Clean Edited Movies

Post Your Opinion! Register on this blog to share your opinion! After registering, login and post your own entry. After approval, your entry will be shown for others to read and comment on.

Should Companies Not Named in Suit Continue Operating?

Posted in Uncategorized | Friday, January 12th, 2007 | Trackback

As discovered by Nathan at a local video store, the fact remains that six months after the pivotal judgment issued by Judge Matsch, some companies that were not specifically named in the suit continue to operate. The question is, do such companies have a moral responsibility to cease operations, since their methods have been shown to be illegal?

Personally, I have to say yes. Do I believe in what they are doing? Of course I do…I’ve been a strong supporter from the beginning. But I also believe in the rule of law, and submitting to authorities. In my opinion, these companies would serve themselves better in the long-run to cease operations and spend time and money lobbying congress for legislation that is fair and family-friendly. Is it not hypocritical to cry to Hollywood for morality in movies while operating a business that is shown to be illegal?

15 Responses to “Should Companies Not Named in Suit Continue Operating?”

Jessica Says:
January 13th, 2007 at 4:00 am
That seems quite reasonable. However, if the movie editing company did editing on an individual basis where a customer had a movie hired/contracted the company to remove unwanted parts, that would and should still be permissible. The problem with the edited rental companies is that they are violating the law through “unauthorized distribution.”
Brian Says:
January 16th, 2007 at 11:19 am
This is very disturbing. The movie industry is basically saying “Watch our filth or don’t watch anything” Personally I just won’t go see those movies and they can lose money. The problem is that they don’t have to care because our society has become so immoral that your “weird” if you don’t watch movies full of filth. Our society thrives on horror films, cussing, and even watching fornication. Is there any wonder why our society has the issues it does with integrity, commitment, and respect? We as American’s will need to take a close look at what has happened to great empires of the past when they fall into wicked sin.
Bevin Says:
January 28th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
HI, I just stumbled across this site. We live in Edmonton, Canada. I had heard nothing of this court decision and we still use a company that edits junk out of movies called Familysafemovies.com. But it is too expensive so I was looking at filters such as Clearplay, Guardian. It seems Guardian only filters language? And clearplay will filter content but their language filter is not that good?
Can someone point me to a site that compares the two? I thought I had found another company as well, but now can’t find it, are there more?

Sorry for all the questions but any help is appreciated!

Thanks, Bevin B.
john Says:
February 1st, 2007 at 11:22 am
No they should not. They are clearly and openly breaking federal laws and I hope that those companies get canned soon. Just cause some one takes “flith” out of a movie does not mean that it changes the rating of the movie. That movie is still rated R or PG-13, PG, or G. While on the topic isn’t stealing a sin? Because that is exactly what all these people who edit movies and those who watch them and support them are doing. Hey Brian “let him without sin cast the first stone.”
David Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 4:14 am
First, to preface: It is going to take an awful lot of my patience not to attack people on this forum personally, but I will attempt to state my opinion objectively.

I understand the objections brought forward by many to what they call too much “filth” in films today. As someone who considers family of utmost importance and someone who remains religious, I think I can understand why some people in this forum feel that they need buisnesses like Cleanflicks to exist. All of this said, I believe firmly that Cleanflicks and the other companies mentioned should have been deemed illegal and that similar buisnesses that still operate should be prosecuted.

I remember the first time I read the Ray Bradbury book “Faranheit 451.” After finishing the book and finding very little in it that interested me, I read an essay attached to it by Ray Bradbury. The essay was about some publishers that had approached Bradbury about including condensed versions of the book in Reader’s Digest. Not only did Bradbury say no, but he was outraged about it, in essenece saying “Are you crazy? I wrote a book about not censoring or tampering with words written and you want to edit it for length?” The point is this; noone has a right to edit the words of another without the original author’s consent.

Looking at those that have taken a stance against the ruling of the court, I see that most have religious beliefs that inform in part their decision. I do not mean to criticize this in any way, I’m just going to use it as a gateway to better understanding the issue. Thomas Jefferson was religious too, but as a scientist, he was very opposed to the non-science things occuring in the Bible. So he took out a pair of scissors and went through the Bible and cut out every mention of deity, spirits, and miracles. Imagine if Jefferson had then turned around and sold this book as “The Bible.” How might this sit with you? Now I am not suggesting that miracles are equal to explicit sex scenes, but one must admit that respect for original work is not only about the money involved but about morals.

