Removing sex, swears from films violates copyright: court

[pdemondo]

I was not speaking of legality when talking about backing up DVDs. In most
countries, it is technically illegal to back up a DVD.
I am making
the assumption that most people on this site believe they should be able to
back up their legally purchased DVD. Therefore, if you are one of these people,
I would wonder why you would agree with this court ruling yet complain about
DVD copy restrictions.

If you compare the DVD editing to make a "best of" CD, how are these two different?

[Richie V]

If you compare the DVD editing to make a "best of" CD, how are these two different?

I think it's the fact that these companies are selling copies of these edited films; that's the problem. It would be like you selling this "best of" CD for £10, with no permission from the artists and copyright holders.

[RLT69]

Yes, this is FAIR USE. This is very much like making a "best of" compilation.
So would it be wrong for me to get my legally purchased Dark side of the Moon
and only make a CD of the track I want to listen to as I drive to work?

So if I can do that, can I edit songs to take out words I don't like?
How is the line drawn, and WHO get to draw it?

So in videos, I can't make a "best of" like I would do with a CD? Why? becasue
it offends the artist?

What if Pink Floyd was offended by me not listening to
Dark Side of the moon without edits? Would I have to stop?
(I do, in fact, enjoy the entire album and would never edit it)

Unfortunately the owner of the material that's who. There's a somewhat famous case related to this. Back in the lates 1980s a band by the name of the JAMMs (Justified and Ancients of Mu Mu) released an album called "1987: What the **** is Going on?" This album heavily sampled Abba's Dancing Queen. Abba sued the JAMMs. The JAMMs pleaded with Abba but to no avail. In fact there is this infamous story of them driving to sweden, in a 1957 Ford Galaxy, and leaving a note at Abba's studio - on the way back they built a fire a burned all the tapes.

The following year they released the same album with the word "edits" added to the title. In the album was instructions on how to recreate the original recordings in privacy of our own home.

So I guess the upshot is for commerical purposes this is a no-no but in the privacy of your own home....it should be...for now...unless of course it has some DRM

8)

[tgm4883]

I was not speaking of legality when talking about backing up DVDs. In most
countries, it is technically illegal to back up a DVD.
I am making
the assumption that most people on this site believe they should be able to
back up their legally purchased DVD. Therefore, if you are one of these people,
I would wonder why you would agree with this court ruling yet complain about
DVD copy restrictions.

If you compare the DVD editing to make a "best of" CD, how are these two different?

You keep telling me that people on here want to back up their dvd's, but then why is editing bad. You keep trying to link the two together. Do you really not know the difference between editing and backing up?

[Grain]

[quote="tgm4883"]

You keep telling me that people on here want to back up their dvd's, but then why is editing bad. You keep trying to link the two together. Do you really not know the difference between editing and backing up?

Unless your doing a 1 to 1 backup using DL discs, your editting by backing up. Even in that case, copy protection is being removed, and your therefore editting. Your not editting the movie content necessarily, but legally speaking you are modifying/editting a copyrighted product. As much as I hate the idea of "sanitizing" movies, and even more hate watching them, this is one case where I agree. If your backing up your bot DVD's, agreeing with this ruling is going against your own cause. It tastes bitter to line up with the likes of Clearplay doesn't it?

[ROF]

This is not about editing, sampling, or backing up copyrighted material. This lawsuit is about copyright violation. Just because someone tries to make something more user friendly or family oriented does not mean they are not violating copyright by doing so. These companies are making a profit selling or renting something which they are not entitled to. That is copyright violation, plain and simple.

[RLT69]

This is not about editing, sampling, or backing up copyrighted material. This lawsuit is about copyright violation. Just because someone tries to make something more user friendly or family oriented does not mean they are not violating copyright by doing so. These companies are making a profit selling or renting something which they are not entitled to. That is copyright violation, plain and simple.

The question comes down to whether or not it is lawful to edit a movie and then sell or rent for profit. Obviously these companies can sell and rent unaltered movies for profit. The question is can they do the same with altered ones? The court said no citing copyright violation.

However, altered movies are shown all the time on TV for profit. If a movie studio is perfectly willing to allow TV stations to alter their movies for content then why can't another company do the same for sale and/or rental to the general public?

It makes no sense to allow one entity the ability to alter a film and another not too.

[pdemondo]

So my point in equating backups to "editing" is: if you ignore the copyright holder
for one, why don't you think it's okay to ignore the copyright holder for the other?

Yes, this case has to do with vioilating or not violating copyright regardless if
the "violation" was done with the best of intentions.

The question, as I see it, : can someone edit a legally purchased video for thier own personal
use? Assuming, for the sake of aruguement, that they do not have to circumvent
copy protectoin. And if this is allowable, can a person purchase a video and have
a 3rd person make an edited copy for them? Like a format shift with a
cut here and there.

