This article, which was linked on Slashdot, doesn't go into as much detail as I'd like, but I thought that it was worth posting anyway. The gist is that a small industry has sprung up that edits movies for offensive (to Mormons, specifically, I think) content and then makes the bowdlerized versions available for either sale or rental (actually the process by which the edited products get to their audience is a bit more complicated, I think, but that's close enough). A coalition of film studios and directors filed suit to stop this practice, arguing that it violates the creative artistic expression of those that originally made the films. A judge has ruled agaist the editing companies, and they have vowed to continue the legal fight.
I don't know that I agree with the ruling. I find bowdlerization distasteful, but I feel about it the same way that I do about the colorization of black and white movies--as long as the original is untouched and is available to consumers, I'm not sure that I see the harm. As long as the edited versions are clearly labeled as such (and I assume that the companies doing the editing would, for their own marketing purposes, want to label them fairly prominently as having been cleaned up), so that they can't be confused with the original, what damage has been done? I could see requiring the rental places that stock the bowdlerized versions to also stock the originals, so that consumers could choose which version they want, and I could see barring the broadcast of the censored versions of the films*, but having them as an option for rental or sale doesn't strike me as wrong.
*Movies have been edited for length and content prior to being aired on network TV for ages. Are these versions dcast edited by the film companies that produced them, or by the TV studios that air them, does anybody know? If it's the latter, I assume that this ruling would prevent that as well.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read a couple of articles about this last week. . . the question I couldn't find answered is how are the studios being compensated for the edited copies sold? The article in the SL Tribune said that the editing companies were burning DVDs of the sanitized films. So do the buy a copy of the "real" DVD for each one they sell? I'd think it would have been mentioned (and the editing companies wouldn't have a leg to stand on) if the studios weren't being compensated at all, and these were basically pirited copies.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Movies have been edited for length and content prior to being aired on network TV for ages. Are these versions dcast edited by the film companies that produced them, or by the TV studios that air them, does anybody know? If it's the latter, I assume that this ruling would prevent that as well.
A friend of mine used to edit shows for time and content at the local TV station he worked at.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen some movies on TV where the actors had come back in and re-recorded their lines to replace the profanity, so the movies could be shown on TV. I was under the impression that the movie makers were complicit in editing their own movies for TV.
If that's the case, they ought to offer those edited versions for sale; it seems they would profit from making their movies available to a wider audience.
Of course, there are some movies that wouldn't suffer a bit from "cleaning up"; but there are some movies that would lose their meaning, that got their rating because of the theme of the movie and not the number of swear words. The movie studios could decide which movies wouldn't be ruined by editing, and offer those.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Movies are licensed for broadcast on television, and I would assume that there is a provision that allows for time/content editing (presuming that the studio is allowed to vet the edits).
What these companies are doing is illegal without an agreement with the studios that allows them to modify and resell their merchandise.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course, there are some movies that wouldn't suffer a bit from "cleaning up";
Very true, but can you imagine watching Pulp Fiction with all of the "questionable" parts edited out?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Like Pretty Woman - even if you took out all the sex and profanity, it's still a movie about a hooker. You can't change that theme, that movie is not going to be appropriate for children no matter what.
But Breakfast Club, they took out all the "f-bombs" to show it on TV, and it's still an enjoyable movie. Of course, I've only ever seen the TV version, so maybe I'm missing something really important. Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now what about the company ClearPlay which doesn't actually edit the video but provide a digital mask file that a special DVD player edit the movie on the fly. The DVD is not altered but just played in a special DVD player.
I think this is totally OK but I don't know if they were involved in the case.
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: What these companies are doing is illegal without an agreement with the studios that allows them to modify and resell their merchandise.
That is the tack that I'd have expected the studios to take, but if the article I linked to is any indication they seem to have been arguing it primarily in terms of the violation of the directors' creative visions.
ElJay, were any of the articles that you read any better than the one I linked to? If so, do you have the links to them handy?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as the method used to screen the DVD requires a separate program and the purchase of an individual DVD, I don't see the problem with it.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sergeant: Now what about the company ClearPlay which doesn't actually edit the video but provide a digital mask file that a special DVD player edit the movie on the fly. The DVD is not altered but just played in a special DVD player.
posted
I don't really have much of a problem with the concept of editing the movies for content, but in this case the people are doing it against the will of the copyright holder. I don't see much wiggle room there; you don't get to alter someone's intellectual property without their express permission.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish the movie studios would give permission. They give permission for the TV and airplane versions - why not for kid versions?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I don't know that I agree with the ruling. I find bowdlerization distasteful, but I feel about it the same way that I do about the colorization of black and white movies--as long as the original is untouched and is available to consumers, I'm not sure that I see the harm.
