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.

 

[CajunCenturion]

The difficulty in those examples is whether or not any of those activities would be considered "altering the work".

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

 

[Dimandja]

Each situation (alteration) should be judged individually.

I particularly like chiph's take on this particular subject:

>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.

That is exactly how I see it too.

You cannot re-edit a movie and still show it later with a clear conscience. That movie had an editor whose reputation you are being reckless with.

Similarly, you cannot alter the Mona Lisa and show it as a Da Vinci, copyright or not.

This type of activity should be discouraged, in my opinion. Which is why my early rethorical question is very much relevant. Why throw money buying movies you object to? Why not only buy movies you agree with? That way, Hollywood will know there is a market out there for "clean" movies?

 

[sleipnir214]

lionelhill:
Some of your hypotheticals don't apply here. Framing a piece of art does not change the work any more than putting a book on an expensive bookshelf does. If you pay a commercial artist to produce a work, you own all rights to the work, not the artist. And restoring a scratched DVD only changes the medium, not the actual work.

Your third statement, I think, cuts to the crux of the matter. What is CleanFlick's licence to the works?

All:
One problem with distribution of altered works can be solved by looking at open-sources licenses like the GPL. You can modify the work, but you must both state that you have modified it, and give credit to those whose works you have altered. This, at least, would mitigate some of the directors' arguments that their names are being placed on works that are not wholly of their creation.

Another insight into the legalities, I think, would be to look at how network T.V. broadcasts movies. I remember when a broadcast network broadcast "Blazing Saddles", a lot of the language was changed, and some entire scenes were removed.

Still another insight might be the problems that developed between Monty Python and ABC. ABC was going to broadcast "Monty Python's Flying Circus", so they bought copies of the series from the BBC. They then edited whole seasons down top single broadcasts. Monty Python, through American-citizen member Terry Gilliam sued in the U.S. courts to have a second bowdlerized broadcast stopped. The courts, as I understand it, recognized Monty Python's point, but allowed the broadcast to take place, stating that ABC would undergo undue financial hardship should the broadcast take place.

Of course, there were also problems between Monty Python (as a corporate entity) and the BBC. As it turns out, the BBC didn't have the right to distribute "Flying Circus" in the U.S. The solution there was to give Monty Python the masters to "Flying Circus". Could directors use a solution to this in future?


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[SantaMufasa]

General Motors owns the design rights to their "work of art" called a Cadillac Escalade. A company can buy GM's work of art, then modify GM's work of art to their hearts' content. I don't hear about GM obtaining "cease-and-desist" orders against the chop shop. How different is this from the CleanFlicks scenario?

If a modern composer creates a symphonic concerto, sells the concerto sheet music at the local music store, but another artist chooses to play just one selection from the concerto, which s/he re-arranges for the piano (instead of with full symphony). This drastically changes the art work from the piece as the original artist intended. I don't hear about the originating artist obtaining "cease-and-desist" orders against the pianist. How different is this from the CleanFlicks scenario?

An architect creates a copyrighted book of plans for houses. I purchase the plan book and ask my draftsman friend to modify a set of plans for my house. The original architect does not issue "cease-and-desist" orders against my draftsman friend. How different is this from the CleanFlicks scenario?

I'm certain we could think up more, similar scenarios to the CleanFlicks model, but as long as the original movie maker receives the same full remuneration for one-to-one sales that CleanFlicks has edited and fully attributes to the original movie maker, where is the problem.

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.

 

[sleipnir214]

SantaMufasa:
As to your first scenario, I don't know. It may be that the design of the car is secondary to its mechanicals. It may also be that the license for use of the design of the car includes modifications. But are you planning to mass-produce your own car based on the modified Escalade design?

As to the second, were the musician to redistribute the work, then there might be a problem. This, I think, would be similar to the legal work the Samuel French company does to protect the plays it publishes.

The third scenario doesn't work well. Are you redistributing the changed plans? If not, then your scenario is more like your paying CleanFlicks to modify only the copy of your movie than what appears to be CleanFlick's business model. Does the author/architect know you're redistributing? What is the license under which the book was published?

A big part of all this is the license CleanFlicks has to the works. Does the company have license to modify the work?


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Dimandja]

Great examples, SantaMufasa!

But as I said, "Each situation (alteration) should be judged individually". This is because, in my very humble opinion, a matter of the specific industry being affected by the alteration.

I am right now planning on altering my house and adding a wing to it. I expect no reprisals from the original builder.

The housing industry can survive my alteration hobbies. In fact they encourage it. Their industry is scalar. They sell cheaper models you can improve on. They advertise this fact, in fact. So do auto manufacturers: the cottage industry surrounding autos is tacitly encouraged, because they invariably improve the look of cars -- therefore increasing original sales.

In music, you cannot replay (altered or not) copyrighted pieces without formal apporval from the copyright owners. Judges do issue cease and desist orders -- it's been in the news all the time. They even sue for "similar" sounding music. Classical (non-copyrighted) pieces are fair game.

On the other hand, what this "movie purifying" industry is doing is declaring that the original product was flawed. This is quite different. Also, editing movies is in itself an artform. Movie editors are a very proud lot -- they prefer their product not to be altered. Why deny them that?

How would you like for someone to come after your software, make "helpful" modifications in the core code itself, while your name as the author is still hanging on it?

If APIs are offered for add-ons, I don't see any problems. But to have someone actually change some of your code and sell the package again, is quite a rip-off. Like selling modified Microsoft Windows OS without approval from MS.

Why don't they simply make their own "clean" movies for sale? Why prey on others creations?

In my family, we don't buy or pay for movies we disapprove of. We save our money for something we like. Similarly we don't buy a house that offers no room for improvement, because we know we might need some. The last house we bought had enough acreage for a swimming pool (because we knew we would need one), and the township allows building pools. We avoid some types of music like the plague, and would not consider investing money in cleaning it up -- let that type of art die.

I would never buy a book, only to have it edited to my specs before I read it -- defies common sense.

 

[CajunCenturion]

I think that what may be lost in this discussion is what copyright law actually says, and what the rights of the copyright owner actually are.

It is up to the copyright owner to decide whether or not derivative works are permitted. Copyright law specifically accounts for performing type works, such as music and movies, and under what circumstances the copyright holder may permit public performances, including public performances of derivative works. It is up to the copyright owner to decide what it authorized, and not authorized, within the scope of copyright law.

The design of an automobile is not a 'performing work'. The publisher of a book of floor plans usually does allows for derivative works, provided the derivation is only available to the purchaser of the book, and that the derivations are not otherwise published. In other words, you may take a floor plan from the book, make changes and build a house, but you may not publish, including via a web-site, the derivative plan. That's the norm, although different publishers may dictate different permissions.

The law (US Copyright Law) gives the copyright owner exclusive rights and authorization privileges. The law provides the copyright holder the power to decide the limits of that authorization, within the specifications of the law.

But the law does not apply to what you do to your own personal copy, provided that you obtained your personal copy legally, and that what ever you do to your copy remains personal and is not used as a revenue instrument.


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

 

[Dimandja]

>I think that what may be lost in this discussion is what copyright law actually says, and what the rights of the copyright owner actually are.

>But the law does not apply to what you do to your own personal copy, provided that you obtained your personal copy legally, and that what ever you do to your copy remains personal and is not used as a revenue instrument.

This is good when US law is the only law being considered.

This is also an example of why I prefered to offer my own taste, rather than quoting any existing laws.

The original question was: "Should I be prevented from using this service? Is such editing ethical or unethical?".

My answer is that that type of service, on that type of industry is unethical and should not be encouraged. For instance, a movie is an artform that relies on its gory details and steamy situations -- among other "distasteful" features -- to make itself whole.

If you don't like the Mona Lisa smile, I recommend not buying the painting in order to alter it -- it will not be a Da Vinci.

So, although copyright laws (flawed as we know they are) will let you tinker with some works of art, it is worth considering the impact of any such laws on the art. A whole artform can be killed by haphazardly applied (or by the non existence of) laws.

 

[chiph]

General Motors owns the design rights to their "work of art" called a Cadillac Escalade. A company can buy GM's work of art, then modify GM's work of art to their hearts' content. I don't hear about GM obtaining "cease-and-desist" orders against the chop shop. How different is this from the CleanFlicks scenario?

GM is not harmed by your converting your Escalade into scrap steel. You bought it, do as you like with it, it's just a car. But, if you were to build a car that looks exactly like an Escalade, and start selling it to people, then there's a problem. GM would be harmed because it would affect sales of their product, as well as reduce the goodwill built up by their marketing department.

A good example of this is Chinese car company Shuanghuan, which is selling a clone of the Honda CR-V -- a copy so exact that the owners are able to replace the Shuanghuan badge on the grill with the Honda badge. The lawsuit is still pending, last I heard, but I suspect that Honda will get no redress in the Chinese court system.

Chip H.


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

 

[SantaMufasa]

Chip,

I infer from your assertions that you believe that CleanFlicks.com is somehow pirating movies and illegally selling knock-offs. This is absolutely, positively not the case...Just the opposite is true: I buy from CleanFlicks a Lethal Weapon III that Time-Warner has wholesaled to CleanFlicks.com. Time-Warner gets all the money that they would if I were to watch the movie with all the F-bombs. In fact, Time-Warner gets a lot more money as a result of CleanFlicks's services since I wouldn't have bought Lethal Weapon III if CleanFlicks hadn't have "cleaned it up" for me. I can now enjoy the film with my grandkids, which I wouldn't be able to do otherwise.

Earlier, (29 Apr 05 @ 14:39) Dimandja, said

Why not only buy movies you agree with? That way, Hollywood will know there is a market out there for "clean" movies?

Frankly, the best way for Hollywood to once and for all answer the question about "ratings and revenue" is for the producers to publicly release multiple versions of their movie if it is 'R'-rated...Most producers actually create multiple versions so that they can run as airlines features. This way, Hollywood could see which versions are the bigger revenue generators, they would put CleanFlicks out of business, and this issue would disappear.


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.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> This is good when US law is the only law being considered.

It is not just US Law. International Copyright Law, as determined by the Berne Convention in Paris (1971), has provided exclusive right and authorization to copyright owners.

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

That is two questions, the first being a legal question, and the second being an ethical question.

==> This is also an example of why I prefered (sic) to offer my own taste, rather than quoting any existing laws.

Whereas each of us has our own ethical yardstick which we should apply to the ethical question, it IS the law that applies to the legal question, regardless of our preference.

==> So, although copyright laws (flawed as we know they are) will let you tinker with some works of art, it is worth considering the impact of any such laws on the art. A whole artform can be killed by haphazardly applied (or by the non existence of) laws.

I do not believe that allowing a person to privately tinker with a copyrighted work, and for it to remain private, is not a flaw in copyright law, but rather one of its finer points. It is an acknowledgement of individual rights and respect for privacy. Again, everything I've said starts with obtaining the personal copy legally, and ends with copy remains private. As long as both provisions are honored, the art form will not suffer, nor is there any harm to the artists. And is it the exact purpose of the law to ensure that both provisions are honored, without preventing the individual from getting the most out of their belongings.

There is good and bad in many things, and movies are no exception. They are designed to appeal to the masses with varied tastes, so it's common for them to appeal to a wide range of interests. If one chooses not to enjoy or benefit, (not financially) from the inherent good because of the bad involved, then fine, that's a personal choice. If you personally boycott a two-hour movie because of a ten-minute offensive scene, the more power to you, you are well within your rights and ethical foundation to do so.

But that should not prevent another from legally buying a copy, editing out the offensive scene, and in the privacy of the own home, enjoying the remaining 1:50 minutes of the movie. That too is within their rights, and consistent with their ethical foundation.

The law allows for both.

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

 

[Dimandja]

>Whereas each of us has our own ethical yardstick which we should apply to the ethical question, it IS the law that applies to the legal question, regardless of our preference.

I have no argumentwith whatever the law says. In my first post, I did say "Read the huge FBI warning that precede each movie for clues as to who you can show it to".


>Frankly, the best way for Hollywood to once and for all answer the question about "ratings and revenue" is for the producers to publicly release multiple versions of their movie if it is 'R'-rated...Most producers actually create multiple versions so that they can run as airlines features.

Of course. There are "Unrated", "Rated" and public TV versions, of many movies, to choose from.

But, if I don't like sharp angles, I'll not buy Picassos, hire someone to smooth out the edges, then hang them in my living room. I'll find a painter more to my taste, or I'll have Picasso himself publish "re-edited" versions of his own paintings.

So, by all means ask the producers for toned down versions of their movies: as you said, they distribute them already to airlines and others.

To summarize my take on this issue:

1. Follow the law.
2. Make alterations that enhance the original product, rather than alterations that deface the original work.
3. Re-editing movies is best left in the hands of the producer. Otherwise, we may next seek to hire book burners. Erm... we already did that.

 

[sleipnir214]

I agree that these companies should follow the law and that the person or persons best qualified to edit a movie are those who created it.

But CleanFlicks wouldn't have a customer base unless at least a few people agreed that what CleanFlicks is doing actually does improve the movies.

And I don't think a book burner who says, "You can't see/read that" is in the same category of someone who says "Maybe you don't want to see that. But the decision is yours."


I don't particularly like what CleanFlicks is doing. But the author of this article at FindLaw opines that CleanFlicks may have a legal basis for doing what they're doing.



Here's another take on this issue. Companies like ClearPlay (

http://www.clearplay.com)

do not modify movies. Rather they sell modified DVD players that can optionally accept a filter that applies to a particular movie. The player will automatically mute the sound or fastforward past scenes which ClearPlay's clients may find objectionable.

This variation on the theme does not change the content of a movie at all. In fact, the system can work with a DVD you rent from BlockBuster, so long as you have the filter for that movie.

Hollywood sees this technology as the same as what CleanFlicks is doing. How is this different that a vigilant person, familiar with the movie, bypassing the content for you?



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[CajunCenturion]

After doing a little background research, I came across some interesting things.

First, this is not new. Film sanitization began as far back as 1998, but it wasn't until 2002 that Hollywood considered any action. Prior to 2002, the video outlets were legally co-ops, meaning the members were co-owners and thus editing was done on legally purchased privately owned material. In 2002, the edited movies became available over the web, thus removing the privately owned co-op protection. It was then that the Director's Guild (DGA) considered legal action, so CleanFlicks pre-emptively sued, asking the Court to declare their activities legal. The DGA counter-sued, but since CleanFlicks initiated the action, the Courts did not place an injunction against CleanFlicks pending the outcome. Organization such as ClearPlay (see sleipnir214's link) try to differential themselves from copyright issues based on technical grounds because they only sell the tool. It is the consumer that makes all the decisions, unlike CleanFlicks which does the editing. The movie studios, (who actually own the copyrights - not the directors) have been brought into the lawsuit. As of now, the legal wrangling has been on-going for almost three years without the first ruling.

<aside>
This is really interesting for Sony. Several years ago, the US Supreme Court (see Sony vs Universal Studios) ruled in favor of Sony that the use of VCRs for home recording was not a violation of copyright (time-shifting). Today, however, Sony is now a studio owner and is on the other side of the fence. We could easily see the very same arguements they used in the VCR litigation turned against them.
</aside>

Consider this quote from Jack Valenta of the DGA, which at least to me, ironically supports both sides:
"the altering of a film by anyone not involved in the creation of that film is to enter a dangerous arena, and is a legitimate concern to all Americans who value private property."
On the one hand, "involved in the creation of the film", and yet so clearly, "value private property".

I think this will, from a legal perspective, come down to an interpretation of the four guidelines which govern copyright "fair use". It will be interesting to see how the hightest appelate court which takes the case actually rules.

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]

excellent summary CC. I have been doing a little background reading as well and feel that you pulled together many of the things I have read.

I think there is a definite issue to be addressed re: which technologies get bumped off preemptorily. In the Beta / VHS slog Sony got caught up biggest in the court battle and Beta couldn't sustain. In the Napster case, file-sharing is the downfall of mankind and so Napster is forced to shut down but morpheus/limewire/gnutella/etc. swoop into the void.

I am not a fan of the "clean" movie business. I don't see the need for a "clean" version of Beverly Hills Cop or Saving Private Ryan.

HOWEVER (back to my point), I'd hate to see CleanFlicks get bumped off but ClearPlay get to hang on. It seems wrong when two technologies bring about the same end-result and yet one gets trounced because it was the leader in the race at the moment. It seems that this method may continue to bring us the second best tech...

~Thadeus

 

[CajunCenturion]

That's a good point Thadeus, but there is a very distinct difference between CleanFlicks and ClearPlay, just as there was between Naptser and Morpheus, and from VHS and Beta. All three are different but for varying reasons.

In the VCR wars, the issue was about using VCR technology personal copying of copyrighted movies. That issue was completely independent of whether it as VHS or Beta. Neither format actually 'did' anything wrong, but both equally provided the opportunity for the user to commit the copyright violation. The courts ruled that was nothing inherently wrong with the technology, nor was there anything wrong with personal use. The fact that VHS beat out Beta was not a legal issue, but rather a market driven competition that VHS won.

Looking at the Napster vs. Morpheus issue, it wasn't the file sharing that brought Napster down. It was the fact that Napster maintained a centralized database containing the locations and availability of copyrighted works that was their un-doing. The distinction is that there is not an inherent copyright violation in the sharing of files; the violation is in sharing "copyrighted" files. Since Morpheus did not maintain a database, Morpheus had no knowledge about which files were being shared, and whether or not those files were copyrighted nor if the copyright owner had given permission for copying. Napster, on the other hand did know, because of its centralized database of titles and the activity against that database, that illegal file copying was taking place.

Finally, CleanFlicks and ClearPlay are two different animals. ClearPlay is providing equipment (hardware and software) that in and of itself, does nothing wrong, just as the VCR manufacturers. They are providing a tool that is used at the user's discretion. CleanFlicks, on the other hand, is actually editing the movie to produce a clean version.

Yes, there is a lot of similarity between all of these, and they all deal with copyright law. However, there are also some very fundamental differences between these three cases and the activites of the players involved.

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

 

[karluk]

This is really an interesting discussion! I'm afraid the intracacies of copyright law are beyond me, so I'll leave that part of the issue to others. However, I do have a couple of comments.

"First, this is not new. Film sanitization began as far back as 1998..." - CajunCenturion

I would argue that the underlying issue goes back hundreds of years. Film is a relatively new medium of expression, but people have been sanitizing the written word for ages. No doubt the most famous effort in this area was Thomas Bowdler's edition of Shakespeare, which "endeavoured to remove every thing that could give just offence to the religious and virtuous mind."

People nowadays tend to laugh at Bowdler, partly no doubt because he is looked on as a man of limited talent imposing his judgment in place of one of the giants of English literature. I think it would be incorrect, though, to accuse him of "unethical" behavior. Readers may be foolish for choosing a bowderlized version of Shakespeare instead of the original, but I have no doubt the Bowdler himself was a highly ethical man who was doing his best to best to create an edition that was appropriate for his target audience.

As a parent of young children, I know there are many films which I won't let my kids watch because of gratuitous sex, violence, or bad language. I guess I personally am opposed to efforts to sanitize these films in an attempt to make them watchable. There are so many better way of spending our time than watching a censored version of a movie, that I just don't see the point. To me the creators of a film gets one chance to make a film that I would spend money on. If they blow it, I take my money elsewhere rather than spend time or effort worrying about whether a little cutting or pruning here and there would make the movie acceptable.

 

[Dimandja]

>To me the creators of a film gets one chance to make a film that I would spend money on. If they blow it, I take my money elsewhere rather than spend time or effort worrying about whether a little cutting or pruning here and there would make the movie acceptable.

Bravo!

Also, I agree that people endeavoring to "prune bad movies" are not necessarily doing it out of lack of ethics. Lack of tolerance for other people's work is more like it.

You are absolutely right in why throw good money at people who make "bad movies", so they can make more bad movies... that you'll have to buy twice.

 

[lionelhill]

I'm glad Bowdler and books came up. Why argue anew over an old problem (and one that has already been solved quite adequately)?

Things like this really should be decided at the level of the individual copyright holder, not globally by lawyers or ethicists. If you want to sell your film with an absolute limitation that it may only be stored in a brown paper bag with a pink bow on artistic grounds, you've a right to do so, provided you make it clear from the outset before anyone pays for the film. Alternatively if you want to release it with unrestricted copying for anyone, then you also have a right, should you be so uncommercial. Your choice as the creator and copyright holder.

 

[Stella740pl]

If someone wants to sell a film "with an absolute limitation that it may only be stored in a brown paper bag with a pink bow on artistic grounds", I will probably not buy on similarly artistic grounds that it doesn't match my decor.

Seriously, though, I don't want to repeat what everybody already said on the legal and ethical side of the practice, I would like to point out that it's not the question of "good movie"-"bad movie". In my childhood, I had 3 different versions of "GULLIVER'S TRAVELS" by Jonathan Swift. One was with big colorful pictures - you know, a huge men among Liliputs; a girl playing with a tiny guy, etc. Another one was an abridged edition for preteens and early teens, and then, finally, the full book. Was it a bad book that it needed editing? Is it a bad practice to adapt books for different ages, if the content in general allows?

Now, for my almost grown daughter, I avoid like a plague buying abridged books. If it was not suitable for preteens when she was one, I would reason that she can wait for a few years and read the full version. Otherwise, she would have already known the contents and probably skip reading the full book just because of some previously missed pages. But I didn't have that big a problem with heavily edited books just for young kids - though I think there are enough great books just for children, so there is no need - in most cases - to dumb down adult books for them.

But sometimes you do want to introduce your child to some film or a book at this particular point of the kid’s life, for one reason or another (say, it would nicely illustrate the topic of your last week’s conversation), but there is that one thing in it that's holding you – what would you do?

As for those steamy scenes and sometimes language, in many cases it doesn't make it good or bad. In fact, some of those things can also be great revenue generators for some part of audience, so the idea "if we don't buy, they will know to make them good" doesn't apply. It's just that there is another audience (and, probably, not the biggest revenue generator) that thinks that this otherwise good movie would be very suitable for their children, if not this one bit.

Yes, I agree with those who said that the editing of different versions should be done by the movie creators, where possible. But if I can read a book aloud to my kid skipping parts if I wish, who would prevent me from skipping parts of the movie should I wish to do so?