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

[John_Berger]

I've read through this entire thread, and I am dismayed at the concept that this is about money and only about money.
Clean Flicks claims, and we can only take their statements at face value, that for every movie they edit they purchase an original copy. So, assuming that this is true, it's not like there is a lost sale going on. There is a sale and the studio is getting the proper revenue as though the end customer made the purchase themselves.
Now, taking all of that into account and considering that, if CF's statements are true, no money is being lost, I cannot see how this is a money grab by the directors.
It is well known, at least to most of us, that directors do NOT like having their films altered unless they do the alterations themselves. John Carpenter calls pan-and-scan supporters "idiots"; Leonard Nimoy says regarding pan-and-scan that "When you watch a movie on your television screen, you're not necessarily seeing it the way it was originally intended."; The Wachowski Brothers refuse to put a MARed Matrix on DVD; Sydney Pollack sues Danish TV... and so forth. Yes, I'm referring to MAR in those examples, but it still shows that directors do care about what happens to their movies.
How many movies are widescreen-only? How many sales of DVDs have been lost because of the "dreaded black bars"? I would care to wager a lot. If the directors were really concerned about money, they'd be releasing and supporting pan-and-scan DVDs in droves to satisfy the ignorance of J6P and taking advantage of the purchasing powere thereof, but they're not.
I know that some of you work with film makers; some of you even are film makers. I know that if I was a film maker, I would be incensed if someone second-guessed my judgement by claiming that since my movie isn't "friendly enough", they are taking the responsibility of doing so. What if I never wanted my movie to be "family friendly"?!
Just the notion that all movies must (obviously) have a "family friendly" version hidden within that just needs to be exposed is ridiculous. Maybe a movie was never intended to be "family friendly"; therefore, it would be an nothing short of an insult for some company to decide that there must be a "family friendly" version available and that they have the right to modify a movie without consent under the veiled excuse of "We still buy the original video every time."
Looks like I'm one of the few who are giving the directors the benefit of the doubt. If they wanted nothing more than "the green stuff", they would be modifying and selling their movies all sorts of ways without the help of Clean Flicks or any of these other companies.

 

[Matthew Brown]

It's true that director's don't like their works altered but why is it not ok in this case, yet other forms of medling are ok? That is the whole point.
The same studios who release pan and scan movies all of a suddenly care what a director wants. The studios don't want movies altered unless they do it themselves, with director's approval or not. It's hypocritical. The studios must feel they are losing revenue and figured they wouldn't be pitied unless they brought the directors on board to make it an artistic issue.

Matt

 

[Michael St. Clair]

It's true that director's don't like their works altered but why is it not ok in this case, yet other forms of medling are ok? Why are the studios using the director as an excuse to go after Clean Flicks? That is the whole point.

If you are a director and you don't trust a studio, you can go to a different studio. You can start your own production company and make your film as an independent. You can find your own distributor. Or if you are good you can use your clout to demand final cut and creative control over how edited or cropped versions are released, if it all.
In all these scenarios the director has a degree of control over his work (including the right to sell themselves out to the studio and not have any control).
This is a business relationship.
Like it or not, most directors do not own their work. The studio does. But choices are made.
With 'Clean Flicks', there is no choice. The product/art is hijacked unilaterally.
I can understand that some of you are frustrated with what can happen to a director's work in the studio system. But this is not the same thing as what is going on with 'Clean Flicks'. There is no valid analogy here; battles with studios should be fought elsewhere.
ps Some directors don't give a crap about their work being panned-and-scanned for home video.

 

[John_Berger]

But this is not the same thing as what is going on with Netflix.

??? What's going on with Netflix?

 

[John_Berger]

Quote:

This is a ludicrous statement. The studios are big enough that they don't need to go through the directors to get this accomplished. If anything, the concept of a studio going after you would be far more unnerving than a group of directors.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

What's going on with Netflix?

It was a mental typo, and has been fixed.

 

[John_Berger]

It was a mental typo, and has been fixed.

No problem.

 

[Damin J Toell]

The studios must feel they are losing revenue and figured they wouldn't be pitied unless they brought the directors on board to make it an artistic issue.

Do you have any proof for this assertion? Because I'm pretty certain that the Director's Guild of America would state loudly and zealously that they are not acting at the request of the studios.

DJ

 

[Matthew Brown]

The studios should respect the directors as much as they want Clean Flicks to. That is all I am saying. If it is truly "art" that they are worried about, then they will practice what they preach.
I am not defending Clean Flicks in this matter at all. The studios have a right to defend their ownership of titles. The directors have a right to stop their work from being altered.
I understand that what is going on with Clean Flicks is not the same as what happens in the studio system but the original quote :



Seems like it should apply across the board and in all cases. There should be a footnote that says this only applies to well known directors who have final cut and a say in how their films would be presented in all formats past, present and future.

I apologize if anybody thought I was defending Clean Flicks in this matter with my arguments.

Matt

 

[Matthew Brown]

Damon -
I apologize, after going through all the posts I realized I misread something along the way. It's not the studios and the DGA, it's just the DGA. I feel like that Gilda Radner character on Saturday Night Live now. The one that got all upset because she misread something.

Matt

 

[Matt Perkins]

Damin wrote:

As an over-generalization, people have the right to do what they want with what they've bought, so long as it's being done strictly for personal non-commercial use (and doesn't circumvent an access control).

Personal non-commercial use, huh? Wow. I wonder how 2-Live Crew will take it when they hear that they had no right to make their Orbison parody. Oh crap, and we better tell Alice Randall about this, before she tries to publish her "Wind Done Gone" book!

