Cleaned up versions on tape & DVD.. Is this legal? (1 Viewer)

[Douglas Kalon]

I know that this may old news to some, but a local news channel had on a report about a service that will take either tape or DVD movies that you send in and make a copy on either tape or DVD that removes swear words, sex and violence.
One site says that they return the original DVD to you, but it is now unplayable.
I can kind of understand why some people might want this, but I am not one of them. If you want a censored version of a movie then just wait till it's on regular TV and record it, otherwise isn't this against the law. I am sure that neither the director or studio has given these companies permission to do this. And these companies are getting paid for this service. So in my mind they are nothing more than video pirates.
I can't understand why the studios hasn't done anything about these companies.
The two sites I found on the net are as follows.
http://www.cleanflicks.com/
http://www.ok.com/
This post is in no way advocating this service or any form of video piracy. If the Forum Administrator wishes to he can delete this post.
I just wanted to discuss this and see if this is legal or not and what other members thought about this service.

 

[Greg_Y]

Douglas,

This has actually been discussed in a few threads over the last year or so. The conversation usually spirals into charges of censorship, etc. etc. The discussion gets more and more heated. Then the thread gets closed.

Most HTF members are against this type of service.

 

[Patrick McCart]

It is illegal.

The company is selling tapes of movies which are not theirs with unauthorized changes. I doubt they send any money back to the original studio.

And censorship programs like Movie Mask turn swords into lightsabres...which results in a totally different mood. In fact, I've heard that the DGA is threatening to sue MovieMask over some of the changes they do to films. Clipping stuff from The Usual Suspects is one thing (no better, however), but the whole lightsabres deal for TPB is equal to offering a version of Huckleberry Finn in digital book form with all the "racist" vocalbuary taken out and promoting it as the "better" version.

Check out the 2nd line in my signature.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Gee, I think by offering DVD copies of these movies, they violate the DCMA. What a shame!

Get 'em boys!

 

[Daniel J]

I can't understand why people on this board are so rabid when it comes to edited versions of popular films. If someone wants to see an edited version of a movie, who are you to judge their taste? You can watch your version of Die Hard, I'll watch mine
Now, if the director is so vehemently opposed to the alteration of their work, then they should be respected. But I don't think many filmmakers are really uptight enough about their work that they would sue over the private alteration of 5% of the dialog in their film.
You have to remember that this isn't censorship, or preventing the expression of someone's ideas; that would violate constitutional freedoms. But where does it say that I cannot use white-out on my copy of Black Hawk Down, if I so choose? Who says I can't buy a lithograph of the Mona Lisa and give her a mustache? Why isn't this freedom of expression protected? Why are studios allowed to edit movies for airlines and prime time television, but not to sell them to a public who wants them? Remember that this is a service that people are asking for, not a scheme to make money at the expense of filmmakers. I don't believe that any of these organisations would try to sell you an edited copy, they are taking a copy that you already own and changing it for you.
It's a service performed with goods privately owned, without damage to the revenues or reputations of anyone. If anything, this service allows people to see more of the great films out there that they would not consider otherwise.
I have a feeling that this thread is doomed to suffer the fate of all others on the subject, but it would be nice if we could have a real discussion of this issue from all four sides; perhaps a guest discussion feature, or a special interview sometimes down the road?

 

[Todd H]

You can watch your version of Die Hard, I'll watch mine

I'd rather watch the director's version thanks. :rolleyes

 

[Ken Chan]

they are taking a copy that you already own and changing it for you. It's a service performed with goods privately owned, without damage to the revenues or reputations of anyone.

Revenues probably, but reputations, I dunno. I pity the friend that comes over to see a movie and gets the edited version. "I thought the lightsabers were out of place for a historical medieval film."

It also seems cheesy to have a service that systematically alters other people's art. It's one thing for the studio or filmmaker to make their own changes. And I frankly don't care if you personally watch the film standing on your head in the bathtub. But having a middle man....

