Hollywood decides that it wants to alienate Christians who buy sanitized versions of their films instead of taking their money.
A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for companies to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize them of gratuitous nudity, over-the-top profanity, and puerile violence. For years, Hollywood has found ways to insert into otherwise coherent storylines scenes of nudity, sex, profanity, and violence.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - RedTard
"You can pay someone to edit the copy you purchased for your own personal use. What's illegal is when someone buys a copy, edits it once, and sells that single edited version to multiple people."
My understanding of the system is that they buy each copy they edit on a 1 to 1 basis. It's very much like editing one person's copy for them except they do it in advance of sell or rental. Perhaps they could arrange their contracts/paperwork to fit within the law, but others have stated that editing is NEVER legal even if you have purchased the work.
I don't know and don't care one way or the other I just enjoy seeing how hypocritical some people can be. When christians are being forced to accept their values they hide behind law and give themselves high fives behind the scenes. When the roles are reversed and Christians try and squeeze a little of their morals into the law they scream bloody murder and how they're being persecuted.
77 - gonzo marx
i don't think that's it REd...it a Property rights thing, as i said above...
all Cleanflicks would need to do is sit down and negotiate, as the broadcast TV stations do...
i'm not Aware of anytime such was attempted, instead Cleanflicks just went ahead and altered the Content and resold it, in violation of their re-sellers agreement and current copywrite law
that's really all there is to it
Excelsior?
78 - Jeff
Here's a novel idea: if you don't like the films coming out of the big studios, don't watch them.
If you don't want your children exposed to something, try parenting rather than lobbying or legislating.
If you find something you do like then watch it, enjoy it, and talk about it with a friend or loved one. Maybe it'll catch on.
79 - Les Slater
RedTard #76
"When christians are being forced to accept their values they hide behind law and give themselves high fives behind the scenes. When the roles are reversed and Christians try and squeeze a little of their morals into the law they scream bloody murder and how they're being persecuted."
Wow, Mr. Tard finds protecting intellectual property rights, regardless of their moral perspective, equivalent to Christians trying to squeeze a little of THEIR morals into the LAW.
80 - John Bambenek
1) What makes you think Cleanflicks hasn't tried to negotiate with them? If not before the suit than during?
2) Lori, that's simply not true and not what is going on here. Cleanflicks isn't paying for one movie and then making edits and making tons of copies. That would be piracy and they simply aren't being sued for that. If they were doing that, they'd be in jail right now.
3) Just because someone says you must do something doesn't mean that it has some actual force behind it. I can say you must all become conservatives, you won't start voting Republican now, will you?
4) Very few movies come out broadcast.
5) What is wrong with consumers making demands? The inherent viewpoint of some commenters is that consumers are exceeding their rights by making demands. Have we abandoned the consumer-oritented free market for big business?
6) It isn't a lie, quit trying so hard to squeeze me into your evil Christian box.
81 - Clark Westfield
The case with CleanFlicks is about intellectual property, but there's a lot of talk in here about not watching a movie if we don't want to watch the entire movie exactly as the director intended it to be viewed. So can somebody please explain why it's okay for airlines and TV channels to edit movies? Does the "artist's vision" not apply in that case?
82 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
John's artcle is not a "cultural" article, or a "political" article, but a "kulturkampf" article.
The essential point in the article is that this group of prople with slightly different values from those that Hollywood peddles does not want to feel cut off from the huge cutlure that Hollywood prepetuates.
In essence, the "don't watch" folks commenting here don't give a tinker's dam if the culural stream John represents disengages itself from American society and disappears altogether. They are so similar to the secular wing of Israeli society - the "don't watch" Americans don't call their fellow Americans a cancer in the society like the seclar Israelis do us - but they might as well.
83 - John Bambenek
Except in this case, the cancer is most of the organism the tune of about 40 some odd states of the Union.
84 - Dave Nalle
Folks, it's not a case of don't watch vs. watch the whole film. All the hollywood folks are insisting on here is that Cleanflicks ASK and get permission for the cuts they make before they make them. With most of the popular films they'd allow reasonable cuts for reasonable reasons, but they just want to be asked first. That's not exactly an outrageous demand.