Insert roll-eyes gesture here.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Insert roll-eyes gesture here.

Indeed.

DJ

 

[Joshua Moran]

I have to stand by the studios on this one. Without permission from them and permission from the director this is no different than bootlegging.

 

[Thomas Newton]

I have to stand by the studios on this one. Without permission from them and permission from the director this is no different than bootlegging.

Not exactly.

With commercial counterfeiting, the theory is that the bootlegged copies displace sales of the original copies. That is not going on here, either with the Clean Flicks approach or with the modified DVD player approach. The studios aren't losing any "uncensored DVD" sales to Clean Flicks, just as record companies weren't losing any CD sales to MP3.com's Beam-It/Instant Listening service. In both situations, the copyright holders most likely gained sales due to the activities of the third party.

The theory that will be advanced here is that the studios have an exclusive right to profit from censoring the films, and that Clean Flicks et. al. have cheated the studios out of this profit. Never mind that the suit is supposedly in the name of fighting censorship. Never mind that studios have provided censored versions to just about every outlet (TV stations, airlines) EXCEPT for Clean Flicks' customers, while showing no interest in serving that customer base.

That's the type of argument that record company lawyers used successfully against MP3.com (who had to pay upwards of $100 million to settle lawsuits for streaming music to people who already owned it).

That's why Clean Flicks will be put out of business -- and why the company that uses the modified DVD player approach will live.

 

[Joshua Moran]

I still consider it a form of bootlegging pirating. It is an altered copy of a film being distributed for a fee. Clean Films is making money off of these altered tapes due to rental fees. And it's not like these tapes are on the original studio copy. I am sure that they edit the material out and transfer it to another medium and that it is not left on the original medium purchased from the Studio. Also editing a film with out the director's permission is cause for him to remove his name if he so chooses. Of course that director has to bring it forth to the screen actors guild. But details details. You don't see groups giving out the Phantom Edit anymore. And why because Lucasarts felt that it was bootlegging. I don't think bootlegging is considered on profits or not, its a fact of whether it is a legal copy or not. If I had 100 legal copies of a film and gave them away for free that is a non issue with the studio's. Where as if I made a 100 copies of a film illegaly and gave it to a bunch of people then there is a problem. I don't maybe I don't make sense.

 

[Matt Perkins]

Yes, Damin, there are "many fine points of law" in the distinction between fairness and infringement. If there are 1,000 such points in that scope of copyright, then about six of them have actually been litigated and serve as guiding precedent. Functionally, that is no precedent at all.
I don't dispute your knowledge of the law; it seems quite comprehensive. I hope you'll forgive me for saying that knowledge is no substitute for imagination.
It has been bothering me for some time. You offer answers to questions about copyright which are very literate and eloquent, however you assert them with a factual certainty that is simply impossible. Why can't a commercial outlet do what CleanFlicks does? You don't even try to answer the question; you do exactly what the studios do:
You say, "Well it hasn't been found legal, so it must be illegal!" (Yes, you've said much (much) more than this, but that's essentially what it boils down to.) The worst way to learn copyright is to know the law -- but not the principles. What principles of copyright are violated by CleanFlicks? NONE. I'd love to argue with you on this subject, but I already know you're smart. I want to see if you're clever. What principles of copyright are violated by CleanFlicks' actions?
(Or, we can just agree to to roll our eyes at each other.)

 

[Damin J Toell]

I'd love to argue with you on this subject, but I already know you're smart. I want to see if you're clever.

You'll forgive me if I'm rather confused to the degree with which you're making this discussion personal. While I appreciate the notion that I've been "bothering" you for "some time," I'd suggest keeping the discussion non-personal such that no HTF rules get violated here. Challenges to my intellect seem to me to be right on the border of crossing the line, so I'd suggest we step back from it in order to keep the going.
DJ

 

[Anders Englund]

There's a lot of talk about copyright in this thred, but I was under the impression that the studios weren't the ones filing charges/lawsuit/whatever, but the Director's Guild. Wouldn't there be something other than the copyright issues behind this, since the studios, not the director's, often holds the distribution rights?

--Anders

 

[Damin J Toell]

§ 1125. False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden

(a) Civil action.
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
...
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

This statute falls within the body of trademark law.

DJ

 

[Matt Perkins]

... allowing Clean Flicks, and any other entity, to create unauthorized edited versions of works they do not own the copyright for removes a portion of the incentive to create that copyright confers to artists.
That's what I was looking for!
That's the real meat & potatos of copyright, and it ain't the law. It's the principles. These are the principled questions that this case raises for me:
How significant is that "portion?" What effect would a CleanFlicks victory have on studio production? What effect would a studio victory have on the progress of science? Do the studios have any real plans to distribute similarly modified works in the marketplace, or are they just trying to stifle expression? Does CleanFlicks add any real transformative value, or just free-ride off studio product? Would a CleanFlicks victory broaden the accessibility of expression to the public? Does CleanFlicks' business model present a tabgible market impact (lost sales) on the copyright owners?
These are questions that a judge has never answered, because no one has ever asked. And they're questions the law cannot answer at all: they depend on what the judge sees, and how she weighs what she is shown, and which precedent she follows and which she ignores. That is why I stand by my assertion that copyright law is terribly underdeveloped: those who can afford to litigate write the law, and those who can't, settle.
(I didn't mean any offense by my posts above, and while I didn't intend any insults or personal attacks, I apologize to Damin and the entire Forum if I conveyed that tone. I was going for a respectful (although critical) flavor.)