Axing Sex, Swearing From Films Violates Copyright: Court

CBC ^

[steve-b]

Deleting swearing, sex and violence from films on DVD or VHS violates copyright laws, a U.S. judge has ruled in a decision that could end controversial sanitizing done for some video-rental chains, cable services and the internet.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought by 16 U.S. directors — including Steven Spielberg, Robert Redford and Martin Scorsese — against three Utah-based companies that "scrub" films.

Judge Richard P. Matsch decreed on Thursday in Denver, Colo., that sanitizing movies to delete content that may offend some people is an "illegitimate business."

The judge also praised the motives of the Hollywood studios and directors behind the suit, ordering the companies that provide the service to hand over their inventories....

[JAKraig]

The problem with this is that the kids would watch the original when you are not home!

[orionblamblam]

> Truly evil characters can't be nice; otherwise they wouldn't be evil.

Oh, I dunno. Slavering death machines are useful, but for *true* evil, you have to have the "looks friendly, smiles a lot and is darned polite" type of evil.

[linda_22003]

That's right. The studios are doing it, with their content, in their way. They have the rights to that content.

[Borges]

Studios certainly lose the argument in principal because they allow changes in those other venues. But the fact remains that its their right to grant permission.

[JamesP81]

Oh, I dunno. Slavering death machines are useful, but for *true* evil, you have to have the "looks friendly, smiles a lot and is darned polite" type of evil.

Oh, of course. And this is the image they project to the public. Nice, clean cut, professional, wears a nice suit. Underneath that veneer, however...

[longtermmemmory]

Imagine if Ford or GM sued every punk kid for altering the "artistic integrity" of their automobiles...

Art is irrelevant here, only "the law" and rights and money.

[TChris]

Because by doing it en masse, as a business venture, they are way beyond the "fair use" coverage in copyright law. If they had partnered with the studios to do this, they would have been fine, but they went ahead even after permission was denied.

So, I return to my original question: Why is the combination of two ostensibly legal activities under one roof illegal? Selling legal copies of movies is legal. Editing a legal copy of a movie for the owner of that legal copy is, presumably, a legal service. Why do they get twisted up in knots when both are done together by the same company?

[Bigg Red]

I know very little about business and next to nothing about the movie business, so someone with superior knowledge should correct me if I am wrong in my syllogisms.

Altering the movie by "scrubbin" the filth increases its distribution numbers.
Increasing distribution increases profits for the production company.
Ergo, Preventing the "scrubbing" decreases profits.

Am I missing something here?

Oh, that's right, I am not among the cultural elite, so it's impossible me to grasp the tremedous artistic merit of the F-bomb.

[Borges]

Why is the combination of two ostensibly legal activities under one roof illegal?

George Carlin on prostitution: 'Selling is Legal. Sex is legal. Why isn't selling sex legal'?

[linda_22003]

It all comes back to permissions - it may seem like a nicety, but it really does matter. You can chop up a film, and the studios aren't going to notice or come after the TChris household; you're small potatoes. But a business based on doing this is going to get noticed.

[MainFrame65]

Perhaps someone could design and market a player that would accept a separate file containing the editing control data for the offensive CD's, and then sell the edit files.

[MPJackal]

Well, I am sure this will apply to audio CD's as well. I only let my kids get the scrubbed versions of that crap.

Why is Hollywood so hell bent on forcing sex and profanity on our kids. Bunch of perverts.

So now we will not buy their crap at all.

[Borges]

Context is everything. Sometimes harsh language, sex and violence are a key part of the characterizaion and plot.

[weegie]

I have a better idea.

Inserting gratuitous sex and violence into "family friendly" movies and selling them on.

Who wouldn't want to see Deanna Durbin getting it on with Mickey Rooney?

What about the good looking one in "touched by an angel" going postal with a chainsaw on the town busybody?

Seems like a winner to me

[weegie]

I have a better idea.

Inserting gratuitous sex and violence into "family friendly" movies and selling them on.

Who wouldn't want to see Deanna Durbin getting it on with Mickey Rooney?

What about the good looking one in "touched by an angel" going postal with a chainsaw on the town busybody?

Seems like a winner to me

[Vaquero]

then ok...bingo....

sounds good to me.

[xactlyright]

yes.

[linda_22003]

"Who wouldn't want to see Deanna Durbin getting it on with Mickey Rooney?"

Kids today won't watch ANYthing in black and white. :)

[Hendrix]

The bottom line is that if it is illegal to scrub movies, we should change the law to make it legal. I bet it would be very easy to get the public to back a change to the law that would allow companies to edit out bad language and scenes from movies. How many people do you know that would be against it? Republicans should jump on this ruling with new law and watch the democrats try to block it (and paint the democrats as anti-family, homo loving, ant-religion, which is hurting the deomcrats now). This is the perfect opportunity for republicans to further paint the democrats as anti-family.

[Syntyr]

Okay well after reading some of the good posts I see where I jumped the gun. I guess I have gotten edgy with Judges rulings nowdays. I see how the networks get to edit for content. I am still torn on letting the individual do it but I can see how that would create a derivitive work and if it was my film I might not want that done...

Tough call.