Dave
85 - John Bambenek
You assume they weren't asked.
If that's the case, why are the being asked to torch their whole inventory? Why not settle, make em pay some fine, and move on?
Hollywood isn't trying to settle with Cleanflicks they are trying to destroy the corporation. If they were going to allow editing companies like this to exist, they'd be arguing license violation, not destruction of artistic merit.
86 - John Bambenek
In fact, Hollywood calls the entire industry and illegitimate business.
That doesn't smack of them being open to granting permission for editing.
Again, their right, but it doesn't make it not stupid. And it doesn't make it not thumbing their nose at middle America.
They are saying that you must watch the smut included on the movies. We're free to not buy the films yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't they message they are conveying.
87 - John Bambenek
From the Director's Guild of America who brought the suit:
"“As creators of films, we oppose giving anyone the ability to alter in any way they choose, for any purpose, and for profit, the content of a film that we have made, often after many years of work,” said Apted."
88 - troll
IMO 'Mona Lisa' shows way too much skin and should be modified in at least some art textbooks with a burka as I saw tastefully depicted in cartoons not long ago...and don't get me started on all those Venus paintings and statues of naked people
geeze...those old artists were such sluts
Dave #20 - when you're right you're right
troll
89 - Nancy
Well, now I'm confused. I was under the impression that films being edited by Cleanflix were edited (and sold) by agreement with the producer, in which case there's no problem. As far as 'artistic integrity' goes, wouldn't that then be a problem between the filmmaker and the producer/studio, who technically own the film & release rights, and not this Cleanflix entity?
I have to agree that I find far too much gratuitous sex & violence in most films these days. Most movies I've seen, even the fairly innocuous ones, seem to have "trash" thrown in just to keep the interest of the male portion of the audience. LOTR is a case in point. Fellowship was a great adaptation of the book. #2, Two Towers, was re-written as a Boys' War Toys movie, with far too much graphic & totally gratuitous violence & focus on unnecessary battles, weapons, blood'n guts 'n gore, etc...because that's what the (mostly male) audience demanded & what the (male) director was into. The only reason for absense of blatant sex in LOTR was that with the best will in the world, there was very little latitude for insertion of same. Peter did give it the old college try, with some lip-sucking scenes between ol' Aragorn & Arwen that most certainly weren't in the book (ditto the fantasy dream Aragorn has about Arwen), but LOTR is a hard nut to crack, sex-wise.
LOTR aside, I do find that unless I'm going to a very PG movie, IMO the contents of the movies are rife w/sex or violence that contributes not a damn thing to the plot, the mood, or anything else. It's just there as a sop to those who demand it in everything they see. Very depressing sometimes to be limited to the likes of ToyStory I & II in order to see a movie with a clean storyline uncluttered by 'artistic' bare tits & ass, or gore.
90 - Les Slater
An interesting article in yesterday's Washington Post will add much more info to this post.
91 - lori
2) Lori, that's simply not true and not what is going on here. Cleanflicks isn't paying for one movie and then making edits and making tons of copies. That would be piracy and they simply aren't being sued for that. If they were doing that, they'd be in jail right now.
Well, here's what you said in paragraph #2 of your article:
In what seems like a simple compromise, a company would pay for the video, sanitize the content for those who request that service, and then sell the video to the consumer.
Okay, that's not what's happening. The Cleanflicks web site says they're a rental company, a la Netflix. That would have been helpful information to include in the article for those of us who haven't heard of them or this case before. Your comments made it sound like they were using a sales model, not a rental model.
In any case, they're doing something similar to what I said. They're editing one copy and renting it to multiple customers. It's not a one-to-one editing job per customer. It's a one-to-one editing job per copy of the movie. Presumably, they have a license to rent those movies to multiple people, but not with any edits to them. I'm sure the license agreement addresses this issue, because copyright holders -- especially the huge companies -- are usually very careful to assert which rights they are and aren't selling or licensing.