//Ken

 

[Michael Ballack]

There's an article on videobusiness's website discussing this very issue. The studios are looking into the matter and considering there legal rights to sue these "editing to make it better" companies.
Personally I hope the studios sue there pants off and win. Although I think the studios have been complete A-holes over this HDTV issue, this is something I can't stand. Once again, if you want your kids to watch something for the whole family take out a disney film. Editing the Matrix for the whole family doesn't make the subject matter any more appropiate for children. If you still think that even Disney films are to harsh for kids, then... I'm sorry. You can't keep your kid sheltered forever.
Below is the website for the article. One of the companies the studios are looking to sue is Clean Flicks.
http://www.videobusiness.com/article...2&catType=NEWSediting to make it better

 

[Julian Lalor]

I don't believe that any of these organisations would try to sell you an edited copy, they are taking a copy that you already own and changing it for you.

You can do what you like to the movie yourself. Getting a third party to amend the film is illegal. They are doing this without authorisation of the copyright owner (ie the Studio) and for financial gain. The Studios are entirely within their rights to prevent this sort of alteration to their works and should enforce those rights. This has nothing to do with censorship but about protection of rights. It's very easy to take a laissez-faire attitude to something you are not personally involved with.

 

[MattHR]

You can do what you like to the movie yourself. Getting a third party to amend the film is illegal. They are doing this without authorisation of the copyright owner (ie the Studio) and for financial gain. The Studios are entirely within their rights to prevent this sort of alteration to their works and should enforce those rights. This has nothing to do with censorship but about protection of rights. It's very easy to take a laissez-faire attitude to something you are not personally involved with.

I agree 100%. I can't believe this issue keeps popping up.
I remember when it was "Titanic" that was causing the problem before. Some conservative consumers felt they were entitled to view the movie in a "clean" version. If you can't handle the film/book/tv show/song in its original, intended version, don't buy it! It's that simple!
There are plenty of other options out there.

I can see it now: someone will start a service that alters a movie to depict more violence, language or nudity. "Gee, I would love to own "Crossroads", but there wasn't any nudity. Can you make me a version that fits my needs?"

Idiots.

 

[Thomas Newton]

For a moment, let's ignore the unConstitutionally-broad anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA (which could pose problems for editing just about any prerecorded video).

The problem is not that it is illegal to make an edited copy of a (non-copy-protected) film. If you own an original copy, First Sale and Fair Use provisions should preserve your right to edit the film for your personal use (or classroom use, etc.).

It's that a commercial business is subject to much more restrictive standards of Fair Use. Unauthorized non-commercial use is presumed Fair. Unauthorized commercial use is presumed infringing. This is the distinction that cost MP3.com over $150 million when it decided to stream MP3 versions of popular songs to people who owned, or had just bought, the CDs.

A shop that sells the service of making an edited/censored version of your original video could find itself in legal trouble in several ways:

1. DMCA anti-circumvention.

2. Unauthorized commercial use "presumed infringing".

3. Trademark suits (if the lawyers get creative -- "you're diluting the value of the title of the film by putting out unmarked censored copies").

Now, on the other hand, if a shop sells you a list of all of the spots in a film that "need" to be censored, and the list is in machine-readable form, and your enhanced player ("home theater PC") can apply that list directly, there is probably nothing the studios can do about it.

 

[Damin J Toell]

It may be legal to make an edit of a movie yourself for private use, although it's not necessarily legal, as the AHRA only allows noncommercial personal use of digital and analog musical recording devices; no such right is explicitly recognized yet for movies as far as I know. The 9th Circuit's recognition of a fair use right to "space shift" (which has only applied to music as of yet) may be able to extend to videos, but even so, it would still only apply to those states within the 9th Circuit. Anyhow, it is almost certainly not legal for a 3rd party that you hire to edit a film on video for you if such editing requires the making of a copy, even if you own an original (i.e., a legally-purchased copy) of said film on video. If the editing can be done without actual copying, however (say, editing directly onto the original legally-purchased VHS cassette), the First Sale Doctrine would apply, and such editing would be allowable. This would be like, for instance, taking a Sharpie and blacking out text in a book and then re-selling that book. It might be a lame thing to do, but it wouldn't violate copyright law; same thing with editing a video directly without copying.

