Technology allows me to have edited pre-recorded movies... 4

[SantaMufasa]

...but should I have that right?

A company here in Utah (CleanFlicks.com) will edit pre-recorded movies that I buy, to fit my viewing preferences. For example, they will take an 'R'-rated movie and edit the content into a 'PG-13'- or 'PG'-rated film, much like airlines do to films.

Should I be prevented from using this service? Is such editing ethical or unethical?

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)

http://www.dasages.com

Do you use Oracle and live or work in Utah, USA?
Then click here to join Utah Oracle Users Group on Tek-Tips.

 

[chiph]

I would say that the films don't belong to them.

They can edit them all they want, for personal use. As soon as they go to sell them to others, they're in violation of copyright.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[SantaMufasa]

Chiph, to clarify, CleanFlicks.com does not edit a movie until after I have purchased the movie in the same way that I purchase a video from Blockbuster or Hollywood Video.

What CleanFlicks does is similar to their taking a razor blade (with my permission) to trashy book I had purchased from a book store.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)

http://www.dasages.com

Do you use Oracle and live or work in Utah, USA?
Then click here to join Utah Oracle Users Group on Tek-Tips.

 

[MasterRacker]

As long as they keep all the naughty bits, string them together and send them to me..... [LOL]

Seriously, the studios, for the most part, own the copyrights so they don't care as long as they get paid for every copy. Most directors and many actors have problems though because the result is not the presentation they created. This is another pandora's box cracking open.

[sub]Jeff
[purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day

I was not born cynical - I earned my cynicism through careful observation of the world around me.[/sub]

 

[alexhu]

I can't see the point of doing this - can anyone explain ?

If I want to watch violence or porn then I pick a film with that content. Whats the point of watching say 'Pulp Fiction' and remove the violence. Apart from the fact it would only be 2 minutes long the entire storyline would be lost.

Would you take the death scene out of Bambi?

Alex

 

[Grenage]

I would say it is unethical if it breaches the copyright laws, otherwise I can see no problem.


Carlsberg don't run I.T departments, but if they did they'd probably be more fun.

 

[Diancecht]

Let's imagine I buy a book.

Would be unethical taking a pen and write on it? Or just taking out pages from it and burn them? When an "artist" creates something and delivers it to the world, I don't think he can consider unethical any personalization of their work, it's under personal considerations of the viewer.

Another thing is the copyrigth thinguie, I guess it will depend on the country particualr legislation.

Cheers,

Dian

 

[Dimandja]

Once the movie is bought, you can do anything you like to it.

But, you cannot hold public viewings of your new creation, however. Showing the thing to your immediate family only, will generally not land you in jail. Read the huge FBI warning that precede each movie for clues as to who you can show it to.

To emphasize what alexhu said, why buy Kill Bill for example, and remove the bloody scenes? There won't be anything left, and you'll end up with a totally different movie, if at all.

For that matter, what's the point of buying any movie that needs editing? Why fund evildoers? Can you imagine buying paintings that need repainting?

 

[SantaMufasa]

Dimandja and Alexhu,

Notice that the original question is not "...why buy..?", the question is "...do I have the right to edit...?".

Additionally, I am not aware of copyright laws in any country that interfere with ones choice to "deface" their legally purchased copy of a work. Copyright laws universally prohibit someone duplicating then selling the duplicates without remunerating the rights holder...but we are not talking about that proscription. The scenario under scrutiny here is my right to "deface" a personal copy of a work for which I have fully remunerated the rights holder.

The reason I am asking is because Hollywood professional organisations are bringing suit against CleanFlicks.com to prevent them from offering the "defacing" service to those of us who have paid all due monies to the original rights holders.

So, do you believe I have a right to pay someone to "deface" a copy of a movie which I rightfully own?

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)

http://www.dasages.com

Do you use Oracle and live or work in Utah, USA?
Then click here to join Utah Oracle Users Group on Tek-Tips.

 

[Dimandja]

>So, do you believe I have a right to pay someone to "deface" a copy of a movie which I rightfully own?

>The reason I am asking is because Hollywood professional organisations are bringing suit against CleanFlicks.com to prevent them from offering the "defacing" service to those of us who have paid all due monies to the original rights holders.

Thanks for explaining the reasons behind your question.

It is not ethical to make money by retouching someone elses work, without paying the original author royalties. You need permission to alter other people's works for profit.

You cannot add or remove a few scenes from a play and sell the new creation. This I believe is why that company is in hot waters.

It does not matter if you already paid Disney for the original movie. The "cleaning" company is really reselling that movie to you in an altered form. That smells unethical. If they paid a percentage to Disney, they can can get away with it.

 

[Thadeus]

It is not ethical to make money by retouching someone elses work, without paying the original author royalties. You need permission to alter other people's works for profit.

Again you seem to miss Dave's point. He's asking about the following scenario: if he buys a movie and goes to someone asking them (for a fee) to scrub the sexual content out of it and return it to him.

This is no different than Dave buying the Mona Lisa and going to the local artisan (for a fee) to have him add sunglasses. DaVinci should get nothing for this.