It's an ownership thing. It's not theirs. Imagine how OSC would react to someone selling copies of his books with all the mentions of God taken out.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They get paid for the TV and airplane versions. What's happening here sounds like plain and simple piracy.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wish the movie studios would give permission. They give permission for the TV and airplane versions - why not for kid versions?
Again...I think this is more of a licensing issue. With television, broadcast rights are negotiated, and in some cases the advertising revenues are shared, etc. It's not a question of selling copies of an edited version being a good idea, just one of not being profitable or able to be mass-marketed.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, is this for kids? Seems to me we're not exactly lacking in children's entertainment. I don't really see a compelling need to do something like this so that kids can watch previously R films.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What keeps it from being "plain" and "simple" piracy is the fact that a copy of the film is PURCHASED for every copy sold.
This isn't like if, say, I copied your trademarked wallpaper pattern and sold it myself. It's more like, say, if I bought a bunch of your trademarked wallpaper pattern at full retail price, and then added embellishments I thought would make my customers like it better, and then sold it as "customized" or "designer" versions of the previous product.
Like selling "designer" jeans. They're still real Levis I paid full price for, but I've added sequins or whatever and I'm reselling them.
It's not me selling Levis knock-offs that Levis didn't get a dime for.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
doc- Assuming your reselling of Levi's ever rose to their attention, you can bet that they would call your "embellishments" an infringement of their trademark, and ask you to stop marketing your products as a designer version.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is a copy purchased for every copy sold? I've heard people suggesting that this would make it okay, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it's actually the case.
Though I still wonder whether an author like OSC would be okay with someone buying a crate of copies of Speaker for the Dead and ripping all the Christianity out of it them before reselling them.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, the studios could eliminate this market in a heartbeat, if they'd just market the airplane versions themselves. They used to market the airplane versions anyway.
They'd save a ton on litigation, and they'd probably be able to re-sell DVDs to people who had already purchased the full versions, so there's even a way to re-dip into previous markets.
If certain filmmakers (eg Speilberg) are opposed to having those versions of their films out, that's fine. Those studios can include that in contracts and hold off on creating those versions.
But I know Zemeckis specifically shot scenes from the first Back to the Future film twice, so there would be footage to use for the television and airplane versions. Not all filmmakers are opposed to having alternate means of distributing their films--they correctly see that as an alternate revenue stream for the film.
In fact, they could even go so far as to create family-friendly feature cuts of some films for theatrical release at "family" theatres.
Obviously, this wouldn't work for all movies. As mentioned in this thread, there are some movies that thematically make themselves uneditable. But for movies like, say, Crimson Tide, which are terrific films that are thematically fine for families, but profanity laced, this would be a great way for the studio to expand audiences.
Much like the "Unrated" edition audiences tap certain other audiences.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Is a copy purchased for every copy sold? I've heard people suggesting that this would make it okay, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it's actually the case.
It's always been my understanding that there's a real copy for every edited copy. Here's what CleanFilms' site says:
quote:Yes. CleanFilms is a Co-operative rental club. All subscribers to our service become members of the Co-op. The Co-op collectively purchases original, unedited DVD movies then has them edited - always maintaining a 1 to 1 ratio of edited and non-edited originals.
If these operations were practicing out-and-out piracy, they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on and would have been shut down a long time ago.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though I still wonder whether an author like OSC would be okay with someone buying a crate of copies of Speaker for the Dead and ripping all the Christianity out of it them before reselling them.
Or imagine that someone added cursing to Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow to make it more realistic. Would this be okay?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If these operations were practicing out-and-out piracy, they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on and would have been shut down a long time ago.
I still don't see how they have a legal leg to stand on. They're altering and selling someone else's copyrighted property against the wishes of the copyright holder. I don't get why people think that's okay.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
You go out and buy a copy of, say, Titanic, on DVD or VHS. You mail it to the company because you want it edited.
