Hollywood Shuts Down Another 'Family Friendly' DVD Editing Operation
from the can't-have-family-friendly-entertainment dept
For years, Hollywood has been quite upset about a few operations that seek to take Hollywood movies and edit them in a way that makes them more "family friendly." Personally, I see no need for such a service, but some folks apparently like to self-censor their own viewing habits. I still haven't quite figured out why the studios are so upset about this, as it does introduce their films (if in edited form) to a wider audience, and opens up a new market to them. A few years back, they were able to shut down Cleanflix, who would buy legal copies of movies, edit them and pass them along. Effectively, this ruling said you couldn't even edit content you legally purchased for your own viewing. They've also tried to shut down systems that automatically cut out "non-family friendly" content from movies, but haven't had as much success.So I guess it's no surprise that when a new operation popped up that appeared to do something similar to Cleanflicks, Hollywood quickly sued, and that company, Family Edited DVDs, has been shut down after agreeing to pay $274,000 to the studios. Once again, while this may be technically infringing, it seems pretty shortsighted to go after these companies who are simply expanding the market for your works.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: edits, family-friendly, hollywood, movies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I agree. By the time you remove the all swearing, violence and sex, about all that is left is the credits and the FBI warnings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make war, not love!
Of course the naught sex has to go, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make war, not love!
There is simply no need for these places, and this is one time where I think that the MPAA and the studios are doing the right thing by keeping these idiots from MURDERING their products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Make war, not love!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Make war, not love!
But gratuitous violence is A-Ok because .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protecting the Film Makers Vision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they don't what the violence, they don't want this, they don't want that, they are welcome to make their own movies.
Life ain't hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The hull is gone baby. It is just gone.
ps: I was just reading and watching(Youtube) videos about the HMS Sheffield (D80)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since the MPAA is in the US, I believe that would be the "USS MPAA", HMS (Her Majesty's Ship) is British.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Err, according to TFA, for every "edited" copy they make, they buy a legal copy first. Do you have information to the contrary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta love that worldview of yours...
Why should we expect otherwise? These are religious prudes. They should be more likely to follow the rules and do their best to accomodate civil law as much as their beliefs allow.
What they are doing doesn't need to be an act of "piracy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution here is to sell a service...
Then you sell a subscription service of access to the edit scripts.
The studios will have no standing in court as you are not even touching their media. It would be like the NFL suing people who sold rose colored glasses cause the NFL did not want you to see the game with funny colors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The solution here is to sell a service...
It's one of the big names in Linux players and the SMPlayer GUI for it is also available for Windows. I hear there are also GUIs for it for OSX.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Score one for government
George carlin on Child worship
In Utah we had video stores devoted to edited films... to me its just a highly evolved version of child abuse. When we restrict what people choose an the arbitrariness of age ya got problems. And yes, given a chance to vote to repeal the Supreme Courts decision on 7 dirty words I will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Score one for government
How is this, in any way, good from a libertarian perspective? I'm pretty sure having the government step in to tell people what they can and can't watch is the antithesis of libertarianism . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Score one for government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's my film (mostly) I want control
The first problem-->The didn't request prior permission.
The second problem-->These outfits often interfere with potential profits and current distribution
The third problem-->They could potentially completely alter the story when the original writers and editors could 'sanitize' the film in a way that is for broader audience but yet retains the concept of the film.
The fourth and final problem-->It is simply against the law and wastes everyone's time and money to pursue legal actions. It's not productive time and films/movies take long enough to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's my film (mostly) I want control
That's only a problem if you assume the other points are valid.
"The second problem-->These outfits often interfere with potential profits and current distribution"
They're buying legal copies and selling them on. How does that interfere with potential profits and current distribution?
"The third problem-->They could potentially completely alter the story when the original writers and editors could 'sanitize' the film in a way that is for broader audience but yet retains the concept of the film. "
Why is that a problem? If the original writers and editors would provide a sanitised version then others might not feel the need to provide their own.
"The fourth and final problem-->It is simply against the law and wastes everyone's time and money to pursue legal actions. It's not productive time and films/movies take long enough to make."
'It is simply against the law' is a contender for the most insidious phrase I have seen on this site. It's a textbook argument to authority, 'I'm right because I'm siding with the people with the guns'. Perhaps if the studios didn't sue everyone for doing stuff they aren't even trying to compete with anyway, then no one's time and money would be wasted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's my film (mostly) I want control
Yes, and I bet you sue people for injuring your fist when you punch them in the face with it. Here's an idea: If it's a waste of money to pursue legal action, don't pursue legal action.
(It seems we've literally gotten to the point in society that people have forgotten that there's any other way to exist than to shovel money at lawyers, even when it's not in their best interest. Color me surprised.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artist Rights
While in general my position on copyright reform tends abolitionist... I have to admit that I'm really sympathetic to the impulse here. Back at the time when if first came up I totally agreed with what the DGA and MPAA were doing. It damages me if someone watches a butchered version of a film I have made. If they're going to be offended, then I'd rather they didn't watch it.
