The DGA VS. Clean Flicks: has censorship gone too far?

[Adam Isaac]

I justed caught a special on AMC in regards to the ongoing struggle between the Director's Guild and a copyright infringing DVD editting company called Clean Flicks.

Now, me being a young filmmaker I don't want to turn this into a bashing of any particular group or company; however, I truly and utterly believe the MPAA is there for a reason. We all may not agree with everything they rate and how they rate it, but folks what Clean Flicks is doing appears to be a clear-cut case of copyright violations.

I'm 25, no children, no spouse. What I really want to do is ask some of you guys/gals who either have kids or don't what you think about an individual-who owns no piece of the motion pictures they are re-editting-who are editting sequences or pieces in a motion picture to accomodate what they fell is right for their family to view.

For example the soldier in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN with his limbs shot off on the beach on D-Day. I will attest to the fact that it IS a disturbing scene; however, that particular shot was put into the film to achieve that very thing: to disturb. That war was not all puppy dog and lollipops ok...if you disagree perhaps you should interview a WW2 veteran.

Another one: MEAN GIRLS, the teacher is changing her shirt in the classroom. The original cut shows her undershirt stuck to her outer garment showing a short flash of the teacher's bra. RE-CUT by Clean Flicks to show only her undershirt under her outer blouse. I mean that scene is humorous, when its re-cut it strips the humor out of that particular scene.

And finally(a film and controversy most here were already probably aware of)TITANIC. The nude scene with Kate Winslett. Leo is painting an artistic portrait of her character, she is nude. In Clean Flicks' re-cut in that scene is removed, taking out the artistic intent of romanticism that particular scene incorporates.

Am I wrong in detesting a re-cut of films such as THE EXORCIST to accomodate the personal opinon or moral damage of an individual I'm never going to meet? If that's MY movie that I've worked DAY AND NIGHT and spent countless hours putting together to generate a certain effect...I'm appauled by such a bold action. I'm a practicing Christian, I understand the parental need to having a say in maintaining a house with a moral foundation.......but this is henous(sp?).

If you want your children NOT to see a film that you see as unfit, then the answer is simple don't allow them to view that particular film. If you don't like that a certain character says GD or JC, well I don't know what to tell you because when you exit your house and enter the really real World of today's society REAL people(often as writers our REAL basis for creating a character or chosing what words come out their mouths)say this type of stuff.

Maybe this company Clean Flicks is correct in the scrutiny of today's society, but to tamper with another professional's work that is essentially the creation or child if you will is ludacris.

This is a relevant argument that I just wanted to ask you guys to see what your reactions would be.

[RKBentley]

Not wrong at all, imho.

No one has a right to edit the film unless it goes on Network TV.

[English Dave]

I don't understand how this company has the legal right to do this?

[bottomlesscup]

They don't have a legal right. It's patently in violation of copyright law. You can't edit someone else's material and release it.

However, I think Hoolywood's getting a bit too apoplectic about it. Fundies and families want the option of a cleaner version of films and that's a legitimate choice for those viewers to make.

If Hollywood were smart (!), they would consider releasing airline/broadcast version of some of these films as an alternate version. That way it's their edit, they make more money, and the prudes get their version.

They're already milking the bullsh_t "unrated" market, why not the super-rated market?

[darkshadowsunite]

I like the idea of releasing the airline edit of the film too. You would think that with all the cool stuff you can pack into a dvd these days some genius would work out a way for the viewer to select a different rating of the dvd they are watching.

There is obviously a market for this kind of thing so why doesn't Hollywood follow the money trail and fill the obvious demand for the product. They would shut clean flicks down in about 3 months.

As for the legalities of the situation, Clean Flicks has been able to get away with it because they have set themselves up as a coop. Which means it's more like a private club than a public business. Because the members of the coop own the privately held material they are free to edit and chop it up to their hearts content. Thats what they say anyway.

Personally I think it is a bit of a stretch, but until Hollywood wakes up and realizes that not every one out there wants their kids to see Kate Winslet with her top off places like Clean Flicks will exist.