It seems the only way around this ruling is to purchase the DVD player that
edits a DVD as it is playing back. That will be much to rule as illegal, but
with the $$$$ of hollywood, nothing is impossible.

I think that most of you who object to these edits are somehow offended by people
cutting out smut they dont' want.

[Supreme2k]

If the ruling is [u]strictly[/i] for companies performing the operation beforehand and selling the edited copies, then I agree. I don't agree if it also includes people bringing their own discs to have them modified.

On the other hand, if it was allowed, it would set up the precedent that backing up is legal, which I wouldn't have a problem with either.

[StoryDonut]

I've checked out the CleanFlicks site out of curiosity and they are renting and selling these edited films, so I can understand why the directors and studios are pissed off.

I'm under the impression that when they sell the copies, that a legit full version is included with it in the transaction. For every rented altered version, a full retail version was purchased. So the studio still gets their cut. I don't think it has much to do with losing money or copyright violation. It's touchy ego filmmakers who can't stand the fact that someone can make a better version of their own product.

I do this regularly, and no court will stop me.

[guns1inger]

It's touchy ego filmmakers who can't stand the fact that someone can make a better version of their own product

A pretty presumptuous and egotistical statement in it's own right.

What you are saying is that you don't want to watch the movie the film maker made, you want to watch a different movie that suits your particular sensibilities. That's fine by them. They are syaing "If you don't like my movie, don't watch it. Just don't butcher it".

If you think your version is so superior, why not go out and make movies that you want to watch instead of changing their work ?

I know this forum frowns on religious and political posts, so I wil try to be sensitive to this, however the money and motive behind the organisations affected by this ruling is religeous. And not small churches, either. They have the money to fund movies that fit their moral view, and have the right to do so. The question is, why don't they ? The answer, I suspect, is that there really isn't a big enough market to make it worthwhile. It is more cost effective to piggyback of the hard work and vision of truely creative people, then simply neuter it.

What cleanflicks etc do to movies is the same as trying to put pants on the statue of David.

[davideck]

I don't see how providing an additional choice of version hurts anyone. No one is forcing anyone to view it. Apparently, there are people who prefer this choice and are willing to pay for it.

Where's the problem?

[MOVIEGEEK]

I don't see how providing an additional choice of version hurts anyone. No one is forcing anyone to view it. Apparently, there are people who prefer this choice and are willing to pay for it.

Where's the problem?

They didn't get permission,this court decision effects companies not individuals.
I don't have a problem with a sanitized version if it's produced by the filmmaker,such as putting a "clean" soundtrack on the DVD.

[dvdguy4]

Why is it that walmart sells toned down versions of cds while other stores have the same cd with everything un-edited. The film should have another version so if the parents who buy them dont have to worry about the sex and violence and so on. If they can release an unrated version why not sell an edited one like the one's on television

[davideck]

Where's the problem?

They didn't get permission,this court decision effects companies not individuals.

Yes, I agree that does constitute a fundamental problem.

[ROF]

This is not about editing, sampling, or backing up copyrighted material. This lawsuit is about copyright violation. Just because someone tries to make something more user friendly or family oriented does not mean they are not violating copyright by doing so. These companies are making a profit selling or renting something which they are not entitled to. That is copyright violation, plain and simple.

The question comes down to whether or not it is lawful to edit a movie and then sell or rent for profit. Obviously these companies can sell and rent unaltered movies for profit. The question is can they do the same with altered ones? The court said no citing copyright violation.

However, altered movies are shown all the time on TV for profit. If a movie studio is perfectly willing to allow TV stations to alter their movies for content then why can't another company do the same for sale and/or rental to the general public?

It makes no sense to allow one entity the ability to alter a film and another not too.

The difference is that the broadcaster pays the copyright owner each time their media is broadcast. On these altered videos the copyright owner receives no monies. Thus copyright violation.

[StoryDonut]

What you are saying is that you don't want to watch the movie the film maker made, you want to watch a different movie that suits your particular sensibilities. That's fine by them. They are syaing "If you don't like my movie, don't watch it. Just don't butcher it".

They can say that all they want, but the fact is the world isn't that small, and there are many more choices available than they're suggesting. I'm not restricted to "Watch it" or "Don't watch it." If I payed for the DVD, I've fulfilled my end of the bargain. Beyond that, I have a whole bunch of other choices that don't hurt them in any way other than their egos.

If you think your version is so superior, why not go out and make movies that you want to watch instead of changing their work ?

Simple. Because I don't have to, and it's far cheaper to make a good film better by re-editing it. And that's a nice straw man you threw out there with the religion-bashing. My motives have nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with having the tools and the talent to improve films, and using them.

[ROF]

If they can release an unrated version why not sell an edited one like the one's on television

Two Words:

Sex Sells!