I can understand why the movie makers would assert those rights and not want to allow a third party to control the editing process without their permission.
Also, regarding the violence they edit out, Cleanflicks says: "Graphic Violence:
This does not mean all violence, only the graphic depictions of decapitation, impalements, dismemberment, excessive blood, gore etc."
So I'm guessing the Cleanflicks version of _The Passion of the Christ_ was pretty short?
92 - SFC SKI
I am wondering why Hollywood was up in arms over the practices of CleanFlicks, etc. After all, they get paid a royalty of some sort, and expand their audience at the same time. There is an obvious market for an entertaining movie minus gratuitous sex or violence, so I think Hollywood is making a mistake to pursue this case. If it's all about the money, and it is, they are cutting off a source of revenue. As long as the filmmaker has the right to decline the editing of his movie for "art's sake", what's the harm?
In the end, I don't see how this practice differs from the editing a mainstream TV network does when it broadcasts a film.
I ignored most of the comments vecause they all too quickly degenerated into a schoolyard argument, so I hope I did not repeat what anyone said.
93 - lori
There is an obvious market for an entertaining movie minus gratuitous sex or violence, so I think Hollywood is making a mistake to pursue this case.
To me, the case is about who gets to determine what is and isn't "gratuitous," the maker of the film or a third-party business (or other entity). Hollywood would simply like to retain control of how their films are edited, and that's why it was a smart move. They're defending their copyrights. So maybe it's not all about the money after all.
Hollywood may decide to forge agreements with Cleanflicks and other companies or it may not. But the market that Cleanflicks serves might actually be better served with original content for those markets, rather than modified existing content.
94 - Bliffle
RMDillon is having fun: "...after having watched Passion of the Christ, using the fast forward button doesn't seem like much of a cross to bear."
Truly, Hollywood movies are difficult to watch without a fast forward or skip button. I even use it on the few commercial TV programs I watch on the DVR.
95 - Andy Marsh
As I'm sitting at my desk reading this...Puddle of Mudd - She Hates Me is playing on the radio...
Somehow, they manage to play this...although about a third of the song is just silence...like the needle lifted off the record for a microsecond...artistic merit is shot to hell I tell ya! Would you really want to buy the radio version? Or in movies the Airline Version?
It does seem kind of silly for Hollywood, a place that's always been about the bottom line, to shoot themselves in the foot and not allow these companies to pander to their clientele if they're getting paid like they're supposed to be...artistic merit...come on now...
96 - gonzo marx
yeah..them pesky Creators of content...how dare they write into their Contracts that they get discretion over any editing of their work for commercial release?
ya woudl think they had, i dunno...Integrity or something...
go figure
Excelsior?
97 - Jim Wynne
I resent your characterization of "cleaning" movies as being representative of the desires of "middle America," unless you define "middle America" as the lunatic neocon fringe. I recall "middle America's" reaction to Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, a film which had the audacity to examine the biblical concept of the dual nature of His Honor Lord Jebus. The hue and cry was such that Blockbuster, as well as most bible belt video stores, removed the movie from their shelves altogether (although Blockbuster snuck it back in later, after the fire went out). When it gets its way, "middle America" will censor anything that disagrees with it, and make believe that women don't have breasts, and people don't bleed, and that Jebus just couldn't possibly have been conflicted over being half man and half god.
"Middle America's" next demand: put some pants on Michelangelo's David.
98 - SFC SKI
Re: Comment 93 "But the market that Cleanflicks serves might actually be better served with original content for those markets, rather than modified existing content. " How so? If the people who rent these edited versions prefer that version, why not allow them to do so? (Maybe some people don't want to sit and watch with their finger on the fast-forward switch, either)
IMO, a lot of movies have both gratuitous swearing, violence, and nudity, by gratuitous, I mean it's placement in the film is unnecessary. (And I'm a fan of zombie films, war movies, and Quentin Tarantino) Compare some great old movies with their often inferior remakes with added nudity, violence or swearing. Oftentimes, alot of any of the above elements are added to make the film more marketable, PG is the kiss of death unless your name is Disney or Pixar.
