Cleaning up the movies

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Clean Flicks, Inc. is in the business of editing movies for family viewing, removing sex and violence, not to mention cursing.



The movie industry is having a fit for copyright violation. The company has stores in 18 states. Consumers must buy the movie first before editing it, I believe.



I think that they legally are going to be able to continue (they're being sued), as long as people buy the movie first. I actually saw one film maker say these editors should be tortured and burned. Honestly.



Sometimes I think when I have kids, that they will be allowed to watch very little of what is on TV and in the movies, not to mention music. I'm all for free speech and expression, but how these film makers act really sickens me. They seem determined to show more and more gore, sex, drugs, language, etc......just to see if they can. Meanwhile, they have no idea what it is doing to our kids. Parents cannot control everything their kids see, especially when they hit the teens. Music might even be worse, with rappers talking about carrying glocks and giving it to bitches, "cause they all hos". There is no sense of social responsibily. I wonder if Eminem cares or knows that 2/3 of my fifth graders listen to him, and that because of his music they literally laugh out loud when we sing songs with the word "love" or "care" in them. It is sickening.



My question: Do you think this company will win? Should it win? My opinion is that they will and should.



One afterthought: Being a trained musician-educator, I know a little about copyright law. There is a clause for creative works (I think it applies to film), that says the owner of a copy of the work can make changes and additions as needed (especially for music) as long as it doesn't change the principal character of the work. This means if I have a band arrangement I could change the instrumentation, remove parts, etc. It's open to interpretation, I suppose.



[ 09-29-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 50
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    I'm all about freedom to do what you want with what you own. It doesn't seem right but if someone wants to use an edit list that agrees with their personal taste then I think they should be allowed.



    Freedom! It's fun!



    Will they win? I don't know. Most likely not. Should they win. Yes. In fact the ACLU should get involved with this one. Also the EFF



    [ 09-29-2002: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 50
    giaguaragiaguara Posts: 2,724member
    ... i'm against censoring.



    i believe in the consumers intelligence.



    if i think a certain producers films suck, are too violent etc i dont want to see them anymore.

    but i dont want any committee to decide "for me" what is the right amount or type of violence or sex etc etc i should see in the tv.



    btw why most hollywoodian movies seem to have (by the type of movie) always a certain % of sex and violence?? often them seem added only to be there and not to communicate anything. then .. first a story, then famous actors and then these obligatory sex and violence scemes..
  • Reply 3 of 50
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    That is very intriguing. I think, legally, they should be allowed to continue.



    They aren't depriving any studios or directors of a sale. If so inclined, you buy the movie and then bring it to them to make it watchable for your tastes. A very interesting spin on fair-use. They're providing a service. Will studios soon dictate that we aren't allowed to fast forward the naughty bits? I know they're trying even with edited for TV content, but that's a little different in that the edited film is presented to the audience as the director/producer's work when in fact it isn't, not exactly. With this service, the consumer knows full well that the revisions are not 'original' and has paid for both the original and the editing on a per copy basis.



    I don't know what to say about the sacchrine crap we try to pass off as "children's lit, music, T.V. etc etc" I can hardly blame children for laughing at it. They may be kids, but they're not stupid. However, consumers have the right to view as much or as little (as it were) of the content they've paid for -- just as surely as the film-makers have the right to make whatever kind of films they please.
  • Reply 4 of 50
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mulattabianca:

    <strong>... i'm against censoring.[/IMG]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    But it's not censorship. It's not censorship when someone chooses not to watch somethings. For example am I practicing censorship by refusing to read Ted Rall op eds? No. Censorship is when the government or maybe a private citizen censors content from other people. That's not the case here. Here people are choosing what they want to hear and see.



    Let's say I buy a book. It's mine I can do what I want with it. Someone on the internet tells me not to read chapter X because it's content would be distasteful to me. So without reading it I rip chapters X out and toss it. My actions have no affect beyond my personal copy of the book. Others can still read that chapter in their own copies. And in the end I can do whatever the hell I want with my own book. If I hate it so much I toss it in the trash is that censorship? No.