The idea being that once you've bought the tape, you can do with it as you will.
But here's the sticky part: The company does not actually edit your copy. Instead, they take a copy they've made of their edit and send it to you, along with your original tape or DVD, which they render unplayable. So the only version you have that works is one that, for all intents and purposes, looks like a pirated copy.
But you've still paid for the original version.
So it's all confusing and complicated. Would it be different if you were editing the orignal copy? Is there a difference between them giving you an edited version, and them editing your version, since what you have in your house is essentially the same?
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They were practicing out-and-out piracy, they just tried really hard to convince people otherwise. They didn't have a legal leg to stand on, this was as clear-cut a violation of copyright law as you see.
Regarding their 'co-op' argument, owning an original, unedited DVD does not in any way give you the right to produce an edited copy (derivative work) that is for anyone else's use (with a few exceptions such as parody that are nowhere near what they were doing). There's no ambiguity.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Regarding their 'co-op' argument, owning an original, unedited DVD does not in any way give you the right to produce an edited copy (derivative work) that is for anyone else's use (with a few exceptions such as parody that are nowhere near what they were doing). There's no ambiguity.
Good point, fugu. I hadn't considered that.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ambiguity comes from them calling it a co-op. That implies that, as a group, you're using them for your own use.
Look, I'm not arguing that what they were doing was right. I've never used one of these services and in all likelihood never will, because it is so ambiguous, and I don't like to play in the muddy waters of moral ambiguity.
What I'm arguing against is the idea that it's simple.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: They were practicing out-and-out piracy, they just tried really hard to convince people otherwise. They didn't have a legal leg to stand on, this was as clear-cut a violation of copyright law as you see.
Regarding their 'co-op' argument, owning an original, unedited DVD does not in any way give you the right to produce an edited copy (derivative work) that is for anyone else's use (with a few exceptions such as parody that are nowhere near what they were doing). There's no ambiguity.
If that were the case, if it really were a cut and dried example of piracy, why wouldn't the group bringing suit have pursued that angle? It's possible that they did, but if so neither of the articles I've read on the subject have said so. Does anyone know for certain whether they did or not?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter what you call the arrangement. Modifying a work (legally obtained or not) for anything other than certain extremely specific purposes and giving it to another person is infringement, regardless of whether or not that other person owns an unmodifired version of the work. It doesn't matter what you call the system set up to do this one whit. This is simple, obvious, blatant copyright infringement.
As for the pursuit of the suit, the MPAA and RIAA have this notion that by making statements about defending artists they're improving their public image and convincing people not to pirate. Watched any of their in-theater PSAs recently?
Additionally, the specific people bringing the suit appear to be (wealthy) directors. They're going to emphasize that they don't like people doing things to their works, because that's the whole reason they're bringing the suit. Maybe they'd be okay with it from a purely commercial point of view (they certainly make a good deal of money already) or maybe not, but what really ticks them off is somebody other than themselves altering their works, so of course that's what they're going to play up.
And, it doesn't much matter how they argue that its copyright infringement, the result is exactly the same. They did pursue the angle that it was obviously copyright infringement (that was, after all, the grounds on which the suit was decided), they just emphasized the part of the justification for copyright laws that most identified their grievance.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: They get paid for the TV and airplane versions. What's happening here sounds like plain and simple piracy.
My understanding is that they pay for an original DVD for each sanitized copy they sell or rent.
It still violates copyright law (the derivative work right), but it's not piracy in the classic copyright sense.
Has anyone found a definitive statement one way or the other about whether they buy a copy for each copy they sell?
quote:They were practicing out-and-out piracy, they just tried really hard to convince people otherwise. They didn't have a legal leg to stand on, this was as clear-cut a violation of copyright law as you see.
I agree it's clear cut copyright infringement. I disagree that it's covered by the term "piracy."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny that this bugs me more than "regular" copyright infringement. The idea of someone downloading the original movie is much less irksome than the idea of someone altering it and then reselling it. I imagine I'd be livid if I saw something with my name on it that wasn't what I had created.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should point out that I'm using piracy in a (moderately) loose sense of any obvious copyright infringement.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're altering and selling someone else's copyrighted property against the wishes of the copyright holder. I don't get why people think that's okay.
