Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

80sU2isBest

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Nov 12, 2000
Messages
4,970
Recently, a judge in Colorado has ordered Clean Films to stop selling and renting edited DVDs.

Clean Films is an online company that edits and rents and sells DVDs. I do not know how the renting process works, as I have never rented from them. However, I have ordered a clean file edit from them, so I can tell you how it works.

When you order an edited DVD from them, you are buying the retail version of the film. On top of that, you are paying them a small service fee to edit out the bad language and other objectionable content (gory violence, sex scenes, etc.). They would then send you the edited DVD and the original DVD in its original retail packaging. However, they disable the original DVD so that you are not getting too copies.

Hollywood has been fighting Clean Films and this kind of company for years. Hollywood producers and directors maintain that by editing the movies, the company is altering the film significantly enough that it no longer stays true to the directors'/producers' visions.

The companies say that they are simply providing a service so that families can enjoy certain movies without having to worry about the kids seeing/hearing objectionable content.

What is your take on this?

Personally, I side with Clean Films. I bought the 2005 version of King Kong from them because I didn't want to hear the frequent use of the Lord's name in vain.

I think that Hollywood just wants undue control over their product. They want you to see it just the way they created it, and no way else.

Not only are they hurting families who want to see the film without being offended, but they are actually even hurting themselves. They are turning away good money, which I just don't understand. There are people out there who won't buy certain movies because of objectionable content, but will if they can get someone to edit that out for them.

With music CDs, you are legally entitled to make one backup copy for yourself, in case you lose the CD or damage it.

I think the DVD industry is rather greedy. With the newer DVDs having copy protection, you can't make a backup copy.
 
80sU2isBest said:
Hollywood producers and directors maintain that by editing the movies, the company is altering the film significantly enough that it no longer stays true to the directors'/producers' visions.


Absolutely!!! 100% If the owners or writers or whatever don't approve, then it's against the law.

If someone went and edited one of my songs without my permission, I'd be furious.

I was asked recently to edit one of my songs, not for content, but length. The producer of this indie film(still up in the air) suggested an edit. I said no way for it completely lost its reason for me. We later settled on another edit.

But I would never in my life settle for someone else's edit without consent.

I'm sorry if this sounds mean, but if you don't want to hear certain words then go and watch Kirk Cameron films. Art often times imitates life, and that's how it is.

If you want to watch controled art then watch those certain films and listen to those certain songs.

But don't censor mine or anyone else's art!!!
 
80sU2isBest said:
Recently, a judge in Colorado has ordered Clean Films to stop selling and renting edited DVDs.

Clean Films is an online company that edits and rents and sells DVDs. I do not know how the renting process works, as I have never rented from them. However, I have ordered a clean file edit from them, so I can tell you how it works.

When you order an edited DVD from them, you are buying the retail version of the film. On top of that, you are paying them a small service fee to edit out the bad language and other objectionable content (gory violence, sex scenes, etc.). They would then send you the edited DVD and the original DVD in its original retail packaging. However, they disable the original DVD so that you are not getting too copies.

Hollywood has been fighting Clean Films and this kind of company for years. Hollywood producers and directors maintain that by editing the movies, the company is altering the film significantly enough that it no longer stays true to the directors'/producers' visions.

The companies say that they are simply providing a service so that families can enjoy certain movies without having to worry about the kids seeing/hearing objectionable content.

What is your take on this?

Personally, I side with Clean Films. I bought the 2005 version of King Kong from them because I didn't want to hear the frequent use of the Lord's name in vain.

I think that Hollywood just wants undue control over their product. They want you to see it just the way they created it, and no way else.

Not only are they hurting families who want to see the film without being offended, but they are actually even hurting themselves. They are turning away good money, which I just don't understand. There are people out there who won't buy certain movies because of objectionable content, but will if they can get someone to edit that out for them.

With music CDs, you are legally entitled to make one backup copy for yourself, in case you lose the CD or damage it.

