MPAA Lawsuit Against Family-Friendly DVDs is Anti-Consumer, says CEA

[BJ_M]

Congress Should Not Tolerate "Copyright Abuse" That Denies Parents Freedom to Make Positive Family Choices

Families who want more control over what their children see and hear should not be denied by a narrow reading of the copyright law as urged by the big movie studios, Consumer Electronics Association (CEA®) Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Michael Petricone argued, referring to testimony submitted today before a congressional subcommittee.

"We commend Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky and the Subcommittee for looking into these critical issues," Petricone said. "The Hollywood lawsuit against CleanFlicks is a perfect example of the copyright law run amok. There is simply no reason why parents should not be able to use new technologies to shield their children from graphic sex and violence."

Written testimony was submitted on behalf of CEA and the Home Recording Rights Coalition (HRRC) to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection for a hearing exploring, "Editing Hollywood's Editors: Cleaning Flicks for Families."

"Copyright protection is already at a historically high water-mark. Unfortunately, the big studios are now using their power to restrict reasonable and legal options for families," Petricone continued. "We think it is important for Congress to give parents the freedom to make positive choices. Entrepreneurs should be empowered to provide them with the tools to make those choices. That is one of the reasons we have been so supportive of H.R. 1201, sponsored by Congressman Boucher (D-VA).

"H.R. 1201 allows consumers who have lawfully acquired movies, albums and other content the ability to use them for personal and noncommercial purposes. H.R. 1201 would also empower parents to better control access to inappropriate content on DVD movies, to help their children use technology to prepare multimedia reports for school presentations and to otherwise enhance their freedom to use content they have lawfully acquired."

HRRC is urging concerned consumers to visit its web site, www.HRRC.org, to send a message to Members of Congress about the importance of fair use rights in the digital age.

[celtic_druid]

DRM is anti-consumer. Region codes are anti-consumer. Lots of things the MPAA does are anti-consumer. Nothing new there.

What I don't get is that if a film contains content that you don't think is suitable, then surely the logical approach is to not watch the movie. Not to destroy it by cutting.

[guns1inger]

Exactly. Taking adult language out of an adult themed film does not make it suitable for children. If you don't like the sex, violence or language in a film, why would you like what's left once you take it all out ?

However you have to understand that to those who would cut a film to pieces, it is not the art that they want to preserve, but thier views on suitable content that they want to inflict. They believe that cutting the film to pieces improves it by removing the so-called offensive content.

But you can't have some fair-use and not others without circling back to none at all. If you want fair-use provisions to circumvent DRM to protect personal investment (i.e. the discs you buy), then the trade off is to let a minority of people with a particular belief to alter films to suit their beliefs. So long as they remain the minority, and keep these bastardised versions to themselves, it may be the small price we have to pay for greater freedoms.

[CrayonEater]

Uh, not really. In this day and age, a person who misses out on movies and some level of culture faces a degree of social exile. This is particularly tough on kids. Somewhat sanitized content allows for a happy medium between those who would prefer it "as-is" and those who would not be able to see it at all because it's too graphic, gory, etc. Of course, not everything can be sanitized, to be sure.
Also, the reality is that media - especially violence - is far too easily available and accessible, especially by kids. Under current law, it is too easy for kids to get exposed to things against their parent's wishes. At least, this provides a method by which a child's interest in a particular movie may be satisfied without all the gory details.

[guns1inger]

Ratings are there to tell parents what age group a film is suitable for, and what type of content is included. Parents have a responsibility to look after the well being of their children. They can't watch them 24 hours a day, granted. But I know a lot of parents who let their young children watch things that are completely unsuitable for their age group. This is not because the material is too easily available - they introduced it into the house themselves. This is a parenting issue, and an issue of personal responsibility.

We have devloped into a society that says we should be able to have everything we want, in the way we want it, now. That is, frankly, a bullshit atitude. You don't have the right to expect instant gratification in all things. You choose to follow a set of beliefs. It is a personal choice. Hand in hand with that choice is a decision to forgo certain things as part of that life. You choose to become a vegan, you understand you will be giving up animal products. You choose to follow a particular faith, you understand that with it comes certain sacrifices. If you can't accept the cost, you have chosen the wrong thing to believe in.

I have the tools and skills to easily recut a film in pretty much any way I choose. I choose not to. I have an ever growing list of movies that I will show my kids, when they are old enough. I respect the art too much to butcher it so they can see it a few year sooner.

And that is the basic issue - respect. Respect for others, respect for self, respect for the law.

I have already said that I don't agree with the law, and would be willing to allow this butchery to happen if it meant a more realistic set of laws across the board. But I certainly cannot agree with or condone the action, or the reason for the action, in this case.

