Judge rules against companies like CleanFlicks

[BuckNaked]

I totally agree with the ruling when it comes to say, a company buying thousands of DVDs, changing them, then re-selling them. But I don't see what the problem would be if I buy a video and pay someone to change it for me after I brought it home. Not that I would do that - we buy what we want to see, and if it isn't appropriate for the kids, they don't watch it.


But I do see a big difference between the two situations.

 

[noodleknitter]

No, they edit them and then sell/rent them at a profit. That's where the problem lies. If you were to go to Target, buy a movie, and take it to a friend to edit out objectionable material for you, that's your choice, even if you paid your buddy for his time.

In this case, they are buying the movies, editing them without permission, in some cases drastically altering the storyline, and then RESELLING them for a profit. THAT is where the copyright infringement lies, and that is where the law is being broken.

Anne

Got it! Thanks! I see selling a copy of any video as being an issue, and I guess I am just not sure why there is a specific ruling for this.

 

[ducklite]

I think some of you are missing what many of these companies do. I buy say Doc Hollywood which has just the one scene where the girl walks nude from the lake plus some curse words (I chose this movie because for the most part nothing really objectionable and the curse words and nude scene can be left out without truly changing the film). I then take it to these places and they clean it up for me at a profit to them of course. I don't see any problem with that since the movie was also scrubbed in the same way to be seen on TBS. I guess I do not see what the big deal is when it is done aftermarket. It isn't like one would be scrubbing every copy available just their own personal copy. I personally do not use the service, but can see why some people would. There are plenty of movies out there save for one nude scene and cursing that otherwise would be more acceptable for more of the family to see.

Actually the companies named in thie action are companies who purchase the films, make the edits, and sell them at profit. Once you own it you are welcome to scrub--or have scrubbed--your personal copy. You are not at liberty to resell, rebroadcast, rent, or otherwise profit directly or indirectly from the artists work.

Anne

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

If TBS was to open a store and sell their TV edit, then it would be the same.

You are right--it would be the same and disallowed!!!

Movies are edited for TV so that they can air within the time allotted and within FCC guidelines.

They have permission to do that. Not to repackage it and resell it.

 

[jgmklmhem]

No, they edit them and then sell/rent them at a profit. That's where the problem lies. If you were to go to Target, buy a movie, and take it to a friend to edit out objectionable material for you, that's your choice, even if you paid your buddy for his time.

In this case, they are buying the movies, editing them without permission, in some cases drastically altering the storyline, and then RESELLING them for a profit. THAT is where the copyright infringement lies, and that is where the law is being broken.

Anne

Again that is what many of these companies are doing at least here. You buy the video thus making it your property and then you pay for the service of having it scrubbed after your purchase. Not them scrubbing copies and then selling them to you.

 

[Free4Life11]

Does this affect movies show on TV? Aren't most edited, except for Saving Private Ryan? It's kind of funny that of all the thousands of movies only one is allowed to say the F word on TV.

 

[eclectics]

How it is edited for TV is done with permission. The scrubbing done by these companies is done WITHOUT permission. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Exactly! They are profiting from altering and censoring a movie without permission. If the filmaker or studio wants to do it themselves, fine. I see nothing wrong with that, although I frankly dislike seeing a movie chopped up to pieces. No matter how good the editing and dubbing, it ruins the flow of the film, in most cases.

 

[ducklite]

Again that is what many of these companies are doing at least here. You buy the video thus making it your property and then you pay for the service of having it scrubbed after your purchase. Not them scrubbing copies and then selling them to you.

None of the companies named in the injunction is solely taking a title purchased by a customer, making edits, and giveng that same title back to the customer edited.

Here is the key language lifted striaght from the complaint:

Each party creates a new master tape version of the movie, having removed content it deems “objectionable” through cut edits and volume muting, performs these modifications and makes copies of the modified film without authorization, and then makes these edited copies available in commerce.

So it seems that making copies and reselling them is the crux of this matter. They are counterfeiters.

Anne

 

[Charade]

 

[mickeyfan2]

Does this also include the movies we see on TV that are "cleaned up" before they are broadcast?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Does this affect movies show on TV? Aren't most edited, except for Saving Private Ryan? It's kind of funny that of all the thousands of movies only one is allowed to say the F word on TV.

Those are done with permission. SPR was shown in its entirety I believe b/c the producer (Steven Spielberg, was it?) wanted it shown that way. To edit it for TV would have required removing the entire beginning which does set the tone for the entire film. Don't know the logic behind allowing the F word. But I always find it funny when people want "clean tv" when IRL there are some very compelling stories where the characters aren't going to not use certain vernacular.

