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.

[Oztrich Boy]

Nope. The Sanitzers are caught dead to rights are should be thrown into the slammer to make special friends with Roscoe the weightlifter.

BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)

Article 14
(1) Authors of literary or artistic works shall have the exclusive right of authorizing:
(i) the cinematographic adaptation and reproduction of these works, and the distribution of the works thus adapted or reproduced;
(ii) the public performance and communication to the public by wire of the works thus adapted or reproduced.

[eno_]

but for a reseller to alter a copyrighted product is clearly illegal

Not true: If I buy legit copies of a book, and black out all the parts some target market finds offensive, and then sell them the book, I am perfectly within my rights. As far as I know, none of these bowdlerizers are pirates. The copyright holder gets paid whether or not the naughty bits are excised.

[eno_]

As has been pointed out, the sanitizers are not pirates. They perform no unauthorized distribution. They buy a product that is in distribution and modify it. I think you are trying to read into the word "distribution" something that isn't there. The copyright holder's ability to determine what is on the disc ends when the disc leaves the factory.

It would be like GM prohibiting me from buying Cadillacs and turning them into stretch limos. They still got paid for every car. They most certainly cannot prevent me from selling the limos.

[Oztrich Boy]

no the copyright notice on the original packaging is making the claim that the contents are authorized by the copyright holders, which is not the case.

it's the same as cutting the label out of designer fashion clothing and sewing it onto something you designed.

[eno_]

No, it's not. You are making up a ridiculous and unrealistic example.

Here is a real example: Go into any punk-ish shop in London and you will find modified Doc Martens boots and Levis jeans. The Doc and Levis brands are still clearly visible. They are not pirated knock-offs. Does Doc Martens or Levis have any case against the modifiers? Even on trademark grounds?

[Renfield]

HAR HAR HAR!! When Beavis and Butthead find out the Little Mermaid is "easy", they'll finally be able to score!!

[supercat]

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?

I'm not positive, but I believe CleanFlix records the edited versions of movies onto the original cassettes.

[I still care]

They pay for every copy - otherwise it would be against the copyright law and they know it. And Hollywood isn't just against the chains. They don't want the individual consumer to have access to software or machines that can edit the movie. Which is to say if I buy a book, and want my kids to read it, but I pull a page out first, I have no right to do that?

My case in point is "The Christmas Story". Some stations produce a version where a couple of curses are edited out, and another where "smarta$$", is changed to "smarty". I highly prefer that version, and I don't know why anyone should be concerned with that but me and my family. I cringe each time I see it with the curses, and it was a bad decision by the director to put that in there. It is, after all, a family film.

[Heyworth]

I'm not positive, but I believe CleanFlix records the edited versions of movies onto the original cassettes.

Even if this is true of the tapes, there's no way they're recording DVDs (which they also sell) onto the same disks.

[Heyworth]

Which is to say if I buy a book, and want my kids to read it, but I pull a page out first, I have no right to do that?

No one is realistically arguing that, which comes under Fair Use. As long as you're the end user, you can do whatever you want with it. Edit it, burn it, or make a hat out of it. The question is whether you can buy that book, make a copy of it that you like better, then put the copy back in the original dust jacket and re-sell it, while keeping the original copy. I'd also be interested in seeing their enormous stack of original copies. If any of those found their way onto the market, they're toast.

Here's another hypothetical: I buy a CD, then burn a copy of it, cutting out a track I don't like. Then I sell the copy in the original case, while keeping the original. Do you think that's not a violation of Fair Use?

If the studios were smart, they'd get out ahead of this and just sell the airline-edited versions, But they're not particularly smart sometimes. What they do have is flotillas of the best copyright lawyers in the country. Don't bet against them prevailing in this case.

[eno_]

You are setting up a straw man. What you describe is not what is going on here.

1. There is no piracy. Every copy sold is based on a legit copy. No originals are used twice.

2. Where's the tort? No copyright holder loses even a penny of revenue. The opposite, in fact, which makes "damages" a hilarious concept in this context. The judge should fine the plaintiffs for costs and throw them out at high velocity.

3. There is no deception. The customers are suppliers know exactly what is going on.

4. Everything about the transaction is consensual. Nobody is forced to do anything against their will.

5. There is plenty of precedent in other industries: For example, I cannot copy a Porsche, but I can modify and resell one, and several companies make a living doing exactly that. I can modify Nike or Doc Martens shoes, Levis jeans, etc., and resell them. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are all important in cars and clothing. And yet, as long as piracy or fraud is not involved, modded products are perfectly legal.

[Paulus Invictus]

Is that a recognized international law? Does it work here in the USA, and is the nation held to these strange rulings?