[adam]

The CEA thinks that a lawsuit against CleanFlicks is anti-consumer, but if I remember correctly, everytime this lawsuit has been brought up on this site the majority of posters have stated that they believe CleanFlicks to be in the wrong here. Fair Use allowing you to edit out content of your own storebought DVDs, or allowing you to use self-censor devices to change how the movie is played, is one thing. But a company cutting out scenes and then reselling that movie at an inflated cost, AND bypassing the MPAA ratings board, AND probably bypassing the mechanical license requirement to sell the film, just isn't right.

I don't see what that H.R. 1201 bill has to do with this. Giving people more power to edit their own movies and albums for "noncommercial purposes" is fine but that is not what CleanFlicks was doing. This was clearly a commercial use. I seriously doubt the bill says you can sell DVDs without a mechanical license as long as you also alter the material without permission, which in and of itself is a copyright violation!

[BJ_M]

i dont think CleanFlicks is in the right also ... i dont like what they are doing ....

[thecoalman]

I agree with the copyright holders, if you make a copyrighted work it should be seen, read, or heard however the author intended it to be. There's is just too many possibilities for abuse such as changing the entire context of what you have made.

[jagabo]

I agree with the copyright holders, if you make a copyrighted work it should be seen, read, or heard however the author intended it to be.

Yes, you should not be able to fast forward, rewind, pause, skip scenes, pick chapters, etc. Once you start playing the movie you should be forced to sit through the entire thing, the first time you watch it, or the 100th. Anything less would completely destroy the integrity of the work.

[normcar]

Maybe I'm a bit stupid, but what is the difference in a company purchasing the movie from a producer, changing the move so it is "family friendly", and a limo company purchasing a car from a manufacture, and cutting it in half to install an extender in the middle? It seems as if you should be able to do anything you want to your own property. If the studios don't want their films changed or backedup for personal use, they can decide not to sell the films on VHS or DVD.

[normcar]

Another thought.

Should a shovel manufacture prevent you from purchasing a longer peice of wood to replace the shaft between the handle and the shovel, or to replace it with a fiberglass handle?

It seems to me that copyright, and all the other laws were designed to allow the original deleveper/writer/etc. to make money on the original product. They were never intended to prevent someone from purchasing the product, and then making upgrades to the product. The entire civilized world was created on the premise that making enhancements to the original product is a good thing. If no one is allowed to do this, then no product would ever be improved, and only brand new products would be allowed to be created.

Copyrights, etc used to have relatively short lives so that the original creater could make a return on investment, and a profit so that everyone had incentive to make investments in new products. It was never meant to be an absolute right forever. And any law that creates such a situation, lessons the creativity and incentive. Even an author should have limited length of rights, or they have much less incentive to create new works. Long serving, or enhanced rights to original copyright holders, lessen the ability for society as a whole to move forward and improve itself, which is the reason behind the copyright type laws in the first place.

[Supreme2k]

I agree with the copyright holders, if you make a copyrighted work it should be seen, read, or heard however the author intended it to be. There's is just too many possibilities for abuse such as changing the entire context of what you have made.

That seems to be kind of a "boo-hoo" situation. Sure, the author has limited control over the film in theaters, but that's where it stops. Whatever his original plan, the author cannot dictate whether I can turn the color off, over-saturate the color, or watch chapters in random order. Their "vision" means nothing to me. They may be making a political statement with the film, but I may (choose to) see only an action flick.

That being said, I also think that cleanflicks is full of crap. If you want to run a business, there are certain costs and permissions that go along with it.

[stantheman1976]

Some of you guys have a good argument that certain adult themed films censored for kids don't automatically become appropriate for children. However, there are certain movies that I would only object to maybe one scene or word. Independence Day is an example. Off the top of my head the only 2 parts of the movie that I wouldn't want my child to see are Vivica Fox's scene in the strip club and when they are mounting the main attack when Bill Pullman says, "Let's find some 'GD' pilots" (we all know what that stands for). Also when Will Smith says "You did not shoot that green s*** at me". Taking these small pieces out of the movie wouldn't change the story or continuity of the film.

[normcar]

That being said, I also think that cleanflicks is full of crap. If you want to run a business, there are certain costs and permissions that go along with it.

I am assuming that cleanflicks has purchased a copy of the original movie for every converted copy it sells. If they do this, then they should be allowed to do anything they want with it before reselling it. What if you make a DVD player that allows you to change eliminate the offensive scenes, does that get covered to, because the same result occurs. The movei is seen in a way different than originally created.

