The big factor here is that the original artist still owns the 'idea'. By taking the idea, then modifying it to meet your morals, you are 'stealing' their vision and making it your own. Their IDEA is for sale for you to VIEW, not to MODIFY.

It would be like, you have a pet mouse that you will sell to someone as a pet, but not to feed to their snake. The asking price is $5. 'Bob', who has a snake to feed, steals your mouse and leaves a $5 bill on the counter.

He justifies his actions by saying you were going selling it for $5 anyways, and limiting the sale to only people who wanted it as a pet, you were violating his freedom.

Excellent analogy.

Who's talking about stealing movies?
You can buy a movie, edit it and then
show it to to your kids.
So why can't you pay someone else to do the editting for you?

More to the point, you shouldn't be showing your kids movies that you need to edit in the first place.

You can.

But you (Cleanflicks being *you* in this case) cannot *sell* a modified / edited version.

They could have simply sold the service. (Buy the movie, then we can make an edited copy for you). But instead they sold the edited copies, not the service.

A major distinction there, and it's what lost them the case.

Last week my wife bought a Dr. Seuss book at a garage sale. But some kid had altered it with a fat green crayon. As soon as I find out their name I am going to sic crazy Judge Richard Matsch on them.

Your comment was childish and not needed. Altering with a crayon is not the same as if you were to buy the book but it's content were changed.

Don't post if you don't know what you're talking about.

My, this article seems awfully biased in favor of the cleaning companies, as it were.

According to my understanding, the Utah-based "Clean Flicks" originally sued the Directors Guild of America and a group of prominent directors in order to obtain a ruling-- the DGA only counter-sued.

Quite funny but I felt the same way about the bias, then noticed the google ad for cleanflicks on the same page as the story. Granted it's coincidence but I thought I'd share that.

That's likely to be just the result of content-based ads-- google ads take text on the page in question and pulls up ads that are related. So if you're on a site about selling stuff on ebay, you'll probably get an ad for ebay; if you're on a site with an article about cleanflicks, you might get an ad for cleanflicks.

As astounding as it may seem, the word "privacy" does NOT appear anywhere in the United States Constitution and the so-called "right" to privacy can only be inferred.

And furthermore, I'm sure the people who claim "right to privacy" as their defense for deleting homosexual content from a film should then have no problem with other people's "right to privacy" when two consenting adults choose to enter into a homosexual liason, do ya think ?

Then, of course, there's always abortion...

"As astounding as it may seem, the word "privacy" does NOT appear anywhere in the United States Constitution and the so-called "right" to privacy can only be inferred."

Cool! Immediately send me all your credit card numbers, nude pics of your husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend, and if you have any original ideas that might result in income, I'll take those, too.

I'm confused by your post, it makes me wonder if you read the entire post that you responded to.

The original post makes the good statement that you can't just claim privacy in some cases but not in others. It would be as if you have the right to have the credit card numbers and nude pics you requested then in the same breath say that nobody should be allowed access to YOURS. A double standard if you will.

I can't recall any mention in the Constitution of a right to artistic integrity either.

I agree, you're confused.

For those who believe this ruling 'trumps personal property rights, privacy rights, freedom of religion, and parental authority", get real. You still have the right to purchase and own what you choose, view material that conforms with your religious beliefs and control what your children view. The movie released by the director is the result of what they wanted to say. If you don't like or agree with that, the solution is simple. DON'T BUY. DON'T RENT IT. DON'T WATCH IT, AND DON'T LET YOUR CHILDREN WATCH IT. Your beliefs, or those of anyone other than the creator of the film have no place modifying the creative output of anyone else. Buy, rent, watch and share the works of those you do approve of - but hands off the original statement of a work's creator.

Everyone agrees that you can buy a movie,
edit it and then show it to to your kids.
So why can't you pay someone else to do the editting for you?

If the person wishing the edited version were to go and supply their copy, to be edited for their use, sure. That would likely fall under fair use.

But to sell a hacked version of a movie you purchased? No, it is not covered by fair use.

Do you understand the difference?

Great, so now a limited grant of copyright trumps personal property rights, privacy rights, freedom of religion, and parental authority. Even when the copyright holder gets full price for every copy sold. This Judge must be insane, or corrupt.

What does this have to do with...

Personal property? When you buy a movie, you don't own the movie itself. The content is not your property.

Privacy Rights? How is this a privacy issue?

Freedom of Religion? How does this affect your religion?

Parental authority: If you don't want your kids to watch an R movie, don't let them. There's your parental authority.

This is about people modifying and selling movies without permission from the owner, it has nothing to do with any of that previous nonsense.

But the copyright holder only gets the full price of the unaltered copy, not an additional fee for the additional altered one that is sent.

