Movie studios sue companies that sanitize DVDs

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) --Hollywood studios have fired back at video rental stores and technology companies that allow consumers to watch films that have been altered to remove nudity, violence and foul language.

Eight major studios, which own the copyrights to the films, filed a lawsuit Friday in federal court in Denver, backing legal action by movie directors who claim the editors violate copyright laws.

The studios also allege the companies violate trademark law when they rent or sell an altered movie in the original packaging.

In August, CleanFlicks of Colorado, a dealer associated with Pleasant Grove, Utah-based CleanFlicks, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver asking the court to rule that what they do -- rent and sell edited movies -- is legal.

The Directors Guild of America fired back in September with a countersuit, claiming that editing the films to make them more "family friendly" violates the creative vision of the director and misrepresents their work.

CleanFlicks uses a proprietary software system to sanitize the films. Individual video stores buy copies of video tapes or DVDs from the studios, then send them to CleanFlicks in Utah where they are edited and sent back for sale or rental.

A company called ClearPlay, also based in Utah, sells software that can be downloaded on a computer that mutes foul language or skips over objectionable scenes when a DVD is played on a computer.

Directors asked the movie studios to join the case because they hold the actual copyrights.

Friday's lawsuit complains the film sanitizers charge as much as $20 more for films that have been edited and asked the court to stop the practice.

"They intend to protect their copyrights and trademarks vigorously," said Jonathan Zavin, an attorney representing Warner Bros., The Walt Disney Co., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal Studios, Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount and DreamWorks.

The sanitized films are gaining popularity because Hollywood continues to make ever more violent and sexually explicit movies, the companies argue.

"For the studios to join in this suit is Hollywood hypocrisy at its worst," said Bill Aho, chief executive of ClearPlay. "Two years ago, studio executives went before a presidential commission saying they support tools to help parents deal with movies. Now that the tools exist, they go to court to get them banned."

The lawsuit is expected to go to trial early next year.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/14/sanitized.movies.ap/index.html

I don't see this as an issue of copyrights, but rather one of artistic moral rights. If a director decides that he wants something, it shouldn't be edited out without his permission.

I note that JK Rowling has taken an active role in the Potter movies in order to ensure that they follow the books closely; after she has done this, it would be absurd if someone else could come along and rent modified versions of the movies.

(On a side note, sex and violence can be added nearly as easily as it can be removed... do we really want to go down that path?)

Yes, and we should also censor out the hundreds of people that die in hospitals, open heart surgeries that are broadcast on TV, the act of sex itself beucase as every theist (just kidding) will tell you it's a dirty act and no one should watch it or do it unless married, and while we are at it, we should get rid of freedom of speech, thought, and existance. Who needs them?

No - Get your dirty hands off my moviez!Could you rephrase that a little into:


No - Get your hands off my dirty moviez! :D

LOL good one!

I have to side with the movie studios here. It is absurd.
After many months of filming and editing you create a masterpiece movie.
Then someone else comes along and rearanges the scenes and deletes scenes? I think they have a strong case:rolleyes:

Anyway, if you want a family friendly movie you rent a family friendly movie. You don't rent Rambo V with the bad scenes edited out. (What a short movie that would be :D )

And if, IF there ever is going to be a "light" version of each movie then it is up to the director to create that version. People can then rent eithr the standard edition or the light version. But I still think that is a dumb idea. Not all movies are family friendly. Live with it?

Would love to see censored version of Clockwork Orange.

Originally posted by sasha
Would love to see censored version of Clockwork Orange.

That's like wanting to watch Caligula or Salo without the x-rated scenes :)

Keep your dirty hands off my movies! :D

Yea I can't stand when movies are altered and not the *real* thing.... which is exactly why you shouldn't rent movies from library's.

LOL this is crazy :eek:

WTF! how can they say this is legal, they are altering someone elses product and then making money from it.