DJ

 

[David Von Pein]

One site says that they return the original DVD to you, but it is now unplayable.
---------------------
That's silly; do they use it for skeet shooting afterwards?

HTF is funnier than I LOVE LUCY!
Lucy & Desi in the 21st century: "Luuuuucccccyyy! I'm home from the Club! I brought home the new LOTR DVD! I hope it dunt have no edge enhancement!"

 

[Daniel J]

There are plenty of other options out there.

That's true, to a certain extent, but it would be better if people had more options, rather than less. Do you disagree?

 

[Damin J Toell]

Again, this amounts to nothing more than malice (and studios looking for more ways to get money from people). These people have done nothing that hurts the studios or the filmmaker (except possibly hurting the poor little filmmaker's feewings; poow widdow fiwmmakow).

Does such a serious discussion have to literally disintegrate into baby talk? Does any company offer an anti-baby talk editor for HTF so that I only see mature posts?

DJ

 

[MattHR]

It all comes down to my right to view the dvd I bought the way I want to, VS the studio's right to control that viewing. Some of us choose to watch open-mat AR'd films with custom mattes of our own in place; how is that any different? What if I want to turn down the sound and annoy my guests with a personal running commentary/alternate dialog? Isn't that my right? I think that someone who doesn't have the facility to make a good modification of the movies that they own should be allowed to pay someone else to make those modifications for them; so long as they aren't pirating the film or slandering the filmmaker. You may think differently, but that's your choice.

You are correct. I do agree that you have the right to view the film as you prefer: loud, B&W, upside down, etc.
But I do not believe that a third party has any right to alter a film for profit. Without claim to creative control and copyright ownership, they have no business whatsoever profiting from the alteration of copyrighted works.
Some, as you've expressed, view film as simply entertainment. Others respect them as works of art (yes, even the "Ernest" movies ) that deserve protection and the recognition of copyright.
I do not believe the studios are being "greedy" in wanting to protect their copyrights. If these copyrights are ignored, why would anyone want to spend the collective millions producing art that is easily altered or bootlegged
so someone else can profit?

 

[MattHR]

Again, this amounts to nothing more than malice (and studios looking for more ways to get money from people). These people have done nothing that hurts the studios or the filmmaker (except possibly hurting the poor little filmmaker's feewings; poow widdow fiwmmakow).

Malice? For protecting their copyright? I don't think so.
If you owned the film, you'd be doing the same thing.
It has nothing to do with hurt feelings. I can't believe where this discussion is heading.

 

[MattHR]

Does such a serious discussion have to literally disintegrate into baby talk? Does any company offer an anti-baby talk editor for HTF so that I only see mature posts?

Damin:
I'm sure one of the companies that are doing the dvd editing discussed here could similarly edit or alter the offensive "baby-talk" postings on this forum for you. Oh wait, you might want to check with Ron first. This may constitute an infringement on the copyright of this website!

 

[Julian Lalor]

If you like hearing these words, then it is your right; some of us wish we had an option not to when people are trying to entertain us.

That's what ratings are for. All new films released to DVD which are rated inform you of the reason for the rating. Read the warnings and put the DVD back on the shelf if you think you're going to be offended or don't show it to the kids. Chances are, if it's full of expletives it's going to be full of other stuff not meant for children or sensitive minds. You are certainly entitled to watch a movie. Why you think your entitlements extend to butchering it to suit your own interests when the copyright owner has decided not to provide you with an alternative version is what I find difficult to accept. There are enough movies out there to cater for all tastes and mindsets without having to resort to editing the ones that don't fit yours.

 

[Thomas Newton]

P.S. - I believe the DVD-Video specification provides a standard "parental lock" for censoring movie playback, according to a user-chosen, password-protected setting. Presumably this would work in conjunction with seamless branching. The uncensored movie stays available for the members of the family who are allowed to watch it.

Whether studios make much use of this is another matter.