11 comments

• 

  Joe Gratz

  3 years ago

  I grabbed the opinion from PACER and have uploaded it to my blog. My post is available here.
• 

  adamb

  3 years ago

  People might not claim copyright infringement if you resold an edited book, but it would no longer be the book you originally purchased.
  
  These companies present their movies as a product of their original directors and cast, but they aren't that at all; they're a different movie altogether.
  
  These companies are just profiting from work that's already been done. If they want movies that are free of things they find objectionable, they should make them themselves, instead of perverting the work of others.
• 

  Lewis Baumstark

  3 years ago

  These companies are just profiting from work that's already been done.
  
  This alone is no reason to rule against them. Especially since they also add value to that work through their own work (as opposed to simply passing the original off as their own).
• 

  Sarcastro

  3 years ago

  No, Clean Flicks should not be legal. No more than a service that took your writing, "cleaned" it of "objectionable" material and then resold it, still attributed to you although the meaning has changed to something you did not intend, for a profit.
  

  
  The very idea is absurd. This isn't about fair use or first sale, this is about changing the meaning of an author's work without their permission and then representing it as still being the original author's work. It most certainly DOES affect the market for a work and NOT neccesarilly for the better.
  

  
  Take Terry Gilliam's Brazil for instance. There was a huge dustup when the American distributor changed the ending of the movie from a terrifying and sinister finale to a lame happy forever-after. Gilliam is not about happy endings or trite love stories and it was a disservice to his work to misapropriate it that way. Both the consumer - who might go looking for 12 Monkeys expecting a nice, clean, fluffy ending - and the creator - whose intended audience may well have been turned off by the mangled version - suffer due to such monkeying with works of art.
• 

  Tim Lee

  3 years ago

  Except that in the case of Clean Flicks, it's clear to everyone involved that they're selling a sanitized version of the work, not the original. Consumers seek Clean Flicks out and pay extra money for a sanitized version of authors' works.
  
  Now, I might agree with you that it's a "disservice" to the original director's artistic vision to allow such editing. But it's not clear to me why that's relevant. The purpose of copyright law has never been to protect the "artistic integrity" of creative works--it's to encourage and reward their creation. Artists do not and should not have an unlimited right to control how copies of their works are used by their paying customers. Once I buy a book, CD, or movie, I should be able to do as I please with it as long as I don't distribute copies to others.
• 

  Robert Goodman

  3 years ago

  I agree with Tim Lee. There's a broader IP principle that should be invoked, but perhaps is superseded by some particular of copyright -- the principle of exhaustion. You sell a copy, who cares if you keep a "backup" (or even transiently had a potential backup) that's never used or rented out at the same time as the copy that's actually for sale or rent? As long as it's 1:1, there's no legitimate interest being harmed.
  
  The consumer of the edited version doesn't actually have a legit interest in the copyright question -- that's actually handled by trademark -- but even if the consumer did, in this case it's clear the consumers knew they were getting bowdlerized versions, and indeed patronized Clean Flicks for that very reason. No way that should hurt the reputations of the makers of the originals.
• 

  bud

  2 years ago

  "The problem is that the first sale doctrine only applies to the physical original copy. But with digital technologies, accessing and modifying content often requires copying it."
  
  I'm no expert on how DVDs do error correction, but it seems to me that if all you want to do is delete certain material, it should be possible to use a laser to burn over the pits. Then you would be sending the consumer the "original" copy.
  There may be some frozen screens, etc, but it *should* work.
  
