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.
Read Evalyn Waugh's The Loved One before you go. I've taken the tour bus of move stars' homes and around L.A. a few times. It's a vice. I like being around people who are seeing something new...
Why not just answer the question? Can I edit my own tapes? And can I get someone to edit them for me?
Amen to that.
http://www.seeing-stars.com/Buried2/PierceBros.shtml
Westwood memorial park, where all the best stars are buried, its amazing how many they have in one little place.
Interesting. I'm not an LA fan. When I go there on business I try to get in and out as quickly as possible
Just "wrong" or in fact and in law "illegal"? There's a big difference. It might be wrong to draw Hitler mustaches on Hillary Clinton's face on a copy of her book that I purchased, but is it illegal?
That question and others like it have already been answered - numerous times.
I hear ya, I have spent immeasurable hours at LAX, SNA, ONT, BUR and LGB trying to catch flights as a standby.
But I fly free, so a one day trip is easy.
Hollywood is a high risk professional arena.
Do you really want your question to be answered for the 25th time?
Comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?
Yes, violations of the law are by definition illegal.
But the judge said that those edits cause "irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies."
Then you should go to Canter's deli out in the Fairfax, it's kind of like a cemetary. 80 year old guys in bedroom slippers, reading Variety and eating soup. Talk to them and you'll find out they used to write for Beverly Hillbillies or Jack Benny. Sherwood Schwartz is a god among the Canter's crowd...
The judge is essentially full of crap in that part of the ruling. The reason it was illegal is because the copyrighted works were being altered and distributed without the authorization of the copyright owner. The opinion of the Court needed to be no longer than that.
But the judge said that those edits cause "irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies."
Films edited for airplanes, foreign markets etc. have the edits approved by the copyright holder. So, if I wanted to argue with you, I'd say that the edits are skillfully done with much agonizing over the contex, etc. In fact, the guys in Utah were probably editing along the same lines as the airline edits, etc. However, the Utah guys were editing without permission.
Let's be flat out honest here. The Utah guys saw a market that wasn't being addressed. Being "go getter" types, they saw an opportunity. This is all fine and good, except they didn't pay the copyright holder. It's as if they found a vacant field next to a busy highway and built a Dairy Queen on it without asking the owner's permission.
You don't know me.
I was the class clown in high school and have a great sense of humor. I have found this entire thread to be quite hilarious.
I also raise award winning clams.
This is same judge that ruled out any evidence in the Oklahoma City bombing trial tying in Arab participation.
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.