Studios take action against "family friendly" editing facilities (1 Viewer)

[Jan Strnad]

I think the studios are just pissed that they aren't getting a cut from CleanFlicks. If CleanFlicks offered them a licensing fee for the right to distribute an "airline" cut of the films, the studios wouldn't give a damn. IMHO.

Jan

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

If you're an old member- why are you using a new account? What happened to your old account??



The thing that frustrates me the most about these things is that the main arguement of proponents of this type of editing is that some films are "okay" for family viewing minus one or two items. Now, of course I personally disagree, but I think a different issue is overlooked.

If they need to cut up existing films in order to have "quality" family films- this seems to allude there is not enough quality existing family entertainment. If families were greeted with a good selection of top quality "acceptible" films when they walk into to the video store, it seems that wanting to have 10 scenes removed from Titanic would be a non-issue.

If such a market exists that makes editing films for family consumption a profitable market, this begs the question why companies aren't serving this market with more quality family entertainment.

If there is such a demand for this type of material- I'm just confused why people are looking to adapt existing material to better fit their standards, rather than using their demand and marketshare to make studios supply more quality material toward their market.

-Vince

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Vince: Short anwser - They don't want family entertainment. They want adult films editted down so they can participate in the talk around the watercooler without having to worry about sending their kids to bed before popping it in. There are plenty of family oriented films out there of wonderful quality. But people would rather have "family friendly" Hannibal:rolleyes

 

[L. Anton Dencklau]

An alternate view to Vince's question may be that the creative film-makers, while wanting to please a mass audience, also want to make films that are personally appealing to themselves as adults.

If you go your local library and compare the children's section of books to the adult section, its kind of the same thing. You might say, "why isn't there more children's lit?" and the answer is that the authors are simply more interested in writing for adults.

The clean flicks thing, you know, I just think that if you feel there isn't enough child friendly entertainment there's nothing stopping you from picking up a digital camera and making a movie. If you can afford an editing studio to cut other peoples films, why not just buy a copy of final cut and make your own family friendly movie? Better yet, write up a business plan, seek venture capital, and found your own studio to make films for the under served children's market.

 

[David Lambert]

Vince: Short anwser - They don't want family entertainment. They want adult films editted down so they can participate in the talk around the watercooler without having to worry about sending their kids to bed before popping it in.

You beat me to the punch with this answer!
I think it's a weird way of "Keeping up with the Jones". If they watched a family-friendly version of, say, The Matrix, then at least at the watercooler they could participate in the conversation to SOME degree, rather than feeling left out because they instead watched a built-to-be-G-Rated flick that's made by a Disney-wannabe studio.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

What age level does she teach? My current school has never given teachers grief about R rated content as long as it is pursuent to an educational goal

10th grade. Someone was suspeneded without pay for 2 days (BTW, it's not just the day's pay, they take out the BENEFITS too! You're talking $3-400) for showing something that was either PG-13 or a very light R, but some whiny kid bitched to Mom & Dad. They still don't know exactly what bothered the kid, so she doesn't DARE show something with Geoffrey Rush banging someone openly on screen :0

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Jan, they are not buying one copy of a movie, editing it, making more and then selling them. They are buying the same number of copies that they sell. In other words, if they got 5 requests for the Matrix, they would buy 5, edit all 5 of them and sell them.

Glenn

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Glenn, it doesn't alter the point that

1-They are violating the DMCA to do so, a federal offense
2-They are creating a derivative work, for which they pay NO LICENSING FEE TO THE COPYRIGHT OWNER, and are doing so WITHOUT PERMISSION FOR PROFIT

This is a gross violation of their rights. TV cuts are usually done with the involvement of the director AND he is paid to supervise them. If you take the work, edit it your self and put it in your collection, this is legal under fair use (but not the DMCA, but that's a whole other kettle of fish). However, thye are doing so FOR PROFIT

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

The point here is that CleanFlicks and others like them have no legal right to be editing the films, since they do not have a license to do so, or a license to distribute them. While the studios may be guilty of detracting from the director's intent with their own edits and pan and scan, it is ther property to do with as they see fit, and is not a comparable argument.

I hope the studios get an overwhelming judgement in their favor, and fine these companies into nonexistence.

 

[Nathan*W]

While I agree profusely with the above posts about a company realizing profits in violation of copyright, nobody has addressed the part of this lawsuit I don't agree with.

.

What someone does in their own home with their own purchased copy of a movie no business of the studio's or the DMCA. The "Mona Lisa" principle applies here. If someone buys a print of the Mona Lisa, draws glasses and a mustache on her, and frames the print in a square frame discarding the rest, he should be able to do so without being sued by the Louvre or the descendants of da Vinci.
The question that this part of the suit brings up, involves ownership of copied works of art. Is consumer ownership limited to the physical medium (ie. the physical components that make up a tape or DVD) and not the content recorded therein?