Hmmm, they will be gone soon, no judge will allow this. If they win, nothing will stop people taking your software and modifying it and then re-selling it.

This doesn't happen now, no way :angry: but to make it law :D oh my!

Tux, what they do is take out scenes from movies - what you're shown on TV is basically the same but it seems they go a bit overboard. No bloody scenes or sex scenes make it through.

Concerned parents want their kids to watch "Saving Private Ryan" with no bullets or blood

What good would the movie be then? It'll end up being 30min long with the edited scenes.... :rolleyes:

bloody scenes make it... and sex scenes are edited somewhat..

They wouldn't show saving private ryan on regular tv either.

Thats the whole point of the damn rating system or "This feature is intended for mature audiences only" (MA)

I'd like to see "This feature was rated MA, but after editing, we have rerated it PG"

Oh yeah, the FOX isn't charging you to watch it either.

The video store is.

Originally posted by Lirath


I'd like to see "This feature was rated MA, but after editing, we have rerated it PG"

That was really good :D

I guess on TV its ok, but not to edit them and then resell them for a profit.

The key difference between editing a movie for tv and what these folks do is that the edit for tv has been approved by the studio. If these companies had bothered to ask for approval first and been willing to pay, they might have had a shot, but since they just went ahead and did it, I think they're in trouble.

Shaving Ryan's Privates (http://www.netherworldnews.com/movie0409.html) :D:D:D

Vito

This country is supposed to be FREE SPEECH,well i say,leave the content ALONE!!!

If some stupid parant doesnt want thier dues ro see anything bad,THEY JUST WONT RENT IT!!!

The Dude :)

I like ACTION MOVIES,i love all those awesum movies (commando,etc......) Dont be removing anything!!!!!

I think it sucks that the movie industryt has started rating thier movies PG-13 instead of R,they arent as good.........(for Action,Violence,etc......) Oh well.........Commando KICKS!!!

Originally posted by Lirath
They wouldn't show saving private ryan on regular tv either.Actually, Saving Private Ryan was shown unedited on network TV (ABC) in the US more than a year ago.

Anyway, the legal loophole this company is trying to exploit, that some people miss in their arguments, is that they aren't editing the movies and reselling them. A company, say Blockbuster or even a local video, buys a copy of the movie directly and sends it to these guys. They take that copy from its "rightful owner" and edit it, charging for that service.

Kind of dodgy, and I don't think it should stand up, but that's why it isn't as clearly a copyright violation as it might seem like at first.

From what I read, they modify each copy that they legally buy, so that's not unlawful duplication of 1 copy. But it's going to be interesting because they filed a pre-emptive lawsuit first (the cleaning services) :D

Now, see, if the studios had any brains they would have jumped up and provided this service.

The entire system has mutated into something where the holders of the copyrights are not the ones creating the works. That's not right.

Eventually, the various writers, producers, et al may decide that they've had enough, and the system will change - maybe they will no longer sell the copyrights for entire movies to studios, but they will instead work out a compensation deal with the studios to use their distribution services.

On this issue, I say, if people don't want to see these kinds of works, protest the best way possible - don't buy the movies. Period.

Yeah, this is exactly how capitalism works... the seller mandates to you what you can watch...

So much for the buyer driven marketplace...

There is no selling anymore. They are leasing the rights to you. Look at the EULA for MS products, movies, etc etc. You haven't been "owning" software/movies/I.P. for years now.

On the other hand, if people get a clue and stop giving the big hollywood companies, the large software companies, etc their business, things might change. But until John Q. Public figures things out (don't hold your breath) AOL will still be the number one ISP and guys like Senator Holling will strip down your bill of rights to an index card.

To each his own. Maybe they'll start editing movies like Disneys Fantasia so the dinosaurs don't try to kill eachother when the Rites of Spring is played :)

No don't touch Fantasia!!!

hrm, seems like they just want some $$$. maybe they want to cash in on this new technology, and maybe they really couldnt, so they just sued the tech companies :D