If a company buys a bolt and uses it to build a car, then they should be allowed to heat up the bolt and bend it in an L shape before using it. It was not the original use it was intended, but the bolt owner can use it any way they want for legal purpses. Congress should not make using a bolt for another purpse illegal. However, using a bolt to kill someone is illegal. That is the way the laws should work. But as always, the people with the money have the ability to create BS laws to increase their own profit without creating new ideas or new products. Do you think the studios/music companies would give a crap about copying, if they were making a lot of money on new product? The unwillingness of the public to buy the crap the movie/music studios are forcing them to try to make money on reselling the old stuff over and over.

Also, if the original cut of the movie is soooooo important, then why do studios come out with extended versions, or directors cuts, or upgrade the effects? How about remixes of songs? The argument that the original is absolute, and can never be shown/heard with any changes is null and voided by the very studios that argue it.

[ViRaL1]

If you don't want unsuitable content, learn how to edit. If that's too much work for you then you apparently don't need to see it that badly. I don't think another company has a right to modify someone else's work and redistribute it without regard for the original copyright. I'm not a fan of DRM, but i get the feeling there's not much if any agreement between the studios and the companies distributing their 'sanitized' versions. What if the clean version is wildly popular for some reason and the original isn't, why should one business thrive off of another's hard work?

[tonyp12]

All of the Family edited DVD companies have now closed their doors as a couple of months back.

You may not agree on their Cristian (mostly Morman) belife.
But is this change of ruling a little to late?, they have closed their
doors and sold all their inventory.

[normcar]

why should one business thrive off of another's hard work?

That happens all the time. Do you think that every company that sells original parts makes more money than the companies that combine the parts to make the finished product? Employees at many companies work hard, and the company makes all the profit, while the employee makes min wage. Its not how hard you work, its comming up with a good product, and having people willing to buy it. Editing a movie for people, is just another product/service that people are willing to pay for. Not everyone hast the time/knowlege/hardware to do the editing themselves.

If the studios did it, they would make the money, but they don't want to bother because it is a small amount of money for their return. But for a smaller company, it may be very profitable. The Sex and the City producers did just that, and they are making more money by being able to show eps on non-pay TV.

[ViRaL1]

If the studios did it, they would make the money, but they don't want to bother because it is a small amount of money for their return. But for a smaller company, it may be very profitable. The Sex and the City producers did just that, and they are making more money by being able to show eps on non-pay TV.

The difference here being that it was something the copyright holders agreed to. Let's look at it from the other end. What if I decided that Disney's movies weren't racy enough and that I could make tons of money editing them and to nudity, violence and explicit language and then selling them. How long do you think I'd be able to stay in business (and possibly out of jail)?

[normcar]

[quote="ViRaL1"]

What if I decided that Disney's movies weren't racy enough and that I could make tons of money editing them and to nudity, violence and explicit language and then selling them. How long do you think I'd be able to stay in business (and possibly out of jail)?

I never said that it is now legal, only that you should be able to do anything you want to a product you own, before you resell it (assuming no kiddie porn, etc. that is illegal for reasons other than copyright). If it was legal, you may or may not make money doing it. There may indeed be a limited market for the material.

The copyright etc. should be for a limited time only, I say as much if you will read my previous posts. When the copyright hits it time limit, it should be public domain. However, the big money businesses will always spend enough money on polititions of both parties to make any such thing illegal. The orginal intent of the copyright/etc laws have been extended far beyond the original intentions of such laws. Many such laws have had the original time limit doubled, tripled, or even greater extentions. But we all know big money is able to create big sticks. However, for now, they cannot reach into your home if you do not allow them to without good reason. Also they get bad reps for trying to reach into your home anyway. (See all the new online download formats and programs).

[Dr_Layne]

The problem is, with copyright material, you don't own the movie, the story, or the audio recording. You own the media it was published on. If I buy a bolt, I own the bolt. I can do whatever I want with the bolt. The bolt does not have a copyright. It is not considered "art".

Cleanflicks buys a movie off shelf edits it and resells the edited version. Unless they have the copyright holder's permission, it's simply illegal. Now, if someone invents a dvd player that will "skip" offensive material, then that would be different. No one is reselling a copyrighted work.

[lordsmurf]

In the modern era of movies, where a few tits are flashed, or a quick bloodbath happened, or just randomly using the word "****" for no reason, then I have to agree with CleanFlicks and CEA. That was done to get a PG13 or R rating, for their target 18-35 demographic, and for no other reason.

DUKES OF HAZZARD is a perfect example of a movie that needed less marijuana references. There was nothing "Dukes" about that. That movie, without the few tidbits of crap, is perfect for kids and everybody.

