Colorado Judge Strikes Down Video Editing Services
On July 6, 2006, Colorado federal appeals court judge Richard P. Matsch ruled that companies such as Cleanfilms, Cleanflicks, and similar companies violate copyright laws by editing Hollywood’s movies.
To read the judge’s full opinion, click here.
Your thoughts?
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:30 am
The court ruling here is totally unconstitutional. In no way are these companies creating “derivative works” or breaking copyright law. These companies buy original DVD’s, destroy their data side so it can’t be read, and include the edited version with the original.
Derivative works are like me making a film about Obi-Wan Kenobi running around in Middle Earth, it is a new story based off another that I claim to be mine and make a profit from. The edited movies keep the same plot and movie except for the getting rid of the trash!
The solution to this problem. The companies need to ignor the ruling since it is unconstitutional and breaks our right of free enterprise and possession of private property. Some of these services edit DVDs you already own, so they are within their constitutional rights since you own the DVD (private property that the government has no right to interfere with) and they edit it with their services (free enterprise that the government has no right to interfere with).
Judges don’t make law, so since he put these certain companies out of business others can start without any hassle because this ruling is not law. If the DGA and other want to totally eradicate this kind of service than legislation must be brought before congress and approved before these companies must really shut down. Even then the law would violate the constitution which (along with the Word of God) is supreme law in the land.
Ignore the judge! He has ruled falsely without ever hardely mentioning the Constitution, but instead other cases which are not law! If any ruling does not line up with the Constitution it must be ignored! The judge who ruled falsely should be told to correct his error or stand guilty of breaking the law of the land and stand impeachment for doing so!
Keep on editing these movies! You have the Constitutional right!
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:30 pm
I completey agree. The ruling the judge made is un-constitutional and should be ignored by these companies. Unfortunately, they have all shut down already. This ruling was a strike against families in this country.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Is there any place where we can sign a petition against this ruling?
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:58 am
This is a actually a loss for Hollywood because they have lost a large consumer, who wants nothing more than to watch their movies without defiling innocent minds. Those of us, who were participating in the renting of these clean movies, were contributing to the financial hunger of Hollywood. Now both sides have lost and, for what? Gold star to you, Hollywood, for driving another nail into the coffin of family values and showing your true colors. There is no reason for this blatent need for control.
August 9th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
It is absolutely outrageous that we now have no right to choose NO GARBAGE. If these companies legitimately purchase the original copy of the movie, Hollywood should just SHUT UP!! No matter what, the movie studios do not have the right to demand that we watch junk.
The thought police are alive and well with this ruling - pray for this misguided judge.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
You can not believe my disappointment when I saw what has happened with these companies that care enough to make clean movies that you are not worried about letting your children watch. A friend of mine told me about this site and I was so excited, I know when I tell her that “Judges” have decided that it is illegal she will also be disappointed and mad! I don’t understand what the deal is if they have leave the movies story intact and just take out the vulgar language and scenes who cares??? Are producers going to make a version that we would be proud to show in our homes for each vulgar version? I think not! Seems like our clean companies will not be buying any movies to clean up so there goes those producers sale rates.. surely it is a sad day for Christian Movie Watchers!
August 12th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Folks,
I understand a lot of people have been affected in a negative manner over this controversial courtroom decision, but there is a flip side to the coin. A famous website that advocates clean television broadcasting published an article that sums things up very well. The author of the article stated that he would not want someone to take one of his published articles, edit it in any way they deemed fit and re-publish it still bearing his name. Mind you, this is a person who writes the parenting column for this site and he is just as disgusted with Hollywood’s “filth” as many of you are. However, in this case, the ends do not justify the means.
Perhaps Hollywood, recognizing a market for “cleaned” movies, will start releasing their “airline” versions of films to the general public. This is the letter writing campaign that should be waged.
