On the recent ruling against CleanFlicks
My thanks to Chris Knudsen for motivating me to comment on the recent ruling against CleanFlicks by writing a piece with which I so fully disagreed.
The July 6, 2006 ruling prohibits CleanFlicks, CleanFilms, and two other movie sanitizing companies from selling or renting edited (sanitized) movies, citing copyright infringement. Another Utah company, ClearPlay, which sells a DVD player that sanitizes movies in realtime, is exempt from this ruling.
It’s important to point out that CleanFlicks buys a copy of the original, unedited film for every edited film they sell or rent, keeping a 1:1 ratio between edited and unedited films and assuring that Hollywood loses no money on each sale. The charge for editing is in ADDITION to the pass-thru cost of the original DVD. This business practice is comparable to buying nude art and then hiring someone else to paint on “clothing” — perhaps an affront to the original artist’s expression but not copyright infringement.
To say that this is a violation of copyright is to side with all the large media companies that use DRM and the DMCA to legislate and enforce what consumers can do with their products after they’ve bought them.
This judgment is an affront to the fair use provisions of copyright law and to the so-called “freedom of choice” that Hollywood so frequently advocates. How hypocritical of Hollywood. Hollywood ought to offer a “family” version on every DVD themselves. (They could preserve their artistic expression!)
NOTE: These companies appear to be selling their inventory, so you can buy cheap edited movies until August 14.
Other reading:
Chris Knudsen
Jordy Gunderson
Josh Steimle
Deseret News
If you want to be notified the next time I write something, sign up for email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for reading.
August 5th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I wholheartedly agree. If I buy a book, should I be sued if I make notes in it, underline it, or tear out a page?
If I buy a computer, should I be sued if I take it apart and modify it as a desire?
If I buy a painting, should I be sued if I cut it in half and put it in two frames?
When I buy something, it is mine. I’m not buying it to rent it, borrow it, or simply “use” it. It is mine. The fact that the MPAA/RIAA has craftily drafted legislation saying something otherwise is horrendous. Limiting the license agreement in such a way that it becomes annoyingly compulsory is downright oppressive and bad business.
Additionally, they are abusing this country’s legal system in an effort to make money and use scare tactics to get their way, stomping their feet angrily like a child when they don’t get what they want. Grow up.
August 7th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
CleanFlicks is creating a new movie based on the work of a previous filmmaker. They are then selling this new work for a profit. Even worse, they leave the title the same as the original. These acts are exactly what copyright was established for.
No person is allowed to redistribute works derived from previously copyrighted material w/o the copyright holder’s permission.
This is not new, and is in no way related to DRM, or the DMCA. You are spreading more FUD. This principle is the original intent of the very first Copyright Act.
CleanFlicks is legally similar to this scenario. A small company buys Dan Brown’s book The Davinci Code, and replaces every reference of the Catholic Church with a reference to the Lutheran Church, and re-sells the new book, with the same Title and credits intact.
Again this company is creating a new work derived from a previously copyrighted work w/o permission of the author, and redistributing it. The important catch here is *redistribution*. If you buy the book and cross out all the references to Catholicism yourself, that is not illegal. Re-selling the book is.
If CleanFlicks were to provide a service to modify user’s copies of movies for them instead of selling the modified copies directly, then it would not be directly illegal under copyright law.
August 7th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
If CleanFlicks were selling edited movies without buying original copies, I would agree that they were selling unauthorized derivatives works. However, when you buy a sanitized movie from CleanFlicks, they also send you the original DVD, proving that the edit was a work-for-hire and not the redistribution of an unauthorized copy.
The similarity to DRM, enforced by the DMCA, is the infringement on what consumers can do with the products they buy. DRM is used to control ownership post-purchase; likewise, Hollywood is seeking to control ownership post-purchase. See Metroland for more on this.
I agree with your statement “If CleanFlicks were to provide a service to modify user’s copies of movies for them instead of selling the modified copies directly, then it would not be directly illegal under copyright law.” But to me it’s unfortunate that the small distinction between who bought the original first matters, since the original is purchase either way.
August 8th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
The real issue here is not the legality of the modification. What is illegal is the modification then turning around and reselling the modified copywrited material. That’s the issue.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
August 10th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Great job with your thoughts on this one.
Dad
August 13th, 2006 at 10:40 am
1. Why is it, really, that filmmakers would care enough about this issue? The small percentage of the LDS society/whoever uses CleanFlicks is hardly noticeable in the market share.
2. What does editing films really accomplish for LDS people who feel indignant enough about the smut to purchase edited films/ yet not indignant enough to pursue creating a really excellent genre of either culture-specific or content-specific films suitable for their tastes?
3. Who takes on the job of watching & editing these so-called low brow scenes? This has always been one of the most amusing aspects of the whole situation… that in the defense of the general populace’s morals, some few CleanFlicks employee-martyrs are tarnishing their own…
August 13th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 4:09 am