I think the DVD industry is rather greedy. With the newer DVDs having copy protection, you can't make a backup copy.

i have heard this question before
and my answer has always been

the director (artist) should be respected
and art should not be changed without permission

but. 80s after reading your post
i have changed my mind.

i can understand that you would want to enjoy the new King Kong movie and not be offended

the studios do alter their art for selected audiences
air lines have edited prints for their in-flight movies.

they also edit for commercial tv
and cable, bravo butchers movies

perhaps they will create a dvd player that is programmable to skip the scenes that the viewer does not want to see

bvs, your situation is different
you own the licensing of your music and have control over your edit, as you should
 
Last edited:
Yes, deep's point exactly. Exactly what 80's is describing is done for films for things like airline use.

Permission and approval are the key though. There ARE directors etc who refuse airline edits, and that's well within their rights. However 99% do approve it. I'd be interested to read more about the case, see if Clean Films are going about this the right way in regards to permission and approval or if they were going into the case basically demanding they do their thing their own way, and the creator/copyright owners rights be damned. 80's, got any links?
 
Re: Re: Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control?

BVS,
I too am a songwriter. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't care if someone who owned a legal copy of my song made a remixed version, as long as he didn't play it publicly over a PA system or sell it or give it to someone else. I really wouldn't.

I think that Hollywood is reaching for a an unprecedented level of control here. Not only do they want to control the version that is sold (which they should be able to do), but they also want to control how you view it.

As far as "censorship" is concerned, I think that the anti-censorship cause has gone too far when people are unwillingly to let people censor what they themselves do not want to hear/see. I'm talking self-censorship here, which affects no one else. I'm not forcing anyone else to watch King Kong without those bad words; I just choose to do so myself.

I shouldn't have to worry about hearing cursing when watching King Kong or Batman, for crying out loud.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
Yes, deep's point exactly. Exactly what 80's is describing is done for films for things like airline use.

Permission and approval are the key though. There ARE directors etc who refuse airline edits, and that's well within their rights. However 99% do approve it. I'd be interested to read more about the case, see if Clean Films are going about this the right way in regards to permission and approval or if they were going into the case basically demanding they do their thing their own way, and the creator/copyright owners rights be damned. 80's, got any links?

The web site is www.cleanfilms.com. Maybe the info you seek can be found in the FAQ section.

Updated: Click the Legal link at the bottom of the page, and it provides PDFS of the legal documents filed.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control?

deep said:


ibut. 80s after reading your post
i have changed my mind.

i can understand that you would want to enjoy the new King Kong movie and not be offended

Thanks :)
 
BVS,
Let's imagine you have a favorite photographer. He releases a big book full of his photos, and you buy a copy. Now let's imagine that one of the photos just bugs the crud out of you to the extent that you don't even want to see the photo while flipping through the pages.

Do you think that you should not be allowed to rip that photo out of your book and throw it away?
 
They way I see it, there are folk who wish to watch movies without bad language, violence, sex scenes or whatever. Companies cash in on that demographic as do the the studios who produce movies of, for example, soppy romances for the demographic who lap that up. By releasing movies with enough classification warnings to reproduce the entire alphabet, the studios are limiting (granted, not by much) the audience who will want to see the movie. Clean Film are doing them a favour if anything, by expanding the potential audience. Everyone wins. I dont see how removing language can alter a movie so drastically that is impinging on some artistic vision. With violence and sex scenes, if the movie is so reliant on them then chances are the people who wish to view an edited version are not going to be too interested anyway and no one is losing out.

I cant see why anyone can complain about this.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
Yes, deep's point exactly. Exactly what 80's is describing is done for films for things like airline use.

Permission and approval are the key though. There ARE directors etc who refuse airline edits, and that's well within their rights. However 99% do approve it. I'd be interested to read more about the case, see if Clean Films are going about this the right way in regards to permission and approval or if they were going into the case basically demanding they do their thing their own way, and the creator/copyright owners rights be damned. 80's, got any links?

That's great, but I doubt 80s and others will want to fly somewhere just so they can watch a family-friendly movie!
 
80sU2isBest said:
BVS,
Let's imagine you have a favorite photographer. He releases a big book full of his photos, and you buy a copy. Now let's imagine that one of the photos just bugs the crud out of you to the extent that you don't even want to see the photo while flipping through the pages.