In the example of Titanic, does the removal of 5 seconds of a naked Kate Winslet really retract from the sum of the whole? We know her character's attractive and a bit bawdy, does her nude scene really add to that character or does it merely affirm what the viewer already knows?
In the case of dialogue, is the word "Fuck" really that important to telling us the utterer is a really bad person, or a good person pushed a bit too far? C'mon, any well written dialogue spoken by a competent actor can get the point across without resorting to curses.
In the case of violence, consider the opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan", it's absolutely brutal, and close enough to real combat that a lot of veterans had physical reactions to it. This violence was dramatized to illustrate that despite the savagery and horror of the D-Day landing, the men kept going forward, survived and won the day. Sure, Spielberg could have said opened with a blurb that so many men died landing on the beach, but you'd forget it, and the horror and sacrifice was a key element for establishing the context of that movie. In short, the violence was necessary.
Contrast with a scene from "Goodfellas"; we know Lou Pesci's character is nuts, and violent, hhow much beating, bullets and blood was necessary to prove that point. IMO, less than was shown on screen. I liked that movie, it's the only example that comes to mind.
Now, a slasher flick without blood, sex or cursing would be even less worthwhile, those three elements are 90% of the movie, a really good horror film doesn't need any of those 3 to still scare the crap out of the viewer. IMO, the original "Night of the Living Dead" is scary enough, and the flesh-eating only proves the point that the zombies are dangerous and will settle for nothing less.
As a side note about "the children", as a parent, there are a few great historical dramas movies I'd love to show the my pre-teen kids, but I'll wait until they are old enough to understand the sex, violence, or language in context to the story, or perhaps wait until it comes oput on network TV, but if I didn 't want to wait, why shouldn't I be able to rent an edited version that suits my needs?
Just as some of the greatest novels ever written had no vulgarisms or sex scenes, a great movie doesn't require them to be considered great.
If you like all the blood, sex, and brutality, maybe even in one entertaining package, you can easily get it, and no one will stop you. For those who'd like entertainment with a little less of those, I say, let the market be the judge.
99 - Jim Wynne
SFC SKI said:
Are you suggesting that "the market" isn't already the judge? It seems that the issue isn't the market, because Bambenek's "middle America" hasn't seemed to have had much of an impact by withholding their fiscal support of movies they find offensive. Rather than letting the market be the judge, Bambenek and his ilk want to be judge, because the market isn't giving them their way. So once again, the neocons display their obdurate hypocrisy; they believe in allowing the market to regulate itself, until the market does something they disagree with, then it's "free market be damned, we need regulation!"
100 - SFC SKI
Jim, you're writing at a tangent to my point: "Rather than letting the market be the judge, Bambenek and his ilk want to be judge, because the market isn't giving them their way."
So what? I don't see the writer saying that these edited versions are better, or the only versions that anyone should be allowed to purchase, he just wants it his way for his own consumption, and why the hell not? You can buy Diet soft drinks, low tar cigarettes, and a Mustang with a V-6, why should you have to take sex or violence in your otherwise fulfilling choice of film?
In the case of music, artists release explicit or clean version of albums regularly, why? Because they know they'll sell more. Rather than lose a sale, they'll adjust to the market. Yet anyone can still go and buy the latest most explicit recording available.
101 - lori
"If the people who rent these edited versions prefer that version, why not allow them to do so?"
As long as they get permission from the copyright holder first, that makes all the sense in the world.
"IMO, a lot of movies have both gratuitous swearing, violence, and nudity, by gratuitous, I mean it's placement in the film is unnecessary."
And that is simply your opinion and not an objective fact. (I tend to agree with your definition, btw.) This entire debate is really about who gets to decide what's gratuitous and what's not.
"why shouldn't I be able to rent an edited version that suits my needs"
I think you should, generally speaking. But I don't think that Comany X should decide how to edit someone else's film. That's up to the copyright holder to decide, not another company or their customers. If we let third-parties start editing movies for so-called objectionable content -- without permission -- then we have essentially nullified copyright law.