As for me, I edit my movies at home all the time for my kid. He's only 2 and get's scared during some of the more intense chase scenes in movies like Finding Nemo so I forward it to the next chapter. I guess I need to stop before Disney and Pixar slap me with a lawsuit for damaging the integrity of their motion picture,

[Authorized]

If Hollywood were smart (!), they would consider releasing airline/broadcast version of some of these films as an alternate version. That way it's their edit, they make more money, and the prudes get their version.

Good suggestion...

However, if you take business law into consideration, Clean Flicks is a private business with a specific target audience. And just as the networks and cable TV companies edit content for the target viewer audience, Clean Flicks has the right as a legitimate business to edit DVD content for their target buying audience.

For example, one of the TV networks (I can't remember) edited Private Ryan. Even after it was screened on another
network uncut. Go figure.

[Johnny Stacatto]

Clean Flicks has the right as a legitimate business to edit DVD content for their target buying audience.

see, authorized, you're wrong there because the networks and airlines actually sign a contract with the studios that says what they are going to cut or dub over or whatever. see, that is legal.

cleanflicks has no such deal in place. they are trying to make money from soneone else's creative efforts without actually paying for it. they don't have the right to do it.

[English Dave]

Exactly. What's to stop me 'pirating' a hit movie taking out all the words ending in z and selling it cut price to my 'co-op' members?

If the distributors signed a deal with Clean Flicks then they can't bleat about it, but that's not the impression given.

[TwoBitHack]

Clean Flicks will also be releasing edited version of IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT and GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER.

Apparently their customers wanted "less colored folks" in the films.

[writerly]

I prefer my flicks dirty.

[Adam Isaac]

It's an interesting case, but according to AMC's Clean Flicks source, Hollywood's dragging this on and on to a point where Clean Flicks is having a tough time keeping up with the legal fees.

And regarding Finding Nemo......thatscene with the light bulb fish from the abyss is frickin scary. Being a fish freak/aquarist that's been one of my favorite Family films in years.:D

[bottomlesscup]

Co-op or not, Clean Flicks does not have the right to edit these films. Copyright law is strict in theory, if not in practice.

For instance, you do not have the right to set your home movies to copywritten music. It's called "sync rights" and it's one of those rights "reserved" when the copyright notice says "all rights reserved."

The powers-that-be technically could come after you for splicing a song into video of your kids running through the sprinkler. Of course, financially, they'd have no reason to do so, so they don't. But they could.

Similarly, you have no right to re-edit copywritten films. By writ of the Digital Millennium Copyright act, you don't even have the right to "crack" a DVD and take it's digital guts apart. But if you did it at home, obviously, the studios aren't going to bother with prosecuting you.

It's a different story for Clean Flicks. They're producing the new copies for mass production. The studios have a moral and financial right to come after them as aggressively as they see fit. The "private club" concept is no shield; it's illegal on any scale.

I imagine Hollywood will eventually respond with their own "clean" versions. Their interest here can only be financial. I get real, real cynical when I hear studios crying about business interests impeding artistic license.

[Adam Isaac]

^that's exactly what I think. Unless Clean Flicks decides to become a non-profit organization. Watch how fast they tuck-tail after that's proposed. That in itself may also be illegal anyway though I guess. Whew.... thank God for the copyright laws in this country.

After all, in that special I watched they threw out these figures(forgive me I've not had an opportunity to examine who/where the actual source of this poll is-AMC I suppose):

55% say they should not have any right to be doing what they're doing.
31% either concur or see no problem with Clean Flicks opperation
and
14% had no opinion.

You know 31% could stand-up as a tidy sum of revenue if Hollywood does in fact release 'cleaner' versions of some of these films. And involving the film's editor, director, and production team in cleaning the versions up would be much more fair.


I mean as filmmakers we entertain the audiences, right? Just isn't right to have to face the MPAA-survive them, and you walk out to the local Blockbuster/Hollywood Video and see a different version of YOUR film being sold/rented to a mass market....it's like someone removing a testicle when both are in tip top form-if you'll pardon the crude analogy.

I just saw the primary guy for Clean Flicks as guy who honestly deep down....might just regret not being a filmmaker himself.:D

[English Dave]

As writer at the heart of this is eternal dicatomy of movies. Are they art or are they just a money making excercise?