Do you think that you should not be allowed to rip that photo out of your book and throw it away?

you've seen my bible?

just kidding
 
Angela Harlem said:

That's great, but I doubt 80s and others will want to fly somewhere just so they can watch a family-friendly movie!

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that if Clean Film are going about it the right way, I see no problem with it and think that the Studios are in the wrong for trying to stop it. IF Clean Film are being obnoxious about the process in some way, then the Studio's might have a case. Just glancing through the legal documents on their website though, I don't think they do. It does sound like Clean Film are doing what they can to do it right by everyone. So my vote goes to Clean Film.
 
If a film's directors and producers give this company permission to edit the film I have no problem with it. If they don't grant such permission, then I do have a problem with it.
 
it sounds to me that Clean Film doesn't have a right to do this
you can't just temper with someone elses work

it would make sense for the movie companies with the director to release clean versions of the films themselves since there is a market for it out there

it sets a strange precedent when you can edit films at will without input of the artist be it in film or music
otherwise I will have a go at the The Passion of the Christ and will turn it into something more akin to The Sound of Music because I like mountains and singing
 
80sU2isBest said:
What is your take on this?

Personally, I side with Clean Films. I bought the 2005 version of King Kong from them because I didn't want to hear the frequent use of the Lord's name in vain.

I think that Hollywood just wants undue control over their product. They want you to see it just the way they created it, and no way else.

Not only are they hurting families who want to see the film without being offended, but they are actually even hurting themselves. They are turning away good money, which I just don't understand. There are people out there who won't buy certain movies because of objectionable content, but will if they can get someone to edit that out for them.

With music CDs, you are legally entitled to make one backup copy for yourself, in case you lose the CD or damage it.

I think the DVD industry is rather greedy. With the newer DVDs having copy protection, you can't make a backup copy.

Welcome to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. With music CDs, you have "fair use" rights--as long as the CD in question does not use copy protection. To circumvent the copy protection is to violate the DMCA, and fair use is pretty much eliminated for digital media.

However, the issue with "Clean Films" actually has less to do with the DMCA and more to do with copyright law, in general. You do not have an unabated right to alter/modify copyrighted work for whatever purpose you want. You have to get permission from the copyright holder. If the copyright holder flat out says "no," you have no choice but to stop. "Clean Films" goes beyond the intent of fair use by altering works for commercial distribution--a big no-no even by the old, pre-DMCA standards. And if they are getting their source footage from ripped DVDs, they are not only violating copyright law, but also violating the DMCA. They do not even have the precedent of "fair use" on their side either.

Melon
 
Sounds like copyright infringment to me.

If the studios wish to edit their product and resell it at a premium for this service, fine, all the better for them.

But if somebody made something and imagined it one way, then I don't think a third person party has a right to change it AND on top of that profit off it.
 
As an artist, I wouldn't want my work changed because it offended someone. I do use self-censorship. I don't take certain paintings out of the studio because I'm afraid they'll offend someone. Last year I abandoned a piece with too much blood and guts. I don't do sex scenes. This has alot to do with me being a lousy figure drawer, but it also had alot to do with my personal values. I don't think I would want someone to rip off a piece of a painting because they didn't like it. I understand movies are different, but as anitram and melon pointed out there are copyright and other legal issues involved.
 
Re: Re: Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control?

melon said:


Welcome to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. With music CDs, you have "fair use" rights--as long as the CD in question does not use copy protection. To circumvent the copy protection is to violate the DMCA, and fair use is pretty much eliminated for digital media.

Speaking of CD copy protection, it sure came back to bite `em in the butt on the Neil Diamond CD. There was a massive recall on his latest CD because, upon loading the CD in a PC CD drive, it installed software that was very difficult to uninstall, and that software had something to do with copy protection.
 
anitram said:
Sounds like copyright infringment to me.

If the studios wish to edit their product and resell it at a premium for this service, fine, all the better for them.

But if somebody made something and imagined it one way, then I don't think a third person party has a right to change it AND on top of that profit off it.

Agreed.

80s, it's not the same as ripping out a photograph from a book of art. That would be comparable to watching a film with your family and fast-forwarding the unappropriate parts.