Many affiliates opted to not show it--which they could do b/c they weren't altering the film.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Does this also include the movies we see on TV that are "cleaned up" before they are broadcast?

No--when a movie is sold into syndication--that is part of the deal. If the producers of the movie don't want it modified--they wouldn't sell it and permit it to air.

 

[rigs32]

I guess I am just not sure why there is a specific ruling for this.

Because that's how the court system works. Company X sells these editted films and Film Company A wants them to stop. They only way to force them to stop is to file a lawsuit requesting an injunction. That's what they did and the judge agreed with A, not X, as to the legality of the business.

 

[binny]

Good ruling!

 

[HaleyB]

The posters to this thread have done an excellent job of explaining their points on this thread so to you guys too.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Those are done with permission. SPR was shown in its entirety I believe b/c the producer (Steven Spielberg, was it?) wanted it shown that way. To edit it for TV would have required removing the entire beginning which does set the tone for the entire film. Don't know the logic behind allowing the F word. But I always find it funny when people want "clean tv" when IRL there are some very compelling stories where the characters aren't going to not use certain vernacular.

Many affiliates opted to not show it--which they could do b/c they weren't altering the film.

What's interesting is that many affiliates opted not to show Saving Private Ryan for fear of running afoul of FCC regulations. Last Veterans day, the film was scheduled to be shown on one of the networks (ABC, I believe, without looking it up), and a number of affiliates declined to show it believing that they would be heavily fined by the FCC for airing obscenities in the wake of the whole Janet Jackson superbowl affair.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

What's interesting is that many affiliates opted not to show Saving Private Ryan for fear of running afoul of FCC regulations. Last Veterans day, the film was scheduled to be shown on one of the networks (ABC, I believe, without looking it up), and a number of affiliates declined to show it believing that they would be heavily fined by the FCC for airing obscenities in the wake of the whole Janet Jackson superbowl affair.

What is interesting is what would be considered obscene in one area--may not be in another...

So it could be that those affiliates were scared for that reason.

(Been out of school a long while--so can't quite articulate from memory how all that works).

 

[Mugg Mann]

What is interesting is what would be considered obscene in one area--may not be in another...

So it could be that those affiliates were scared for that reason.

(Been out of school a long while--so can't quite articulate from memory how all that works).

I took a second to look it up; it was indeed out of fear of the FCC (and my mistake, it wasn't last Veterans day, it was almost two years ago);

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41464-2004Nov10.html

ABC suits scrambled yesterday to try to contain the mutiny among stations that refuse to air tonight's broadcast of the unedited "Saving Private Ryan," citing indecency concerns.

At press time, ABC stations owned by Cox Television, Citadel Communications, Belo Corp., Hearst-Argyle and Scripps Howard Broadcasting, among others, had declined to air the 1998 Academy Award-winning movie. They say they're afraid the film's scenes of extreme violence and intense adult language will lead to sanctions by the Federal Communications Commission under its new, supersize anti-indecency standards. Among those preempting the World War II movie are stations in Dallas (the country's seventh largest television market), Atlanta (No. 9), Tampa (No. 13), Phoenix (No. 15) and Orlando (No. 20).

Ironically, most of them already aired "Saving Private Ryan" when ABC ran it, unedited, to commemorate Veterans Day in 2001 and 2002. Of course, those broadcasts predated the FCC's decision to slap CBS-owned TV stations with a record $550,000 fine over the national debut of Janet Jackson's breast at the Super Bowl, and the commission's ruling that a rocker's spontaneous use of an expletive at a trophy show broadcast by NBC was indecent and profane.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I wasn't disputing FCC concerns. But indeceny is based on the community--there is no uniform level of indeceny for everyone.

(trying to google the legal definition, but am having some difficulty).

 

[Mugg Mann]

I wasn't disputing FCC concerns. But indeceny is based on the community--there is no uniform level of indeceny for everyone.

(trying to google the legal definition, but am having some difficulty).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=378&invol=184

In the landmark 1963 decision on local standards, the Supreme Court ruled that "The "contemporary community standards" by which the issue of obscenity is to be determined are not those of the particular [378 U.S. 184, 185] local community from which the case arises, but those of the Nation as a whole."

You can find the entire case at the above link.

I don't believe that's a more recent Supreme Court ruling that reverses this standard, but if there is, I'm sure the DIS lawyers will jump right in and let us know!