' Naughty Bits' Decision Not So Nice 459
While some comments evaluated the decision as a victory for filmmakers as artists rather than merely as copyright holders, some readers aren't so sure that directors' and studios' interests have much to do artistic integrity, and suggest that it's primarily their commercial rather than aesthetic interests being served here. TheFlyingGoat makes a case for this view:
"I understand where the movie companies are coming from in terms of copyright... they don't want people taking a DVD, adding additional clips/features/menus/etc, and selling that for a profit. ...As for the directors and producers that claim their artistic vision was impeded upon, they sure don't have an issue with those movies being modified in the exact same way for broadcast on network tv. All they care about is the large amount of money the networks give them.
So, what this really comes down to is the movie studios wanting complete control over their works, which I'm surprised to see much of the Slashdot crowd backing up. Seems it's better to hate "the red states" than to hate the MPAA."
Whether even the financial interest of the studios is being served by nixing the Cleanflix service, though, is a point that the same reader finds ambiguous, too. [the studios are] "getting just as much money from each DVD sale, so it's not like they're losing any business. In fact, they're probably gaining business from those people who wouldn't normally buy a certain movie due to violent/sexual/etc content, but will if they get an edited version of the movie."
MarcoAtWork says he doesn't swallow the "artistic integrity" argument either, and notes the bizarre script deviations which licensed showings on broadcast or cable television sometimes end up with: "Something tells me that the director's 'artistic vision' for example didn't include Bruce Willis saying 'Yippee-ki-yay Mister Falcon.' in Die Hard, or 'This is what happens whey you find a stranger in the Alps!' in the Big Lebowski."
Anticipating a "kneejerk reaction," reader Brian_Ellenberger has a more aggressive reaction of his own, writing
"Don't approve of this action just because you think it only hurts a bunch of 'right-wing Christian zealots.' Remember fair use! There was a one-to-one copy sold with each of these DVDs---the original and the edited. The filmmakers did not lose one dime, and in fact made money with each copy sold. ... So if we are to argue that, if you bought something you have the legal right to do whatever you want to it (Fast Forward through commercials, play on a Linux box, rip to a hard drive), then you cannot allow Hollywood to start acquiring new rights for their so-called 'artistic vision.' Otherwise, you will find yourself unable to fast forward through scenes (or commercials) because that would violate the 'artistic vision' of Hollywood."
More concise is reader Raul654's capsule description of the result: "If I own a DVD, I cannot pay someone to make a copy of that movie for me sans parts I might find offensive. It's not censorship, because I'm the one asking him to do it for me."
There are plenty of mixed feelings about motives and results in this discussion, though: reader m874t232 says he doesn't like people who "scrub" movies, but he still doesn't like the outcome because of the short-sightedness he perceives in it, writing "For millennia, art has progressed and evolved by taking some prior artist's work and modifying it, often in ways that the original artist didn't agree with. Except for possibly receiving financial compensation for a limited time for each copy created, artists should not have the power to control what happens to their creations after they have released them to the public."
Reader zakezuke took issue with that viewpoint, arguing instead that"Fair use would be you making a backup copy, putting the one you bought into storage, and using the backup. This is fair use. Heck, even taking a film that you own, making a copy and cutting out scenes you don't like... that is also fair use. What's not fair use is making a copy, cutting scenes, and selling it as a new version without any consent. This is not a one to one copy as there are scenes cut. Money is beside the point... a copyright holder has every right to choose how a work is distributed. This would include not wanting some bozo cutting scenes on a work that took time to create. Any flaws, mistakes, anything which affects the overall presentation can damage the reputation of the respective studio and artists that created the work. It's like taking spray paint to a piece of fine art and going over the bits one finds offensive, this affects the quality of the piece and the viewer might assume the artist is sloppy dolt or doesn't have the technical skill or is too reserved to make a winkle."
Reader spencer1 offers some insight into why people might want to watch movies in other than their all-killing, all-cursing original versions:
"As others have already stated, this has absolutely nothing to do with Walmart. This applies to services such as CleanFlix, which are very popular in Utah and Idaho. I am a Mormon, and I frequent Cleanflix often. Some movies are very enjoyable, but contain bits that I don't wish to see. If the mainstream want to see those bits, fine, go ahead; these services are not for them. If I don't want to see it, how does it affect you? Cleanflix allows me to rent movies that I would not otherwise rent, they are now turning away a potential customer. This does not hurt the copyright holder, they still receive the full purchase price for all the movies that Cleanflix uses. Their revenue is not altered in any way by this editing."