Personally, if a movie I'd written, and no doubt had several battles about prior to the final cut because I cared about it, was then taken and butchered by some nimmo with their own agenda and with no legal right whatsoever I would be pretty pissed. That's nothing to do with money. That's personal pride.

The distributor might be complaining for another reason but they would have my backing for sure.

[Architeuthis Dux]

Let this be a lesson to us all: Straighten out the legal issues before you start selling stuff for money.

And, just out of curiosity, which would be more offensive, if directed at you personally?

A: "Fuh-Q, a$$hole!"

or

B: "Drop dead, you pus-eating maggot!"

[KD The Wubat]

I was speaking with someone recently who thought Clean Flicks was just terrific, because it allowed her to watch The Godfather with her (young) children.

*boggle*

[Fortean]

We edit out:

Profanity
This includes the B-words, H-word when not referring to the place, D-word, S-word, F-word, etc. It also includes references to deity (G-word and JC-words etc.), only when these words are used in a non-religious context.

Graphic Violence
This does not mean all violence, only the graphic depictions of decapitation, impalements, dismemberment, excessive blood, gore etc.

Nudity
This refers to male and female front and back nudity.

Sexual Content
This includes language which refers to sexual activity or has sexual connotation. It also includes visual content of a graphic or stimulating nature.

~ CleanFlicks Media, Inc.
I think that I can write within these restrictions. I'm mostly a PG-rated-type of writer, (who doesn't think profanity, graphic violence, nudity, or sexual content are needed for my stories).

I'm a bit perplexed by their lack of candor. I think that I know what they mean by G-word (deity), JC-words (Christian deity), as well as the S-word and F-word, (used far too much by the verbally challenged). I'm a bit baffled by "B-words, H-word when not referring to the place" and "D-word." Am I going to get into trouble with: "Bosh," "Heavens above," and "Darn"? And, I hope that incinerating live people, via spontaneous human combustion, in my "Blazes" screenplay, isn't too graphic.

If the directors worked for hire and do not own the copyright, I don't see how they can complain other than an infringement of their "moral responsibility" and "artistic integrity." Haven't they learned anything about what studios can do to your edit since GREED (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015881/combined)?

If the studios, (which own the copyrights to films edited by CleanFlicks), have cut a distribution deal with them, their business is legitimate. If not, the studios would probably sue them for copyright infringement.

[Authorized]

And, I hope that incinerating live people, via spontaneous human combustion, in my "Blazes" screenplay, isn't too graphic.
:lol

[Pencey]

Lemme guess, the same Mormon fvcks who own Blockbuster also own this company. I hope the DGA sue their asses and bleed them dry!

[whitenavel]

Authorized, you get your Clean Flicks copy of Kinsey yet?


I watched this show last night and was angry at the fact that these companies are able to do this. I would think the studios would be aggressively getting this case to trial. Seems like it's taking a long time to get a resolution.

As for the crazy Mormons with 10 kid families, if you feel these movies are unsuitable for your family, then DON'T WATCH THEM AND DON'T RENT THEM. There are plenty of family friendly films for you to go see and rent.

I, for one, can't get enough profanity, nudity and violence in my entertainment. I'd like to find a company who can add violence, sex and profanity to movies. Then I would watch most of the crap the studios release. Imagine Mean Girls with some good nudity. Or Fever Pitch with some real Boston fan profanity. Or The Pacifier with some good gory violence. Anyone know of a company that will add all of these elements to movies for me?

[Fortean]

Whitenavel,

Isn't it being released on the same DVD as their two-minute rendition of SHOWGIRLS (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114436/combined)?

[Stupendous Hack]

I notice they didn't mention taking out the "P word" and the "C word."

You know, "poopy" and "ca ca?"

[Adam Isaac]

Lemme guess, the same Mormon fvcks who own Blockbuster also own this company. I hope the DGA sue their asses and bleed them dry!


That could hurt us in the long run....don't they own the majority of stock in the beef market? 80% or something? Last thing we need re-cut steaks served as Clean Steaks.:lol

[Authorized]

Get your sanitized DVDs today:

www.cleanflicks.com/ (http://www.cleanflicks.com/)

"We are the leading provider of Edited Hollywood movies"

[kitnerboy]

I just read about how the Family Movie Act passed through congress, and is now on GW Bush's desk.

