Over the years I have used several online resources to determine the content of a movie before paying the ever-increasing ticket price. After all, nothing is worse than paying eight bucks for a movie and then discovering twenty minutes into the film that the language is unbearable, or the content is obscene. Here are some helpful resources I use currently or have used in the past:
For years this website has helped concerned viewers make wholesome and informed decisions about the video content the watch. We have watched as the entertainment industry has down-spiraled into filth and vulgarity, even as movie ratings and sales slumped.
As a new study published this week details, I’m reminded how the battle is not limited to the television set. In this month’s journal of Pediatrics, a study shows that more than 40% of kids ages 10-17 view adult material on the web. In addition, a majority of the 40% said they were not seeking to view adult material, but happened across it.
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?
On the November 21 episode of CNN Headline News’ Glenn Beck program, the host interviewed A-list film maker Jerry Bruckheimer (Black Hawk Down, Pearl Harbor, 24, Deja Vu, etc.). As the five minute discussion came to an end, Beck, a self-proclaimed Mormon, asked Bruckheimer about releasing PG-versions of R-rated movies. Here’s a copy of the transcript:
While doing some reading this evening, I came across an article by Kayla Bryant at The Skyliner. Ms. Bryant wrote an opinion piece on the CleanFlicks lawsuite decided in July. In the piece, Ms. Bryant appears to form an opinion based on false information. She states
The problem was that Clean Flicks and others were buying one copy of each work, editing it and then selling multiple edited copies.
As far as I’m aware, this is not true. CleanFlicks, along with its co-plaintiffs all ensured that a 1:1 ration was kept for each edited copy of a movie. Doing otherwise would be a clear violation of federal laws. If Ms. Bryant has some information that shows otherwise, I would love for her to make that public. Even Judge Matsch, who ruled against CleanFlicks, states in his opinion:
CleanFilms maintains an inventory of the unedited versions of the copies it rents or sells to its members in a one-to-one ratio.
So, we ought to all face the facts. Edited movies from companies like Cleanfilms, Cleanflicks, etc are gone (at least for the foreseable future). How are you going to respond in your household? Will you go back to watching the same movies with the filth included? Will you avoid movies totally? Is anybody considering trying ClearPlay’s solution?
I’ve been doing a lot of reading about the Matsch decision, as well as noting what other respected individuals say about it (see Gary Shapiro’s thoughts below). Another notable discussion I’ve been following is from Tim Lee, blogger at techliberation.com. He hits on several of the important doctrines that come into play in this decision, and why he thinks Judge Matsch decided incorrectly. This post about the digital first sale doctrine is good reading. Lee argues:
Conceptually, the stronger rationale for finding that such editing is legal is the first sale doctrine, which holds that once you’ve purchased a copy of a work, you have a right to do as you please with that copy, as long as you don’t make additional copies…Clean Flicks has already paid Hollywood full price for each copy of the movies it re-sells—what business is it of Hollywood’s if they alter the copy before selling it?
The problem is that the first sale doctrine only applies to the physical original copy. But with digital technologies, accessing and modifying content often requires copying it. You can’t modify a DVD—all you can do is burn a modified copy. That means that even if Clean Flicks’s business is analogous to actions that would have been perfectly legal with 20th Century technologies, that doesn’t mean it’s legal. What you’re buying when you buy a DVD is just a physical piece of plastic, not the right to own one copy of the movie stored in the disk. Such over-literalism, it seems to me, is a mistake that threatens to cause a lot of mischief as more and more of our culture is distributed in media where copying is an inseparable part of accessing.
Lee goes on to explain how this strict interpretation of the doctrine is basically following the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. He concludes by saying:
It would be a good thing if Congress clarified the first sale doctrine to make it clear that it gives consumers the right to consume and modify the content they purchase in the format of their choice, not simply the right to do as they please with a physical piece of plastic.
Which begs the question…if Congress explicitly shielded ClearPlay from lawsuits such as this one, why would they not exclude similar companies who provide the same service, just in a different manner? Is it over a silly piece of plastic?
Gary Shapiro, President and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, believes we’ve been giving a raw deal.
This is an example of the copyright laws going awry. The movie industry suffers no economic harm. The defendant, CleanFlicks, purchased a DVD for every movie that it edited and sold to parents.
…massive, costly and frequent lawsuits against legitimate companies like CleanFlicks and XM Satellite Radio chills innovation and hurts our economy.
Read the full story here.
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?