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…

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.

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.

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.

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.