    If you are for freedom and personal liberty there's only one side you can be on this one.
  • Reply 5 of 50
    I'm not against it because it's not censorship. A person purchases a movie for private viewing, and simply has some of the objectionable material removed or alterred. When it crosses the line, and artists are forced to make films a certain way, then that's censorship, and I do strongly oppose it.



    The thing that bugs me here is, isn't this sort of like living life with blinders on? It seems to be akin to my purchasing a print of a famous painting and then removing any religious references because I find the notion of god objectionable. Wouldn't that in-turn also ruin the integrity and meaning of the work itself?



    Ultimately, however, I do feel that it's up to the owner of the film if he/she wants to alter it. At the same time I fear that by doing so, people may be destroying the films integrity and meaning for themselves or worse yet, somebody else.



    [ 09-29-2002: Message edited by: Graphic33 ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 50
    I am against censorship, and think this company is in the wrong. They are basically playing "big brother" by editing what people can see in a movie. Who's to say their version of what a movie should be is correct version? Here is what I believe when it comes too the content of movies, radio, well anything in general:



    1) If you don't like what you are hearing, seeing, experiencing, change the channel. Don't watch, just move on! And for the love of God, don't tell me whether I should be able to see, hear, or experience!



    2) Mind your own damn business. Don't go around trying to change the world I live in. It isn't up to you to police the airwaves just cause you find the material offensive. You think kids shouldn't hear/see what is going on? Then take responsibility for your kids, and don't police mine! If you raised your kids correctly from the beginning, they would be smart enough to know not to watch/listen to offensive material!
  • Reply 7 of 50
    [quote]Originally posted by Graphic33:

    <strong>I'm not against it because it's not censorship.

    [ 09-29-2002: Message edited by: Graphic33 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually, it is censorship. The original content is being changed, and someone out there is going to watch the altered product. If that person is being denied the chance to see the content as it is originally intended, then the material is being censored.



    Is it a matter of semantics? Maybe. But if you can find a way to justify censorship in this case, then you will find other reasons to censor for another cause.



    Either way, its censorship
  • Reply 8 of 50
    I am against the entire notion of "Clean flicks"- that is, films devoid of a complete story line because some idiot conservative thinks nudity lacks artistic value. What a culture we have! It is certain that highly regarded movies will be censored as well as lowly regarded ones. The thought of these stores being successful sickens me to think that so many people think in that way. It sounds like a loophole practice here, but it still may be passed by a 5-4 margin according to party lines.
  • Reply 9 of 50
    Hmm, there's lots of interesting stuff going on with these guys. Have a look at <a href="http://www.cleanflicks.com"; target="_blank">Cleanflicks.com</a> and it seems they do edited DVDs as well. Now, surely they must be making copies?



    It's not actually censorship, though: they're not turning around and telling anyone "you cannot watch the smutty or violent bits of these films", but giving people who chose not to watch the the smutty/violent bits an opportunity to see the rest of the film...



    I can see a lot of directors getting peeved that anyone would dare mess with their creative vision, and there are definite copyright issues involved.



    I suppose it's a great service for people who like watching airline movies...
  • Reply 10 of 50
    I think some people are missing the point here though. I don't have the inside scoop on this Clean Flicks Inc., but derived from the context of SDW's intial post it seems to me that you're editing a movie you have purchased for your own viewing.



    [quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:

    The company has stores in 18 states. Consumers must buy the movie first before editing it<hr></blockquote>



    I can't imagine why anyone would want to do this. I also concede that it doesn't seem any more like censorship, then me fast forwarding over a certain part of a film I own on DVD or VHS. If, however, I'm forcing someone else to watch my edited version of the film, then that's censorship.



    Like I said, I'm more concerned with what part of the movie gets lost in the translation. What am I depriving myself of by wanting to do this? If I object to that much of a film, then why would I buy it in the first place?
  • Reply 11 of 50
    Fast-forwarding doesn't magically erase the scene in question from a tape or dvd. Clean Flicks does. See the distinction?



