Ever see a movie on an airline? Or maybe Sex in the City on TBS? Of course there’s also the inevitable release of any hit movie to network television after it’s been on DVD a while.

I see this message “This movie has been modified from it’s original version for content and to fit in the time allocated”

Since production has already ceased on the movie, the edit for TV or airline usage might be done by a 3rd party. Let’s assume that since this practice is decades old, that there is a mechanism to secure permission to make such adjusted versions.

Finally, ever watch an old TV series on DVD? In the 60’s there were 28 minutes of TV per half hour – now it’s 26.5, every time I Love Lucy is re-aired on Nick at Night, someone edited. I bet Nick at Night bought the show before they edited it for commercials.

In regards to the comments by a number of posters about edited versions for TV and airline use, you should be aware that those edits are made with the approval of the copyrightholder. And yes, in anticipation of the next line of argument, often directors and screenwriters are unhappy about those changes, but they rarely hold the copyright to a finished film — it’s the studios that normally do.

All the edits done for television, they’re done by or with the permission of the copyright holder. Are the directors/producers involved? No, but they signed away those rights to the studios, who are the ones doing or allowing the edits. These people do not have the permission edit the movies, but are doing it anyway.

Look, I’m not a copyright evangelist, and I hate the MPAA/RIAA and the way they are using Nazi tactics, but in this particular case, I think they’re right. Forget the chair analogy, let’s say you record a song, and it gets to be a mega-hit on the radio. Then some kid using a computer takes out some of your lyrics, changes some others, and releases the new song. Now he buys one copy of your song for every copy he sells, but you HATE the new edit. It changes the meaning of your song from a sexy party song to a sappy love song. You wrote it, you recorded it, and you own the rights to it, don’t you have the right to tell that kid to stop selling the bastardized version of your song? That’s what’s going on here. It’s not about the money, it’s about the owner of the content having the right to say how that content is distributed.

I agree with the fact that, if this is a big enough business and there is demand for it, then those who purchase these “edited” versions should lobby the movie studios. If there’s a buck to be made from this, the studios will listen.

That’s right I’m white and almost spelled the N word. If you don’t like it, don’t read Tom Sawyer. If you want to read the classic book and the very word, even in context offends you, tough. You don’t get to republish the work with editing, it’s just plain heathen. I also don’t want to find a copy of Grimm’s Fairy Tales with happy endings, or a version of the Da Vinci Code that’s acceptable to the Vatican. You don’t have to like it all, in fact you don’t have to pick it up at all, but you really can’t change the work to suit you if it isn’t your work, and it’s a VERY slipery slope.

Some people can’t see beyond their nose.

If you’re in denial, stop asking questions who’s answers you’ll deny.

PFFFFFT!!!

I edit my movies all the time. I take music I never paid for and use it as sound clips for small videos I make, then upload to sites like YouTube. I cut funny clips from movies then upload those to the web.

In other words…. BITE ME.

I will continue to do whatever the hell I please with movies, music and software.

And that’s just me, someone who hasn’t paid. Try and stop someone from doing what they want when they actually own the content.

P.S.

Screw the MPAA and the RIAA.

Does anyone recall of something called the Counter-Reformation group who went on a fig-leaf campaign? Or how about a pope who went chopping of genitalia from artist’s statues because it was obscene? Now, I know this is an issue with copyrights and such, but from an artist’s point of view censoring a work because it goes against moral beliefs (which pointed out above is most likely a just ruse to fill some people’s pockets with money) is wrong. If you don’t like nudity being portrayed then don’t go to see Michelangelo’s David, but most importantly don’t chop off his little guy.

paying the royalties for the use of a copywritten item does not convey they right to substantially alter the copywritten item.

it would be like having someone, without your permission, make a Muzak version of your hit song, play it in elevators, but still pay all the royalties on it.

yes, the copyright holder isn’t losing anything because the royalties are paid, but that doesn’t give the royalyy payor the right to alter the song without the artist’s express permission.

What the artist is losing in a case like this is integrity of his/her vision. You may disagree with it, you may not like it, you may find it the most offensive thing to ever hit the media, but it is not yours to tamper with. Isn’t that what copyrighting is for? Only the holder of the copyright can legally make changes for distribution under that name.

Say it went the other way. I find a lot of programming insulting and banal. If, instead of just refusing to watch it I took that content and altered it to suit my taste, made it less PC, threw in some language that might offend others, et cetera, and then distributed that, even as a “modified” version of the same product, wouldn’t the original artist’s vision have been changed in an unacceptable way?

As for ownership of a DVD, yes, you own that plastic disc if you have purchased it. You can modify it in any way you choose. You can write your name on it with a Sharpie or melt it or whatever…but the content does not belong to you.

One last thing: Disney’s bastardizations were from stories in the public domain, so though they may have greatly changed the very meaning of the story, there was no copyright protecting the authors.

