PG. They can put 954 languages on the DVD, why can't they put out a non-F word version, also.
Can you say, "permision"? I know that you could.
First, I did not mention the architect, I mentioned a previous homeowner. Second, copyright is not absolute, as it is limited by the fair use doctrine. This court ruling is, IMHO, an unjust constriction of fair use.
Third, my political objection to this ruling is that it expands the power of the hollywood freaks. They, much like the airlines, do not want secondary markets available for their product. Secondary markets generally make product more competitive, which benefits consumers but can diminish profits for producers. IMHO, the diminishment of hollywood’s profits is a good thing.
This thread needs some serious livening up. Law is boring. Hating Hollywood is fun.
They're certainly welcome to do so. Why do you think it hasn't happened yet....?
Now there is a movement to attack DVR technology by taking away the ability of the viewer to fast forward through commercials!!!
I certainly can. As long as the copyright holder is duly compensated upon resale of each unit, and the alteration is sufficiently disclosed to the buyer. Can you say “fair use”?
Now thats an idea!
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.