For anyone who has reason to desire a version other than the theatrical release of a film, the decision against Cleanflix doesn't mean the end of expurgation; reader jambarama points out a technical solution which seems much less legally fragile (and which seems to meet zakezuke's objection above), in the form of another service with a similar practical result, but without the messiness of reproducing a derivative work, writing:
"A good alternative for those who don't want their young children to see 'bad' stuff is Clearplay. We've had it for a while, here is how it works:
- Buy a normal DVD with all the "naughty bits"
- Get the filter from the clearplay website for that DVD
- Transfer the filter via USB or CD to the clearplay DVD player
- Watch your DVD - the filter tells the DVD player where to skip the naughty bits - no editing, just timecodes to be skipped."
Something similar could probably be put together fairly quickly using programs like Avidemux or VirtualDub for those who don't mind distributing the work of classifying and sharing the necessary edit-decision lists. Reader OYAHHH outlines how such a system might be implemented for those unlikely to apply hand-edited EDLs:
"What somebody needs to do is to devise a DVD player that can read a file delineating where the objectionable parts are on the particular DVD. Once the bad parts are known to the player the player simply skips them.
People who want to view the unedited version are happy and those that don't desire to see whatever content can be happy as well.
The original content on the original DVD is not altered in any manner. Copyright is protected.
Religious groups could then produce the "files" to correspond to their own needs and distribute these files via the Internet. The files are uploaded to the special DVD player."
Thanks to all the readers who contributed to this discussion, especially those quoted above.
Re:A helpful demonstration by Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
My only problem is with your phrase that copyright is "horribly broken." If it is broken, how do you fix it?
I know a lot of slashdot/FOSS advocates love Lessig's Creative Commons [creativecommons.org], but to me CC is just another shill for state-destruction of individual rights. In EVERY situation where the law is supposed to protect you (and the "crime" is so easy to accomplish), you will have zero power to protect those rights that the law seems to create. Even under CC, how can you enforce the law that backs it up? With what money, with what attorney, and in what court?
Copyright is dead -- not broken. Copyright is useless and enables nothing; no one creates because of copyright. I repudiate copyright on every single thing I publish in the public eye (blogs, music, video productions, etc). I use the free distribution of information to increase my billable rate for people who want to know more about my trade secrets: I'll write about things I can do, and then charge customers more for the secrets I hold back. That is where the power of creation is: in creating a bigger market for your private knowledge or unique talents (such as a band performing live for a fee but giving their digital music aware freely).
New Use for the Clearplay DVD player (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Should be legal, but still stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
How about people that don't want their 6 year old calling them a bitch because they heard it on TV.
How about cutting out the sex scenes so we reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. Everyone wants their kids to experience everything, well guess what...they do experience everything when they are young, then get get pregnant, or a STD at age 16 and then guess what, their life is screwed. And why is it screwed...because mommy and daddy let their kids watch sex scenes in movies at age 10 and their kids wanted to do it as soon as they could.
A good action film is still entertaining to watch without hearing the 'F' word every 5 seconds.
Gee, that was a biased summary. (Score:5, Interesting)
But, hey, it's a lot more fun to editorialize, in this case by selectively choosing user comments in order to manufacture a perceived concensus.
One reason for why studios would care (Score:5, Interesting)
An outfit in Utah comes along, buys a copy of the $20 R-rated version, edits it to PG level, and sells it for $25.
The studio is out $5, and it's an easy to argue copyright violation.
Now my issue is that the studios are not taking advantage of their full copyrights and issuing the PG version. I feel that if they don't after a few years, they should relinquish those rights and let the company in Utah innovate appropriately (by buying the $20 DVD and then editing it.) It'd really only take a law to change, and in today's political environment would be an easy sell to Congress.
Re:The question seems to be... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah....
Taking a movie that may be a fine and intriguing movie but have one small scene and eliminating it is not the end of the world. And if you've already bought the DVD, it should be within your right to NOT view such.
Titanic is a great example for me. The stupid scene in the back of the car cheapened the whole feel of the movie for me. And no, I don't have an issue with a sex scene. But I would have preferred not to have that scene. And if I had a 9 yr old kid. I'd probably like to pass on the scene as well.
MPAA et al not happy with Clearplay, either (Score:5, Interesting)
The studios purport to be every bit as unhappy with Clearplay as the re-recording service providers that were the subject of this lawsuit. They are currently suing Clearplay in the case Huntsman v. Soderbergh/a? which is pending. [eff.org]
You can read all about it at the linked EFF site.
