Sanitized films

[Beth76]

I don't like these things. I don't like other people making money off of censoring someone else's work. If there's something in the movie I don't want my kids to watch, then they don't need to see the movie.

 

[TheOtherVillainess]

Beth..the way the sanitizers got around the "We're stealing money from Hollywood' argument is that for every 'sanitized' copy of a movie that was sold, they had bought a regular copy of *X* to go with it.

TOV

 

[palmtreegirl]

I don't like these things. I don't like other people making money off of censoring someone else's work. If there's something in the movie I don't want my kids to watch, then they don't need to see the movie.

Yep, I think it's ridiculous that they've gotten away with it for so long. Not everything needs to be kid friendly, it's gotten way out of hand.

The one that amazed me was "Titanic", they removed all the sex scenes but left the ones of the people drowning and dying. If the child was to young for the sex they were to young for the dying. I just don't understand people who think this is okay. Let your child wait until he is old enough to see the movie.

I know that cracked me up too.

 

[bicker]

That wasn't the case not too long ago.

Ask yourself: Why did this change? The answer is all around you: Because it is what people want, what they believe is right. It is a very clear reflection of the free market at work, and as a American, I find that very encouraging -- a very positive thing.

The one that amazed me was "Titanic", they removed all the sex scenes but left the ones of the people drowning and dying. If the child was to young for the sex they were to young for the dying. I just don't understand people who think this is okay.

This is really the most disturbing aspect of this conflict. The "filter-ers" seem to have a very warped sense of propriety. They are far too much concerned about nudity and nowhere near concerned enough about violence. It isn't just their actions, in violating copyrights, that is reprehensible, but their moral compass itself appears to be totally misdirected.

 

[MICKEY88]

Beth..the way the sanitizers got around the "We're stealing money from Hollywood' argument is that for every 'sanitized' copy of a movie that was sold, they had bought a regular copy of *X* to go with it.

TOV

the copyright laws only allow you to make a copy of a movie you buy for your own personal use, they do not allow you to profit by selling or renting those copies....


or do they rent or sell you the original and give you the free copy to view...

 

[cardaway]

the copyright laws only allow you to make a copy of a movie you buy for your own personal use, they do not allow you to profit by selling or renting those copies....


or do they rent or sell you the original and give you the free copy to view...

In the cases I've seen beat the system, they are selling a "service". Total bunk, but at least at the time, they got away with it.

 

[bicker]

the copyright laws only allow you to make a copy of a movie you buy for your own personal use

Actually, that's not even true. (We've had this discussion before on the Community Board. It was actually very interesting, for anyone really interested in what is and isn't allowed according to the law. Check the archives.)

 

[AuntieM03]

ITAWTC.

*ETA--just to prove it, I went to MeeVee.com and looked to see what's on tonight during 'prime time'. I found the following 'kid-friendly' programs:

Full House
The Planet's Funniest Animals
W.I.T.C. H.
Zixx
Andy Griffith
The Lizzie Maguire Movie (which actually started at like 6 or something)
Emeril Live (Bam baby!)
This Old House Hour
Jack Frost (a PG movie)
Little House on the Prarie

Don't tell ME there's nothing on in prime time your child can watch.

TOV

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other I just don't understand the need for I thought it was supposed to be a nice, friendly debate per your first post.

 

[Barb D]

I know nothing about the copyright issues, so what I have to say does not take that into account at all.

BUT

A. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the sanitized versions. You are free to buy the unsanitized versions for your own home.

B. There are plenty of movies out there that would are perfectly appropriate for - say - my 12yo DD, but that might have one or two scenes I would prefer her not to see. At this point I just tell her to "close her eyes" if it's mostly visual, or leave the room if it's also auditory. But it would be nice to have the option to let her watch the movie without me having to be there to "censor" it in person. An example is Love Actually; there was one thread of stories (plus another scene from another thread) that I didn't want her in the room for, but the rest was fine for her. Should I have not let her see the movie at all because of those scenes?

I'll have to check in to Clean Play, but I don't have a problem with people having the CHOICE to buy censored versions of movies for their own families (as long as they are somehow within the copyright law.)

 

[bicker]

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the sanitized versions.

