Bye-Bye CleanFlicks

[Spriggan]

It's offical, CleanFlicks has to close down by the end of the week or get an injuction.

http://news.com.com/Moviemakers+win+legal+battle+with+DVD+sanitizers/2100-1026_3-6092055.html?tag=nefd.top

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch came down squarely on the side of the Directors Guild of America and the major studios in his ruling that the companies must immediately cease all production, sale and rentals of edited videos. The summary judgment issued Thursday requires the companies--Utah-based CleanFlicks, CleanFilms and Play It Clean Video, Arizona-based Family Flix USA and the separate entity CleanFlicks of Colorado--to turn over all existing copies of their edited movies to lawyers for the studios for destruction within five days of the ruling.

[FirstMateJack]

I heard on newsradio this morning they were going to appeal.

[Spriggan]

They appear to be the only one, most of the other companies like them have decided to shut down.

[Faster Master St. Pastor]

Personally this is ridiculous, why should we be forced to watch crap? It's like saying its against the law to tear out or blot out parts of a book that we don't think should be read.

[stacer]

Um, it is, if that book is a library book. I can't tell you how many books at the BYU library have been defaced like that--books that are perfectly acceptable content, but have a scantily-clad woman in an art print from the Victorian era, say. They even do it with the rare books, sometimes, and we had to install a state of the art security system to prevent it.

[Entsuropi]

Faster, because they were taking the works of others and then changing them and selling them. Doing it to your own property is fair enough, but when you try to resell it then it's a whole different kettle of fish.

[fuzzyoctopus]

Also there were some practices going on that were more questionable than just that. Such as some people being able to get a "clean" copy of Matrix: Reloaded on DVD two weeks after the theater release...

[Archon]

           FMP, you aren't forced to watch crap. If you have objection to what a director or author has chosen to include in their work, then don't subject yourself to it. Yes, it is inconvenient if you decide that you aren't going to watch R rated movies, or read books with similar content, because those books include most of the classics, and a good chunk of the movies that come out nowadays are rated R. But I think that the creator of a work deserves to have their work read, or watched, in its entirety. After that, you can form your opinions anyway you like.

       The only reason I think that these companies closing is unfortunate is for kids. If you want to share a movie with your kids, but you don't want them to be exposed to the violence, that is a different story. It's different because your children aren't (with good reason) allowed to choose what they can and can't watch, and there are things that they just aren't prepared to see. As adults however, you have to be able to handle seeing these things, because they are part of life. If someone falls and breaks their leg, it is pretty violent, and can be very gory, especially if the bone breaks skin. But, as an adult, you have to be able to deal with that. The same goes with swearing or foul language, sexuality...etc.

[Eric James Stone]

The ClearPlay technology for watching edited movies is still available (and with no question about legality, since Congress passed a law last year specifically allowing such technology.)

[Spriggan]

I still think the movie studios are missing a golden opportunity by not partnering with one of these groups to actually release "edited" versions.  There's a definite market for it.

[FirstMateJack]

I still think the movie studios are missing a golden opportunity by not partnering with one of these groups to actually release "edited" versions.  There's a definite market for it.

Tsk tsk tsk, Spriggan.. Hollywood isn't all about money. It's also about creating a forced market that doesn't normaly exist and exposing people to the artistic tastes of the directors and writers. Hollywood doesn't listen to the mainstream public. As a general rule, R rated movies never do as well as pg-13, but Hollywood pumps them out like they are the only thing keeping them in business.

[Tink]

But I think that the creator of a work deserves to have their work read, or watched, in its entirety.

I have always wondered, though, what is different about editing movies for TV (i.e. non-HBO and the like) for content. They take out swearing and certain scenes, just like Clean Flicks did.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

TV stations license the broadcast specifically. Due to FCC rules, they *can't* broadcast certain things, so the studio can't make the license without allowing them to edit it.

short version: they have a contract that lets them.

[Parker]

I think one of the sticky points of this situation is that many people want to call all Hollywood pictures as simply "popular," and not "artistic."  They lose sight of the fact that, just like any creative work, a lot of art goes into it.  If people were to start calling EUOL's books offensive for something EUOL didn't find offensive, and if they then began to make a profit by censoring his works, would people still be okay with that?  I wouldn't, and I'm not comfortable with CleanFlicks and its buddies, either.  Like it or not, film is art.  As much as people try to debase it and accuse Hollywood of just trying to make a buck, the fact remains that for at least some films, a lot of effort and creative talent goes into them.  Nothing appears on screen "by accident."  It's all deliberate, because it all takes forever to do.  So when the final production is done, that how the film makers want it to be.  Yes, assuredly some films are made just to try and make money, and maybe there could be an argument there that it wouldn't matter if those films were censored, although I personally would disagree.  But take for example "Crash," last year's Oscar winner for best picture.  It's R.  It has things many would call objectionable, but I would hate to see it "cleaned," which is just another word for "censored."  It's a piece of art, and if people don't want to see or hear the things it contains, they don't have to watch it.

[Fellfrosch]

Equating "cleaning" with "censorship" across the board seems to ignore a great deal of things, not least of which is the meaning and purpose of censorship.