3rd-Party Film 'Sanitizing' Ruled Illegal

[Damion Chaplin]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060710-7227.html' target='_blank'>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060710-7227.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"If you like your major motion pictures without cusswords and nudity, you may be out of luck. A federal judge in Colorado has ruled that it is illegal for third-parites to edit and release sanitized versions of movies. Some background: a couple of years ago, we reported on a company called CleanFlicks which had drawn the ire of the motion picture industry. Based in Utah, CleanFlicks uses a homegrown system to check DVDs for questionable material and cleanse it from the movie. One of the results was a version of Good Will Hunting with 125 f-bombs and other colorful expletives muted... An appeal is possible, although one of the defendants—FamilyFlix—has already shut down operations. In the meantime, those who find cursing and nudity in movies unacceptable are advised to simply not watch films that contain content they find objectionable."</i><br /><br />Well, duh. :roll: Personally, I find this kind of censorship to be deplorable. Seriously folks, if you find something offensive, don't expose yourself to it! It's really that simple. Don't want your kids watching violence, swearing or (gods forbid) nudity? Don't rent those kinds of movies! It's not like you don't have a choice here. These are probably the same people who think Michaelangelo's David should wear a loincloth. Unfortunately, this ruling does not preclude people like Blockbuster approaching the studios and having them issue exclusive toned-down versions of films. :?

[follick]

Why do you you find it deplorable? They aren't telling you that you have to get rid of stuff that they find objectionable. They just want the option of viewing movies the way that they want to see them. That's not censorship. That's freedom.

[Damion Chaplin]

Films should be shown as they were originally premiered. If a director wants to make changes to his film and call it a 'director's cut' that's fine with me, but 3rd-parties should not be able to. It's just wrong to alter the artistic vision to suit your own morals. If your morals can't take the content, that content wasn't for you.

Now, if parents want to have more control over their kids' content that's OK too. I propose an optional flag in the data stream, encoded by the studio, that arises everytime a specific type of content is about to happen. Then you could set your player to detect the flags and (for example) mute the audio for the duration of the flag.

That way films can be made 'family-friendly' while still maintaining the original film. Studios and directors could have the option of including the flag or not. Discs with the flag would be clearly marked on the package so parents wouldn't even have to think about the film they're about to show their kids. They don't even have to read what it's about because they can rest assured that all the swearing will be safely muted from that UFC DVD. :roll:

[Felix Torres]

The legal issue at stake here isn't censorship or even scrubbing of content; its the "third-party" aspect. Folks were making money by creating scrubbed versions of somebody ese's content. And they were doing it without permission.

If they had created a device that dynamically did the scrubbing during playback it would have been legal to sell the device. But the technology they were using required essentially a new/modified soundtrack. And it was that modified soundtrack that did not pass legal muster.

Movies are routinely scrubbed for OTA broadcast and it is perfectly legal. It might even be perfectly legal if you wanted to start a business selling scrubbed DVDs *if* you paid the studios to do so. And make no mistake, the studios would sell such a license at the drop of a hat, artistic vision or not. Just remember the flap over colorization...

Money talks; if you make money off somebody else's IP without paying, you'll be hearing from their lawyers...

[mswainston]

Felix is right on both points: this is a legal issue and money talks.

It is not proper for someone to sell an altered DVD without permission from the copyright owner.

I for one have chosen to "talk" with my money. I decided long ago that I would not contribute to the creation of movies that contain offensive language, excessive violence, or nudity. It has been more that ten years since I have seen an R-rated movie (except when scrubbed for OTA broadcast) and I choose to not see many PG-13 movies for the same reason.

Damion's notion of a player that applies studio-encoded filters to play a "clean" version of a DVD is compelling, but I wouldn't go for it. When you purchase or rent such a DVD you effectively contribute to the creation of all content--even if you don't intend to watch. The only way to get my business would be for the studio to produce their own scrubbed DVD. But I'm not holding my breath...

[jeffd]

damion, as one who likes to have as many choices as possible (even though personaly I wouldnt bother with scrubbed movies) I thought the scrubbed versions of movies was fine. Even if there is violence or nudity in a movie, why must you condem the whole movie? real life has violence and nudity, are you going to stop breathing now? Obviously many people can see that even bloody movies have an interesting storyline, and they are willing to pay for a censored version of it vs none at all.

Obviously there are people who watch it, otherwise there wouldnt be a market for it. Sure it would be better for the directors to create the edited versions, but they don't, so someone else did.

Personaly, I don't mind violence and nudity as long as its reletive to the storyline and not just inserted for the hell of it. %90 of the sex scenes in todays movies have no right to be there.

[Damion Chaplin]

Oh, don't get me wrong: I'm not against toned-down versions of movies, provided the studio has released it or given permission for it, as is the case with OTA broadcasts. Third parties shouldn't be mucking with stuff that's not theirs.

I would never condemn an entire movie just because of violence, nudity or language. I'm fine with such things and if I weren't, I wouldn't watch them, much as you have decided, jeffd.

I guess my biggest issue is with people (parents) who can't seem to make their own decisions about what content should be shown to kids. I don't think it's appropriate to show kids Taxi Driver, even with the swearing cut out. It's not a children's movie, and people should know that. Good Will Hunting is another good example of a movie that's not meant for kids or adults who can't handle swearing. Don't watch them, don't support them. It's your decision, and how much 'questionable' content you're exposed to is entirely in your hands.

[Felix Torres]

Lots of good points here.
One more keeping in mind: movie studios often sprinkle in a few unnecessary cusswords in movies that don't need them just to ensure they end up with PG-13 rating instead of a "kiss-of-death" PG or even G.
And more often than not, they do it with movies that would otherwise be quite suitable for young kids to watch, which is where the market for sanitized movies comes from in the first place.
So, depending how you look at it, it is all the studios' fault in the first place. (Isn't it always?) :twisted:

[Damion Chaplin]

And more often than not, they do it with movies that would otherwise be quite suitable for young kids to watch, which is where the market for sanitized movies comes from in the first place.

Yeah, like the one "Oh Sh*t!" in the 1986 Transformers Movie. Why did they feel compelled to put that in? It wasn't even in the theatrical version, and you can't rent the original version. The movie's totally and completely tame otherwise and entirely suitable for kids. The one instance of the s-word wasn't enough to earn it a PG-13 rating (I think you get 1 and on the second one you get PG-13), but the fantasy violence, including death scenes, were too much for the G rating.

That's one case where I can't blame the parents for not knowing. I mean, who would have ever thought they'd swear in a kids cartoon, even if it is a movie?

[sojourner753]

Yeah, like the one "Oh Sh*t!" in the 1986 Transformers Movie. Why did they feel compelled to put that in?

I'm 33 now and still remember seeing that scene as a kid. I'm saying I'm scared or anything. But its interesting that while I don't really mind the curse words in movies today, I still remember that one moment.

Prior to that I was exposed to all kinds of language at school and other movies. Somehow it just shocked me though.

I'm not complaining, just musing...