That's not really the issue. Rather, the issue is that IP owners are being "forced" to have their artistic work presented in a manner they don't condone. To many artists, this is akin to superimposing the face of their child onto a nude photo of a woman and then publishing the photo. You cannot tell them that they're not allowed to have that kind of feeling about their IP. The film is their property, unequivocally, and they get to say what goes with regard to it.

 

[Geoff_M]

Actually, that's not even true.

That is correct. It's a common copyright misconception that you are allowed to make "backup" copies or other duplicates of copyrighted materials that you own without expressed permission from the rights holder to do so. While such permission is often granted in the software world, it rarely is done so in the entertainment world.


A couple of final thoughts on the OP... It seems very inconsistent that directors claim that outside firms altering their works to make them "family friendly" is tantamount to artistic heresy but (contract or not) they have no qualms about allowing people others than themselves to edit for much of the same reasons (nudity, langauge, excessive violence, etc.) for TV or in-flight films. Why is one form is editing artistically tolerable, but not the other?

If the objections are related to a copyright issue (and the director rarely is the rights holder anyway, unless it was self-produced) that people are objecting to, then that's another matter. I agree that copyrights should not be violated in such efforts.

I also find it puzzling that even there appears to be a manner that would pass the "fair use" test for making films "family friendly" as desired by the parents, some would still object to such a process being made available. Quite frankly, why would you, or anyone else, care? As for the "it's the parent's job" comments, wouldn't the parents be effectively doing just that by making the effort to employ such a technology? What difference does it make who, or what, is doing the editing? Why the urge to advocate restricting the tools parents may have to make such decisions regarding this aspect of child raising?

Last year "The Green Mile" was on network TV and I invited my middle-school aged daughter to watch it. If it had been the un-edited version, I wouldn't have done so. How would I have been any more or less of a pro-active parent in screening what she saw whether or not I used my knowldge of network TV standards know that the graphic death scenes would not be present versus using configurable screening software?

 

[nkjzmom]

My brother has the Cleanplay system and we use it quite often. I highly recommend it. But before that became available we did rent movies from Cleanflix. We have very strict tv/movie standards for ourselves and our family. Yes, there are lots of options for younger children, as TOV pointed out, but unfortunately teens/preteens/and even adults often get left out. My 11 year old would appreciate being able to watch a CLEAN comedy film.

"Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the sanitized versions. You are free to buy the unsanitized versions for your own home."

As Barb mentions we are all given the "choice" to edit what comes into our homes in the negative sense...why can't we also be given a "choice" to allow cleaner versions of films into our homes? If they can find a way to make it legal then great.

When we do find a movie that is good for our family you better believe we rent it, buy it, and the soundtrack. I want these types of films to be more successful...the feedback that bicker has written about.

 

[cardaway]

A couple of final thoughts on the OP... It seems very inconsistent that directors claim that outside firms altering their works to make them "family friendly" is tantamount to artistic heresy but (contract or not) they have no qualms about allowing people others than themselves to edit for much of the same reasons (nudity, langauge, excessive violence, etc.) for TV or in-flight films. Why is one form is editing artistically tolerable, but not the other?

If the objections are related to a copyright issue (and the director rarely is the rights holder anyway, unless it was self-produced) that people are objecting to, then that's another matter. I agree that copyrights should not be violated in such efforts.

Since you understand the copyright issue I don't see why it needs to go any further. Contract vs. no contract, not that hard to understand.

As to the rest (which is immaterial given the copyrights) the companies "cleaning" these are going far beyond what the other typical editors are doing.

 

[cardaway]

As Barb mentions we are all given the "choice" to edit what comes into our homes in the negative sense...why can't we also be given a "choice" to allow cleaner versions of films into our homes? If they can find a way to make it legal then great.

Do it yourself, fine. Make a business out of it, illegal.

 

[bicker]

As Barb mentions we are all given the "choice" to edit what comes into our homes in the negative sense...why can't we also be given a "choice" to allow cleaner versions of films into our homes?

That, too, isn't the point. The buyers aren't the instigators of the copyright violation; rather it is the companies, like "CleanFlix" that abridge films without permission. They are who should be preventing what they're doing; prosecuted and punished.

 

[Marseeya]

What I don't get is the attitude of those who want these "clean" versions, but find it perfectly acceptable that it's illegal to do so! Those are some fuzzy morals.