The Chicoms and other Asians are stealing, cutting and adapting all kinds of videos as we write this. Are they to be punished by the Berne laws? .

Editing films or videos is commonplace on TV and videotapes everywhere. Do the directors also complain about losing control of their creation when this happens? I have seen amazing quantities of footage lying on cutting room floors after the film is "finished" and it always surprised me, having known many weird directors. Some of the guys that seemed most bent out of shape with such cuts were the cameramen. For them, every scene they shot was artistically "precious." The directors are often present when scene chopping happens, so why don't they go berserk when it does? I'm curious

[RightOnline]

Let Hollywood fume...........but the freakin' hypocrites have NO problem whatsoever with the "sanitized" versions of their films being later shown on TV, do they? 'Course not, for they're being paid.

Slimy, stupid hypocrites. Next time one of these dweebs lays some "restriction of artistic license" style argument on us, remember this.

[RightOnline]

Re: Your #8: See my #33.

You think the version of, say, "Pulp Fiction" on CBS would be the same version you'd see on DVD.....or in the theatre before that?

Hardly.

New policy, sanitizing movies for TV?

Hardly. Been done for over 50 years. Don't fall for their stupidly arcane, hypocritical argument. This has NOTHING to do with so-called "artistic integrity".

[Heyworth]

The difference is that TV cuts and airline cuts, the two most parallel examples, are done with the oversight of the director and the original editor. (I know film editors--this is part of the job, one of the last steps in the cutting room) Plus, the director's contract (and it's the DGA who are suing Cleanflicks), calls for him to have that control and approval. Again, do you think it's fair to take a writer's work, bowdlerize it, then sell it with that author's name still on the cover? Especially over the objections of the writer? If I run a bookstore, can I buy an Ann Coulter book wholesale, make a xerox copy that cuts out everything objectionable to liberals, then put the copy in the original dust jacket and sell it?

[RightOnline]

That's a strawman argument. We aren't talking about a liberal gutting Ann Coulter's book. We're talking about removing profanity and / or nudity from a film so maybe younger people can watch it. Big difference, and you know it's a big difference. The example of how the director has a hand in the TV / airline version? What's the difference? That's EXACTLY what they do.......remove "vulgarities" from the film for more ready public consumption. I remove the word "s**t", he removes the word "s**t". Big deal. Tempest in a teapot.

No......it's very hypocritical.

[Oztrich Boy]

Yep, that's the moral principal: The ends justify the means

[Heyworth]

We aren't talking about a liberal gutting Ann Coulter's book. We're talking about removing profanity and / or nudity from a film so maybe younger people can watch it. Big difference, and you know it's a big difference.

Maybe to you it's a big difference. But that's a subjective matter. The fact in both cases is that someone is altering a copyrighted work, then reselling it, without the permission of the person who owns the copyright.

The example of how the director has a hand in the TV / airline version? What's the difference?

The difference is the involvement and approval of the copyright holder. You can't seriously stand here and say that it's okay for someone to do one sort of alteration that you approve of to a copyrighted work, but it's not okay to do a different alteration that you don't like to the same work, or to another work.

[rmmcdaniell]

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.

Christians who would support this kind of editing better think long and hard about the potential consquences if they win. The shoe will end up on the other foot and you will see people ripping pages out of christian literature and re-placing and re-selling them with pornographic pictures. If you want wholesome movies then invest your own money and makes films of your own. You have no right to sell altered versions of someone elses artwork.

[RightOnline]

"Maybe to you it's a big difference. But that's a subjective matter. The fact in both cases is that someone is altering a copyrighted work, then reselling it, without the permission of the person who owns the copyright."

It's done all the time in many other industries. It's a relationship known as an "OEM"; although, far more accurately, a "value-added reseller", or VAR. EXACTLY the same thing.

"The difference is the involvement and approval of the copyright holder. You can't seriously stand here and say that it's okay for someone to do one sort of alteration that you approve of to a copyrighted work, but it's not okay to do a different alteration that you don't like to the same work, or to another work."

I didn't say that. You said that. You also, conveniently, managed to ignore my example. It's a dead-on example, and you and I know it. Still, you chose to ignore it. Try again.....and address the real argument; the reality of this little non-issue.

Stop cloaking this in pseudo high-minded language. We're talking about removing swear words and women's boobs......or sexual acts. Big deal. It's done all the time, you admit it, but if the director removes a "s**t" or a "go**amn", it's ok. A third party does it, oh my gosh, it's the end of artistic freedom and society as we know it.

Puh-leeze...........give me just one, big, honkin' break.