It is just that simple. There is not enough money to be had by the copyright owner provided multiple versions of the same thing especially when the majority of folks realize that either a movie is inappropriate or it isn't.

Besides, bleeping out words, removing whole acts, and all the other bizarre things that censorship edits do only leaves the audience (including the ones you are censoring) with questions.

[ViRaL1]

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding but, is this different from me selling a 'better version' of a book by going through it with a black marker and covering up what you might not want to see?

As far as WalMart versions. What's the point really? Do you REALLY want your children listening to music that has to be edited? How young / naive does a child have to be to know what what '[bleep] you' or 'suck my [bleep]' means? The tone of the message is still the same.

[thecoalman]

Where's the problem?

One problem I can forsee is editing that changes the context of the film. What's to prevent some hate group from taking Schindler's list and editing it to their own tastes? See where I'm going....

As far as WalMart versions. What's the point really? Do you REALLY want your children listening to music that has to be edited? How young / naive does a child have to be to know what what '[bleep] you' or 'suck my [bleep]' means? The tone of the message is still the same.

Agree and the fact that wal-mart can force suplliers to bend to their rules just shows the overwhelming power they have. Too much if you ask me, their was recent show on that showed how they destroyed Rubbermaid because it would not bend to their demands. Wal-Mart has turned the tables on suppliers and can make or break a company... Personally if I was an artist I'd refuse to sell to wal-Mart even if it meant I went broke.

[greymalkin]

that's a good point..clearly some material is so full of foul language..etc. that it really makes no sense to even attempt editing it for people who are offended by such. But if the only option available for everything with any sort of offensive content in it was "watch" or "don't watch", then people who are offended by it would be sitting in a dark room staring at a candle.

A large percentage of anything available to watch or listen to is steeped in gratuitious sex, violence, and foul language. The "artistic merit" argument sounds nice but if that's really what it takes to get your "vision" across then it's a pretty shallow message in my opinion. The filmmakers are doing a great disservice to the rest of the language (whatever language the film might be in) as i'm sure offensive words make up about .01% of it. I'm sure the argument would be made it's "freedom of speech", but it's more like "pressure to be like everyone else". I saw a despair poster today and I thought of it while reading through this thread:

CONFORMITY: When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.

As someone above said, if it doesn't have sex and all of the other things in the movie, most people won't bother with it. So that's what gets produced..so if you don't want to hear it, you have to look for edited material or stare at the aforementioned candle, or clouds...or maybe catch a bug crawling through the grass. Anyways, much of the offensive content could be removed from many movies and it would change the "message" in no way. It would only tick off anti-censorship people who pride themselves in being open-minded (just not open-minded enough to understand why some people would want "sanitized" versions of movies..etc.)

If they are editing material and the owner of the movie/song/etc. isn't getting their cut, clearly that should not be legal. If they are getting their rightful share of the cash, and theres a demand for sanitized movies, getting all up in arms about it is ridiculous. People who want the cleaned up versions can go in search of it, and people who don't can rent it or go to the theater.
Noone is forcing anyone to watch what they do or do not want to watch.

[ViRaL1]

The funny thing about Wal-Mart is that they only sell edited (or as they say 'amended') versions of CDs that come with explicit lyrics everywhere else, but sell Unrated versions of DVDs which can be loaded with violence and nudity. You need to be 18 to buy the movies, why not do the same for CDs?

[BJ_M]

i wonder if this is going to effect "reader digest condensed books" ?

[Kairo]

Hmmm.... I not sure what to think about this ruling. There is alot I would like to say about it but several people in this forum have taken the words right out of my mouth. If a company pays royalties for the edited content they sell then I don't see a problem. And if they are willing to pay royalties the Artiest/Music/Movie Company, whomever would be incredibly stupid not to allow it. I mean realy, think about it.... They have a chance to bring the content to a demographic that they wouldn't normaly reach and make even more profit and get even more publicity. Don't get me wrong I'm not necessarily saying I agree with censorship, I think people should have the right to choose what they view or listen to, but at the same time alot of problems would be solved if censorship where allowed. I have several movies and albums that enjoy that have content I could do without as it adds nothing to the entertainment value. And while I might watch or listen to them, I would never let my children. Unless of course, there was an edited version I could purchase.

[Supreme2k]

The only thing that could possibly be wrong with the editing would be if the people purchasing the edits were unaware of them. As long as everyone is aware, there should be no problem.

As far as "artistic vision" goes, that's just too bad. As I said before, are they going to stop people from closing their eyes or plugging their ears at certain points while watching the film? The whole "Watch it all or don't watch at all" idea is narrow-minded crap. The "if you don't like it, make your own" idea is even worse.

I can completely agree with the copyright issue, since the "sanitizers" can either follow the rules (get permission), or not do that type of business.

There are places where you can get PG (or less) versions of most films. Just ask any airline.

