I kinda have to side with Hollywood on this one... (1 Viewer)

[Chris Farmer]

And when I used to watch some of dad's action movies with him there fast-forwarding through the sex scenes, he didn't ahve the approval of the director either.

CleanFlix is wrong, what they're doing is piracy. ClearPlay however has the law on their side. In addition, what's being ignored here in the discussion of David is the preservation of hte original art. I wouldn't, but when someone uses ClearPlay, the original movie is there, untouched. All that is changed is the presentation, but movie itself is unchaged. Moreso, someone else using ClearPlay has no effect on my copy of the movie. With David, there's one. Knock off his wanker and you've destroyed the original. Use ClearPlay, and your copy remains unchanged, as does the original source material. A more accuract analogy would be to take a replica of David and stick a pair of plants on it or something along those lines. Again, the original art is unaffected, if someone wants to screw up their own personal copy, that's their choice. The duplicate nature of movies makes them very different from a single piece of sculpture.

Maybe as software like this gets more sophisticated we'll stop seeing R-rated and unrated versions of movies, as DVD level support can just let you select which cut when you put the movie in.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Your Dad also was not making a business out of it either

While ClearPlay will probably succeed in court, it is still wrong

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

And when I used to watch some of dad's action movies with him there fast-forwarding through the sex scenes, he didn't ahve the approval of the director either.

But in that case, he's choosing what to watch and what to skip. ClearPlay takes the choice away.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

But in that case, he's choosing what to watch and what to skip. ClearPlay takes the choice away.

As the customer is choosing to use it in the first place, I don't see how. If they want to do it manually, they still can.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Companies like Clean Flicks may be run by Mormons, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not become involved in such practices. I refer you to Church President Gordon B. Hinckley's interview with Larry King on 9/8/98:

Larry King: Let's take some calls for President Hinckley. We start with Houston, Texas. Hello.

CALLER: Yes. A recent news story said that videos of the movie "Titanic" being sold in Utah were having certain parts edited or censored. What parts are they or why? And do you or the Mormon church believe in the censorship of books or films?

Gordon B. Hinckley: No, we don't censor books or films as a practice, no. This thing that's taking place has nothing whatever to do with the church, not a thing.

Larry King: Do you know what they're taking out?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. I read just a newspaper story on it. That's all I know about it.

Larry King: What was taken out?

Gordon B. Hinckley: They excised the portion in the film where there was nudity and things -- something of that kind.

Larry King: But that's not a church thing.

Gordon B. Hinckley: No. It has nothing whatever to do with the church, I should say not.

Now, does the church teach principles of morality concerning sex, violence and language? Certainly. However, a key principle in church doctrine is a person's right to make their own decisions.

One has to understand that in LDS culture the idea of watching an R-rated film has become taboo, and the perception by other Mormons is that one who does so is evil in some way. I deal with this mentality constantly here at BYU, yet I can vouch for the fact that R-rated films - such a Taxi Driver and The Godfather - are shown unedited in film classes.

So, what we have here is zealousness among certain church members that prey upon the sensabilities of other church members who would feel guilty watching an "unclean" version of a film. Or, in other words, watching an unedited version could put them in an awkward social situation when amongst their Mormon friends - and Clean Flicks has simply found a way to profit thereby.

I personally hope Clean Flicks goes down in flames.

 

[Bill Griffith]

I don't agree with the what Clean/Clear Flicks is doing. But not for the reasons Hollywood is going after them.

I don't like things that take the responsibility away from the parent (I believe a childs behavior is determined by the parent). I also don't like other people deciding on what My child should or shouldn't watch (Thats up to me the parent to decide).

 

[Jeff Kohn]

I don't like things that take the responsibility away from the parent (I believe a childs behavior is determined by the parent). I also don't like other people deciding on what My child should or shouldn't watch (Thats up to me the parent to decide).

CleanPlay is not taking away your ability to decide what your kids can watch. You can choose to let them watch the original, the edited version, or neither. CleanPlay doesn't limit your choices, it just gives you another option.

And I want to reiterate that whether you like the idea of edited movies or not is entirely beside the point. This is a legal issue about how much control the MPAA should have over how you watch their product in your own home. It's a fair use issue that could set a dangerous precedent. To say that you think CleanPlay should be illegal just because you find what they're doing distasteful or don't think it will affect you is shortsighted at best.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

CleanPlay is not taking away your ability to decide what your kids can watch. You can choose to let them watch the original, the edited version, or neither.

Have you seen some of the filtering jobs they've done? See, here's the problem. Basically what they make it violence with out consequences. I'll use an example from Movie mask. They somehow Masked over the guy holding a knife to the kid's throat in the Patriot, so he's weaving back and forth like he's possessed clutching a now-invisible knife. Mel Gibson makes a throwing motion (edited tomahawk) and he's free

Where's the protection? It now doesn't make sense whatsoever, but now only invisible people die!

It's not protecting children, they all know the F word by age 6 no matter what you do, and presenting them with consequence-less violence and invisible people is not going to help anything

 

[Jonathan L]

I don't really see what the huge bruhaha is...the device does not modify the original work, and the original work is preserved. The device can be turned on and off, so you have complete control over it. Finally, you don't have to buy it in the first place, so you'll never be subjected to the hatchet jobs it does.

On the other hand, I don't agree that the device is even necessary. I'm of the opinion that if a particular movie has stuff you don't want to see, or you don't want your kids to see, then don't have the movie available. After all, how entertaining is the TV edit of Die Hard? How entertaining would a TV edit of Pulp Fiction be?

