A Right to Sanitize Home-Viewed Films

The Indianapolis Star ^ | February 24, 2993 | Editorial Board Member

[RAT Patrol]

Our position is: Hollywood should worry less about trademarks and more about the filth in so many movies.

Families put off by the violence, gratuitous sex and foul language in movies have prompted the development of sanitizing software and devices. Parents can patronize a chain of video stores (none locally) that offer cleaned-up Hollywood hits. Or they can do the job at home with the help of software.

[Revolting cat!]

This is too good to be true! We ought to encourage Hollyweird to publicize their complaint, and at the same time advertise (inadvertently, of course) their wonderful agenda.

[Lunatic Fringe]

The problem is, with a lot of movies if you sanitize the sex, language, and violence you don't have very much left.... Why rent a movie like that when you can watch it on TBS for free?

Just my humble opinion....

[Lunatic Fringe]

The president of the Motion Picture Association of America said the technology involved worries him because it can also be used to turn G-rated movies into pornography.

Good point... would you be so Gung-Ho about violating copyright laws if they, say, turned the "Little Mermaid" into a low grade porno? Don't laugh, someone would want to do it.

[Revolting cat!]

Porno takeoffs on fairy tales have been done and are being done. No news there. I can't see how this technology would encourage anyone to transform Lassie into a porno flick! To what end? This is nothing but a diversionary shot by the current Hollywood pornographers. Also, the copyright issue is merely a legal angle they found to fight it, and, according to an article in the WSJ I read last week, a rather weak one.

The issue, from Hollywood's point of view, is simply (Occam's Razor) that of preserving the integrity of their products. The Hollywood pornographers remain blissfully unaware that they are pornographers, and like to think of the crap they are producing as High Art.

[RAT Patrol]

LOL!

[RAT Patrol]

LF, you make a good point but this is about my at-home consumption. I have a terrible time finding movies for all ages. At 41, I don't enjoy all the smut in movies. I can't tell you how many times I've thought, "Why is that in there? It isn't necessary."

[Heyworth]

Suppose that it's a book that we're talking about. Suppose someone takes a copyrighted work--something by Ann Coulter, for instance--and cuts out everything offensive to liberals. Then they sell that book, saying that it is still Coulter's book. It's the same thing. The home technology is harder to argue against, since it applies exclusively to the end user, but for a reseller to alter a copyrighted product is clearly illegal. Furthermore, there are plenty of family-friendly movies available for people out there. The people who want these bowdlerized versions want to have their cake and eat it, too--to see Hollywood blockbusters, but be spared anything in them that might offend. Rent almost anything made before 1965. Plenty of good stuff there.

[Bubba_Leroy]

If I want to buy a copy of a book, cut out some pages, then resell it I have every right to do so. That is all they are doing here. They are NOT buying one copy, editing it and then reselling multiple copies. That would be a clear violation of copyright law.

[Revolting cat!]

I can't find the WSJ article which had lots of detail, but here is a couple of telling excerpts from the LA Slimes:

"The studios had been reluctant to join the ongoing legal battle between sanitizers and directors, largely for fear of seeming to oppose advocates of film decency. "We were dragged in kicking and screaming," one executive said."

[...]

"Some operators, including CleanFlicks, rent videos from which offending scenes have been edited. Others sell software that lets consumers edit a DVD copy to their own specifications. CleanFlicks has argued that it doesn't violate copyright laws because it buys a new copy every time it edits a film."

[Heyworth]

They are NOT buying one copy, editing it and then reselling multiple copies. That would be a clear violation of copyright law.

Uh, I don't think that's the case. At least one of these outfits, Cleanflicks, has a chain of video rental stores. I seriously doubt that they're buying individual copies of each video, cutting out the offensive stuff, then selling or renting that individual copy. Plus they're also selling DVDs, which by their nature means they're making copies.

[Heyworth]

CleanFlicks has argued that it doesn't violate copyright laws because it buys a new copy every time it edits a film."

But they're still not reselling the original copy that they bought. They're simply making a dub of the edited copy they made, then presumably tossing the one they bought.

[Revolting cat!]

OK, let's say they're making a dub, editing it and copying it back to the original tape. Does that make it all right?

Now, what is the fuss about anyway? Haven't the TV networks been editing movies for decades now?

[Bubba_Leroy]

For each edited copy that CleanFlicks sells or rents, CleanFlicks buys an unedited copy. They sell and rent the edited copies in the original packaging that the purchased copy came in. That is why the movie studies have had to resort to suing them for trademark violation, alleging that CleanFlicks violates trademark law when they rent or sell an altered movie in the original packaging.

If they bought one copy and then sold or rented multiple copies it would be a slam dunk case of copyright infringement and they would have been imediately shut down.

[HitmanLV]

I dunno...just be careful what you rent for family viewing, that's all. I have 1200 DVDs and I would say that maybe 20% are suitible for people of all ages (no violence or strong language/nudity) and the majority are about as violent/profane as 'Raiders of the Lost Ark,' was - which is to say too violent for the littlest kids but fine for just about everyone.

Hey, I turned out ok, didn't I?

[Heyworth]

So, I can buy a copy of a book, take it out of the dust jacket, run off a xerox copy (with selected cuts), then stick the copy in the dust jacket and sell it, while keeping the copy I bought? And that's not a violation of copyright law?

[RAT Patrol]

Hey, I turned out ok, didn't I?

Um...

LOL! Of course you did.

[steve-b]

Hollywood's action should be dismissed with prejudice (that's legalese for "get this nonsense out of my courtroom and don't ever bring it back"). It's equivalent to claiming that snipping a copy out of a newspaper and throwing away the rest is copyright infringement.

[RAT Patrol]

Exactly, steve. I agree 100%.

[steve-b]

Suppose someone takes a copyrighted work--something by Ann Coulter, for instance--and cuts out everything offensive to liberals. Then they sell that book, saying that it is still Coulter's book. It's the same thing.

Survey says: X

If I told the purchaser up front that the edition was abridged (in this case, abridged all the way down to blank paper), and the purchaser chose to accept it with that understanding, then no one is misled.