  This is idle speculation on my part, I *like* the dirty bits!
  
  email is human readable - aloud
• 

  Bewildered

  2 years ago

  I'm confused. How come when movies with foul language , nudity, and raunchy sex scenes come to "regular" TV edited, it's not considered harmful to the so-called artistic integrity of the movie? Clean Flix is doing the same thing--they're taking something otherwise unwatchable in my house and making the "TV version". Hollywood makes money from Clean Flix's way and I don't have to skip commercials. Actually the "TV versions" seem to do more damage when they cut out many pertinent scenes that affect the storyline to make room for more and more commercials. Who's defending artistic integrity then?
• 

  Batman

  2 years ago

  Okay, maybe I am confused, but this rulling seems to me to be a slap in the face to our society. I guess as Americans we like to see naked people and sex, hear language that is terrible, and see people's gutts hanging out of there bodies. Is all that stuff really necissary to enjoy a good movie. I submit to you that no it isn't. I for one enjoy being able to sit through a movie without worrying about objectional material poping up all the time. I think if Hollywood was smart they would realize that there is a market for clean material. Cleanflicks would not exist if there were not people willing to watch there work. If they are worried about a third party consumer making the edit why not do it themselves? There are many movies that I have rented from Cleanflicks and greatly enjoyed them. After watching Saving Private Ryan did I miss out on some of the graphic warfare? Yes, but did I walk away having any less appreciation to the people who gave there lives to preserve freedom? No! In Titanic was my experience any less from not seeing an actors breasts flash across the screen multiple time? No! I really enjoyed the clean version of the movie.
  
  I know that I am not alone, many good stories have been told with little sections of material that most people would agree probably doesn't need to be in the movie to make the show work. Hollywood please wake up and continue to tell great stories but help out those of us who don't wish to polute our minds with the added filth.
• 

  Artsy-Craftsy

  2 years ago

  Now I have to get my money back from CleanFicks. This whole issue is lacking in cogent thinking. Too bad we have judges like this one. The whole idea of licensing for the media industry is/was for them to get their money. Period. Get their money. From me.
  
  Content, shmontent. How self serving. The blatant truth is Everything is IP, not just an artist attempting to present something. I find it odd that in the presentation they really want money. If they don't want it changed, don't sell it. The licensing concept was a clever, clever concept that idiots with law degrees used to make their money. It implies a principle that does not exist which, if it did, should apply everywhere.
  
  Applied everywhere, because it is a principle, then when I buy a plot of land I should not be able to build a house, or dig a hole. That would disturb what I bought. Or buying a car, the dealer should be able to insist I buy add on items from him, only. Removing red eye from photos should not be allowed. The concept was applied to marriage first in the same media, entertainment, and now to the whole country. God forbid my wife gets older, not the same woman I married - I'll sue her or ask the judge to invalidate the relationship and call it 'no fault divorce'.
  
  Applied universally, no one could send food back at a restuarant nor sue for food poisening, since the diner ate what the chef designed and arranged on the plate. That it was purchased ostensibly for consumption has no bearing. In fact a really Oscar winning restuarant could stop diners eating out of proper order for maximum gustatory results. Appetizer first and must be included, then salad with dressing on the side, not mixed in.
  
  I want to license my right view and do everything and send the bill to Hollywood. Perhaps I can get the judge to agree. Should not be hard with his reasoning ability. My walk is distinctive and you cannot watch without paying me. Have cash in your hand as I come by.
• 

  Jannette

  2 years ago

  I am extreamly disturbed by some of the comments. I love these Hollywood movies but I can't stand the content in them. There are scenes and language that are put in that have no point to even be there. I can't watch movies with my children, even the "kids" PG movies. The language and suggestions that Hollywood puts in them are rediculous. I don't even like to watch them, and I don't. I haven't been to a movie at the theater in years. I can't go. It's terrible. It's offensive to me and should be to everyone else there sitting the theater. Where are peoples morals. All Clean Flicks was doing was making these great Hollywood movies available to the more sensitive and moral people in the world. If anyting, Clean Flicks was spreading Hollywoods movies to more people, I watched more movies that looked great from Clean Flicks than I ever had in my lifetime. I am very upset that now my over 150 "Hollywood" movies I would have liked to of watched from Clean Flicks is no longer available to see. I used to enjoy watching movies. Now days, it's just plane sick and wrong what "Hollywood" is putting in them. It's a shame. Clean Flicks and any other editing company have my 110% support. They are the only ones out there getting rid of the filth in movies. Anyone who feels different, your filth just like what's added to these movies.