~Thadeus

 

[chiph]

Something I was thinking about when writing my earlier post was what if I buy a new washing machine, and pay to have a local artist customize it by painting pretty daisy flowers on it.

There's not a problem with this -- the functionality of the washing machine won't be hurt because you didn't do anything to change the fundamental washing-machine-ness of it. The value is in it's ability to get the dishes clean, and while there are patents and trademarks on how it does that task, there's no copyright involved.

But in the case of a movie, part of the value is in how the editor/director assembled the film clips to create the full movie. And that is copyrighted under US law. So by changing the film by re-editting it, you're changing the fundamental movie-ness of it. What if you re-edit King Kong so the ape wins? It's not the same movie after that, and you've violated copyright by reusing the original clips that were assembled to create the original film.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[Dimandja]

>Again you seem to miss Dave's point.

No, I didn't. Mona Lisa is not copyrighted.

Making a profit by altering copyrighted works smells bad. Of course you can do it to your heart content. But is it ethical? I say no.

Too bad you seem to disagree with my answer. But, there may be other 'more agreeable' answers out there, of course.

 

[DrJavaJoe]

Movie piracy? Sanitized films? Action!
[\Link]

CleanFlicks.com is buying a film, editing it then selling it to stores or making it available to rent online, it is not being purchased by an individual and being taken to them for editing. That is the problem and if it was my movie I would have a problem with a company doing this without any input from me.



Two strings walk into a bar. The first string says to the bartender: 'Bartender, I'll have a beer. u.5n$x5t?*&4ru!2[sACC~ErJ'. The second string says: 'Pardon my friend, he isn't NULL terminated'.

 

[CajunCenturion]

A couple of clarifications.

Copyright laws not only prohibit duplicating then selling , they also prohibit unauthorized distribution., even if compensation is not involved.

==> So, do you believe I have a right to pay someone to "deface" a copy of a movie which I rightfully own? I think you do, however, you would not the right to buy, or more appropriated, the company does not have the right to sell a defaced copy.

As long as you can show the following, I think you're clean.
[li]That you legally purchased an original[/li]
[li]That the editing was done only on your legally purchased copy[/li]
[li]No revenue was generated from the edited copy. You cannot sell it, nor can you charge admission to watch it.[/li]
[li]There was no further distribution of any kind with your edited copy[/li]

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Thadeus]

DrJavaJoe,
You provided a correct answer for someone else's thread... You did not address the premise put forward by Dave in which he takes his copy to the editors.

CC, I agree with you.

Dimandja, I'm sorry I used a non-copyrighted piece in my example... that does not invalidate the example however, which you seem to allude it does. So, just for you:

This is no different than Dave buying "Wizard of the Subway" and going to the local artisan (for a fee) to have him add sunglasses. David B. Mattingly should get nothing for this beyond the price paid for the original.

~Thadeus

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Making a profit by altering copyrighted works smells bad. Of course you can do it to your heart content.

I'm sorry, but you cannot do it to your heart's content. Making a profit, or redistributing copyrighted works is illegal.

==> You need permission to alter other people's works for profit.
Only if the work is copyrighted.

In my opinion, regardless of the status of the copyright, such practice would be unethical. However, the legality of the act is very much dependant on the status of the copyright.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[DoubleD]

I think CajunCenturion hit it right on the head, but I'll clarify my version of it.

It is ethical for CleanFlicks to take your individual legally purchased copy, edit per your request, and hand back to you. You are paying for the editing of the movie.

It is unethical for CleanFlicks to take the movie, edit as they choose, then distribute without paying royalties back to the creator.

I am what I am based on the decisions I have made.

DoubleD

 

[Dimandja]

>Dimandja, I'm sorry I used a non-copyrighted piece in my example... that does not invalidate the example however, which you seem to allude it does. So, just for you:

This is no different than Dave buying "Wizard of the Subway" and going to the local artisan (for a fee) to have him add sunglasses. David B. Mattingly should get nothing for this beyond the price paid for the original.


I already gave my opinion on this: unethical. Sorry you disagree with me - that's life.

 

[lionelhill]

Cajun quoted (and disagreed with):

==> You need permission to alter other people's works for profit.

(1) If I buy an unframed work of art, I can get it framed, and the framer expects a profit. His or her frame drastically alters the artistic appearance of the work. We accept this as ethical.

(2) Similarly, if I pay a commercial artist to do a magazine cover, and then change the format of the magazine so the picture no longer fits, I think it's reasonable for me to use just the part of the picture that will go on the new cover. The printer can clip it quite readily, and it's unreasonable to expect me to go back to the artist for such a trivial alteration, unless I explicitly promised otherwise.

i.e., there are certain generally accepted "changes" you are allowed to pay for on works of art.

(3) Ethically, you must keep your promises. If you promised not to alter the work when you bought it, you mustn't.

(4) I assume I can have pictures restored, even very recent ones? So is a company offers to take old, scratched, and damaged DVDs, and in any way restores them to as close to the original as possible, are they legal? Even when the product may fall short of the original, and lack a scene or two, that were irreperably damaged?