August 12th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Thanks for your comment, Chuck. I do see that there are two sides to every story, however, I think confusion arises over the terms we use. You mentioned the term “re-publish”. Certainly this author would have no qualms if a person printed out his article and chose to read every other line. Or maybe they took their printed copy and blacked out every appearance of the word “tomorrow”. Is this re-publishing? Of course not. OK, now what if instead of the individual making these marks himself, he asks his neighbor to do it, for he just doesn’t have the time or resources. The next day the neighbor knocks on the door and delivers the printed article, just as the man had asked. Are we re-publishing yet? Of course not. This neighbor has simply provided a service to the man. In essence, this is what was occuring. A service was being provided to consumers who owned a piece of material.
I think Hollywood has really done a good job of spinning this whole situation, claiming that these editing companies are confusing individuals in to believing that their copy of the movie is the original. Consider this quote from the DGA: “Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor.” Was anybody every confused over the matter!? No!!! This is classic spin from Hollywood!
Anyways…I think we need to make a distinction between re-publishing and providing a service.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Dear Sir/Ma’am,
I am enclosing a link to the article I mentioned above so that everyone can read his exact words.
Enjoy.
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/rgcolumns/2006/0713.asp
August 21st, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Hollywood I have a remote and I know how to use it.
The Seamless Branching feature in DVD’s is there to allow multiple versions of a movie to be shown.
So far all I have seen is this feature used to insert additional material. But it could easily be used to omit material.
Since many films are edited for content by the studios for foreign markets, Planes or television this should not be hard.
Recently I read an article stating that additional material was added to the movie “snakes on a Plane” to make it R rated rather then PG.
Unfortunately many movie tie-ins were already in place the result that my local science museums ran snake exhibits
Result Elementary school kids being targeted for a R rated movie. Tell me what’s so artistic about that.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:54 pm
I like the remote idea would you people use it and shut up, this has to be one of greatest rulings in US history. BRVO Judge I have been waiting for this sense the day these Sensor all that I think is not good for me than it is not good for you stores opened.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Nice argument…
August 25th, 2006 at 5:24 am
When people purchase something, they are owner of the property (not the copyright owner). As owner the property, they can do what ever they want with it. If they choose to have their movies censored, that is their decision, NOT a federal judge, and definitely NOT hollywood. If they choose not to be subjected to the material through censoring themselves, they have a right to pay pay someone else to censor the movies for them. Government can not make laws regarding what you do in the privacy of your own home. Whether you choose to watch porno movies if you want, or you can choose to watch censored movies. The decision is up to the individual, NOT a federal judge. That judge is violating the law for attempting to take away people’s constitutional rights! Fortunately, there are still editing services still in existence (that were not mentioned in the lawsuit), who will continue their “service,” despite an unconstitional ruling.
August 26th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Um, you’re a little “shaky” on your knowlege of the laws there, Jessica. You may not do whatever you please with something simply because you own it. If I own a house, I can’t burn it down simply because I own it. Also, the government has been making laws on what you can and can’t do in the privacy of your home for quite some time now. Lastly, I don’t remember anything in the Constitution protecting the rights for re-distributing altered versions of copyrighted materials.
August 31st, 2006 at 1:19 am
First, if I own a house, I CAN burn it down as long as it is not affecting anyone else. If that house is in a neighborhood with other houses in close promixity, obviously it would affect many people. If that house is isolated on my own land in the middle of the desert, it has does not affect anyone.
Second, the government “tries” to make laws on what you can and can’t do in the privacy of your home. That does not make those laws constitutional. I recall Texas having an anti-homosexual law for many years where they could arrest people for practicing homosexuality, even in the privacy of their own home. I disagree with the practice of homosexuality, however the US Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitional.
