Hollywood wins legal fight against sanitized DVDs

Reuters ^ | July 9, 2006 | Cynthia Littleton

[wouldntbprudent]

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - A federal judge in Colorado has handed the entertainment industry a big win in its protracted legal battle against a handful of small companies that offer sanitized versions of theatrical releases on DVD.

The case encompasses two of Hollywood's biggest headaches these days: the culture wars and the disruptive influence of digital technologies.

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch came down squarely on the side of the Directors Guild of America and the major studios in his ruling that the companies must immediately cease all production, sale and rentals of edited videos.

[wouldntbprudent]

Wrong analogy. These are products the family paid for and intend for personal use.

So you should ask: what if some FR censor bought copies of your post (earning you money), took them home and edited out all the words he didn't like so when his kids read them he was okay with that?

[wouldntbprudent]

My understanding was that was not these companies do. You buy the DVD and then pay them to sanitize it.

How about these DVD players that you can program to edit out certain words and skip certain scenes? Is that okay to do in the privacy of your own home?

[Brytani]

If Hollywood had a clue they would compromise on this. All I've heard is how movies are bombing right and left. If it wasn't for the latest Johnny Depp Pirate movie, the movie industry would have another bad season.

Why don't motion picture distributors get together with companies that want to remove cussing/nudity/sex scenes etc out of movies. If the companies pay royalties to the movie industry for cleaned up movies, then sell them to people who would otherwise not see the film, it's a win win situation.

I do not believe a company has the right to take a movie and change the content without the expressed permission of the owner of the film. However, when there is money to be made, I'm surprised Hollywood isn't jumping at the chance.

[wouldntbprudent]

Can you not take your music at home and make remixes? Or is that "altering their work"?

Can you not take a DVD you paid for and record it with a gag audio track, just for fun? Or is that "altering their work"?

[wouldntbprudent]

So sorry.

[wouldntbprudent]

And don't forget the edited for airlines version. I've often wished there had been a section at Blockbuster just for airline versions of films.

[wouldntbprudent]

Such a machine exists and is for sale at your local Wally World for about $200. I think it's called Clearplay or something like that.

It has a huge list of cuss words and images you can block.

[ApplegateRanch]

I wasn't aware of those. Last time I set foot on a plane was about 30 years ago.

[Jeff Chandler]

I've thought the same thing. The trick would be to program the machine for individual movies so they wouldn't end up choppy and weird.

[Jeff Chandler]

However, when there is money to be made, I'm surprised Hollywood isn't jumping at the chance.

Hollywood isn't only about making money. It is also about insulting red state Christian prudes, enlightening the rest of society, and impressing their Hollywood buddies.

[garylmoore]

This a great decision since it has lowered their incomes

That's right. I kind of liked the idea, movies today are very nasty, not many that you can be comfortable watching with your children, hey you don't have to watch them, like they say.

[cherry]

since movies are a commodity.....made solely to make money....what artistic right is being violated if some thoughtful person wiped out objectionable material AT THE BUYER'S REQUEST????

doesn't the stinking movie maker still get his cut, maybe even more since people with good taste will actually purchase their product.....

[cherry]

so you want the head of household to go see the movie, or rent it, and spend several hours in doing so, just so he can decide if its fit for his family?.....all along, supporting what could be some piece of x rated trash....

that is too much investment of time and money....

I say that YOU should seek out your F words or your titty peeks at your expense and your expense only.....in fact, maybe you should pay extra just for that priviledge....

I am tired of having to go thru life with my eyes and hears covered.......for a change, lets return to the days where the norm was good and moral or at least right-minded and the abnormal was something that the perverts could seek out at the xrated theatre like they used to do.....

[napscoordinator]

I believe that Hollywood has a chance to make more money here. If they would start selling a "family version" they could make money on the theater version, the family version and the unrated version that they sell now. I hope that they decide to take this big money venture on some time. It would help there bottom line and help get rid of the unauthorized companies that are doing it.

[ElkGroveDan]

Your analogy doesn't work at all, a home builder doesn't own the house after he sells it to you. The studios still own the films.

No they don't. The own the copyright. Just as my builderand his architect owns the copyright on his plans for my home. The analogy is exactly appropriate.

[wouldntbprudent]

I agree. Of course, if they wanted to make money, maybe they would consider creating more family fare in the first place.

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

Can you not take your music at home and make remixes? Or is that "altering their work"? Can you not take a DVD you paid for and record it with a gag audio track, just for fun? Or is that "altering their work"?

you can do that, but you cant sell it and make a profit

[Dr. Scarpetta]

And don't forget the edited for airlines version. I've often wished there had been a section at Blockbuster just for airline versions of films.

EXACTLY RIGHT. If the airline versions would be for sale, I might buy them.

[wai-ming]

Question:

Do copyright owners get royalties every time a piece of work is sold or resold? What about "used" books, movies, etc.?

For example,
if I bought a book, then tore out a page, could I then resell the book as a "used book with a missing page"?

Could the author sue me for "altering" his work? That appears to be what is happening here.

[wouldntbprudent]

No, I don't think the copyright owners gets royalties every time a work is resold. See all the gazillion of used books sold and resold every day.

I have often bought used books through amazon and occasionally the seller will email me that the book has been damaged--the index pages fell out, whatever---and asks if I still want it.

I just don't see how the copyright owner's rights go on forever and ever. This property is bought and the copyright owner paid. At that point, what right do they have to control what is done to the property?

I once knew an artist who ripped up a bunch of books and incorporated the pages into a piece of "art." Is that illegal?