Besides, I doubt Hollywood will leave too much money on the table. My guess is that they'll eventually work something out with companies like Cleanflix for the bulk of their movies (some just aren't a good fit, which is why I think the market is better served with films originally written with them in mind), but now they've reclaimed their right to be in control of the edits -- if they permit any -- that are made for different markets. And that's exactly how it should be.
102 - lori
"In the case of music, artists release explicit or clean version of albums regularly, why?"
That's exactly the point: the artists (or their record companies) release the altered versions. A third-party hasn't modified the content and then released those versions.
103 - SFC SKI
Well, the copyright laws are to be upheld, no doubt, and if these companies had no agreement with the creators, then they are obviously wrong. I do agree that smart folks in Hollywood will work with a company like this in order to increase sales. Economically, it makes no sense to do otherwise.
104 - Les Slater
From the link in my #90
"ClearPlay offers software programs developed for specific titles that users can run on their computer or ClearPlay's proprietary DVD player along with an official copy of the DVD. With this technology, a nude shot of an actor can be altered to show a silhouette, or profanity can be bleeped out. Because ClearPlay's technology does not involve making an altered DVD copy, it has been shielded from the copyright infringement claims."
105 - lori
That seems like a happy medium, Les. The end user is in control of what appears on his/her tv screen, and the original film is left untouched.
106 - Ty
"John, I'm all for Cleanflicks. Seems like a great idea."
I don't think so. How is it a good idea? Should these Christian zealots have their cake and eat it too???
Either watch these Hollywood films in their entirety or stick to "Left Behind" and other Christian entertainment.
It is highly offensive to me (and many people) that two people could watch the same movie (one watching the original and the other watching a Cleanflicks version), but have a different experience and a different take because, after all, they didn't reall see the same movie.
107 - Andy Marsh
but Ty, two people will almost always come away with a different experience watching the SAME film, so what's the difference? Why should anything someone else watches offend you?
108 - lori
Ty makes no sense. There are already multiple versions of movies available. The director's cut is one version and the theatrical release is another. Does this offend you, too?
And god knows how many versions of the original Star Wars movie there are -- George Lucas is constantly dinkering around with it.
109 - SFC SKI
Maybe one day, George Lucas will release the good version of his last 3 SW offerings.
110 - Margaret Romao Toigo
The American "culture war" is a one-sided joke, a mythical "conflict of values" perpetuated by a small minority who are conflicted by temptations that are painful and difficult to resist regardless of moral traditions and teachings.
In other words, if we have the traditional values and morals as prescribed by the "culture warriors," we're not supposed to feel those familiar tingling sensations when young and attractive movie stars disrobe for the cameras, but since we are made of flawed mortal flesh, we still do.
And this reminds us that no amount of morality prevents temptation or makes it any less painful to resist or any less difficult to avoid. Our values serve to strengthen our resolve to persevere, but they do not make it easy to do so.
That small number of people who have been fighting the losing side of the so-called "culture war" deserve our pity, not our scorn, for they are suffering from the incurable human condition, the duality of our nature that can create and understand the concept of virtue but cannot rid itself of its natural vices.
Dave and gonzo have explained the legal issues in question with regard to this non-controversy and there is nothing that can be added to make those answers any clearer to those who refuse to understand.
FWIW, however, Hollywood has heard the cries for more family-friendly entertainment and it has cashed in with many hits in both film and television because no sector of the entertainment industry dictates what society's values should be. In a capitalist economy, it is society's values that dictate what sort of entertainment sells.
111 - John Bambenek
Lori-
"To me, the case is about who gets to determine what is and isn't "gratuitous," the maker of the film or a third-party business (or other entity). "
The consumer decides. They can choose Cleanflicks, who's standards are known, Blockbuster, or someone else. It isn't a matter of this third party company imposing "censored" material on the market, it's consumers demanding exactly what Cleanflicks (et al) provide.
Gonzo-
It's their right, however, being that this site is BlogCritics and not BlogLemmings, I'm exercising my write to criticize. Hollywood is not the sole arbiter of what is or is not art.