    This IS a censorship issue. In fact, it's censorship-for-hire. Though, Clean Flicks, not the customer, decides what material is "inappropriate."
  • Reply 12 of 50
    Hell. Why do they even pay for this altered crap? Why don't they wait until it airs on the USA Network? Oh, because they're consumers...who'll buy anything when it's foisted in their fat faces...



    Whatever. It's the American way (actually, lots of content elsewhere in the world is censored and altered).



    Let them do what they will. Its sad though that these people can't make their own judgement on what they can and cannot watch. And watch a film that won't represent what the creators intended. I'm all for removing any content from films by Steven Seagal though...
  • Reply 13 of 50
    overhopeoverhope Posts: 1,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:

    <strong>This IS a censorship issue. In fact, it's censorship-for-hire. Though, Clean Flicks, not the customer, decides what material is "inappropriate."</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The customers are making a conscious decision not to see certain parts of the movies. They can choose to see the complete movie too.



    That's not censorship, any more than someone changing TV channels because the adverts come on. Censorship denies the individual the opportunity to make a decision about what material they think is appropriate in the first place.



    If it's their own copy they're mutilating, that's fine by me, but these people are quite obviously devoid of any appreciation of cinema...
  • Reply 14 of 50
    For the second time, consumers do not decide what material is inappropriate. Clean Flicks, the company, decides that. There is no individualized system of deciding what material is appropriate and for whom. Consumers pay for this company to censor movies according to the COMPANY's guidelines- not their own. So, this is censorship for sale.
  • Reply 15 of 50
    I think it's ridiculous, but it's not like Wal-Mart hasn't been doing the same thing to music for years.
  • Reply 16 of 50
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    At first I thought "who cares - if they want to do it they can." But the more I think about this the more I think it's wrong.



    This is done without the permission of the copyright holders. Sure, if someone buys it and wants to send it to someone else to edit it, that would be fine. But SDW is wrong - this is about video rentals. Video rental stores don't own the content of the movies they rent.



    I believe the editing that's done to movies when they go to TV, for example, is done with the permission of the movie producers. This is not. That's the bottom line.



    The movie holds the trademarks of the film studio, the name of the movie, the writers, directors, etc. But even though they change the movie, Clean Flicks is still using those trademarks to try to rent the movie. That seems to be trademark violation and a kind of false advertising.



    I suppose clean flicks will argue fair use, using the same logic that says parodies can use copyrighted materials. But I doubt they'll win.
  • Reply 17 of 50
    [quote]Originally posted by pusherman:

    <strong>I think it's ridiculous, but it's not like Wal-Mart hasn't been doing the same thing to music for years.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You're right if you take away the sarcasm. Wal-Mart sells edited versions of cd's that have been authorized by the ARTISTS (hence available for distribution elsewhere.) Clean Flicks does not have such authorization. The situation is clearly different.
  • Reply 18 of 50
    jrcjrc Posts: 804member
    [quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:

    <strong>Clean Flicks, Inc. is in the business of editing movies for family viewing, removing sex and violence, not to mention cursing.



    The movie industry is having a fit for copyright violation. The company has stores in 18 states. Consumers must buy the movie first before editing it, I believe.



    I think that they legally are going to be able to continue (they're being sued), as long as people buy the movie first. I actually saw one film maker say these editors should be tortured and burned. Honestly.



    Sometimes I think when I have kids, that they will be allowed to watch very little of what is on TV and in the movies, not to mention music. I'm all for free speech and expression, but how these film makers act really sickens me. They seem determined to show more and more gore, sex, drugs, language, etc......just to see if they can. Meanwhile, they have no idea what it is doing to our kids. Parents cannot control everything their kids see, especially when they hit the teens. Music might even be worse, with rappers talking about carrying glocks and giving it to bitches, "cause they all hos". There is no sense of social responsibily. I wonder if Eminem cares or knows that 2/3 of my fifth graders listen to him, and that because of his music they literally laugh out loud when we sing songs with the word "love" or "care" in them. It is sickening.



    My question: Do you think this company will win? Should it win? My opinion is that they will and should.



