Posted on 07/08/2006 9:24:52 PM PDT by BenLurkin
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Sanitizing movies on DVD or VHS tape violates federal copyright laws, and several companies that scrub films must turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios, an appeals judge ruled.
Editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an "illegitimate business" that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights, said U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch in a decision released Thursday in Denver.
"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection."
Matsch ordered the companies named in the suit, including CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms, to stop "producing, manufacturing, creating" and renting edited movies. The businesses also must turn over their inventory to the movie studios within five days of the ruling.
"We're disappointed," CleanFlicks chief executive Ray Lines said. "This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight."
CleanFlicks produces and distributes sanitized copies of Hollywood films on DVD by burning edited versions of movies onto blank discs. The scrubbed films are sold over the Internet and to video stores.
As many as 90 video stores nationwide -- about half of them in Utah -- purchase movies from CleanFlicks, Lines said. It's unclear how the ruling may effect those stores.
The controversy began in 1998 when the owners of Sunrise Family Video began deleting scenes from "Titanic" that showed a naked Kate Winselt.
The scrubbing caused an uproar in Hollywood, resulting in several lawsuits and countersuits.
Directors can feel vindicated by the ruling, said Michael Apted, president of the Director's Guild of America.
"Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor," he said.
Hello....anybody home???? That is copywrite infringement.
Nope. Not if the owners of the copyright provide the two options.
Also, please don't be insulting. I don't respond well to insults.
So much for infringing upon their artistic expression. If it is fine for the airlines, then why should they mind selling an edited version to the common folk?
The fact is that artistic expression and freedom of speech are handy fig leaves for those who consider themselves more intelligent or creative than the rest of us.
Perhaps they are afraid of seeing that sanitized films would actually sell to a larger market; then they would have to follow the market rather than forever "pushing the envelope."
It doesn't matter, someone else is profiting off of the alteration of a copyrighted work. One that they do not have permission to do.
If you republish something and sell it that is copyrighted, you are breaking the law, it doesn't matter a whit if the retail DVD is still being purchased.
I can't believe that you are putting forth the proposition that I can't alter a work for my own use that I have already purchased. Am I no longer allowed to underline certain passages in any books I own?
If you purchase joy;rtu's book first and then redact it, no problem.
Why is this so hard for people to understand? We have copywrite laws.
The studios and directors did not allow this company to edit their work and resell it, its simple, what don't you get about copyright infringement?
The studios own the movies, not these third-party sanitizers. The owner gets to determine what happens to these movies. You can't just take someone else's work, screw around with it, and remarket it.
I feel like I am trying to teach my dog geometry.
Everyone here is thinking with emotions, and not with logic. (isn't that what conservatives say liberals do?)
LOL
Put it in perspective. Look at what happened when they started stickering music. All it did was create more demand for the 'adult' versions. The censored versions just sat on the shelf... except maybe in Utah. Let Hollywood create two versions of every movie. The full unedited directors cut and the Mormom (dum dum dum dum) version. I know which one I will buy.
The studios and directors did not allow this company to edit their work and resell it, its simple, what don't you get about copyright infringement?
That wasn't my point. My point was that the studios missed an opportunity. With very few enhancements, the technology would allow for DVD, CD etc. players to skip over offending scenes or lyrics. This would allow the studios --the copyright holders -- to sell more product and control the quality of the edits.
When you listen to the radio, you are not buying anything from the radio station. When you buy a CD, you are buying something from the publisher of the CD. The fact that the radio station and the record label belong to the same company is beside the point, except as a marketing tie-in.
And you glossed over the main point -- that these edits are published with the permission of the copyright holder.
Because the copyright holder is the one that decides what is done with his property. If you wrote a book and someone decided to publish their version of your book and profit from it, would you allow that? Especially if they were cutting into your profit?
If the owner of the copywrite provides two option, our entire conversation is moot. We are discussing a redacted, pre-edited version outside the copywrite holders control that changes the authors work, for whatever reason.
"Am I no longer allowed to underline certain passages in any books I own?"
Of course you're allowed to. What you can't do is copy the book, make some alterations, and then sell it.
You are missing the argument completely and also missing the fact that for every altered version sold there is an unaltered version purchased. No one is suggesting that someone tape a movie off of TV and sell it.
The point is that the unaltered version is purchased and is owned by the end-user who also gets a version made with the edit service he/she requested performed by these companies.
Can I not alter something after I have purchased it?
This is a very simple "jump to time-stamp" implementation and should be created, shared, and used by like minded viewers.
The discussion is largely moot, which I've been trying to say through a half dozen posts to you and others.
What I am also trying to say is that the illegal editing company served to point out a potential profit center for the film companies based on the existing technology.
The movies on TV are sanitized all the time. WTF?
As long as whoever created the modified copies legally purchased the 1000 originals, I don't see a problem. It might actually make the Passion of the Christ watchable.
So please explain to me the logic you see in that distinction. If I can hand a book to someone else to mess it up for me (presumably for a fee, or else this hypothetical of yours isn't even in the same league of what we are discussing), then why can't a person buy a book, mess it up, and then sell it to someone else?
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.