Jim-
You obviously don't know what a neocon is. To you, it's apparently a perjorative to slam people with. The neocon philosophy is concerned with foreign policy, domestically they are basically libertarian and couldn't give two pins about values. And it's obvious you are more concerned with demonizing those you disagree with.
I'm not suggesting that only Cleanflicks be allowed to operate. I'm suggesting the CONSUMER be the judge. They can participate in Hollywood by buying movies sanitized for their values. You are suggesting that by allowing those people to respect their own values that it is somehow shoving our values down your throats? How is that exactly? No one is suggesting only Cleanflicks be the only vendor out there. In fact, you complain about The Last Temptation, but having things like Cleanflicks vents that pressure. Christians have an alternative. You insist they drink the Koolaid or else. I'm not suggesting that we make law changes, case law changes, or any other change. I'm saying Cleanflicks is EXACTLY how we've let the market work itself out, and Hollywood isn't having it.
I am sincerely dumbfounded that anyone took away from this article some suggestion I think we need regulation to allow Cleanflicks.
Lori-
Who gets to decide what's gratuitious? The consumer. Cleanflicks isn't deciding anything and imposing definitions. They've listened to the values of their customers and they are enacting them. Peroid. They aren't trying to cater to America as a whole. It seems you want to have an all-or-nothing system. Sure, that's what the law allows. I suggest it's stupid. That's the point of my article, because next week when the AFA, the Baptists, or whatever group says its time to boycott Hollywood entirely, you'll probably by raising your voice about censorship. You can't have it both ways.
SFC SKI-
Perhaps the political environment is too charged, but the DGA has made it quite clear that not only do they never want to negotiate to allow sanitizing, they don't even want tools available that allow the CONSUMER to do it. Every appearance is that they have decided they are not going to allow anyone to edit their films for filth. They've put their foot down, hence this post.
Les & Lori-
Cleanplay had to be specifically exempted in federal law, the DGAs position is that they want this exemption gone.
Ty-
As Ruvy said above, it seems that the underlying attitude motivating people against this is the belief that "Christian zealots" are a cancer that should be removed from society.
Who cares if two individuals take away different experiences? Why should some external entity be deciding what experience is appropriate for people to take away? Why are you offended that people don't watch to oogle at titties? Don't people have the freedom to respect their own values? We aren't even talking about imposing them on anyone else, we're talking about freedom to live their own values by themselves.
Margaret-
This article has absolutely nothing to do with the legal issues. It's criticizing the DGA for a stupid decision. That's it.
112 - Dave Nalle
For what it's worth I do have a 3-year-old who can swear like a sailor, for which we can thank Hollywood and cable TV. I'm not sure how much of a problem that really is. We taught her which words are 'bad words' and she goes around shouting 'bad word' at anyone who uses them now.
Dave
113 - John Bambenek
Dave-
You are free (in general) to raise your children with whatever values you see fir (within obvious reason). As are the so-called Christian zealots. For thousands of years people have fought over which set of values are the "right" ones. We've figured out how to create a society that doesn't impose some arbitraty values and to allow freedom of values. The culture war is nothing more than both sides taking turns defecating on each other's values.
Cleanflicks would be a decent compromise, but there are those elements who don't want compromise, they want the tumor of Christianity (and by Christianity I mean an authentic representation of the actual teachings of Christ) out.
114 - Dave Nalle
Well, the child did try to say grace before eating breakfast this morning - we're going to have to do something about that.
Dave
115 - Les Slater
John #111
"Cleanplay had to be specifically exempted in federal law, the DGAs position is that they want this exemption gone."
Clearplay technology has the same intent, and same results, as Cleanflick, et al. It is a usurption of copywrigt protection.
So much for the government protecting intellectual property.
116 - Les Slater
Crearplay does have one advantage. You can show the pastor that you have it but turn it off when he's not around.
117 - John Bambenek
Les-
Does a fast forward button have the same intent, i.e. the usurpation of copyright protection?
