Copyright ruling/CleanFlicks, etc

Spot|DSE wrote on 7/13/2006, 10:00 AM
The ruling regarding the CleanFlicks case has now been posted. It's an exceptionally interesting read, for a number of reasons.
One area that I was unaware of, is that the DGA has not yet filed a claim that the businesses editing their films were in violation of the DMCA. The judgement specifically addresses that they may still make such a claim.
Either way, the reasons for the ruling, and the recitations make for interesting discussion if you're into knowing more. The Campbell vs Acuff /Rose case is cited a couple times, as is Bill Graham
Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd, both fairly important precedents to what kind of works in which many of us are involved.

Read the entire ruling if you're interested. PDF, 16 pages.
In short, it all boils down to the previous discussion:
Derivative works
Violation of the studio's exclusive right to copy/license copies

Perhaps the most salient point in the ruling is this statement:
"Judge Posner wrote that a teacher does not have the right to publish the criticized tests indiscriminately “any more than a person who dislikes Michelangelo’s statue of David has a right to take a sledgehammer to it.” Id. at 630. Or, as may be more aptly said in this case, to put a fig leaf on it to make it more acceptable for viewing by parents with young children. The accused parties make much of their public policy argument and have submitted many
communications from viewers expressing their appreciation for the opportunity to view movies in the setting of the family home without concern for any harmful effects on their children. This argument is inconsequential to copyright law and is addressed in the wrong forum. This Court is not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works. What is protected are the creator’s

Comments

Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/13/2006, 10:08 AM

What is protected are the creator’s rights to protect its creation in the form in which it was created.

Read an interesting Letter to the Editor in this regard from Barry Short in Cedar City. He said, in part, "... The simple fact is that creators have an internationally recognized right to have their work seen only in a form to which they have agreed.
"Is it OK to edit out sex and language? Try the opposite. Would it be OK to edit some nudity and profanity into "Mobsters and Mormons" or "Church Ball"?
"There's your answer."

One can't help but agree with that logic!


corug7 wrote on 7/13/2006, 10:08 AM
AMEN
TheHappyFriar wrote on 7/13/2006, 10:51 AM
I could of heard a big "DUH!" about this years ago. :D

CleanFlicks could do something totally different though that would have the same effect. Most studios already have edited copies for TV statio broadcast, those could be sold. Or (this is kind of a neat idea), have a "family safe" option on the DVD's that plays the same movie but the chapters are different. Instead of editing scenes more chapters are added & when you play the "family safe" version it skips over chapters. Last I recall that's timeshifting which is legal.

those two options seem valid to me & are already done.


Or... just don't let kids watch movies you don't want them to see! :D
randy-stewart wrote on 7/13/2006, 11:56 AM
Would another possibility be for CleanFlix to contract with the studios to buy the rights to sell and rent edited versions of the media? Seems there is a market for it. Might be lucrative.
Randy
Logan5 wrote on 7/13/2006, 12:04 PM
I like the idea that TheHappyFriar had; of added family scenes DVD it would serve the family market.

Either adding or subtracting from copyrighted content creates a legal problem, as we all agree.

But to use “adding” content as an example is hilarious to me.

I could hear it now: “hey do you have the version of E.T. that has all the nudity added in.”
There would seem to be no market for that.

To add nudity and profanity into “Mobsters and Mormons” Still again I would not want to see the movie with nudity or even with out.

Of course the content creators will have a legal issue, but my point is that no “DirtyFlix” added content market is out there.

The consideration this ruling has got in contrast to what mass bootlegs China creates is interesting.
fwtep wrote on 7/13/2006, 1:23 PM
The question/problem I have with what HappyFriar and Logan5 suggest is this:

Should there be a family version of, say, "Saw" or "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"? There will always be a point where the studios wouldn't want to bother going to the expense of preparing a "clean" version (by whatever method), so there will always be people complaining that there's no version they can show to their kids.

And what about the *types* of things that different parents find objectionable. For example, I'd MUCH rather have my kid see nudity (not hardcore porn, of course) than violence. And the movies I see, mainstream, don't tend to have any nudity that I'd find objectionable to a kid, whereas there's WAY more violence than I'd like her to see. (I'm assuming these "kids" are at least around 10 years old. A kid younger than that shouldn't be seeing these films whether they're cleaned up or not.) So how many clean versions of each film would people expect?

To me it comes down to: If it's in the film and you don't want your kid to see it, don't let them see it. If it's in there, it wasn't MADE for kids. Too bad for them. There are far worse things they're going to experience than having to wait a couple of years to see a movie.

As for adults who want to see clean versions but can't get them, too bad; we ALL want things. I want a 500% raise, a house, and a 20x increase in processor speed. My new motto is: Life's a bitch; don't be one.
cheroxy wrote on 7/13/2006, 2:09 PM
Kencalhoun - Why do parents who want to let their child watch titanic without the long bare chested scene equate to “self-righteous aholes?” That seems like a pretty big logical jump you are making there.