It legalizes the ClearPlay technology that automatically filters dvd's of innappropriate content.

It passed without a fight, because congress bundled it together with the anti-camcorder in movie theatre bill and the anti-file-sharing bill, so it was all or nothing, and the studios have their hands full battling piracy.

The Family Movie Act is not directly related to the Clean Flicks issue except that it sets a precident for future litigation. So far, it's DGA-0, ClearPlay-1.......not good.

I just realized that Clean Flicks RENTS dvd's (I had been under the mistaken impression that they were re-selling them, which I couldn't understand how that could be legal...I mean, whats to stop me from re-editing Finding Nemo with dialogue from Scarface, if thats the case?)

The fact that they are a rental club kind of puts a different spin on things. I mean, how many people are really going to sign up for that?

If there was any real money to be made, the studios would (or will soon be) doing it.

Sounds like a big bru-ha-ha over nothing...

[kojled]

very scary. what's next? congress makes this service subsidiary of the, oh i don't know, fcc. ta-daa!

big brother will be watching. editing and watching. would suggest we be on lookout for the time when the feds require we get script approval from them before federally subsidized studio would be allowed to green light picture. would strongly suggest...

fmpc - federal motion picture comission

[Authorized]

If there was any real money to be made, the studios would (or will soon be) doing it.

The Family film audience is huge. Family films (G thru PG-13) far out grossed R-rated movies in 2004. And the G rated Family DVD market (made up of both independently C-list and studio/Disney-Pixar/Dreamworks releases) is a large worldwide Web order market.

The studios and DGA are battling Clean Flicks not because of the family market, but because of the Freedom of Speech issue. IMO the studios need to be more sensitive to the needs of family market audiences and not bother whether Clean Flicks tweeks their DVD material to expose it to a much larger (family) movie audience.

[kitnerboy]

If there were any money to be made from selling dvds with adult content edited out (as is done with music cd's) then studios would be doing it already.

This is an idea in want of a market.

It just doesn't make sense. What is the point of editing a movie like Love, Actually (one of Clean Flicks top rentals)?

Is there a kid on earth who would sit through this film?

Who are they doing it for, then? Sexually repressed, socially retarded adults?

And what about your basic, run of the mill PG action film, like National Treasure? Are there really people out there so afraid their kid might hear the S-word that they need to join a Morman rental club? People that uptight do not own televisions (and there are more of them then you think), much less rent dvd's.

Not quite sure I can follow the Authorized logic here....Are you saying that because Family movies outgross adult films, there should only be Family movies?

And how should Studios be more sensitive to 'the needs of the family film market'? If you take a film like Bad Boys 2, which grossed $140M because it catered to the filmgoers who happen to like violence, sex and saucy-talk (you know, normal people) and reshot it as a PG movie with good clean hi-jinks and knock-knock jokes, are you saying it would gross MORE? In what universe?



There is nothing to fear from Clean Flicks. There is no market for their product.

And the only reason the DGA has their panties in a wad (and rightfully so) is that this case sets a precedent for every case involving digital copyright law to follow.

[Authorized]

What I'm saying is that the Family market (G-PG13) is without argument the largest grossing threatrical and DVD sales in the movie business.

So, the studios should pay attention and provide a Clean Flicks like service (rental and sales) and/or let the R-Rated product be cleansed by Clean Flicks in order to expose this new (R-rated) material and studio logo to the family market. It's not going to cost the studios a dime, since they already made their money in R-rated threatrical releases and normal DVD distribution.

Again, the studios/DGA are not worried about losing the family market to Clean Flicks. They are, of course, mainly concerned about digitally altering the copyright material. The studio legal beagles are paranoid about copyright infringement creep ever since the Napster Wars with CDs. I'm saying the studios should imbrace or copy the Clean Flicks model and not deface it through litigation. Make love not war.

[kitnerboy]

This reminds me of when I was a kid and I went to see Saturday Night Fever with my parents.

Lots of great stuff in that movie. Like the scene where Tony Manero injures his 'p----y finger' on the car door (at which point I had to ask "Mom? Whats a p----y finger?"

Paramount, re-issued the film in a squeaky clean PG version, which went on to gross about 10% of what the R-rated version did.