Brian above makes the statement, “The movie industry is basically saying ‘Watch our filth or don’t watch anything’.” While I would disagree on the basis that I don’t believe there are people in Hollywood scheming to keep certain people from watching movies at all, I would also like to suggest healthy alternatives. First, move that airline versions of films see DVD releases. I know that this will be a hard thing to accomplish, but harder things have been accomplished. Second, technologies such as V-chips and others are legal. Since the technology allows people at home to block certain things without redistributing something under false artistic lisence. This is similar to buying Michael Angelo’s “David”, taking it home, and sculpting a set of boxers for it. Cleanflicks is the equivalent of going to an art museum and buying “David” with boxers on already. Lastly, I would suggest that a person follow the MPAA rating system. The rating system was put there for a reason. Personally, I grew up watching films like “Bambi,” “Dumbo,” “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” amoung others without ever feeling as though I was missing something. So many people complain that they’re mssing out on great films simply because of their content when in fact there are so many still available to them. But you really really feel that you need to see “The Pianist (a great film, you really should see it)”? Well then, it is important that you watch the film with every harsh word and grotesque disfigurement because that is what the film and its subject are. If you take away Romeo and Juliets death, is the journey as meaningful?

On a side note Brian, I would like clarification. Are you calling upon America to take a stand and edit films to be less-sinful, or are you calling upon America to make films less sinful in the first place?

Lastly, I would like to briefly mention the technical reasoning behind the court decision. Yes, it should be illegal to buy something, change it, and then sell it under the same name you bought it. Not only that, but in order to make edited versions of DVDs, companies have to copy the DVD and then reproduce it. In doing so they have taken encription off of the DVD and have not reencripted it, allowing anyone to copy the final edited product.
webmaster Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 7:37 am
David,

Thank you for making your point without personal attacks, that is very much appreciated. This is of course a controversial topic, and we encourage open debate from both schools of thought.
Esther Says:
February 28th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
David I understand what you are saying and you gave your opinion without anger. And when the courts ruled all businesses should have stopped because we should obey the law of the land (my husband would be out of a job though if everyone obeyed the laws) However, as a ‘Religious’ woman and a young Mother I disagree with you. “Looking at those that have taken a stance against the ruling of the court, I see that most have religious beliefs that inform in part their decision.” Just as those who don’t have religious beliefs that inform their decision are for the courts ruling. It doesn’t mean that those who are against the courts ruling are any less right in their belief or their desire to watch a movie without having to cover their own eyes.
You said after Thomas Jefferson cut out everything he didn’t like about the Bible should he be able to sell it as “The Bible”. My response would be YES “The Bible as edited by Thomas Jefferson” and everyone who felt as he did would love the book. If no one wanted the book they would buy the original version because it is a free America.
The Actors, Movie Producers, and everyone else who gains money from the sale aren’t losing money from companies like Cleanflicks. The movies is still being bought for 19.95 or whatever the price may be. I don’t understand all the encription stuff but if someone wants to copy a DVD 30 times and sell them they will whether they are edited or the regular version. A person’s Integrity is responsible for that, not Cleanflicks or other businesses like it.
Why does it matter if they take out what some ‘religious’ people consider sinful, immoral or distasteful content? I am not perfect. I have watched plenty of movies and thought “This movie would have been just as good (and I would understand the story line just as clearly) without the F word three times, a sex scene or some of the very distastful jokes made” You are right, Romeo and Juliet wouldn’t be as good without the death scene at the end (i’m talking about the older version)However, it is very good and I can follow the story line just fine without swearing, watching them actually have graphic sex, Romeo’s friends asking him the next day if he F’d her and to give the details.
I would love to have a Michael Angelo’s “David”. Do I think I would lose the beauty of the art if it had boxers or a cloth, nope. Art is in the rock, the paint, the cloth, or whatever the choice may be, not always the sculpture, or picture. So I can enjoy the amazing talent of a sculpture with a nude statue or clothed.
I guess this is my point. I should be able to buy a movie and break it if I want, I bought it. If I want to edit it but don’t know how I should be able to pay somebody to do it. And if I want to watch a movie without some scenes and it doesn’t make as much scense that is my right. Companies like Cleanflicks wouldn’t be in business if there weren’t enough people who want what they are doing.
Audrey Says:
March 1st, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Just thought I would jump in on the conversation. I first came upon the Cleanflicks website probably 5 years ago or so. I was so impressed. I thought it was such a great idea and kept it in the back of my mind for when I had kids. Well…now I have kids. Tonight, I decided to get on the website to see what they have to offer. I was so disappointed to find that they are no longer able to offer good, clean versions of films. Then, I found this site.

I could go on and on and on…ranting and raving. To the poster who said that he didn’t feel that he missed anything by growing up watching movies like Dumbo, etc. That is great for you. However, watch a PG movie these days. It is more like what R was considered when I was a kid. There are so many movies that are geared toward a younger audience. The kids see the previews and they really want to see it. Some of these movies rated PG are just absolutely adorable. I really want my kids to be able to watch and enjoy them—MINUS THE LANGUAGE. I just will never understand why a writer, creator, producer, director, whoever, makes a movie geared for young children that includes bad language (not to mention other questionable content). I just always ask WHY???????