There are many people who think that the "moral rights" aspect of copyright protection is not OK - that if the economic interest is protected, then the underlying policy justification for copyright is fulfilled. Any law that grants rights outside this justification is, under this view, too broad.
I don't agree with them, but if you're really interested in "getting" why people think it's OK, there are dozens of articles on the subject of economic v. moral rights justifications for copyright.
Note that none of this changes the clarity of the violation of existing copyright laws in this case. The articles are calling for changes to the laws.
Note also that Congress would be well within its constitutional powers to declare that fair use includes editing for indecency and profanity.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that happens, I can't wait for someone creative to start creating some very interesting edits of films based on novel notions of indecency and profanity . . .
Definitely within the power of Congress, though. Of course, having reasonable copyright terms is also within their power, so I'd prefer they start with that . They could do them both at once, though.
I should say, some sort of exemption for activities like this would make sense to me, though the exemption might take a surprising amount of effort to construct.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to understand the copyright issues.
Postulate that I bought a DVD of, say, Titanic. I don't want to watch the offensive portions, so I decide to create an edited copy for myself. If I do this personally I believe I'm within my rights as a consumer. If I send it to a company and pay them to create the copy, evidentally I am not. If the company made directions available online (for a fee) that allowed users to make the appropriate mods, would that be similarly illegal? Would it be morally reprehensible (to those who find the copyright infringement offensive)?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, having reasonable copyright terms is also within their power, so I'd prefer they start with that [Wink] . ...
I should say, some sort of exemption for activities like this would make sense to me, though the exemption might take a surprising amount of effort to construct.
I agree with both these points.
The competing theories of copyright are fun to get into. The constitutional justification is purely economic (to ensure the availability) but it's easy to cast moral rights into economic terms (purity of the brand, etc.). It manages to touch on all kinds of issues most people don't think of when they think, "copyright."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj: that should be completely fine under the law, though I wouldn't be surprised if somebody tried to use DMCA notices to keep a site doing that offline until someone fought back.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Has anyone found a definitive statement one way or the other about whether they buy a copy for each copy they sell?
Look at one of my previous posts. I checked out the Web sites for CleanFlicks and CleanFilms, and the former didn't say, but the latter did explicitly state that they buy one copy for every edited copy. That would explain why it costs about $10 more than retail price to buy an edited DVD from them.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that were the case, if it really were a cut and dried example of piracy, why wouldn't the group bringing suit have pursued that angle? It's possible that they did, but if so neither of the articles I've read on the subject have said so. Does anyone know for certain whether they did or not?
I don't think the issue was piracy (even if this case could have also been pursued under that angle). It was probably much more important to the producers of these original films (the studios, directors, etc) that their original work not be bastardized and redistributed by a 3rd party. If this is their aim, it is more important to argue and get a ruling on this issue even if piracy was also a legitimate complaint. I don't think the studios saw this so much as closing down one company as nipping a larger issue in the bud. If they just wanted to close down the company, piracy (if it applied) might have been just as good an arguement. In this case, it either didn't apply, or the plaintiffs cared more about the larger creative control issues.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, if the defendant company in this case had won, then what would prevent me from making any other type of derivative work from a studio's original film and re-selling it as my own as long as I purchased a copy of the original first?
And if it was OK, as long as I purchased an original, couldn't I just as easily purchase discount or 2nd-hand originals and do the same thing?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, if the defendant company in this case had won, then what would prevent me from making any other type of derivative work from a studio's original film and re-selling it as my own as long as I purchased a copy of the original first?
I'm assuming they claimed a fair use based on indecency/profanity. It's possible to draw this distinction so that allowing one doesn't allow the other, but there's no basis for it in existing law.
If SCOTUS overrules, it will be groundbreaking.
quote:And if it was OK, as long as I purchased an original, couldn't I just as easily purchase discount or 2nd-hand originals and do the same thing?
That would have no effect on the legality. There's a doctrine that says purchasing or otherwise legally obtaining any legally made copy (which a second hand original is) provides the same rights as purchasing from the original manufacturer.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. My second question was basically rhetorical.
My point was that there are ways of obtaining legal copies with whatever rights they imply without actually benefitting the original copyright holder. I mean, OSC doesn't get a penny from any books with his name that are purchased at used book stores.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. They could do them both at once, though.