[Authorized]

Paramount, re-issued the film in a squeaky clean PG version, which went on to gross about 10% of what the R-rated version did.

Yeah. But, just think of all the Mormons that learned those disco dance moves...

[KD The Wubat]

Authorized, that's actually not entirely true. The "G- and PG-rated films outgross R-rated films" is true of domestic box office, but it's also a statistic heavily hyped by certain elements, who conveniently neglect the fact that a GINORMOUS percentage of a movie's final take comes from outside the US, and boobs and gun battles don't need subtitles.

Worldwide, the numbers are very different.

I'm surprised that anyone who aspires to be any kind of writer would support this. How would you feel if you published a novel and an aftermarket vendor went through and blacked out passages, rewrote others, and then sold it on?

[Authorized]

March 15, 2005
Family films outdrew R-rated movies in '04
By Scott Bowles, USA TODAY
LAS VEGAS — For the first time in two decades, PG-rated films outperformed R-rated films in theaters, even though Hollywood cranks out many more movies aimed at adults. Last year, PG-rated films took in $2.3 billion in U.S. ticket sales, according to the National Association of Theatre Owners. R-rated movies, which require that anyone younger than 17 be accompanied by an adult, accounted for $2.1 billion.

Worldwide, the numbers are very different.

I couldn't find a total worldwide boxoffice of PG-rated versus R-rated grosses.

[Stupendous Hack]

So, your point is that movies with a supposedly vastly larger audience than R rated films were only able to pull in about $200 million more than R rated films?


Those are some pretty weak numbers.

[Authorized]

$200M is enough of a delta to make a diffference. The point being, Hack, despite the assumption that R-rated films dominate, it is not the case.

Still lookin for a worldwide boxoffice number of family vs R-rated films.

[kitnerboy]

Authorized, you can't use box office totals to make your argument.

If there are 10 PG and PG-13 films released for every R rated one, then OF COURSE they gross more as a group.

This is like saying people prefer WAL-MART to Nordstroms because they make more money.

You have to find the AVERAGE gross for each type. (I know that math is not your subject).

But dont waste your time. Statistics don't prove anything.

G rated films make more money than any other group. So why doesn't every studio start producing more of them? Because the result would be a quick and painful lesson in supply and demand economics.

By contrast, the adult film industry outearns Hollywood as a whole by far. So why not start getting some xXx films back into theatres?

The Clean Flicks issue isnt really about censorship. It's about guilt, shame, denial, politics and bad parenting.

I would still like to see someone start a rental club where someone edits sex and violence back into these crappy PG-13 movies being heaped upon us.




Edited to add:

Okay, I finally found some real numbers. And these stats were published in Fortune magazine, of all things, and not some Family Values Group, so I'm kind of shocked at their spin.

It claims that in 2003 there were 940 films released.

29 were rated G

265 were rated PG and PG-13

646 were rated R

The article actually makes the point that since the top ten films were rated PG and G, and the lowest grossing films were rated R, then the stockholders should be questioning the studios, since the PG films represent the best return on investment. (never mind that Finding Nemo cost $100M to produce, while The R rated ones were mostly low budget, they skipped over that part).

Who paid for this article?

The problem is, there weren't 940 films released in theatres in 2003. So where are they getting these numbers from? Are they using direct to dvd movies? Made for cable? Foreign films? Home movies? They are really breaking a sweat trying to make their point.

Authorized, there is a future for you, writing magazine articles, I think.

[Authorized]

The Clean Flicks issue isnt really about censorship. It's about guilt, shame, denial, politics and bad parenting.

No. Mr. Kitnerboy, it's really all about taste, decency, Mom and apple pie.

As long as there is a huge audience that think R-rated pictures "suck", then Clean Flicks has a target market.

If the major studios and TV networks can embracee good ole
time religion (note the NBC ratings champion, Revelations), WGA, DGA, SAG, AFTRA and the studios can embrace the Clean Flicks model versus trying to kill it. As long as there is a family entertainment market (film and TV) that remains huge, there will always be a Clean Flicks model dynamic to deal with.

You have to find the AVERAGE gross for each type.

Not so, ole Math Mind. The statistics on family vs R-Rated boxoffice grosses are sound.