118 - gonzo marx
John...either you are being deliberately obtuse, or you simply don't get it from what has been written...
if you purchase a copy , for your own use...you can edit it and change it as you like for your own viewing pleasure...
what you cannot do it change or edit it and then sell it without the permission of the Content's owner
therefore, your entire statement in #117 is spurious, and false, as well as silly
and not silly in a good way
Excelsior?
119 - Les Slater
John 117
"Does a fast forward button have the same intent, i.e. the usurpation of copyright protection?"
No, that's your choice, just like making a 'fair use' copy for yourself.
Clearplay charges $4.95 per month for THEIR edited version of the original content.
120 - lori
The consumer decides.
The consumer can only decide to buy a *legal* product. The products Cleanflicks was selling/renting are not legal. They're in violation of someone else's clearly defined legal rights. Consumers do not have a choice to buy illgeal items, unless they're willing to do so on the black market and face the consequences of that choice.
It isn't a matter of this third party company imposing "censored" material on the market, it's consumers demanding exactly what Cleanflicks (et al) provide.
Again, consumers cannot demand illegal products. And Cleanflicks has no right to provide them.
I'm not suggesting that we make law changes, case law changes, or any other change. I'm saying Cleanflicks is EXACTLY how we've let the market work itself out, and Hollywood isn't having it.
This one wasn't directed at me, but I'll chime in anyway. It's not just Hollywood, John, it's any copyright holder. Hollywood was just the first industry affected. Any copyrighted content is obviously at stake here. I don't see why you don't acknowledge the rights of the copyright holders to do what they've done. Can someone come to Blogcritics, take the articles, edit them for "objectionable" content, and republish them? No. Why would or should it be any different for movies?
Who gets to decide what's gratuitious? The consumer.
Only by exercising their right not to see the movies, not by dictating to the owner of the content that it must be changed.
Cleanflicks isn't deciding anything and imposing definitions. They've listened to the values of their customers and they are enacting them.
For the millionth time: Cleanflicks has NO RIGHT to do what these consumers are "asking" them to do. What is so very difficult to understand about that? Why is it that you think copyrighted material should be edited by just anyone without permission of the owner?
It seems you want to have an all-or-nothing system.
When did I say that? I'm defending copyrights, pure and simple. The copyright holder is the one who gets to decide if another market should get a different version of the movie. That's not all-or-nothing. That's a case-by-case situation, as determined by the one who owns the content.
Sure, that's what the law allows.
But it also allows copyright holders to modify their content and market it to different markets if they want to. You're the only one saying it's all-or-nothing. That's a false dilemma.
That's the point of my article, because next week when the AFA, the Baptists, or whatever group says its time to boycott Hollywood entirely, you'll probably by raising your voice about censorship. You can't have it both ways.
And that's a straw man. Second time you've put words in my mouth and argued something I haven't.
Perhaps the political environment is too charged, but the DGA has made it quite clear that not only do they never want to negotiate to allow sanitizing, they don't even want tools available that allow the CONSUMER to do it.
This is entirely consistent with other legal challenges that other content owners/publishers or industry groups have made in the past. They didn't want people to be able to make cassette copies of their record albums, they didn't want people to be able to record tv shows or movies onto video tape, etc. But the fair use doctrine has been interpreted to allow for those things as long as they're done by the consumer for personal use. Clearplay technology may very well fall under the same category in spite of industry objections.
Every appearance is that they have decided they are not going to allow anyone to edit their films for filth.
Always with the inflammatory language. Sigh.
No, history shows that they (and every other large media industry organization) have decided they aren't going to allow anyone to edit their films (or other content) for *any* reason unless they specifically endorse the edits. Content owners are trying to protect their product, and they have historically gone to great lengths to do it.
By isolating this recent case from the last 20-30 years of similar cases, you've falsely framed this as an assault on Christians and Christian values. It's not. It's yet another example of copyright holders going afer other businesses and even consumers who want to tamper with their product.
121 - John Bambenek
Gonzo-
That is only true because Congress specifically exempted doing that with legislation, and the DGA was and still remains opposed to it. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that the DGA is certainly not happy about it.
Les was arguing that Cleanplay is just as bad as Cleanflicks (#115), Cleanplay is software that you put on your PC to "censor" bad stuff. In short, I was responding to him.