Yes they could sit there and skip it, but why not just get the movie that has it already skipped if you are going to skip it anyway. Is it illegal for me to push fast forward on the remote and not watch the movie as the creator intended?

For everyone on either side of the discussion. Don't you think they would have tried selling the “made for tv” option if it were available to them by the studios instead of paying so much money for years of legal fees?

There is a legal option for this anyway. There is a dvd player that will skip elected objectionable content called a clearplay dvd player. It is not being challenged anymore because it is viewed as an electronic device such as a remove that skips what you want to. You download a file to the player that has all the info on a specific dvd. You then choose which options you want to skip or have muted...and bam! Cleanly edited, unobjectionable entertainment.

Also, don't make the logical fallacy that this is solely intended for children and Mormon children at that. The clearplay dvd player is selling all over the country (no I don't have any financially vested interest in the company). I bought it both for my children and for my self, a 30 year old adult.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/13/2006, 2:42 PM

... glad that some self-righteous aholes don't have the right to censor other people's original artistic works to fit their own narrow judgement values of what's right and wrong.

Ken, language and statements like that don't give a whole lot of creedence to your point of view, either.

There was a time in this country, before the vast majority was dumbed down, that the vast majority of the people thought that nudity, profanity, graphic violence and the like in movies was unacceptable.

By the way, when was the last time you did a nude scene?


Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/13/2006, 2:52 PM

Ken, just for kicks, do you know which rightwinger, thought police prude said: "Profanity... is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every person of sense and character detests and despises it."?


Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/13/2006, 2:54 PM

Ken, did you read my post above, at the beginning? I'm in agreement with you. It is wrong to illegally edit anyone's work, in any form. I've never suggested otherwise.


farss wrote on 7/13/2006, 3:07 PM
Just a small but so far overlooked point.
The edited versions of movies shown by the airlines are clealry labelled as 'edited' and the agreement to screen them requires the regular display of a super to that effect.

The core issue goes beyond what copyright may or may not protect. It goes to the question of Moral Rights. Unless these edited movies are clearly and regularly marked as being edited and by whom then the perpetrators have violated something way more fundamental than the law, they've breached the creators moral rights.

It seems very odd to me that this debate doesn't get that the core issue is that those claiming to have taken the moral high ground are acting immorally. Even works not protected by law do contain moral rights, i.e. the Bible. If you can grasp the difference between OUR Bible and THE Bible you might start to get an idea of what is at stake.

Bob.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/13/2006, 3:13 PM

If you can grasp the difference between OUR Bible and THE Bible you might start to get an idea of what is at stake.

Since the Bible was never a complete work by any one author, I'm not sure how that analogy fits here. At best, the Bible is nothing more than an anthology.

Please, explain.


Logan5 wrote on 7/13/2006, 3:20 PM
fwtep,

Of course there is a point studios wouldn’t want to bother preparing a clean version of certain movies – “Saw” and others seem obviously not a good candidate for that.

You mentioned the “expense of preparing” – if there is a market to sale to, the “expense” leads to a profit.

And yes as you have pointed there are all types of content parents find objectionable.
You can have just one “clean” version that encompasses the majority of people – like the TV/Airline versions. You never can get 100%
It’s reasonable to think the TV versions would suit most.

To someone tell “too bad…life a bitch; don’t be one” if you can’t get the clean version -
It would seem to me that you do not want the studios to provide any clean/TV versions.

Do you have an issue if the studios put their TV versions on a DVD?
Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/13/2006, 3:35 PM

Fred, first of all, let me say I agree with most of what you say, especially, and I'm paraphrasing, if you don't like movies with _____ (fill in the blank), then don't watch them.

Let me ask you this... Or state this... I'm not sure which would be best... A statement may work better. Anyway...

The other day you announced with pride (and rightfully so) that your film was being broadcast on the SciFi channel. Now, I presume you had a choice as to whether or not that would happen. I also presume you knew, going into it, that the grosser expletives would be blocked, and indeed they were. So the integrity of your work was compromised.

Now the questions...

How did that make you feel?

Why were you willing to make such a compromise?

To what extent, in your opinion, did that form of censorship diminish your work?

Are those fair questions?


fwtep wrote on 7/13/2006, 4:18 PM
Jay, my work HAS no integrity in the first place, so it couldn't be compromised.. :-)

Seriously though I made the film with the Sci-Fi Channel in mind, and even shot a couple of scenes with cleaner language. However, I never ended up making a clean version because of the effort and expense. Even a few hundred dollars would have been too much of an expense (and it probably would have been a lot more than that). And for all of that expense and effort I wouldn't have gotten one single penny more for the film. Not one.