On the other hand, you cannot "cleanse" a movie like KINSEY (something I rented and watched this week). Another example would be PULP FICTION. Those are not for kids, ultra-religious, or just easily offended audiences.

I think it should be allowed as long as there are some timing restrictions put into place. You cannot be allowed to censor 50% of the movie, because it would changed the picture. But something like 2% is fine (2-3 minutes removed from a film), just cut out a few minor issues to make it more acceptable to a wider audience.

You have to remember that you're only extending rights here. Television stations already have the access and ability to do this. So why not parents too? Makes sense to me.

I'm no prude, but I think tit flashes, quickie bloodbaths and random cuss words are pretty stupid, and I almost don't want to watch a film that has to pander to idiots (people who only see PG13 and R, instead of seeing whatever looks good).

[normcar]

That's the problem with copyright. If you buy a copy of it, you don't actually own it. You only own the material it is on. It’s like buying a car and not owning it because you didn't invent it. If I don't own it, then why are you "selling it" to me. You’re really renting or leasing it to me. I also believe the original intent of the copyright was not to give protection forever. That is like saying the person who invented paper should have rights over it forever. That is just stupid. If your ancestor wrote something 100 yrs ago. What good reason do you have to keep the copyright? The copyright was created to protect people’s work(but only author’s work, not work you and I create at our employers). My work is not protected. I have to re-earn my pay every day. The copyright was originally used to help people get the profits for themselves, not to create a publishing empire of different works by different people, which is what the studios do. Is a dead person going to have any incentive to produce more work? The incentive and financial ability to produce more work was the original design, which has been corrupted.

Fair use needs to be expanded because of new forms of media, so you don't have to buy (but you don't actually own) the same product over and over. I don't buy my car over and over, I buy a newly produced car, with a new design, new tires, new seats, new everything. They don't sell me the same car I already have, that would be stupid. If you don't own the copyrighted material it should be a license, and then you should be allowed to move the license to different media, as long as you don't use more than one at a time. But it is better for them to resell you (but you don't own it) over and over again.

If they take your money for a product, but you don't own it, isn’t that called stealing?

[yoda313]

Television stations already have the access and ability to do this. So why not parents too? Makes sense to me.

Good point haven't thought about that angle. Yeah tv always cuts stuff out. Why shouldn't you have the ability to buy an "edited copy"?

I could see the benefit of getting a "edited" clean copy that would be better than one off of tv. Better picture and digital surround sound.

Now of course I know how to rip and edit but if I was interested in this endeavor I could see buying a "clean" version instead of buying the original and taking hours to do it.

THen again if you like the movie a lot buy the original. If you don't think it has any redeeming value don't buy it - simple as that....

[celtic_druid]

TV stations and airlines have permission to do what they do.

[thecoalman]

Yes, you should not be able to fast forward, rewind, pause, skip scenes, pick chapters, etc. Once you start playing the movie you should be forced to sit through the entire thing, the first time you watch it, or the 100th. Anything less would completely destroy the integrity of the work.

Agree with 100% Jagaboo ..... See what I mean, everyone would know you were being sarcastic because you had originally quoted me. Take the quote out and the entire context of your post has changed.

[lordsmurf]

Especially if you don't correctly use the QUOTE bbcode. :P :P



EDIT ... ah, boooo, you fixed it...

[thecoalman]

Beat you to it, doesn't even say edited.

[jagabo]

See what I mean, everyone would know you were being sarcastic because you had originally quoted me. Take the quote out and the entire context of your post has changed.

I don't think anyone in their right mind missed the sarcasm in my remark.

Personally, I prefer to watch movies the way they were produced. But I have no problem with people who want to see them "differently".

[Conquest10]

Television stations already have the access and ability to do this. So why not parents too? Makes sense to me.

Good point haven't thought about that angle. Yeah tv always cuts stuff out. Why shouldn't you have the ability to buy an "edited copy"?

I could see the benefit of getting a "edited" clean copy that would be better than one off of tv. Better picture and digital surround sound.

Now of course I know how to rip and edit but if I was interested in this endeavor I could see buying a "clean" version instead of buying the original and taking hours to do it.

THen again if you like the movie a lot buy the original. If you don't think it has any redeeming value don't buy it - simple as that....

They should release an edited version. How is it done with music CDs? Walmart and K-Mart only sell "clean" albums. Weird that they haven't done that with movies seeing as tv always shows edited versions.

[painkiller]

Yeah, I always get confused when watching Die Hard on TBS, or TNT.



By the way, just who is - Mister Falcon????