Still trying to find the worldwide boxoffice gross figures.

[TwoBitHack]

So if there is a market for adding scenes of harcore pornography into episodes of The 700 Club... or The Passion of the Christ... I guess the copyright protection for those programs should be ignored and the re-editing and marketing of that program that should be allowed.

[kitnerboy]

The technology is out there to do it.

Here is a link to video of Dick Cheney's Republican Convention speech......with supplimental dialog.

www.churchoftherobot.org/...id/abd.mov (http://www.churchoftherobot.org/dangsquid/abd.mov)

It is one of the funniest things I have ever seen.

Could be a growth industry.

[scripter1]

make it VERY CLEAR that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does NOT endorse, back, or is officially affiliated with this company in any way.

If a member is involved in a company, any company, it is their personal choice.The Church and it's leadership is very careful what it becomes involved in.

As Later Day Saints we are encouraged to make choices that reflect our values and the teachings of the Church. We are counseled to be mindful of what we watch and hear.
We are also expected to be honest in all our doings.
What clean flicks is doing seems to be an apparent violation of copyright laws and in my opinion they should not only cease but also repent. And any member who buys their product should stop and repent.

It seems to me to be a reasonable thought, "lets take out things that offend us so we can enjoy more films" but do it the right way.

Go to the owners of the film, show them some numbers, prove to them that there is a market and get permission. If they give it to you then you are in business. If not, too bad so sad.

Or make your own films. And that is happening.

I'll have to look up the studio name but films like Brigham City, The RM, The Home Teachers (saw a copy at Blockbuster!) Other Side of Heaven, hmm....something or other Charlie, and The Book of Mormon movie (personally I thought it was pretty bad but admire them for trying) all get a HUGE reception in the LDS community when they are released.

Now, you guys got a beef against Mormons or anybody else who's values, morals, standards or beliefs are different then yours, take it off the boards. There are plenty of forums for bashing just about anybody you care to attack.

They have NOTHING to do with the topic of discussion.

Clean flicks should either get permission to alter the films or close down.

[whitenavel]

I mean no offense to Mormons or any member of the church of LDS. My best friend is Mormon and I grew up doing activities through his church (sports, Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts), but it seems to me that the majority of these companies are run by Mormons. Several of these companies are in Utah and many of it's customers are LDS. That's just a fact and what we are led to believe after the show on AMC. The point is that what they're doing it wrong and illegal. What needs to be done it better parenting. If a movie comes out that is against a parent's morals, standards and values, then try this.....DON'T WATCH IT OR LET YOUR KIDS WATCH IT. And that, of course, goes for any parent no matter what religion or culture. Rent something else or go to a film that you deem appropriate for your family. Stop breaking the law.

Does the Mormon church still have ties to Blockbuster? Isn't Blockbuster Mormon owned and don't they decide what to carry in their stores? (I don't think they carry Unrated, or NC-17 films). That is their right to offer what films they want to, but it seems unfair to their consumers to offer only films THEY consider appropriate for viewing. Good business sense would be to offer what the customers want. A copy or two of NC-17 or unrated films could only help their business and make customers who are interested in seeing them, happier.

[ViningWolff]

I'll weight in as father of three...

Y'know it my responsibility as a parent to assess what I think is appropriate for my kids to watch. There is no way in hell I'd ever let me kids watch Saving Private Ryan for a while ( they're all under 7). I love the comment of "I like the fact i can watch The God father with my kids now that's it's edited..."


Ahh BULLSHIT - that's part of being a parent. ( yes KD - boggles my mind too)

You have kids, you watch kids movies you deem appropriate for your kids. When they got to bed, you watch your movies.

You don't look to someone else and what they think is okay for your kids. That simple.

(I believe that a person has the right to make the film they want and have it aired warts and all - but I have the choice not to see it)

[cynicide]

Authorized:

The larger question isn't whether there's a market for the service Clean Flicks or whatever is providing. That's irrelevant. The question is, do they have the right to do this, and I don't know how you can say that they do.

Also, by sanitizing The Godfather, or almost any other movie, aren't you fundamentally changing what that movie is about? The Godfather is probably a worse family movie with the viloence taken out, because it would seem to glamorize the characters even more.