In my deal Sci-Fi was permitted to make changes to clean it up without my final approval. For this film that was fine with me, because I knew what they'd do to it. In fact, I was surprised that a couple of words and one strong euphemism made it through.

So I don't mind what they did. But I *would* mind PETA cutting out the scenes where they shoot at the creature and distributing that version.

Frankly, any kid over the age of 10 is absolutely 100% aware of every "bad" word in the film and has probably used every one of them at least once. So I don't think bleeping the words is really necessary. Sure, kids under 10 might not know the words, but then, they shouldn't be watching the film anyway, clean or not. The story elements are too intense for them (even if they're yawn-inducing to adults).

Now, I can easily imagine other films I could make where I wouldn't allow any changes to be made. It all depends on the film.

It all simply amounts to: If you don't ask permission from the copyright holder, you're breaking the law.

Remember, it goes both ways. This ruling also prevents people from *adding* stuff to films too-- like putting a Barbie sex scene in Toy Story, or putting anti-God or anti-Jesus coments/scenes into The Passion of the Christ, etc. There would be just as big a market for things like that as there would be for "cleaned" films. Should we demand that the studios provide them?

This country has gotten way out of hand with people's sense of entitlement. Sorry, but no one is entitled to a clean version of my film or any other film. If I want to release a clean version or approve someone to make a clean version, great; but that's at my pleasure, not because anyone has any right to it. And no one is entitled to free music or other free illegal downloads.
Coursedesign wrote on 7/13/2006, 4:19 PM
There was a time in this country, ... that the vast majority of the people thought that ... graphic violence and the like in movies was unacceptable.

When was that?
Logan5 wrote on 7/13/2006, 4:36 PM
Does anyone have an issue if the studios put their TV versions on a DVD?
fwtep wrote on 7/13/2006, 4:51 PM
> Does anyone have an issue if the studios put their TV versions on a DVD?

I know I don't. The market is bigger for DVDs that are actually *unclean* though. Witness the huge success of the "unrated" versions of DVDs. How many copies of a cleaned-up version of American Pie would they sell compared to the unrated version? :-)

The question you should be asking is this: Is it acceptable for a studio/copyright owner to NOT release a clean version?
Logan5 wrote on 7/13/2006, 5:09 PM
”The question you should be asking is this: Is it acceptable for a studio/copyright owner to NOT release a clean version?”

It is absolutely acceptable for a studio/rights owner not to release a clean version.

The “unrated” versions do have a big market. I’m part of that market – Most times I pick the unrated over the “R” version.

We would need for the actual “clean” version to be on the shelf to know for sure of the market. Clean versions could be a 10% market or 1% market for sales/rent.
Would a 1, 5, 10% market gain be of interest to the studios?

I would lean toward the unrated as the bigger market as you do.
Cheno wrote on 7/13/2006, 5:30 PM
Man.. I'd hate then to have a Widescreen, Fullscreen and Cleanscreen version to choose from...

cheno
Spot|DSE wrote on 7/13/2006, 6:25 PM
For the record, all one has to do is open up a Billboard magazine every week, and see that the "unrated" versions of movies, and the "Directors Cuts" of movies are not just a little better selling than the theatrical releases, they're whompingly huge by comparison.

The DGA has been pretty clear on the issue of "clean" movies.
1. Cost isn't justified; people that want clean movies don't buy, they rent.
2. Even if they did buy, market share is so insignificant that it's not worth of the effort.
3. As Cheno mentioned, there are already two too many choices. They are quickly phasing out full screen movies, and all movies will shortly be found in only widescreen.

For Cheroxy: ClearPlay was challenged, and would have lost/was losing the battle, until the Family Film Act passed, and even then, there is a precedent-setting case regarding the Lanham Act before the Supreme Court even now. A judgement may rule in favor of the software or against the software. The Registrar of Copyright for the United States Government spoke against Clearplay and similar technology, so while it could not be stopped in time to prevent it from coming to market, it may well be that it won't be around in the future.
Personally, I'm in favor of Clearplay for a select group of films. Hearing the argument that "Saving Private Ryan" and "BraveHeart" and "Passion of the Christ" could be edited for "family" viewing left my jaw on the ground. "Titanic" is a poor example, simply because it *does* contain a single scene that is offensive to most, but Cameron commented on it, saying that the nude scene was a very important turning point because of its relationship to the painting, to the total trust that Kate Winslet placed in Leonardo DiCaprio, etc. He felt the movie was an adult concept, and not in any way targeted for children to see.
On the other hand of it, I'm simply stunned when I travel outside the US with some of it's wildly Puritanical viewpoints. Most countries have a significantly lower murder and rape ratio than the US, and in most countries, it's very common to see advertisements with topless women, late night adult content on public television, etc. And in those same countries, blood, gore, violence is not tolerated, and is not even artfully edited out. It just disappears, leaving hard cuts in the movie. One time in Sweden, I was watching one of the "Rambo" movies, and was about knocked over when the first cut came in.
Odd that a country like Sweden can have a significantly lower violent crime rate and tremendously lower sex-related crime rate, but children frequently see nudism on the beach, television, magazines...but they're not at all exposed to violence on the telly.