Don't you see, Moose, that property and privacy rights and other freedoms are protected, rather than trumped, by the ruling? If content is objectionable, use your judgment and refrain from watching, renting, or buying the movie - exercise your ability to abstain and your right to keep the material out of your home. Control your own, and your children's, access to the material. That covers your rights and freedoms. Now what about the rest of us? What about the creative producers of the material?

What you cannot do is obstruct everyone else's rights and freedoms by editing copyrighted material and not disclosing it or getting permission to do it first then continuing to market it as the original material and profit off of it. Perform your own brand of censorship as a responsible parent and member of the community, however, not at the expense of, and limitation on, others who do not share your opinion and those who have a proprietary interest in the material they have created.

Sure our property rights are unfairly limited by these Movie-Doctors. We buy a DVD or a ticket to a movie - what we have purchased is the right to own a copy of, or view, the material in its unadulterated form (or at the very least edited with full disclosure and consent of the entity that created the material).

Your comment is good, Froggy.

Well said!

After I buy a video tape I own that tape and I can do anything with it I want. With the one exception of commercial duplication and distribution.

If I want to pay someone to edit it for me that is my private business and does not harm or affect in any way the people who made the original film.

How do they think they can come into my home and tell me what I can and cannot show my children on my television?

Your desire for artistic integrity is not a right and certainly does not give you any authority over what I do in my home with my books, tapes, and discs.

Next it will be crime to let a kid near a book with a crayon in his hand.

The Disc may be your personal property. The movie on it is *not*.

This has *nothing* to do with Privacy.

or religion.

As for Parental Authority, are they not just leaving it up to someone else...yet again, by using 'CleanFlicks'? Whatever happened to teaching your kids responsibility or boundaries?

The copyright holder got full price for *one* movie, as I understand it...and *two* were provided, albiet, one of them is hacked and mangled.

Wow.

artistic integrity is not a right

Bull.

One's copyrighted works are protected by...

...wait for it....

COPYRIGHT.

It gives the artist the ability to PREVENT abuse of their works.

my books, tapes, and discs

As long as *you* wrote the books, recorded the tapes, and created the discs, sure. If it's from others, but for *personal* use ony, sure. But if they are works from other artists, and you intend to *sell* them, you must get *their* permission to mess with it. And copyright does *not* grant you those rights.

After I buy a video tape I own that tape and I can do anything with it I want

Let me fix that for you, using current US law as a limiting factor, not your misunderstanding of it:

After I buy a video tape I own that tape, but not the movie on it. I can do anything with it I want with it as long as it is for personal use only. I cannot sell, transfer, or release in any way a modified version of said movie.

Copyright protects artists from people abusing their works. Cleanflicks is an abuse, any director, artist, or screenwriter would agree. Selling their works for profit in a hacked and mangled fashion is not a right granted to the purchaser.

You never 'own' a copy of any copyrighted works unless you buy the copyright itself.

When you purchase a DVD, you are granted the right to use the disc to view the movie on it in the format in which it was supplied. Nothing else is granted.

"Copyright protects artists from people abusing their works."

Perhaps in your delusional alternate reality, but on this planet copyright is just a temporary exclusive right to reproduce and distribute a copyrighted work.

I can abuse a book or a movie all day long and nobody can say boo.

Just because no-one does, does not mean they can not.

Perhaps, after 'works', I should have added, 'and distributing them'?

What are you talking about? I thought it was TV's responsibility to raise kids!

(/sarcasm)

Interesting, as it relates to freedom of speech. Which side should the ACLU take? The side which says what they want in a film, or the side which... says what they want in a film edited and presented as such?

If the film is clearly labeled as 'sanitized', shouldn't that be OK? And, shouldn't it be OK for the film's original publishing to be free to approve the changes?

This is not about art. This is about commercial films.

I wonder what the underground DVD pirates are saying, as well as the crowd frustrated with limitations on copying legit CDs for MP3s, etc.

A. Trendl
http://HungarianBookstore.com

Thank goodness! A win for decency, common sense, and art.

In an attempt to claim "fair use," the movie sanitizers would offer the official copy along with the edited copy with each transaction.

So not only were they selling a hacked to pieces copy of a movie, they were giving their clients a full version that could easily be resold as "Used" or on ebay.

THANK YOU!

tell cleanfliks to eat a d**k

now tell me ... did you really mean to say "d**k" or did betanews misrepresent you? :P

Add a Comment (42 Comments)
BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Just in case you weren't joking....

It's at the top of every posting window. ;) They have the right. You agree to it by posting.

I live in Utah and I have always hated CleanFlicks ever since I saw their version of the Shawshank Redemption. The movie didn't even make sence. The TNT late night version had more in it.

CleanFlicks, don't let the door slam on your way out.

billweh: As crazy as it sounds these days with the loads of crappy movies coming out, there studios are still fundamentally concerned with teh art of the movie. It is important to them for the movie to be presented as closely as possible to how the director and writers intended.

