Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Axing Sex, Swearing From Films Violates Copyright: Court
CBC ^

Posted on 07/10/2006 8:14:23 AM PDT by 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....

(Excerpt) Read more at cbc.ca ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: copyright; copyrightabuse; hollywood; lawsuit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 461-478 next last
To: MBB1984
I am very curious to know who appointed this liberal to the bench.

Liberal or not, it appears to be the right decision. To me, the sanitizing service is an obvious violation of copyright laws.

Regardless, the copyright owners are shooting—or, at least grazing—themselves in the foot, as there are some people who absolutely will not buy the non-sanitized versions of their films.

So be it.

21 posted on 07/10/2006 8:22:58 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

As did Airlines.


22 posted on 07/10/2006 8:23:03 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee

No, Nixon.


23 posted on 07/10/2006 8:23:03 AM PDT by steve-b ("Creation Science" is to the religous right what "Global Warming" is to the socialist left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

heh.. i remember the first time i saw Top Gun it was "scrubbed". i didn't even understand the movie because nobody ever seemed to finish a sentance.


24 posted on 07/10/2006 8:23:40 AM PDT by absolootezer0 ("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

This is another liberal decision from the bench at the insistence of leftist producers that is conveniently devoid of both legal reasoning and legal precedent.


25 posted on 07/10/2006 8:23:54 AM PDT by TChris (Banning DDT wasn’t about birds. It was about power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

The funniest one I saw was the sanitized version of Repo Man on A&E. I was in stitches when Emilio Estevez said, "Flip you, melonfarmer!"


26 posted on 07/10/2006 8:24:02 AM PDT by Squawk 8888 (Yay! It's Riding Season!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: steve-b; SheLion; RandallFlagg; CSM; Just another Joe

I wonder how this ruling with effect Glantz and company and their push to remove all traces of smoking from the old classics?


27 posted on 07/10/2006 8:24:39 AM PDT by Gabz (Taxaholism, the disease you elect to have (TY xcamel))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris

See Post 11.


28 posted on 07/10/2006 8:24:47 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984

He was appointed to the Federal bench by Nixon. But what's so "liberal" about upholding copyright laws?


29 posted on 07/10/2006 8:25:14 AM PDT by Redcloak (Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Squawk 8888
Or Die Hard 2: "Yipeekayah, Mr. Falcon" dubbed by someone who didn't even sound close to Bruce Willis.
30 posted on 07/10/2006 8:25:27 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Loose lips sink ships - and the New York Times really doesn't have a problem with sinking ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
So a movie can be edited and cleaned up for broadcast on network TV

Yes, and that's precisely why I enjoy recording the edited-for-TV versions for my family's video library. ;O)

31 posted on 07/10/2006 8:25:34 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
I agree with Matsch's decision for the simple reason that these companies are reproducing the films without authorization in violation of copyright laws.

If Hollywood was smart, they'd follow what the record companies have been doing for years --releasing "clean" and "unedited" CDs. Incidentally, Larry Flynt does the same thing --releasing "softcore" versions of his hardcore films for certain markets. He's been able to sell his "soft" films on Amazon.com and I'm sure his wallet is a little thicker as a result.

32 posted on 07/10/2006 8:25:42 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

That's about as long as my edited version of Scarface.


33 posted on 07/10/2006 8:26:00 AM PDT by uglybiker (Don't blame me. I didn't make you stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
Very good decision.

How do you figure? A person doesn't have the right to censor their own, legal copy of a movie?

That's all these businesses do. You buy a legal copy of the movie and they perform the service of removing the offensive content for you. Just how, praytell, does that violate copyright law by any stretch of the law or imagination?

34 posted on 07/10/2006 8:26:32 AM PDT by TChris (Banning DDT wasn’t about birds. It was about power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: zarf

A few years ago, Letterman or Leno would have a sequence where they'd show a porn movie, but cut out all the porn. It was pretty funny: each clip would be about 5 seconds long.


35 posted on 07/10/2006 8:26:50 AM PDT by Koblenz (Holland: a very tolerant country. Until someone shoots you on a public street in broad daylight...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
To me, the sanitizing service is an obvious violation of copyright laws.

It's not quite so obvious to me. The "first sale doctrine" protects the right to sell your personal copy of a copyrighted work (provided that you don't retain another copy for yourself, of course) -- this ruling would imply that the first sale doctrine is somehow negated if you (for example) removed unwanted pages from a book.

Presumably the difference here is that the defendants are removing specific portions determined in advance as a commercial service.

36 posted on 07/10/2006 8:27:04 AM PDT by steve-b ("Creation Science" is to the religous right what "Global Warming" is to the socialist left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Darn. I guess this means I won't be getting that cleaned-up version of Basic Instinct 2. Now I'll never know who gets it in the end.


37 posted on 07/10/2006 8:27:10 AM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Koblenz
A few years ago, Letterman or Leno would have a sequence where they'd show a porn movie, but cut out all the porn. It was pretty funny: each clip would be about 5 seconds long.

That's another issue that clouds the matter -- that sort of editing is clearly "review and commentary" (in this case, commenting on the use of a threadbare "plot" upon which to hang porn scenes), which is a form of protected fair use.

38 posted on 07/10/2006 8:28:39 AM PDT by steve-b ("Creation Science" is to the religous right what "Global Warming" is to the socialist left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
I am very curious to know who appointed this liberal to the bench.

From the University of Denver web page: "In 1965, he was appointed Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Colorado. He served on that bench from 1965 to 1974. He was appointed United States District Court Judge for the District of Colorado in March of 1974, and presided as Chief Judge of the District from 1994 to 2000. At present, he sits as a Senior Judge on that bench."

It appears that this brilliant legal mind was appointed to the District Court bench by Richard Nixon, the man who also blessed us with John Paul Stevens.

39 posted on 07/10/2006 8:28:41 AM PDT by Charlemagne on the Fox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
In the vast majority of Hollyweird products, sex, violence, and fowl language serves no purpose in are the plot.
40 posted on 07/10/2006 8:28:41 AM PDT by trebb ("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 461-478 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson