link--this

Legal copyright. When you buy a copy of something you have the right to do anything you wish with it (like burn MP3s from a CD, etc.). It's when you transfer that ownership to someone else -- whether it be putting those MP3s up on the 'net for anyone to own, or editing a movie how you see fit -- that the copyright agreement is broken. And by selling edited copies of copyrighted material, I'd like to think that this company is very much in violation of that copyright contract.

They could edit the videos to their heart's content if they were from their own personal collections and weren't for resale/rent -- or if they offered the free service of editing videos from someone else's personal collections for that person's private use. But they are editing some new copies, and some customer's personal copies for profit -- and to make a profit by renting and reselling the altered videos is illegal, IMHO -- and I hope a judge backs the studios up on that.

I don't have a problem with peer-to-peer transfers of music I most likely own on cassette, vinyl, or CD already. I download MP3s frequently. I do have a very big problem with editing someone else's copyrighted material for profit. Because under that theory, I could take a Nine Inch Nails CD, rework "Closer" to remove the lyrics "I want to fuck you like an animal" to say "I love fuzzy, cute animals" (suitable for singing on any preschool playground), package it up again and resell it for profit.

By the same token, anyone could take one of my web designs, change the colors from red to pink, put a big turtleneck sweater on Gwen instead of the bikini top, change a couple of paragraphs of text to edit out the cursing I do from time to time, and resell it -- even though the layout, graphics, title and content of the site were the same.

¤ ¤ credit: robyn | 09.25.02 at 04:35 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

And see, "Closer" would SO not be the same song without that line!!!

¤ ¤ credit: Tracy | 09.25.02 at 04:38 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Although I am anti-censorship, and was a little frightened by the idea of editing movies, as a high school teacher I was sort of intrigued by the idea. For example, I'm going to be teaching 9th graders Romeo and Juliet soon, and I believe the Claire Danes version of the movie was R. I thought it was a nice adaptation of the play that the kids would be into, but if it's R I can't show it. In a case like this one I would like access to an edited version.

¤ ¤ credit: Ms. Boombastic | 09.25.02 at 11:36 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

Robyn, I do indeed follow you, but they are not reselling the videos. They are only being seen by the people that legally own them, which, due to the way CleanFlicks is set up, includes all the renters.

Oh, I TOTALLY realize that comes across as just a semantics loophole, but it DOES make the legal difference between copyright infringement and not-copyright infringement.

You and I both may find both their actions and overall business model abhorrent, but the way they are doing it IS legal, if only due to a technicality. And my feeling is there is no way to close that loophole without taking away _MY_ rights.

This is the difference between you reselling your version of Closer and keeping it to yourself. They are, legally, technically, keeping it to themselves. A very shrewd and weaselly manuever, yes, but I just don't see a way to legally separate it from the casual user. Slippery slope. My mantra. Slippery slope.

¤ ¤ credit: John Kenneth Fisher | 09.26.02 at 06:59 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

Oh but they ARE reselling them. NBC Nightly News said so!

¤ ¤ credit: robyn | 09.26.02 at 03:23 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

It's funny you should mention this edited movies fiasco. I have just written my second newspaper column on the subjet (the first was my outrage at how something like this could happen and the second is a response to one of the more narrow minded inbreeeders from where I live. Hope you enjoy it!

¤ ¤ credit: Ron Middleton | 09.26.02 at 04:29 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

There is TOO a Santa Claus, my Mommy said so! ;)

Completely unrelated to the discussion but it always cracks me up when you talk about the news like it's the word of god. I just always want to pat you on the head in one of those, "There there little girl" ways. You would of course be right to bite off my condescending sounding hand, but still, just because it's on the news doesn't mean it's true. Particularly nowadays.

And related to the topic, not that I support this CleanFlicks business, but there is a big difference between Entertainment and Art. I'm definitely going to go see The Tuxedo this weekend but there's no comparing a Jackie Chan movie to the Mona Lisa or the David. Something doesn't have to be art for its creator to be offended by its tampering. It does the argument no good for people to exaggerate the merits of The Matrix like that.

Besides, most art isn't protected either you know. If I purchase an art piece I can burn it or deface it in any way I choose. In fact there is a rather famous art piece that was created when an artist meticulously attempted to erase a contemporary's work: Erased de Kooning Drawing (1953).

¤ ¤ credit: Ciscley | 09.26.02 at 04:36 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

As far as the reselling or not issue goes: From everything I have read about this before, (slashdot and at least one other news article) they are not reselling, but they are renting.

I'm not saying that Mr. Brokaw HAD to have been wrong of course, but that goes against my understanding of the situation. If they were reselling, than no, they have no legal leg to stand on... but I'm pretty sure they aren't.

¤ ¤ credit: John Kenneth Fisher | 09.26.02 at 10:10 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

From the (linked) EOnline article: "CleanFlicks is a year-old company in a burgeoning industry (competitors include Clean Cut and Family Flix, also named in the DGA suit). It rents and sells so-called "E-rated" flicks to card-carrying CleanFlicks members via its more than 70 stores or the Internet. In addition to its library, it custom de-sexes (or disarms) any sexy or violent movies its members may have in their own video collections."

¤ ¤ credit: robyn | 09.26.02 at 10:26 PM | link--this ¤ ¤

These companies destroy the original DVD - which means no extra goodies like commentary tracks, deleted scenes, documentaries and the like - and charge even more for the purchase of these items and that is what I am against.

It is the first step to widespread censorship. It is not someone's job to sit in an editing room and decide what I can and cannot watch. Only the networks can do that. *L*

There are some programs out there that will edit movies "on the fly" that cut out the "dirty words" and violents scenes, and you can turn them off. That is okay, because the original is not harmed in any way.

The same goes for video tapes - if you buy a tape, hook up two VCRs and get rid of the things you find objective, then by all means, go for it!

Onvce you buy it, you can do what you will to it, just don't let someone else get to it before you do. And remember folks - movies are not one-size-fits-all.

¤ ¤ credit: Ron Middleton | 09.29.02 at 11:04 AM | link--this ¤ ¤

When flying accross the country or the world we are only able to see films edited for the airlines. I really have rarely noticed a significant impact on the qualities of a good film to have some profanity and nudity removed. Most of the time it has little or no bearing on the overall effect.

¤ ¤ credit: Lenz | 10.17.03 at 11:51 PM | link--this ¤ ¤