First of all, just to make things clear, since some people still don’t get it:

The edited versions you see on TV or airlines, or hospitals, etc. have been done with the PERMISSION of the copyright holders. Usually they are done BY the copyright holders, or at the very least are APPROVED by the copyright holders. None of that was the case with what CleanFlix was doing.

And whether or not Hollywood should make “clean” versions available to the public is besided the point– that’s not what the issue is here. (Plus, one person’s “clean version” is another person’s “dirty version,” so there’d be no way to make everyone happy.)

Now, here’s another way of looking at this issue that might help people understand why it an important victory for artists/copyright holders. It also illustrates why it’s a fair, reasonable and good decision:

Let’s say your child was killed by another child who was playing with a gun that that kid’s father had. You’re so upset that you make a movie that is very anti-gun. But someone buys a copy of your film on DVD and– without your permission– re-edits it, cutting out the death scene, removing gun-related death statistics, and making other changes (perhaps even adding new stuff) so now it glorifies guns and violence. They now make this version available to consumers.

Even if you get your royalty check, and even if it says “Special Gun Lovers’ Version,” do you think this is a fair and acceptable thing to do? I sure don’t think it is.

What if you were a devout atheist and CleanFlix “cleaned up” your anti-religion movie to make it look pro-Mormon?

So don’t get stuck into thinking that what CleanFlix was doing was harmless because they were just cleaning up films. If this door hadn’t been closed, it would have allowed any company to do *anything* to the films.

It’s funny, though perhaps not shocking, that a religious-based company was doing something that was morally wrong. (Just to clarify, the last time I checked, it was wrong to do something without permission, and this company was explcitly told that they did not have permission.)

Remember, when you buy a DVD, what you are purchasing is the license to VIEW the feature. you don’t own the movie or whatever. you own the right to “view” the movie. that’s why the whole “but i BOUGHT the dvd” line is flawed.

and this whole sue the TV stations for editing movies, that’s bull, because they work with the studio to purchase editing rights.

also, a friend of mine used to work at a blockbuster. she said each video they “purchased” was round 200 to 500 bucks. that’s because blockbuster buys the right to “resell” the movie, i.e. charge people to view it. so…..yeah..it sucks and all, but what can ya do?

If it was as big a business as you seem to think it is, don’t you think Hollywood would be doing it themselves? Or don’t you think Hollywood is greedy?

And again, whether there’s a need for this type of thing or not has NOTHING TO DO WITH whether what they’re doing is legal. NOTHING. They are doing something illegal, period. And there are avenues open to them to do it legally but THEY CHOSE NOT TO.

And whether Hollywood is only turning out trash now is also completely irrelevant. That’s a childish rationalization.

You can’t honestly think when you purchase a $20 or $30 DVD that you are purchasing the editing and redistribution rights too do you? That’s part of the problem with some, they think they should get everything for free. No, if you want to edit and redistribute it, pay for the right to do so. Don’t want to? Go make a better movie!

If a church wants to purchase the movie, edit it and show it, fine. These guys were buying a movie, editing it, then reselling it at a higher price, thereby turning a profit on someone else’s creativity without the owner’s permission. The law specifically prohibits this. You can rationalize all day long how it’s stiffling creativity, blah blah blah, but the bottom line is it’s illegal and it’s wrong.

Here we read” copyright law is designed to prevent someone from undercutting the market for the content …” But in the post about the LA times taking its surprising stand we get: “Congress shouldn’t pass laws that clearly go beyond the basic intent of copyright law: to encourage the creation of new art. ” I would definitely flunk the copyright multiple choice quiz.

Hollywood should be taking notice that their movies are being edited because the market to cut out the “trash” in otherwise good movies is HUGE! They’re already profiting from the purchased movies, so, I agree, the copyright argument, isn’t exactly the case here. Let’s be realistic; there are great movies out there that contain unnecessary and inappropriate material. Laws are for protection, and many people want the option/freedom to choose to enjoy these movies with their friends and family without harmful and/or embarrassing content. It is close-minded to have an “all or nothing” view that a person shouldn’t watch a movie at all if they object to any of the content in it. Life is about BALANCE and so are companies like CleanFilms and CleanFlicks. For example, a friend showed me the movie “Amelie”, and I adored the story and “overall” message. I want to own it and tell people about it, BUT I WON”T because I don’t want to promote all those orgasm and porn store scenes when they add nothing to the story itself! I’m kicking myself now for not having purchased “Amelie” from CleanFilms sooner! There is another company that sells filtering disks you can place in a special DVD player, but that’s quite a bit to keep up with and like purchasing a movie twice. There’s got to be a way to appeal this unfortunate ruling. The demand is too high. Maybe Hollywood wants the idea for themselves? Nah… Financial profit seems to have brainwashed too many executives and film makers. We need people with the know-how and ability to stand up for moral integrity in our society and continue to fight for the public’s demand to enjoy great movies void of inappropriate and harmful material. I will be supporting, watching, and waiting for the ressurection of these worthwhile and appreciated editing companies with my pocketbook ready.

I had to re-submit the previous comment to correct that only CleanFlicks has “Amelie”.