This is like Ashcroft wanting to put fig leaves on White House statues. #1: Are you really so scared of breasts? #2: Do you think kids are damaged by swear words?

Kids are being raised in an artificially clean environment. It's like keeping your kids in one of those bubbles they put Travolta in. Once they get out, they infectious agents hit them harder, because they haven't developed natural immunity.

That's why once you get a Christian to put out, they can't get enough. God bless'em.

[Authorized]

Blockbuster is a Florida company and I believe is majority owned by the Miccosukee tribe of the Seminole Indians.

As far as supervising kids viewing habits, most children (all demographics) in America are placed in front of a television after school as a babysitter and yes with access to the DVD player. Consequently, a recent generation (25-35) has grown up more desensitized to gratuitous gore and violence than the previous generation and with another new generation following with the same habits except only worse. IMO young children should not be exposed to violence at young age because they cannot process and dissect different TV images from fact and fiction. Repetitive TV viewing of violence or extreme violence and gore at an early age stunts the growth of these children from fully becoming sensitive, caring human beings.

Clean Flicks buys the DVDs. Now if I own the DVD and I can do anything thing to the DVD I darn well please. The question is...does Clean Flicks as a business have the right to alter their purchased DVDs or other purchased DVDs and resell them to a large target market. Are the DGA and the studios causing restraint of trade (free enterprise) keeping Clean Flicks from conducting business? It's not going to be an open and shut case. However, in the end copyright law will most likely prevail as stated by many posters on this thread.

[Hairy Lime]

The feds really have no business playing parent.

I'm predicting the Supreme Court will overturn the legislation as soon as the biz can run a case up the flagpole. Wouldn't be the first time this congress attempted to pass unconstitutional legislation.

[Johnny Stacatto]

Now if I own the DVD and I can do anything thing to the DVD I darn well please.

yeah, except, you know, alter the content and make a profit from it. i mean, the problem here isn't that one guy is editting the movies for himself and a few of his friends. nobody cares if the number is3 or 4 or even 20 people from their church. it's when they take out a business license and state that they are in the business of altering a copyrighted product to make a personal profit.

look, filmmakers pay clearances to use other people's songs in their movies. they pay for the rights to novels and plays to make them into movies. they pay the actors (from the star to the newspaper vendor with no lines) to perform and part of that contract is a release giving the filmmakers the right to use their likeness in the movie.

when clean flicks buys the dvd, they aren't paying for the right to edit the movie and resell it. they are only paying for the right to view it as is.

[Authorized]

Does that include cartoons?

Yes. Yesterday Loony Toons's Wiley Coyote got back up into action after being flattened, now in today's more violent Saturday morning cartoons, the characters are cut down in a bloody fashion and don't get up.

[TwoBitHack]

Actually, based on the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, even private citizens do not have the right to do whatever they want wioth their own copies of encrypted DVDs.

it is against the law to even make a backup copy.

The DMCA makes it a crime to circumvent the encryption in any manner.

A popular hacker site (2600?) was even threatened with prosecution for publishing instructions on how to break DVD copy protection. Someone else was threatened as well for just providing a weblink to these instructions.

Yet Clean Flicks gets a special pass to make money.

[Adam Isaac]

Indeed. Hey cool new board.....my first post.

[Fortean]

IMO young children should not be exposed to violence at young age because they cannot process and dissect different TV images from fact and fiction. Repetitive TV viewing of violence or extreme violence and gore at an early age stunts the growth of these children from fully becoming sensitive, caring human beings.Yeah, if the kid's complaining about the DVD that I'm watching, I give 'em a harpoon, shove 'em out of the igloo, point 'em in the direction of the seals' breathing hole out on the ice flow, and tell 'em to go get some dinner, before a polar bear makes a meal out of 'em. So we lose a kid or two to the polar bears, okay, but, the rest of them grow up to be sensitive, caring human beings, able to tolerate other people's views and smart enough to phone out for pizza.

Silly Yanks! Kids can tolerate a lot of violence but do need guidance. Have you really read those Grimm's fairy tales to them at bedtime? Or just Dr. Seuss?

[Fortean]

Taste and decency are subjective.Tell that to the polar bears!