Does this mean TV networks can no longer show movies that have been edited for content?

Those movies are edited under license, and so are perfectly legitimate. The article discusses movies that were edited without the consent or knowledge of the studios, and so were deemed to be an infringement on the copyrights of the holders.

I see, thanks. :)

A question comes to mind: If you are showing a movie that you have to filter stuff out of, is it really the movie you should be showing to that particular audience?

That's a good point. I think it's rather funny that the movie companies are trying to find ways to stop the selling of their product. What I don't get is why they care if the movie has been edited? As long as they are getting paid for it, it's obviously something that the consume wants, otherwise they'd run out to Walmart and buy the standard copy as-is.

If they had a clue, they'd hire these companies to edit their films and sell them themselves. Instead they have just told an entire section of consumers to go take a flying leap.

I'd love to see how this affects their sales, the majority of people buying these edited movies aren't going to go out and buy the unedited version, so they are definitely losing sales.

Must be nice to make so much money these days that you can easily throw away a few million in revenue.

supposedly that's what the rating system is supposed to fix. the problem of course is that family/christian/whatever groups modify the rating system in their heads' to read:

G is PG
PG is PG-13
PG-13 is R
> PG-13 is NC-17

somebody save bambi's mother!

Yes it is. There are many sci-fi movies with nice special effects and rotten language which i cannot show my 9 year old. When they are 18 they can watch what they want, as in the original version, but it would be nice to have a clean version. If I'm willing to pay for a clean version suited for my use, what's the harm?
Easier to buy a gun or pure porn than a clean movie! Who'd a thunk it...

The problem with your comment is that this article is not trying to figure out how the movie companies can make more money. This article is discussing the freedom of artistic expression.

The assumption that people perform art to make money is as far off as one can get. Yes, many are in the business strictly for the money, and they are the ones who indeed would say, "Let them edit, as long as I'm making money."

Those who care about their art for what it is are the ones who are willing to take a paycut to preserve their masterpiece. By making this ruling I respect movie companies more, just for their desire to preserve their art and by doing so receive less money. Kudos to them. It's too bad there aren't more people like that in the entertainment business.

The ratings system is already broken, there's no consistency to it at all. Clash of the Titans has several nude scenes including one with full frontal nudity and it gets a PG rating while other movies get rated R for far less. I guess it depends on who is reviewing the movie for the ratings board that day and how prudish they are. Some movies get an R rating for a few bad words or sexual references while others like Stuart Little get rated PG and still have bad language or sexual references. The whole ratings system is a joke, and PLEASE stop putting those stupid giant black ratings boxes over TV shows I'm trying to watch.

If I buy a painting, original or print, from that point I can do what I want with it. If it is protected making a copy of it would be wrong, but otherwise I can mask whatever I want. If I like I can draw on it, hang it upside down, or burn it.

The problem, as I see it, is that a copy is being made.

I'm not purchasing a bloody license to view the painting and I'm not buying a license to watch the movie, I am buy a copy of the work. I should be able to modify that copy however I want.

Since there is a demand for altered copies, I would think it logical that a mechanism be made to accomodate that *on a per film/rights holder basis*. Preserve the art where the creator is concerned with art, but I do not imagine that there are no rights holders willing to remove parts of the film to make an extra buck, and we know there are people willing to spend said buck.

the problem is not so much that an individual might purchase a DVD and then alter it at home. In this case, private companies/third parties were making these changes - in what can only be considered an arbitrary way - and then selling their version. This is clearly copyright infringement.
Also I'd like to point out that the services provided by the "cleaning" companies are very, very dangerous. In Western Europe during the Nazi regime, foreign movies, which were routinely dubbed, saw dialouges drastically changed to support nazi principles. We do not want that to happen here.

As as a fellow parent - I hear you on the inappropriate language for kids thing - but there's so much out there. The other great movies will simply have to wait until children are ready to see them in their original/director sanctioned version.

Title 17 (106A) of the US Code provides, in relevant part, that "the author of a work of visual art shall have the right to to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create."

Since third party companies are offering for sale modified versions of artists' creation under those same artists' names, this would appear to be a pretty straightforward violation of the Code.

If I were a screenwriter and I found out that some religious content of my movie were changed then resold as though it reflected my opinions, I would be more than just a little upset.

Maybe I should be allowed to go into your post and make it appear as though you said something totally in agreement with my opinions and beliefs (opposite of mine), would that appear fair to you?

The issue here, unfortunately, is not preserving
art...it's a matter of removing unwanted dirt!

If it is protected making a copy of it would be wrong

...and there lies the problem. ;)

You don't 'own' the movie when you buy it. You buy the right to view it in the format you purchased. That is it. Copyright is still held by the studio.

Movies are protected. These guys made copies. For profit.

Uhhh....