Maybe some day, someone can intelligently explain that to me.
fwtep wrote on 7/13/2006, 6:58 PM
Spot beat me to it. We have the rated versions as the control subject to stand in as the clean version. If the rated version doesn't sell even remotely as well as the unrated version, how worthwhile do you think the market is for an even cleaner version?

By the way, the reason that some of these films are "unrated" even though there's nothing more objectionable in them is simply that it costs a lot of money to get a rating-- prices start in the thousands of dollars. So studios have realized that there's no need to pay that money for the extended cut, especially since the word "Unrated" has a certain implication that helps sales. In fact, the "clean" versions that CleanFlix sold were "unrated."

As for Spot's question about sex vs. violence, and why one is acceptable here in the US but not the other, I'd like that explained too. I can't comprehend why this country finds it objectionable to show a mans hand on a woman's breast unless it's cutting off the breast.
fldave wrote on 7/13/2006, 7:23 PM
"US with some of it's wildly Puritanical viewpoints"

I agree. Most of us in the US are raised to be ashamed of the human body. Sad. I think the European and some other culture's views are much more wholesome. We should be proud of how God made us.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/13/2006, 8:17 PM

Patrick, et al, cold-blooded murder, the wanton taking of life without proper authority is reprehensible and immoral. There is no social value in glorifying it. Most everyone here will agree with that. The act of illicit sex, can lead to the making of life without proper authority, is immoral. There is no social value in glorifying it. Many, if not most, here will disagree with that. Be that as it may.

It's not unlike giving a child a loaded gun to play with. There is the potential there for a life to be taken accidentally. When two people, an unmarried man and woman, have sexual intertcourse there is the potential there for a life to be created accidentally.

That's the answer, now as to whether or not anyone will accept it is another story.

In a report given in 1966, Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, in referring to the decline in moral standards, said, "Most radical social changes come slowly. But not this time. It is almost as if the demonic powers in sex-and make no mistake, sex has its demonic side-had been released in a sudden explosion that has blasted away the restraints and traditions of centuries. The spark that has set off this explosion is a twisted concept of freedom, a `new freedom' that too often leaves its adherents in chains." And then Dr. Peale gives a Newsweek report which states: "Undoubtedly the key to the new morality is the widespread belief that a boy and girl who have established what the college calls a meaningful relationship have the moral right to sleep together."

Who is hurt?

The young people want to know what difference it makes if no one is getting hurt, but Dr. Peale says, "This sounds fine in theory, but multiply this attitude by millions of eager experiments and what do you get? You get such statistics as these: `Between the years 1940 and 1957 the illegitimacy rate increased 112 percent in the 15-19 age group; 300 percent in the 20-24 age group; 462 percent in the 25-29 age group; 478 percent in the 30-34 age group, 456 percent in the 35-39 age group; and 196 percent in the 40-44 age group.

"`Venereal disease among adolescents rose 130 percent between the years 1956 and 1961. The illegitimacy rate has tripled since 1953. By 1970, ten-million Americans will have been born out of wedlock. Forty percent of the unwed mothers are between the ages of 15 and 19.' "No one is getting hurt?" continues Dr. Peale. "What a laugh! What a hollow, tragic, gruesome laugh! And the hurt is not confined to individuals; it damages and degrades our nation throughout the world. From the beginning of recorded history, men have known that the sex drive had to be controlled if civilization was to replace anarchy. Dr. J. D. Unwin, Historian of the Cambridge University, made a study of eighty civilizations ranging over a period of four-thousand years and concluded that a society either chooses sexual promiscuity and decline, or sexual discipline and creative energy. Writes Dr. Unwin: `Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy, or to enjoy sexual freedom, the evidence is that they cannot do both formore than one generation.' "

From the site The Future of Children: "Before the 1996 law was enacted, no federal program expressly sought to promote marriage, but the issues surrounding family formation have gained increasing public attention as the incidence of children living in divorced, never-married, and teen parent households has grown. The proportion of children living with only one parent has more than doubled in the past 30 years, from 12% in 1970 to 27% in 1998. In the 1960s and 1970s, most of the growth in single-parent families was caused by increases in divorce, but in the next two decades nearly all the growth was driven by increases in out-of-wedlock childbearing. Although fewer than 4% of all births were to unmarried women and adolescents in 1940, 33% of all births were outside of marriage by 1999."

And this does not even begin to scratch the tip of the iceburg.

So the question is: Has the decline in moral values hurt our society?

How would you answer?