Third, no one said anything about “re-distributing altered versions of copyrighted materials.” If I buy a wedding dress from one store and then go to another store and pay more money to have it altered. That is MY choice. It is for my own private use. You can not go through life without hiring a “service” that “alters” something at some point. When you remodel your house, that is changing the artistic view of the architect’s design, but it is your choice what to do with the house once you bought it. When you buy an SUV and take it to an auto body shop to get fancy grill bumpers put on, change the wheels, jack it up off the ground, and change the pant from a red to camoflauge …those are ALL things done to alter the original intent of the auto manufacturer. So, should the auto manufacture have a right to sue the auto body shop for performing a service for an individual who hired them??? Of course not. Quite simply, you need to sit down and shut up because you are missing the whole point of why people are willing to pay money for a service to edit movies so they can watch them without being subjected to things that violate their moral code of conduct.
August 31st, 2006 at 7:53 am
The government “tries” to make laws as to what you can do in the privacy of your own home? Can you smoke marijuana in the privacy of your home? Of course not (not legally, anyway).
And as to your analogy with the dress, sure you can alter it, just like you can your very own copy of a DVD. If you tried to “re-distribute” a bunch of altered dresses with that original designer’s name on them, you might find yourself with a lawsuit (rightfully) on your hands. That is exactly why a lot of moviemakers are so unhappy with these services; Their names are left on products that they did not edit.
But this is, quite simply, silly to argue about since there still exists plenty of ways and services for the legal (currently) editing of your movies which contain items that violate your “moral code”.
August 31st, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Chuck…again it seems there is a disconnect between providing a service and “re-distributing”. I brought this up on August 12 when you commented about re-publishing. I wonder how you define “re-publish” or “re-distribute”, and how one could arrive here from providing a service?
August 31st, 2006 at 6:45 pm
If a person buys a DVD, sends it to a service for “cleaning” and has it sent back, it is not re-distribution. However, when a company purchases the DVD (first retail distribution), cleans and sells it, that is the second distribution.
Hence, the word re-distribute.
August 31st, 2006 at 6:52 pm
OK, so if I want to buy James Bond and send it to you for editing, that’s cool? But what if I don’t own it yet? OK, I’ll go to the store and buy it, then send it to you. No problem. Wait…I can’t leave the house tonight, I’m watching my infant. Can you just buy it for me?
Would that be re-distribution?
August 31st, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Actually, I’m not stating which service I consider better or worse; I’m simply providing the definition (or example) of my use of the word re-distribute, that’s all.
By the way, did you follow the above link to the article (and if so, did you e-mail him)?
September 2nd, 2006 at 11:46 am
>However, when a company purchases the DVD (first retail distribution),
>cleans and sells it, that is the second distribution.
>Hence, the word re-distribute.
So based on your definition of distribution, there are THOUSANDS of companies across the US at risk of “re-distributing” DVDs. Example: When Blockbuster purchases the DVD (first retail distribution) and then sells it, that is the second distribution….according to YOUR definition. Obviously, you don’t have a rat’s clue what “re-distribute” REALLY means!
September 4th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Yes, and I guess you don’t have much understanding as to what consent from the studios means. Really, why should you let the facts get in the way when you can throw out one non sequitur after another (analogically anyway) and try to make silly tabloidlike points with the use of caitalising (REALLY) and exclamation points at the end of sentences.
Oh, and those movies that are being re-distributed by Blockbuster have not been altered, so stick to the point and try to remain coherent in your babble ridden debates.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
I suggest that we go to hometheaterforum.com and voice our opinions. The bigwigs in Hollywood frequent that site often getting opinions of other users. We should let them know we will not buy their products unless we can have them the way we want: Without the vulgar filth!
September 16th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
These movies in their edited version were one of the prime together-times for our family. We enjoyed each visit to rent them, and were enriched as we watched wholesomely and happily. There is nothing noble in trampling that which is sweet and good for families, in favor of trying to force us to either not view almost all of Hollywood’s offerings or fill our minds and homes with garbage.
I hope that Constitutional values will somehow be brought to light again, and that our rights as citizens will be retored.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I am so glad that someone has developed the technology needed to protect my rights to not listen garbage and still enjoy the movies.