[guns1inger]

There are places where you can get PG (or less) versions of most films. Just ask any airline.

Again, done on commission for an express purpose, and paid for. If the market for these films was so great, then why done these organisations commission similar edits, or find a way to purchase the airline edition ?

The 'think of the children' arguement is also a furphy, as in most cases the general content of film that needs to be edited in such a way as to sanitise it isn't suitable for children. There may be a few exceptions - some films made in the early eighties throw in an occassional (mild) swear word - Ghostbusters, Back to the Future - but even a sanitised version of Blue Velvet won't be suitable for general viewing (has anyone seen the 'freak' version of this film - every time Dennis Hopper drops the f-bomb it is dubbed with the word freak. Hilarious, but it certainly detracts from the film's mood)

[NiteLite]

Man, there are so many apples vs. oranges in this thread it's hard to tell what it's about.

The ruling was for companies editing the copyrighted material that sells it without the creator's permission.

You as an individual can buy a book, CD, or video and take a marker and black out words, skip songs, and hit the FF button or mute button all you want. That is not a problem nor the issue.

The issue is you cannot buy a video, edit it to your liking and then resell it without the artist, writer, owner's permission. And that's the way it should be. No true artist wants his work retouched and resold under his name.

If the original owner allows a TV station to edit out content and the TV station has his written documented consent to do so that is ok.

If a company or individual wants to buy and edit out his opinions and then resell it without the original owner's permission, that is not legal nor should it ever be.

It is not always about money with artists or original owner's of their creations.
If you buy a book you do not own the words written to the point you can edit them out and resell the book as the original writer's work. Not without "expressed permission" as seen on most copyrighted material.

All the ruling basically says is get permission or dont do it. You dont own it to change it and resell it.

As an end user at home you can do as stated above. Buy a sharpie and go crazy.
Or never listen to track 4 on that CD again. Your choice. Just dont delete track 4 and resell the CD as the original artist's concept without his permission.
I dont see what's so hard to understand

[RottenFoxBreath]

Yes, this is FAIR USE. This is very much like making a "best of" compilation.
So would it be wrong for me to get my legally purchased Dark side of the Moon
and only make a CD of the track I want to listen to as I drive to work?

So if I can do that, can I edit songs to take out words I don't like?
How is the line drawn, and WHO get to draw it?

So in videos, I can't make a "best of" like I would do with a CD? Why? becasue
it offends the artist?

What if Pink Floyd was offended by me not listening to
Dark Side of the moon without edits? Would I have to stop?
(I do, in fact, enjoy the entire album and would never edit it)

Unfortunately the owner of the material that's who. There's a somewhat famous case related to this. Back in the lates 1980s a band by the name of the JAMMs (Justified and Ancients of Mu Mu) released an album called "1987: What the **** is Going on?" This album heavily sampled Abba's Dancing Queen. Abba sued the JAMMs. The JAMMs pleaded with Abba but to no avail. In fact there is this infamous story of them driving to sweden, in a 1957 Ford Galaxy, and leaving a note at Abba's studio - on the way back they built a fire a burned all the tapes.

The following year they released the same album with the word "edits" added to the title. In the album was instructions on how to recreate the original recordings in privacy of our own home.

So I guess the upshot is for commerical purposes this is a no-no but in the privacy of your own home....it should be...for now...unless of course it has some DRM

8)

ahhhh JAMM's..i remember them,also known as the KLF..ive got that album,an illegal copy too,couldnt get it for love nor money..it was pretty good..they did some good stuff.
also,i watched "play misty for me " last night on bbc1,and it was about 4 minutes shorter than the original version....but it was shown after midnight ..unbelievable..

[fritzi93]

All the ruling basically says is get permission or dont do it. You dont own it to change it and resell it.

That's what I got out of it.

OTOH, outfits like Clearplay are unaffected. Makes sense, you gotta buy an unaltered original, it's only playback of said original which is "altered". Subscribers know exactly what they've signed up for, per S2K's observation above. I don't see much point in that service, but hey, let folks spend their own money as they wish... :P

[guns1inger]

I can't think of 4 minutes you could cut from that film. Thankfully we now get most things uncut. Sopranos and Six Feet Under are shown uncut on FTA, as are most movies. I do remember the days of the "modified for TV version". It took quite some time for some films to make sense to me because the modified version was the only one I had seen.

Deliverence, espcially the cliff top ssene. For years I had no idea how he got the crossbow bolt in him because almost all the leadup was taken out.

Apocalypse Now - so much gone. I had no idea there was a Tiger when Chef got off the boat to pick fruit until I saw the VHS version.

Thankfully I saw The Terminator at the cinema when it first came out. For years afterwards, when it was shown on TV, no-one got shot more than once. If that doesn't affect your understanding of the character and it's motivation, then film is wasted on you.