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.
They own the intellectual rights.
But can I screw around with a copy I purchased at retail if I don't resell it?
Yes.
Can I pay someone else to screw around with the copy I purchased for me?
No.
No, I can't say "fair use" in the context of this violation of copyright.
The editing companies are not "commenting on" or "criticising" or "parodying" these movies. They are taking a work, making changes to it and reselling it. The very narrow copyright exception does not cover this circumstance.
Sorry.
No, they are selling an altered and edited version of a movie without permission from the copyright holder, plain and simple.
Would you like it if someone taped Limbaugh's show and edited it to make him seem liberal and then sell it?
You don't change copyrighted materials without permission and sell it.
Plain and simple.
These guys didn't pay the studio to alter their work.
As for airplanes, as it has been pointed out several dozens of times, the edited versions shown inflight have permission from the copyright holder. Several directors don't allow their work to be edited and shown on airplanes.
Believe me, the subject is being broached again, notwitstanding precedent.
If acting is not a "real job" then all the responsible people who take acting jobs would not have "real jobs" either, thus becoming decadent imbeciles!
That's not to say certain actors are not total idiots, but our greatest president was an actor, so I withold blanket criticism of actors in principle.
Hyperbole alert!
I LOVED "The Way We Were". I LOVED "Forrest Gump". I could go on. I WON'T watch these movies, and in fact burned "The Way We Were".
It's not the language.
It's the fact that I won't put a PENNY into any of the actors, directors, producers, etc. who send one penny against conservative causes or candidates.
"Scrubbing" still puts a penny into their pockets. I will live the rest of my life without being "entertained" by anyone who contributes to anti-American causes or candidates.
That might make all the difference, but then again if I were providing such a service I would certainly check up on the legality of it, especially as I am making profit from doing it. Intellectual property laws got a lot stricter since internet piracy kicked up. Remember Napster was only "providing a service", not even selling one and it got busted. Afaik if you buy a movie on DVD or an album on CD you only get the right to view or listen to it, you don't actually own the property (ie the movie on the DVD) and do not have the right to edit that property. Intellectual property holders even have the right to restrict how you view or listen to it. Most movies on DVD will restrict you to viewing it to a home audience, meaning you cannot show it to big audiences.
don't rent the movies. Simple as that.
The music guys have their goons out on patrol. They busted this guy that was playing background music in his clothing store. From CD's that he had purchased.
Hollywood and some of our lawyers:
"Working for A Smuttier America!"
CleanFlicks rents the edited DVDs. Do they own a legal disc for everyone they rent out?
The argument against "fair use" was dealt with in the beatamax case. It has also been dealt with in numerous software copyright cases.
In this case the consumer is recieving the original product as the copyright holder provided. You DO have a right to transfer and format shift as much as you are able to time shift under your own personal use.
Copyright does not extend to "format", for example I can take all my purchased VHS or Betamax tapes and put them on DVDs. I can even edit them as I transfer them under fair use.
The "cleaning" services had the work around since they were charging extra for the service on top of selling the original unaltered DVD.
This is interesting as I see this as a "rights" issue rather than an "artistic" issue.
Were the studios arguing that this impaired their ability to sell their own versions of the edited versions? Are the studios looking to do family friendly versions?
Studios argued that someone took their works and altered it without their permission and sold it, under copyright law that is wrong. Cut and dried.
I went to the first site listed and they were renting DVDs similar to Netflix. I think they were also supplying other rental agencies but I don't know the details of those arrangements.
Can you spell "permision"? (ooops)
I really think that cleaning up a pile of poop left by the liberal "artists" is beyond any filtering anyway. I just wish Christians just completely avoided their trash instead of trying to trying to stomach it with a grain of salt. Deep down they know that all the trash you put in your mind builds up a tolerance to such smut. I am glad I still grit my teeth every time I hear the "F" bomb. It makes my blood boil to hear people lower something perfect God made in his perfect surrounding of marriage into just a matter of trash. God knew what he was doing when he made something so beautiful as woman... but now days that beauty has been dragged Thu the mud to where it is ugly as the words they use to describe it. Only libs could do such a thing to the most beautiful thing God created (other than His Son and His Word)...
Your words ring true.. but the filters I put on information coming into my head change the basic points into what I stated as the truth as I see it. "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil" (Rom. 12:9) A love that is not hypocritical rebukes and condemns, and then points the way to God.
Now on the other hand, God does not condone stealing either, is stealing the smut out of movies "stealing"... I guess the courts and you are right, it is stealing.. since the poop pushing "artists" claim ownership of it with pride.
So as I previously stated.. the best I could hope for is that Christians stop purchasing/renting from porn/dirt peddling artists. Even the cleaned version resulted in those "artists" getting paid. Even movies that add just a curse word here and there is not good enough in my opinion.. If a person makes some brownies with all good wholesome ingredients and just puts a sprinkle of poop in the mix, the whole of the mix/movie has been compromised.
As long as the companies are buying the rights to redistribute the films with "minor editing", then there is no problem. However, I doubt that's the case here.
I have no idea how that company operates.
All I know is that the issue is that these companies take a copyrighted work and edit it, then reselling it as the original, edited work and they do it without permission.
They are not allowed to do this under the law. I think it's a great idea, and I think the movie studios are stupid not to embrace the concept, but that doesn't make it legal.
I think the question you have to ask is why they would make an agreement with the airlines and not with these companies. I think the companies tried to reach an agreement. That being the case, do you think that the failure to reach an agreement was strictly over the issue of money?
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.