 

[Geoff_M]

Since you understand the copyright issue I don't see why it needs to go any further. Contract vs. no contract, not that hard to understand.

OK, let me be a little more clear then:

The argument that any attempt to present the work in a manner (be it via CleanFlix or CleanPlay) other than as created by the director is wrong because it violates the director's "artistic vision" is a bogus argument as no such outrage is expressed at TV networks or Airlines. "Artistic vision" isn't preserved by the presence of legal documents allowing the work to be "artistically violated" by others. Am I to believe that if CleanFlix were to negotiate a similar licensing agreement with the motion picture studios as the airlines have done, then all objections would simply vanish?

The "artistic" argument is totally seperate from the "legal" argument. CleanFix appears to be headed for a legal dead-end unless it can somehow negotiate a licencing agreement*. However, the CleanPlay system appears to pass legal muster, but still most of the same crowd of people object to its function and use. It's this objection I find puzzling. Why should anyone get bent out of shape if I were to choose to play my legally purchased store-bought DVD in a CleanPlay player? Why does the "mind your own business" crowd mind?


* = While it's a long-shot, I could see such an agreement being part of a lawsuit settlement against CleanFlix. Movie studios aren't driven by artistic virtue, they're driven by $$$.

 

[nkjzmom]

What I don't get is the attitude of those who want these "clean" versions, but find it perfectly acceptable that it's illegal to do so! Those are some fuzzy morals.

To be completely honest when we were renting these movies years ago I assumed they had some sort of deal with the movie makers. I assumed they wouldn't be doing business if it were illegal. I didn't know about the lawsuits until after we stopped renting from them.

Is Cleanplay legal only because you have to buy or rent the original version of the movie? Seems odd, doesn't it?

 

[cardaway]

OK, let me be a little more clear then:

The argument that any attempt to present the work in a manner (be it via CleanFlix or CleanPlay) other than as created by the director is wrong because it violates the director's "artistic vision" is a bogus argument as no such outrage is expressed at TV networks or Airlines. "Artistic vision" isn't preserved by the presence of legal documents allowing the work to be "artistically violated" by others. Am I to believe that if CleanFlix were to negotiate a similar licensing agreement with the motion picture studios as the airlines have done, then all objections would simply vanish?

The "artistic" argument is totally seperate from the "legal" argument. CleanFix appears to be headed for a legal dead-end unless it can negotiate a licencing agreement. However, the CleanPlay system appears to pass legal muster, but still most of the same crowd of people object to its function and use. It's this objection I find puzzling. Why should anyone get bent out of shape if I were to choose to play my legally purchased store-bought DVD in a CleanPlay player? Why does the "mind your own business" crowd mind?

Because beyond the money issues, the contract also covers what can be edited or cut. At the very worst (but there are other valid objections) the director doesn't want people to see his or her movie and think it sucked, mostly because so much was cut out of it.

From what I know of it, by the time the first prints hit the theater, those involved already know what's going to be cut for content on TV or airlines. In some cases they shoot more footage so the TV version is the same length once the edits are made.

 

[bicker]

The argument that any attempt to present the work in a manner (be it via CleanFlix or CleanPlay) other than as created by the director is wrong because it violates the director's "artistic vision" is a bogus argument as no such outrage is expressed at TV networks or Airlines. "Artistic vision" isn't preserved by the presence of legal documents allowing the work to be "artistically violated" by others. Am I to believe that if CleanFlix were to negotiate a similar licensing agreement with the motion picture studios as the airlines have done, then all objections would simply vanish?

I'm just not following your argument, here, Geoff. If I create an artistic work, and I say it is okay for someone I trust to maintain key aspects of my artistic vision to abridge it, then, well, it's "okay". That doesn't mean that it is okay for just anyone to do whatever they want to my artistic work!

For example, Steven Kloves wrote the screenplay for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, not J. K. Rowling. J. K. Rowling maintains the integrity of her artistic work by making sure she's happy with the person writing the screenplay, as is her right. (She could have signed-away this right, incidently, or required that she get a higher or lower of oversight, up to an including full editorial rights over the screenplay, if she wished. However, that's the point -- it was fully up to her, both what the terms and conditions would be, and who she'd grant what rights to.)