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.
Money would be my guess, but it really doesn't matter. The point is that they didn't have an agreement, and that's pretty much that.
Nice post and so true.
What's the difference betweeen "sanitizing" and "censoring"?
renting is a different issue from selling.
However, if they actually buy and provide the end viewer with both copies (clean and original) even for rental then it should not have been an issue.
I don't see why the studios don't wake up and smell the coffee. Most of their movies get paired down for airplane and non-premium channel viewing ANYWAYS. This is a vast market they refuse to acknowledge.
It is called humor.
No, its still breaking the copyright law. The still did the act of editing copyrighted material without permission. It matters not a whit if they bought 1000 legit copies, they broke the law.
You aren't nearly as clever as you apparently think you are. Why don't you just drop this and quit acting silly?
I think the distinction is the renting.
If it was JUST selling it would not be a violation. If I hire an editor to edit my personal copy for my personal viewing AND i am not renting it out, I don't see a legal impediment.
No, the distinction is editing the content.
You can't do that.
This case is in the Colorado U.S. District Court, which is in the 10th Circuit, not the 9th. There was a similar suit (the one by Mel Gibson re: Passion of Christ) in one of the U.S. district courts in California. That case might have ended up before the 9th Circuit COA, but it was settled a few days ago.
Well at least you can read.
I cannot believe that after 10 hours away, this thread has gone around in 4 more circles. Tag, Central Scrutinizer is it. He's got the night shift. Strategerist, you pick up at 6am. Durasell, you're the comic relief, you are on call.
OK, I have no idea where that came from. I believe you need to go through this thread and read what I have posted. I have taken attack after attack tonight claiming it is against the law no matter how you slice it.
I was merely stating in that particular pot that many on this site want to say it's wrong of Hollywood because they are liberals and therefore must be stopped, and it's not fair!
Please don't make baseless attacks against someone who shares the same beliefs on this subject that you do.
You interjected the whole liberals vs conservatives into this.
Its not about that, never was. Its about copyright and ownership.
This has nothing to do with your beliefs, just your inability to think without emotion and focus on the fact that you don't break copyright law.
The play's the thing!
Hollywood is more CEO than artist.
Hollywood -- and the entire entertainment industry -- will defend copyright laws. It helps if you think of a piece of copyrighted material as a piece of real estate. Few movies, no matter how bad, are incapable of making money far into the future. Right now Hudson Hawk is probably playing on some Late, Late Show in South America.
Copyrighted material is also a product. People are free to buy the product or not buy it. For reasons I don't quite understand, it's not enough for folks to simply not buy the product, they don't want the product to exist.
Lastly, America's entertainment industry is also one of America's few highly profitable exports. Keep this in mind. "Hollywood," such as it is, isn't a bunch of fat cats. It's mostly a bunch of middleclass folks, a lot of them blue collar, just trying to pay their bills.
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.