Basically, the arguments are almost all exactly the same -- except that the copyright issue is obviously different as there is no copy being sold. With Clearplay, you buy or rent the regular disk, and the Clearplay-supplied DVD player and service skips the naughty bits. The directors filing the lawsuit complain that their names and trademarks are applied to a "created" movie that is not their original movie -- and they are attempting to use trademark as well as copyright law to fight Clearplay.
From the pace that this case has been proceeding through the courts, it's going to be a very long time before it is resolved.
Thad Beier
Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep a look out at the LRC [lewrockwell.com] and at the Mises Institute blog [mises.org] for more updates on the LP issue. I gave up my membership a few years ago when I realized that the LP internal politics prevented anything from moving forward. Only in the past 2 years did I realize that voting is also fraudulent, coercive, and against almost everything that can be labeled as "free" or "pro-liberty."
Copyright is one of those issues that even Mises and the LRC don't agree with me on -- I guess I'm a fringe libertarian.
Re:New Use for the Clearplay DVD player (Score:3, Interesting)
Ugh (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's say that you were a director and released a fairly hum-drum movie about life in the 'hood. You would probably have some violent scenes in there, where people of various minorities were vicious criminals. At the same time, you show how people of the same minorities are trying to fight back against gang violence or whatever. Indeed, that's the point of your movie.
What happens when someone's Neo-Nazi cutting service takes your movie and figures out how to cut out the sympathetic parts so that it almost turns into a modern-day Birth of a Nation? Then, they market the 'altered' version in much the same way that this cleaning service market's their services.
Now, technically, you got paid for what turned into Birth of a Nation II, but now your work, and your actors' performances are now on the Aryan Nation's hit parade. What if, due to the clever editing, your movie ends up being a more popular Neo-Nazi parapaganda film than it ever was before editing. Well, guess what? You're fucked. Your movie and actors are being clucked about on Oprah. I'm sure she'd be all upset that your well-intentioned movie was mangled in this way, but in the end, you're the guy who made Birth of a Nation II, or Triumph of the Will: The Next Generation.
I think there needs to be a careful line drawn about that can be done professionally. I agree that this service is probably completely harmless, and I HATE the fact that the studios are probably simply looking to make sure they *they* are the ones who make the money from any sanitizations done, but they have a point. Its probably something that needs some better definition within copyright legislation.
How is this different... (Score:2, Interesting)
Meh, the whole copyright business is so borken it's a waste of time. I think I'll stick with the "who cares?" model and only buy used stuff until they come to their senses with all this nonsense.
Here's a for instance, a variation on it, instead of censoring out, how about placing-in as an option? I think it would be a hoot to get something like star wars with some added scenes and dialogue from third parties, like more bar scenes! How about princess lea's half sisters and their "hidden secrets"? Huh, huh, sounding better now? How about a jabba the hut family BBQ scene? I mean, this has potential here!
Re:The question seems to be... (Score:1, Interesting)
How about if I buy a PC that comes with software pre-loaded, uninstall some but not all of that software, and resell it to someone else. Is this illegal?
What if someone blacks out all the swearwords in a book with marker?
Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
each copy of linux would be aquired legally then modified and resold, perhapse loaded with DRM or otherwise corrupted, and since the company no longer needs permission to resell legally aquired but modified works the GPL would have no teeth
this was a good decision
Re:The question seems to be... (Score:3, Interesting)
Open-source licenses generally explicitly allow the downstream user to alter the work, provided certain requirements are met, such as preserving copyright notices and licenses, so your point falls flat.
It was rated PG-13.
Re:The question seems to be... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ugh (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, they could make a case for this being legitimate. Since they are not reproducing your product, but are instead creating something new, it is 'transformative'. That means it is possible to classify this as fair use. Even with commercial intent, even with significant copying, it can still be okay. The significant case here is the SCOTUS ruling about 2 Live Crew's "Pretty Woman" remake [benedict.com].
Obviously you'd have to prove in court that it wasn't just a cheap attempt to undercut the original, but you could make a good case for it.
Re:More proof as to who is "helped" by copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Where are lines faster -- the grocery store or the DMV?
It is ridiculous to think that the US government has made airlines SAFER. The airlines were "off the hook" BECAUSE of FAA mandates -- the big airlines openly WELCOME FAA mandates because they know it sets an unbearably high (and inefficient and useless) standard that most competitors won't be able to meet.
If an airline is given 100% responsibilities for its future, why would they want an explosion or a crash? If tort were properly returned to a more free-market system, insurance companies would have more reason to be involved in the safety of their customers.
The FAA _is_ guilty of 9/11 as well as flight delays. When Canada privatized their FAA, delays went from one of the worst in the Western world to one of the best, if not THE best. Unions are inefficient, public ones are terrible.