Removing sex, swears from films violates copyright: court

Deleting swears, sex and violence from films on DVD or VHS violates copyright laws, a U.S. judge has ruled in a decision that could end controversial sanitizing done for some video-rental chains, cable services and the internet...

Full article:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2006/07/09/film-scrubbing-ruling.html

I like how these "scrubbing" companies act like they have a right to cleanse the movies of sin.If you don't like these movies DON'T WATCH THEM!...buy a Disney or Bollywood movie.

I wonder if this effects ClearPlay?

Originally Posted by BJ_M

good news --

but why is this only being reported in the CND media ?

Thank You.


Has this been reported by any of the major U.S networks? Thought not.

I am glad for this ruling. I agree if people do not like the writer, producer, and director's intent - Do not watch the film.

The quote from the "sanitizers" ,
"This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight."

I knew the Utah companies would try to make it a religious issue.
Problem is with all the power the Utah companies can gather from the R-Right, I'm not sure which is David and which Is Goliath...

Originally Posted by ROBERT BLACK

Originally Posted by BJ_M

good news --

but why is this only being reported in the CND media ?

Thank You.


Has this been reported by any of the major U.S networks? Thought not.

Reuters is reporting this. I also saw this story in the crawl on E!.

heard about it on CNN.

Originally Posted by drjtech

'Sanitizers' of Home Video Lose in Court

Originally Posted by Los Angeles Times

The ruling does not affect other movie sanitizers, which use computer programs to electronically edit by skipping and muting portions of films while leaving the original DVD intact.

Thanks drjtech!

Good point by lordsmurf. However it will never happen. Reason being TV broadcast have to follow decency laws.

However it does bring up an interesting point. Why is it o.k. to sanitize a movie for TV use but not alright to sanitize a movie for rental? Let's say the santized movie has a label saying it was sanitized, thus you know before you rent that it was sanitized. What's the harm? Some people would like to watch those movies without "offending" scenes.

Let me draw a comparision. TBS is showing HBO's "Sex and the City." It's heavily cleaned up - no nudity, no language. But the show itself isn't defined by the language and the nudity. When I compared both I didn't see the TBS version diminished. It's about the story and the characters. I did not find that the editing, destroyed the story line. You either like it or you don't, no amount of nudity or language is going to make you like the show.

And one more thing...If you are going to bring up artistic vision as an argument against the sanitizing, then justify Lucas' re-visioning his Star Wars movie! How many damn visions does this man have????

You talk about fair use? The artists creative vision is vioilated by
editing a DVD/VHS that you purchased?

If the artist says that backing up DVDs violates their artistic vision of the movie, will
those of you who agree with this court decision stop making backups?

What these cleaning companies are doing is EXACTLY what fair use was intended for.
The movie companies get the $$ from selling the flick but the buyer gets to
see it as they want to.

Since when does holding a copyright dictate how a customer views the material?
What next, toothpicks to stop you from closing your eyes? (Like in clockwork orange).

This has nothing to do with copyright really but has everything to do with
"prudes" vs "crudes".

While I much prefer the full version of such movies as Clockwork Orange, I see no
problem in somebody watching a version cut to suit their tastes (given that they
did buy the flick in the first place). Personally, if a movie offends me, I won't buy it
in the first place but what is the problem if someone else wants to??

Why do
the intentions of the movie creator mean so much to so many of you who ignore the
creators' desire to not have their work "backed up"?

I would argue that those of you in favor of this decision while also in favor of
your right to make "backups" are quite inconsistent in your reasoning.

I'm really surprised so many hear are actually applauding this ruling!

Let's say you've got a DVD of a TV show that is not protected by any digital means. So you decide to edit it and make a best of DVD. Guess what, you now can't because it's a copyright violation.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound right and I think you all should be against this ruling as it further curtails your rights.

Originally Posted by RLT69

However it does bring up an interesting point. Why is it o.k. to sanitize a movie for TV use but not alright to sanitize a movie for rental?

The issue is "who's doing the sanitizing?" When done for broadcast, it's being done by the copyright holder, or by someone they authorize to do it for them (the network, or local TV station, for example). They have the right to decide. If the copyright holder wanted to put out a sanitized version for rental, they could.

Originally Posted by pdemondo

What these cleaning companies are doing is EXACTLY what fair use was intended for.

Not even close to what the principle of fair use is about. Fair use is not and never has been about making $$ from somebody else's copyrighted material without their permission.

Steve Stepoway wrote:

RLT69 wrote:
However it does bring up an interesting point. Why is it o.k. to sanitize a movie for TV use but not alright to sanitize a movie for rental?

The issue is "who's doing the sanitizing?" When done for broadcast, it's being done by the copyright holder, or by someone they authorize to do it for them (the network, or local TV station, for example). They have the right to decide. If the copyright holder wanted to put out a sanitized version for rental, they could.

Good point about the TV versions.

But I have not read in the lawsuits that sanitizing the movies was ever a question of who was "authorized" to edit the movie but a question of violation of the directors artistic "vision." In fact I believe, don't quote me, that the companies doing the sanitizing used the Broadcast edit version of the movie as justification for sanitizing.

So, would hollywood agree to releasing an "authorized" sanitized version of their movies (ala broadcast version)?

So exactly what is wrong with this? Making money off of someone else's work is a problem?
The make the same money they would have anyway, even more because a DVD was
sold to somone who might have not otherwise purchased it.

So if someone could answer my question, why is editing a legally purchased DVD wrong
but making a backup OK?

Do you not see the paralles here?

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)

Or is it just letting a 3rd party do the editing for you? So then I could edit my
CD/DVD but I can get a 3rd part to do it for me? What is this based on??

Or is it a question of a "best of" for offensive material versus "best of" for
passages I like for personal taste? Do we need to understand ones' motivations
to decide if their edit is allowable?

Originally Posted by Supreme2k

I don't like this ruling at all.

From what I understood from the article, these are companies where people willingly take their movies to be censored. What business is it of the studios if someone doesn't want to hear swear words or see nudity? Is it so bad that someone likes 90% of the "creative vision"?

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 very intrigued into how they've managed to clean Wedding Crashers and The Libertine