I don't think you have to be a genious to figure out why *that* didn't go down well.

One of the fallacies of the "I bought the tape/dvd" argument is that while you do possess a copy in your hot little hand, you have, in fact, merely purchased the right to privately view said tape... NOT ownership in the "I bought a car' sense. Read the fine print on the box... it's like software - technically you don't actually own it, you license it. Thus no right to alter and resell exists.

Many artists use dirt as their medium.

;P

....just sayin.

While it seems we are ultimately on the same side of the argument, Tool missed the day they taught property in law school.

The distinction between ownership and license to use is not accurate as Tool has stated it. An individual does in fact own a copy of a copyrighted work, e.g., one may own a copy of a book, artist's print, or dvd movie. As with all personal property, part of the "bundle of rights" one acquires with his ownership of such property is to use and enjoy it, alter its form, alienate (sell), gift it, limit others from its use, etc. This means one may edit the dvd for consumption by his children in his privtae home. This does not mean the Utah Movie-Doctor may edit the movie without disclosure or consent from the work's creator and sell it for profit.

Back to the bundle of rights, of course substantial limits are imposed with respect to copyrighted material, one may not sell altered versions for profit while not disclosing that it is adulterated from its original form. But one does own such a copy and may alter its form for his private use.

And, Tool, it is spelled "genius" apparently it does take one...

Wrong.

You are granted a license to view. Not to alter or distribute.

Again, the movie is not your property. Neither is the 'copy', as you put it. You are simply purchasing a license to view it in that format.

I replied previously to another post of yours above saying pretty much exactly the same thing. Perhaps you missed that?

As for genius / genious. Look it up. Alternate spelling. Perfectly viable depending on your region. So yes, it does.

Purchasing a book or dvd vests true personal property rights in the material and is not a mere license to use. Keep in mind all the implications of licensure that do not apply to this context, e.g., revocability. While your ultimate conclusion is true, one may not alter and resell, your analysis and position is inaccurate, Bear.

See post above.

Tool, think about this like a book. You may open the book and read it to yourself silently. You may open the book and read it outloud to your child, leaving out certain words or ideas. You may highlight the words in the book and otherwise bend the pages. You may cross out the words and replace them with your own voacabulay. You may burn the book in your fireplace. In other words, you may use and enjoy it and alter its form. I am not advocating the position that this book may be resold or distributed and then read outloud, as adapted, during your community picnic. But what you do with the material in your home is private - you may alter it!

Cite your position on genius please.

Licenses to use are freely revocable by the licensor at his will. Are you saying that MGM may come into a private home a revoke the license? Or, stay with me, do I own my individual copy of the movie not subject to MGM's revocation or property interest beyond my purchase for personal use and enjoyment?

You are not allowed to alter and distribute without permission from the copyright holder.

Really, how hard is that to understand?

Yes.

We agree.

IN YOUR HOME.

Once altered, however, you are not allowed to distribute it.

These guys made copies. For Profit.

Cite your position on genius please

I did. If you want backup, do as I said, and Google it. I've better things to do than school others on grammer and spelin. (Unless I'm *really* bored)

Licence granted upon purchase only goes so far....

From US copyright statutes:

Section 101: Definitions

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

[...]

Section 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

[...]

Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

As stated above, editing counts as derivative, and is *not* allowed without a license, as it is an 'exclusive' right of the copyright owner.

Fair use covers a very specific set of uses, you will notice that 'personal use' is not one of them.

And yes, I know these statutes are not the be-all and end-all of US copyright laws.

Tool, maybe stick with hacking computers, or whatever it is you do. Google is not a citation method, and "genious" is not the proper spelling irrespective of the region you come from. Suggest consulting proper reference, e.g., the dictionary.

And as I wrote earlier, we ultimately agree, but your analysis was incorrect as to the licensure point.

Well, I understood that last night when I posted that same notion in a strikingly familiar phrase.

You, however, are labeling this as a license to use, which it is not.

Concede you tool.

Section 107 is not an exaustive list of allowed fair uses, just a few examples of the many ways a person could make personal use of the stuff they have bought.

"fair use ... including such use by ... or by any other means ... for purposes such as ..."

The law depends on the courts having common sense and does not expect Judges to be insane or corrupt.

People own what they buy and they can do with it as they please.

---

But the funny part is the ad at the bottom of this page. "PCShowBuzz SUPER BONUS #1: Get Premium National / International Channels Free"
I'll bet they can do this for weeks before they get shut down.

...EXCEPT make copies and distribute.

Someone said earlier, and I agree, that the problem wasn't so much the alteration as the fact that they bought ONE copy of the movie, and then created a second and sold BOTH.

Pretend for a second that I bought a DVD of a popular movie, made a copy, and sold both of them together-- without altering it. That would also be illegal; no one paid the movie companies for that second copy.