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.
So, If I buy a book, edit out objectionable language, then resell the book, I'm breaking the law??? That's crazy ...
Also, when you post, you might try a little more humility, and a little less arrogance.
To be completely honest, I'm not comfortable with the examples you cite - probably because I know that there are degenerates who would do such things (though I haven't seen anyone actually doing it - so maybe there isn't much of a market).
But, if someone wants to buy a copy of a movie and pay for editing services on their purchased copy, then I have to say that I have no issue with that.
Um........no. Not to me.
Read what you copied me one more time, and notice the four words after the underlined statement..
They are saying removing/editing is causing injury to artistic expression of the copyrighted materials. In other words, you have to watch the gratuitous crap in it, not just the clean parts.
Lets say that I buy a book and it has steamy sex and language and I black it out. Later, I sell it in a yard sale. Am I causing injury to artistic expression of the copyrighted materials?
I guess Cliff's Notes better be watching its six.
Any copies you make, or have someone make for you, are for your personal use only. Just like it is with the original work.
No problem.
As, noted this was a horrible AP article; if you google the history of this story, you'll find these various Utah groups started doing this completely on their own and with NO agreements at all with the copyright holders, and the various lawsuits started flying virtually immediately.
I have to side with the studios too...if these guys want to watch an edited movie then they can wait until it's shown on TV. As someone who likes to write, the idea of someone taking my work and editing it and then selling it without my permission is something that I would take great offense to. Especially if it's for somebody else's agenda, no matter how well intentioned.
Not a comparable example. A better example would be you purchasing 1,000 copies of a book, digitizing it, then editing out the naughty parts, destroying the original books, and then printing and selling or renting the 1,000 copies of your new version of the book, all without consulting the author or publisher.
Seems a pretty blatant violation of copyright there.
You beat me I answering, but I stated the exact same thing. the scenarios are just not comparable.
Then why are you on a board to debate?
Heh....we almost came up with the same example.
One thing to note is that I have little doubt that with a market now demonstrated, you will see studio-produced and legal sanitized versions of DVD movies sold in Utah and other areas with a demand for this in the future.
However, directors and producers will have the option of negotiating permission to do such a thing with studios, as I'm sure they do with permission for the rights for edited airline and TV versions - I'm sure there are directors that have in their contracts that no edited TV or airline versions of their films are to be produced (likely at a serious penalty to their moneymaking ability), but most likely don't.
The key thing is who has the right to make the decisions..the copy "right."
Sounds good to me. ;)
Actually, if Hollyweird did this themselves, more of us might buy their trash.
OK, are you related to Chris Matthews? Why don't you quote the whole thing I said.
"I am getting rather irritated arguing a case that is blatantly right yet people will refuse to believe it...."
I like how you refuse to answer anything I posted, you just do a horrible job of quoting me. I think MSNBC is taking applications.
Am I allowed to alter my personal copy of any copyrighted material? Yes or no?
If yes, then I also have the right to contract with someone else to alter my personal copy for me.
If no, the the next step is to outlaw DVD players with mute, FF, and skip scene buttons. Your only option is to turn it off and take out the disk. I know that sound nuts, but that is where this idiotic drek will lead us.
They are sold in a two-pack with the original included. The studio loses nothing.
Indeed! Because the artists allow the exact same cuts when the movie is shown on network TV.
But when that movie is shown on network TV those exact same cuts are used and it does have the permission of the director and the company that produced it. Perhaps if they stuck a label on it and called it the "TV Version" or "As Seen on TV" would the be OK?
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.