If people want automated censorship for their kids, that's fine, as long as the original content remains unmodified. I approve of ClearPlay much more so than "family-friendly" versions of movies at Blockbuster.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

Jeff (Kleist),

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the merit of these edited versions (and no, I haven't seen one). But the second paragraph of my post (which you didn't quote) is the real issue here. If you insist on simply debating artistic integrity and ignore the legal issue you're missing the point and letting Hollywood pull a fast one on you.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I know the legal issue, and why ClearPlay will probably survive. CleanFlicks will be squashed like a bug for piracy.

What ClearPlay WILL probably be required to do is to also Alan Smithee basically every single credit in the film and put a giant disclaimer beforehand.

 

[Dave Barth]

But when it's a choice between censorship and no censorship, I'm going to stick with no censorship everytime.

Me too, but in general, the best idea is to allow everyone to make such individual choices in the first place...

 

[Brennan Hill]

I'm against anyone telling me I can't do something that is of no harm to anyone, even if I don't want to do it.

 

[Brandon Conway]

What ClearPlay WILL probably be required to do is to also Alan Smithee basically every single credit in the film and put a giant disclaimer beforehand.

Galoob doesn't have to alter any credits on a video game when a Game Genie is used....

 

[Bill Griffith]

To say that you think CleanPlay should be illegal just because you find what they're doing distasteful or don't think it will affect you is shortsighted at best.

Whats short sighted is a parent no longer being a parent because they keep allowing complete strangers to make decisions for them.

Sorry way off topic so I'll stop right here.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Galoob doesn't have to alter any credits on a video game when a Game Genie is used....

The video game industry creators also did not sue to have their names taken off of the work, and Game Genie does NOT have the capability to do that, while ClearPlay most certainly does

 

[Chris Will]

I side with Hollywood. If I was a director and made a movie with nude women walking, wait... running , around every 10 seconds and they use the f word every 15 seconds I would be furious if these sites edited that stuff out so dumb a%% parents can show it to there 7 year old kid. I didn't make it for those little brats and if you don't like the content then don't buy, rent or go see it. But don't alter my movie, if I want a different version made I'll make it. Just because you pay 20 bucs for a DVD dosen't mean you now own the rights to that film. Read the FBI warnings on your DVDs or VHS, that's not a joke. Hollywood has every right to go after these guys unless they are doing it with the director approval, which they are not. DVD and VHS have become so common placed in our society that you forget that just because a movie is made dosen't mean that they are obligate to eventually release it on a home video format. If people continue to abuse the home video privilege that Hollywood gives us they could stop releasing your favorite films all together. I know if I was a director and there were tons of website editing there own versions of movies I would just not release mine on video. It would have been seen in theaters and before the 1980's once a movie left theaters that was it unless a theater showed it again. What do I care, I already got paid. If we continue down this road what's to stop theater owners from cutting frames of R rated films out to please there audiences. I'm sure none of you would approve of that so why do you approve of it when it hits the home video market. Remember, no matter how many times you buy Star Wars you will never own the film. All you cry babies go f-off. If you don't like the content THEN DON'T WATCH IT!!!!! If it is not appropriate for you kids eyes THEN DON'T SHOW IT TO THEM!!!! They'll grow up on day and maybe you will too!

That's all I have to say about that.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

This is a legal issue about how much control the MPAA should have over how you watch their product in your own home. It's a fair use issue that could set a dangerous precedent.

It's not controlling how you watch their product at all... you can still fast forward, chapter skip, and all the currently accepted modes of accessing the content. It's simply controlling what you do to the work.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

It's not controlling how you watch their product at all... you can still fast forward, chapter skip, and all the currently accepted modes of accessing the content. It's simply controlling what you do to the work. [/QUOTClearplay doesn't do anything to the work. It's still there in its unchanged form. It's just skipping for you.

 

[Brad Cook]

"If people continue to abuse the home video privilege that Hollywood gives us they could stop releasing your favorite films all together. I know if I was a director and there were tons of website editing there own versions of movies I would just not release mine on video. It would have been seen in theaters and before the 1980's once a movie left theaters that was it unless a theater showed it again. What do I care, I already got paid. If we continue down this road what's to stop theater owners from cutting frames of R rated films out to please there audiences."

Fair use isn't abusing home video privileges. Also, this has nothing to do with web sites editing movies. And theater owners who have edited movies (that happened at least once that I know of, with Titanic) have gotten in trouble for it, because they don't have the right to do that.

The reality is that, once you buy something, you have the right to do what you want with it in your own home. Look at digital music: I can now take an album, rip it into my computer, re-order the songs, and burn that onto a CD. I've just changed something that the artist likely put some thought into.

For example, The Beatles put the songs on Sgt. Pepper's in a certain order. If I re-arrange them, I'm altering their original intention. And albums like Tommy and Quadrophenia have narratives that are carried by the music--if you mix up the songs on those albums, it's like re-ordering the scenes in a movie. But, under fair use, I have the right to do that.

If I could rip a movie onto my computer and re-order the scenes, what difference would it make? What if I could them burn that new version of the film to a DVD and I chose to watch it instead of the original version? How much different is that from using Clear Play?

As I mentioned before, I have no interest in using Clear Play. My 11-year-old stepson will only watch movies when he's old enough to watch them. He won't watch an edited version now and the full version later. It's all or nothing. But if another parent chooses to use Clear Play, it doesn't make a difference in my life. It's a fair use issue.

And if we impede on fair use, then what? It makes me wonder if the case against Clear Play is one that will give the studios the ability to go down the road that the music industry is going down now. What will happen if they win the case against Clear Play and then use that victory to justify modifying DVDs so that they won't play on computers, or even on older DVD players? Already we've seen problems in the music industry where certain albums won't work in computers and often don't work in older CD players.

- Brad