If someone's making money compromising and re-selling another person's property, that's illegal. Hollywood is not "reaching for a an unprecedented level of control", they're defending the rights they already have under the law.
 
Last edited:
The whole DVD issue confounds me, to be honest. I don't understand the studios on this one. As Angela and I have pointed out, they can only gain money by allowing companies to edit out bad language and gore. Some families just wouldn't buy it otherwise. I find it odd that their desire to control how you view their movie outweighs their greed for more money.

And as far as altering the vision of the artist, I don't think it does. I now watch Kong curse-free, but when I saw it in the theatre, it had the curse words in there. Those swear words didn't affect the story line at all, so taking them out altered nothing, except that my enjoyment level was increased.

There are films that would be altered by taking out swear words and gore and sex, and Clean Films actually has a list of movies that they won't sell, because editing the movie would render it useless, basically.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


Agreed.

80s, it's not the same as ripping out a photograph from a book of art. That would be comparable to watching a film with your family and fast-forwarding the unappropriate parts.

No it wouldn't. By ripping out the photograph and throwing it away, you are altering their body of work. They intended that photo to be included in that body of work.

Fast Forwarding, on the other hand, doesn't remove the scene from the movie. It doesn't alter the product itself, just the way you view it.
 
I understand what you're saying, and on one level, I agree. But for me, it's the larger principle at stake. If it's OK for anyone to get a DVD, change it, and then sell it for a profit, imagine the precedent that sets. It's not possible to say "well, in this case it's OK because we just removed curse words." You're altering someone else's product and making your own profit, period. Not cool.
 
80sU2isBest said:
The whole DVD issue confounds me, to be honest. I don't understand the studios on this one. As Angela and I have pointed out, they can only gain money by allowing companies to edit out bad language and gore. Some families just wouldn't buy it otherwise. I find it odd that their desire to control how you view their movie outweighs their greed for more money.

And as far as altering the vision of the artist, I don't think it does. I now watch Kong curse-free, but when I saw it in the theatre, it had the curse words in there. Those swear words didn't affect the story line at all, so taking them out altered nothing, except that my enjoyment level was increased.

There are films that would be altered by taking out swear words and gore and sex, and Clean Films actually has a list of movies that they won't sell, because editing the movie would render it useless, basically.


it would be one thing if the studio did it themselves.

it is quite another for Clean Films to do it for them.

write a letter to Universal and tell them that you'd like to have cleaned-up versions of their movies.
 
80sU2isBest said:


No it wouldn't. By ripping out the photograph and throwing it away, you are altering their body of work. They intended that photo to be included in that body of work.

Fast Forwarding, on the other hand, doesn't remove the scene from the movie. It doesn't alter the product itself, just the way you view it.

OK, fair enough, but my point was the issue here is that people who have not been granted lisence are altering and selling the property of others.

I can't take a U2 album, remove the two songs I dislike, and sell if for profits over the Internet.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
I understand what you're saying, and on one level, I agree. But for me, it's the larger principle at stake. If it's OK for anyone to get a DVD, change it, and then sell it for a profit, imagine the precedent that sets. It's not possible to say "well, in this case it's OK because we just removed curse words." You're altering someone else's product and making your own profit, period. Not cool.

But Clean Films would say that they are not making the profit on the original DVD, but on the service of editing.
 
80sU2isBest said:


But Clean Films would say that they are not making the profit on the original DVD, but on the service of editing.

Are they a non-profit? How do they stay in business? I don't buy it. My friends have made me DVDs and altered them and all it costs is the price of a blank DVD.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


Are they a non-profit? How do they stay in business? I don't buy it. My friends have made me DVDs and altered them and all it costs is the price of a blank DVD.

I didn't say that they are non-profit. I am saying the profit they make is on the editing services.

You may have not paid your friend, but do you really think all it costs is the price of a blank DVD for your friend? He had to buy the software and equipment and he probably spent hours editing it; time is money.
 
80sU2isBest said:


But Clean Films would say that they are not making the profit on the original DVD, but on the service of editing.

Which they don't have the right to do!

Since when did it become reasonable to profit off something that violates copyright laws?
 
Back
Top Bottom