I just watched a PG movie yesterday that had more language than I could believe for a PG movie (along with some other questionable things). It is sad…a cute movie…but my kids won’t get the opportunity to see it. If Cleanflicks were still around, they would get to…
ida marie thomas Says:
March 18th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I am a student a Pensacola Junior College. I am doing a report on the film sanutuzer business. (I am for it, too much junk is being produced.) Is your company being targeted by Hollywood like CleanFilms, Famuly Flix, and Clean Flicks. I would like to know. I sincerely hope they don’t shut you down like the other. Please let me know asap I have to turn in my paper next week and I need your input.
Thank-you
I will say a prayer for your company.
webmaster Says:
March 18th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Ms. Thomas,

We do not sell any products or services, we simply report on the industry. We have nothing to shut down, so no, nobody is targeting us. Good luck on your paper. Thanks for the prayers - pray also that families will awaken to what is entering their hearts through mediums like television and movies.
Dale Says:
March 26th, 2007 at 12:16 am
My family and I have always enjoyed edited movies. There are a couple of things you ought to know. #1 According to my sourses the court ruling made in Colorado was made by a district 7 court judge. His ruling is valid only in that district. Other non district 7 States continue to rent and sell edited movies. Some editing companies are not located in district 7 and have not been named by the Judge. Until hollywood goes after a national bam, there will always be edited movies out there to watch. 2.One company in Utah got a petition together (thousands of names) and submitted it to Hollywood, asking if they could distribute the movies, they themselves edit for the airlines, thus ending this dispute. Hollywood replied that NO ONE WANTS TO WATCH EDITED MOVIES! OBVIOUSLY THE ANDWER WAS NO! All I know is that I got to watch the departed (winner of best picture) without the over 150 swear words in it while all of my friends who went wo the theater to watch it walked out after the 1st few minutes. 3rd. Would you like to know how many of the top 100 movies were rated R? Box office numbers say 5! Look it up it’s on the net. Just some notesthat I thought you might want to consider.
Jessica Says:
June 6th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Even though the DGA may sue other editing companies and shut them down using the CleanFlicks lawsuit as a precedent, they can only go after US companies. There is no such court decision or lawsuit or anything in other countries, such as Canada. In fact, Clean DVD Edited Movies in Canada is still operational because they can not be threatened by US lawsuits.
Shawn Says:
July 31st, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I believe Dale’s comments, immediately above, most directly address the initial statement/question, which is whether companies not named in the federal appeals court lawsuit should continue to operate. The original writer opined that to do so is morally inappropriate since continuing such operations would be, in essence, breaking the law and a failure to submit to governing authorities.

Quite frankly, as Dale aptly noted, the 7th Circuit Decision acts as a pronoucement, and is therefore only binding over and upon the states within that Circuit’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is not “law” and is not binding upon any company without those states’ borders. This is not a mere technicality, it is a reality. We live and abide by the laws that apply to us, in our several states as they are enforced in our several states. I do not live in the 7th Circuit and am therfore not bound by the 7th Circuit. Remember too, that courts do not make law, they interpret what the lawmakers (i.e., the legislature) enact. So whereas the 7th Circuit Judge says that such and such practices are illegal, a 3rd Circuit Judge may reach a totally different conclusion.

Indeed, the best way to approach this question, it seems to me, then, if one wants to make this a battle gound, and I believe the cause is a noble one on many levels, is for other companies, who have a current right to do so in other states, to start and continue to operate appropriate editing companies and, when challenged, to continue the appeal fight. Ultimately, if one circuit court differs from another circuit court, such as the 7th Cir. here, the litigants may apply to the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the dispute.

Of course, a legislative pronouncement would also, theoretically, address the issue, but that would likely be a more arduous and lengthy route, and would itself be subject to endless litigation.
CleanMovieLover210 Says:
August 1st, 2007 at 10:35 pm
In short, www.cleandvdmovies.com is one of the last actual edited DVD sites around and they do an amazing job. Their edits are right up there with those of CleanFlicks and CleanFilms. They are in risk of closing due to lack of financial funding. This means not enough customers are buying. So please, check out this excellent editing service, buy one of their edits and help them stay alive a little longer. You will not be disappointed and you kids will not find the movies to be too ’sanitized’.
Zach Says:
August 7th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Is this for real? “Discount Code! Receive a 10% discount coupon code for clearplay.com when you subscribe to our newsletter”

I subscribed to the newsletter, but haven’t seen any discount coupon code.

Thanks,

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Should Companies Not Named in Suit Continue Operating?

15 Responses to “Should Companies Not Named in Suit Continue Operating?”

Leave a Reply

Search

Categories

RSS

Archives

Pages

Blogroll

Resources

Meta