    One afterthought: Being a trained musician-educator, I know a little about copyright law. There is a clause for creative works (I think it applies to film), that says the owner of a copy of the work can make changes and additions as needed (especially for music) as long as it doesn't change the principal character of the work. This means if I have a band arrangement I could change the instrumentation, remove parts, etc. It's open to interpretation, I suppose.



    [ 09-29-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Great Idea. But, how does this differ from any of the V-chip type technologies. I've thought about editing some things, too. The scary parts of certain movies for my youngsters. As a matter of fact, I almost bought the Sima Copy Master today just for that purpose.



    Also, it would be good for editing Tiger Woods out of Golfing History.
  • Reply 19 of 50
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    As usual many here are making assertions without reading or even giving this much thought.



    First of all they are not forcing people to view these videos. They are not trying to force Hollywood to make their movies differently, nor are they judging the people who make the movies.



    They are simply saying that they and the people who are members of their club prefer to see movies a certain way and take their owned versions of said movies and alter them for their viewing pleasure.



    This is take straight from the rental section of their website.



    [quote] Q.

    Is it legal to edit movies? A.

    Yes. MyCleanFlicks 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.



    As owners of the original, unedited movies, the Co-op has the right to edit out content that is objectionable to its members - similar to how you might press mute to avoid hearing objectionable language today. Accordingly, you must subscribe as a member of the rental club before you can rent edited movies.

    <hr></blockquote>



    This is about as stupid as skipping a chapter in a book or a studio demanding you have surround sound in your living room before you rent their movie to insure their "artistic integrity."



    This is a clean and simple case of fair use. It is being played out dozens of different ways and if you support consumer rights you have to find that CleanFlicks is in the right. This is no different than when you burn a cd of songs from three cd's that you happen to already own.



    They state quite plainly that they own a video for every single copy they edit or rent. If they were making unauthorized copies without compensation, or using studio marketing and promotion dollars in a manner not authorized by the studio then it would be copyright violation.



    They are doing none of these things. Additionally they have tried to come to the table with the directors guild and even have them on board for the editing, compensate them appropriately etc. However the directors guild would have none of it.



    The guild are being pure hypocrites because they will obviously make these edits for television, for USA Today, international flights, etc. They are simply being pains in the a** right here.



    Nick



    [ 09-29-2002: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 50
    [quote]Originally posted by trumptman:

    <strong>As usual many here are making assertions without reading or even giving this much thought.



    First of all they are not forcing people to view these videos. They are not trying to force Hollywood to make their movies differently, nor are they judging the people who make the movies.



    They are simply saying that they and the people who are members of their club prefer to see movies a certain way and take their owned versions of said movies and alter them for their viewing pleasure.



    This is take straight from the rental section of their website.







    This is about as stupid as skipping a chapter in a book or a studio demanding you have surround sound in your living room before you rent their movie to insure their "artistic integrity."



    This is a clean and simple case of fair use. It is being played out dozens of different ways and if you support consumer rights you have to find that CleanFlicks is in the right. This is no different than when you burn a cd of songs from three cd's that you happen to already own.



    They state quite plainly that they own a video for every single copy they edit or rent. If they were making unauthorized copies without compensation, or using studio marketing and promotion dollars in a manner not authorized by the studio then it would be copyright violation.



    They are doing none of these things. Additionally they have tried to come to the table with the directors guild and even have them on board for the editing, compensate them appropriately etc. However the directors guild would have none of it.



    The guild are being pure hypocrites because they will obviously make these edits for television, for USA Today, international flights, etc. They are simply being pains in the a** right here.



    Nick



    [ 09-29-2002: Message edited by: trumptman ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    YOU have not given much thought to the opposing arguments. It is not like skipping a chapter in a book because that chapter remains while the scene in question does not! Both involve skipping, but is it really your intention to make such a general point? It is still censorship whether one wants it or not, but it is NOT like editing movies yourself. Here, consumers rely on a COMPANY to censor objectionable scenes and then rent or sell at a profit. Just that fact clearly reveals that it is against the laws pertaining to personal copies, or it is at least against the intent of the law. Both ways, it's an ethically dubious way of dealing with (sometimes) immoral scenes in film. (not to mention the legitimate scenes that get censored)
Sign In or Register to comment.