Les-
Clearplay is doing the same thing a fast forward button does, it lets the viewer control their viewing environment. Just because Clearplay makes a profit for making it easier doesn't make it the same as Cleanflicks.
Lori-
I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer, I've repeated myself over and over again in comments and this article. Yes, copyright holders have the right to control how their product is distributed.
I AM NOT ARGUING THIS FACT. AT ALL. GET IT OUT OF YOUR MINDS.
I'm arguing that by denying permission to edit, they are stoking this conflict and making a bad business decision. That's it.
I'm not saying Cleanflicks is legal. I'm not saying the law should be changed. I'm not saying these judges should be hauled out and shot for activism. I AM saying that Hollywood is making a stupid decision by not granting permission to Cleanflicks or other associated businesses.
It is an assault on consumers who want to see Hollywood trash less the trash. They are saying they will not bow to the will of consumers. They could negotiate with Cleanflicks, or another company. They've decided not to. They've negotiated content in the past (i.e. broadcast television), they choose not to in this case.
It's their right to make this decision.
It's my right to criticize the decision and expression my opinion that it was a dumb move.
122 - Arch Conservative
I haven't been to the movies in almost five years........and you won't find any copies of scary movie on my dvd rack.........
the simple fact is........90% of what hollywood is producing today is complete and unwatchable crap........garbage........i can't say enough bad things about the putrid waste being thrown at us by hollywood today......
here's just a sampling of movies playing at the theatre right now
click.....an adam sandler flick....gee that might be funny if you're a 12 year old boy who likes toilet humor
devil wears prada.....maybe if you're a pretentious new york city asshole who thinks everyone in small town america really desires to be a pretentious new york city asshole you might like this one
the lake house: gee another cookie cutter romantic ocmedy starring that master thespian keanu reevs no less
fast and the furious 3... why was the even a fast and furious 2?
last but not least........
has anyone seen the previews for the latest wayans brothers movie "little man"?
i saw the preview while watching tv the other day and could feel my brain cells killing themselves as i watched it...
123 - lori
I'm arguing that by denying permission to edit, they are stoking this conflict and making a bad business decision. That's it.
No, that's not all you've been arguing. But I'm not going to rehash it.
It is an assault on consumers who want to see Hollywood trash less the trash. They are saying they will not bow to the will of consumers.
No, this case illustrates that they will not bow to the will of certain businesses. You don't know if they won't allow editing of certain films. They objected to the methods currently being used (a.k.a., editing without getting permission first) and that's what they fought the case over.
They could negotiate with Cleanflicks, or another company. They've decided not to.
Do you know this for a fact? How do you know they haven't tried to negotiate with those companies?
They've negotiated content in the past (i.e. broadcast television), they choose not to in this case.
Again, you don't know this for a fact, do you? How do you know this isn't the actual start of negotiations?
Do you know who fired the first legal shot? It wasn't the DGA. They counter-sued. The first suit was filed by Cleanflicks, asserting their *legal right* to edit someone else's content without asking permission first. Doesn't sound like they felt a need to negotiate, does it, when their entire business model was based on a claimed right not to need to?
Also, guess who else sued Cleanflicks? Mel Gibson, over edits to the family-friendly _The Passion of the Christ_.
Now *that's* funny.
124 - SFC SKI
Archie, this comment "devil wears prada.....maybe if you're a pretentious new york city asshole who thinks everyone in small town america really desires to be a pretentious new york city asshole you might like this one", Priceless! I don't know if it applies to this movie, but I've lived within spitting distance of the Big Appple, and in flyover country, and you hit the atitude dead on.
125 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
John,
It's nice to see that you've been able to use the emotional response of secular Israelis to religious Jews here to label the secular culture in the States. It was the head of T'nuva Foods that labelled people living beyond the green line here as a cancer that needed to be removed. It caused a big stink here and the head of T'nuva issued a half-apology. I generally boycott their products to the degree that I'm able.
It's not often that I use a label at all. But every now and then it is worth fashioning...