 

[Damin J Toell]

Is consumer ownership limited to the physical medium (ie. the physical components that make up a tape or DVD) and not the content recorded therein?

If the medium contains an access control measure under the meaning of the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA, then consumer ownership is limited to the physical medium itself and use of the content in compliance with the non-circumvention of the access control.

DJ

 

[Nathan*W]

then consumer ownership is limited to the physical medium itself

The problem is there is no blanket court ruling to corroborate your statement. We are very much up in the air. The 9th Crrcuit's recognition of First Sale and Fair Use provisions should preserve your right to edit the film for your personal use are it currently does with music. Other Circuit Courts may not agree with the 9th.

This current legal action by the studios may spur the highest court to give us some direction in this matter.

 

[Damin J Toell]

The 9th Crrcuit's recognition of First Sale and Fair Use provisions should preserve your right to edit the film for your personal use are it currently does with music.

Of course, the 9th Circuit's recognition of "space shifting" of music as Fair Use was made without the need for consideration of the DMCA (indeed, they did it before the DMCA was even passed), as it was considered only in regards to copying a standard unencrypted CD to a computer. Further, there is the problem of Fair Use being an affirmative defense rather than a right unto itself that requires protection. While the latter is a popular notion, it's not one that seems to have any realistic legal worth. The 9th Circuit has never said that content providers have to allow consumers to make copies of music for personal use, only that when consumers do so isn't actionable. The difference between the two is great.

DJ

 

[Anders Englund]

Overall a good thing that the studio do something about this, but...:

or sell software that allows consumers, through computers or DVD players, to edit movies themselves.

Wouldn't this constitute any editing software? Somewhat disturbing if you ask me.
--Anders

 

[Matthew Brown]

I find it funny that if somebody edits a film to make it "family friendly" the studios are outraged. They claim that it violates the director's original vision. These same studios edit foreign films without director's approval.
They are very hypocritical. The problem is that they make money one way and not the other.

Matt

 

[Jeff Kleist]

You go Matthew
The only problem with software like MovieMask, is that it doesn't alter the film stored on disc. it alters the frames AFTER they leave the medium. So per the Game Genie (Nintendo vs Galoob) case in the 80's, this is fine and dandy. Frankly, most of MM's "masks" make no sense whatsoever and do nothing to reduce the violence of a film (lightsabers in Princess Bride) but instead make it ludicrous (anyone see the shot from "The Patriot" where they remove the person and knife being held to the throat of the kid, so the kid is just flailing around like crazy because of an unseen force?)

 

[Matt Gordon]

I think the previous answers to the "why?" questions are correct. But Vince touched on a really good reason:

Look at most of the movies filmed and marketed as "family-friendly." Pure crap. Talking animals and worse (sorry, I have a low "talking animals" tolerance!).

Yes, there are a handful of "family-friendly" movies that are well written, well directed, with competent actors who aren't making fools of themselves on screen. But most people want to watch more than just a handful of movies while the kids are still young.

Many of the people who are looking for this kind of entertainment (and they are many, I think) feel like Hollywood left them in the dust a long time ago. These are the people who have given up on the "entertainment establishment" but don't want to spend the next 7 years watching VeggieTales.

 

[derek]

The issue here is not changing the orignal material THEN selling it as a modified work. The issues here is simply the legality of paying someone to edit/cut/destroy whatever media purchased and owned by an individual. I see a fundamental problem in the government saying I cannot do what I want with media I own. If I want to pay my artist friend to paint over my Mona Lisa, or my newspaper editor friend to edit out material in the latest Stephen King novel I purchased, or CleanFlicks to edit my VHS copy of Blade...I should be able to do so. Heck...if they rule otherwise that means I could goto jail for ripping out pages of that Anne Rice paperback???

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I find it funny that if somebody edits a film to make it "family friendly" the studios are outraged. They claim that it violates the director's original vision. These same studios edit foreign films without director's approval.

It's very different, because they bought the rights to do it.

'Clean Flicks' does not.

If the foreign studio cares about how the film is presented, they will put a 'no cut' clause in the contract with the US studio. If the foreign studio just wants to make a buck, then the blame is with them.

 

[Matthew Brown]

This was the point I am addressing. I find it incredibly ironic that "director's original works" are brought up as a defense against what Clean Flicks is doing. It is about money. That is all. If so much respect is being paid to original visions, why does it only apply to Clean Flicks or things that could be depriving the companies of revenue? So if something makes money for the big companies, it's OK to alter the original works and portray it as the original.

Matt