It’s not wrong to make a recipe with margarine if the receipe calls for real butter; however, if the receipe has a copyright, there are obviously laws to consider if you’re going to sell the finished product. What are the legal issues regarding a lemonade stand if the child is selling County Time lemonade? The “art” argument is weak; it’s about money.

I would want and expect a company to be law-abiding. Circumventing the copy protection is wrong, but LET’S MAKE A DEAL with Hollywood to appease the film makers, copyright laws, creators and whomever else has a problem with the selling of edited movies.

If I want the option to buy an edited movie, and I’ll pay what’s necessary if I want it bad enough. Surely even Hollywood can appreciate and take advantage of that angle.

There’s NOTHING wrong with wanting to enjoy a movie for its good and beneficial qualities. If I watch “Schindler’s List”, of course I expect violence. The problem for me lies mainly with “family films” that just aren’t “family friendly”. There are other instances like “Amelie” where I’d love to watch it with my French-speaking aunt; is it SO surprising that I don’t want to sit through embarrassing scenes with a sweet lady in her 70’s? Why should I have to either “suck it up” or go without watching it with her?

Let’s give viewers OPTIONS vs. a “take it or leave it” attitude 🙂

I love what I’m hearing from Carrie and Anonymous Coward. You guys obviously understand the higher issues here, not just getting caught up in the copyright debate and the so-called “integral vision” of the so-called artists.

I am not religious. You DO NOT have to be religious to see that movies, music, and the media in general have gotten more offensive, inhumane and just plain disgusting in the last decade. They are fast becoming a disgrace.

Don’t try and tell me that this is about free speech. This is about a bunch of morally bankrupt or morally ignorant wannabe artists jumping on a bandwagon because a certain formula has shown that it can make money, and using free speech as the poor scapegoat to get their pathetic creations out there.

I heard a guy on tv once say that the so-called artists and movie makers should plainly be telling their BS to a therapist, instead of marketing it and selling it to the public.

They don’t often stop to create very much of anything constructive that can contribute to uplifting the human condition or consciousness…they only parrot what they’ve seen done before…they basically take the same overused plotlines, throw a different cast and environment around it and resell it. If there was a lawsuit every time that happened, there would be no Hollywood.

Hollywood is a factory, just like any other kind of factory.

The media has changed. It is now filled to overflowing, because of new accessible technology, with inexperienced, immature, and quite frankly – untalented – people, with heads filled with self-absorbed dreams of fame and fortune…and not constructive ideas to the improvement of the human consciousness, nor any thoughts of responsibility to the movie going public.

They are concerned with being cool, rich and famous. Unfortunately, the Hollywood mongers, themselves filled with their own importance, know this, and know that those kinds of people are easy to manipulate.

No different from ages past, but the technology unfortunately makes it much much easier for them to create and market their crap.

One often wonders what the world would be like, if for all these decades, the majority of filmmakers, musicians and the like focused on positive creations, instead of the endless hate, violence and inhuman behaviours that they endlessly go on about. They only care about what sells, and unfortunately, a bloodthirsty movie going public, either too young to understand or for too long fed on a diet of the ugly side of human nature, only seems to support them. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

I am fully aware that there are those who do try to create positive media, and I applaud them, but they are sadly not the majority.

Is it any wonder, like Carrie said, that the reason companies like Cleanflick are popping up, is because people are sick and tired of the endless BS that the factory is pumping out? It wasn’t great in ages past, but it was never as bad as it is now.

The new technology has of course improved things on one hand, but on the other, thanks to this same technology, the entertainment landscape is littered with unmemorable, pointless and offensive material.

Why do you think the lawsuit happened? Because it’s reached a point where the filmmakers can’t ignore it anymore, it’s become a threat to their complacent filmmaking. They are actually going to have to be more responsible for the content and quality of their productions (yeah, right). They are going to have to look beyond their own egos, and remember that their continued success depends on the public, and not just the teenagers who’ll watch almost anything. Boo hoo for them.

There is a great leveling going on in the world right now. Monopolistic narrow-thinking industries are being taken to task. Those who are growing upwards in consciousness won’t stand for it any more.

We’ve seen it happen in music already. It has to reach a peak before it gets better, but thank god for companies like Cleanflicks who are standing up. Thank God.

I happen to be a writer and musician, so I know what I’m talking about. I hope to God this leveling is now happening in the film industry, and all I can say is, it’s about time.

Does that mean it’s illegal to tear a page out of a book?

actullay if you buy it, you can do what you want to with it . nuff said. and cussing and nudity etc. is offensive to a lot of people. that’s why half the people don’t go and see it. stuff like that should be banned from tv, movies, and music. the judge is in the wrong. he has no right to make up his own law and push it on people ;)if this is the law then hmm its also illegal to watch it after you buy , it doesn’t make sense. and also why don’t the movie companies release edited films that make it more pg or pg 13 with no nudity, cussing , and other stuff we don’t wanna see. I mean I always mute it or fast forward it. they ruin good movies with adding this stuff.