I dont' care about the money or the lost sale or the audience. Its not about that at all. Watch it the way I want you to see it or don't watch it. Hell, I wish I could control every screening that ever happens - I spent years making it for specific effects on the audience, in certain ways, at certain times... I hate to have it not work because of something outside of my control. I want every screening at a movie theatre with perfect sound and a projectionist who checks the focus properly. I want the seats to be comfortable. I don't want no damned latecomers allowed in. And I'd make sure no-one talks too! I'd stalk the theatre to throw them out!
That of course is ridiculous. And the people providing money to make make movies agree. But it doesn't make me want to do it any less.
So if I HAVE to allow the home experience - of course I want to control that too. Again. Sit down, focus and no talking. But if you do think about it for a bit, it become increasingly ridiculous when people consume art however and wherever they want and always have done. Only movie geeks and filmmakers watch movies the way I want people to watch movies. And yes, movies get chopped and edited for TV all the time (something else the DGA rightly complains about - but we live with it).
So in truth what difference is there between these edits and a remix or some other derivative work which I would be all for allowing? Apart from the fact that I don't approve of their politics (I'm vehemently anti-censorship too) I think it lies in the audience understanding of authorship.
Perhaps it's not copyright but trademark law that is important here. (Or whatever law puts those nutritional labels on the side of food, ha ha ha!) It should just be made very clear that the nominal "author" of the film does not approve or endorse the changes. That the work is a derivative work. The audience should know they're buying a Diet Pepsi not full a fat Coke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Artist Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Artist Rights
Why complain about these?
If the studios published the "TV edits" on DVD, themselves they would probably undercut most of the demand for this sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Artist Rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Artist Rights
I think you're talking about moral rights, and specifically the "right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation," something that was covered on Techdirt recently. Moral rights are actually quite troubling: even though you've sold me your painting, you can potentially stop me from defacing it or even throwing it away.
(Though this point is somewhat moot - I don't believe moral rights apply here because >200 copies of each DVD have been made.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Artist Rights
However, I wasn't thinking about enforcing moral rights, I was talking more about a Nina Paley artist style seal of approval kind of thing. And that would apply to directors cuts and studio cuts and stuff in theatres too. The studios do plenty of the censoring themselves.
But I don't think moral rights should exist, nor, in point of fact do I think copyright should exist (and I'm not being sarcastic).
As much as you instinctively want to control something - once you put it out in the world - it ain't yours anymore - it's everyones. If you want control, don't put it out there. Go and read all the Objectivist analysis of this. Ha ha ha. Ooops. You can't. Objectivists don't publish much so they can keep control of their creations. And so nobody cares. They keep themselves out of the conversation. Sharing, changing and developing is what makes ideas influential.
I guess my point is this: if you want to contribute to the cultural conversation by making movies, then you have to be happy that's it's a game of chinese whispers. Reinterpretations are sometimes better (Star Wars re-edits) sometimes they get worse (moralistic re-editing). And actually, whether it's better or worse is just opinion anyway. And lots of people get false credit or blame in every field.
In movies, politically the DGA is powerful and has always fought for the controlling rights of the director as author - because so much of movie making is a fight to get your own way, this is natural. The DGA's position is that the directors vision is right exclusively, by definition; they are the sole author. Obviously that's nonsense if you've ever been near a movie set. But the DGA's position is to fight for directors so you start out as strong a bargaining position as you can. That's why they exist. They're a union.
I may not agree on principle, but the problem is that I like that they put up the fight. My head says: of course, it absolutely should be allowed. But my heart says, screw 'em. If they want to live in a bubble I wouldn't want my work butchered either.
Despite what @cdaragorn said, there usually are reasons for sex, violence and language in stories other than base commercialism. Take even extreme exploitation flicks like Argento and DePalma used to make - the sex and violence is part of the gag, like song and dance is in The Sound of Music. A specific audience understands those gags, even if it is sure to offend people who doesn't understand the history and conventions of the conversation.
Moreover, if a movie is full of sex and violence - the chances are it has _themes_and_attitudes_ that are unsuitable or specifically not aimed at children too. Pans Labyrinth is a good example of this. And the comment on Titanic? It's about 1500 people dying and class warfare as well as romance. If you're not old enough to hear a swear word, see some violence or mild nudity then why are you watching it in the first place? Or is nudity per se the problem? I always thought taking more offence at nudity rather than violence a bizarre and disturbing thing.
Note that more than 1500 people die (some gruesomely) in Titanic and it's a brief bit of nipple that's causes outrage here (Don't go to the Met!!! Don't look at paintings!!! Don't look in the mirror!!!). No mention of the violence.
I don't quite understand the benefit of showing kids something like The Godfather with the nasty bits taken out. Why not just wait till kids are mature enough to understand?
And for adults that want "clean" versions. Why can't they just avoid the films and admit to themselves, that they don't want to be properly engaged in the cultural conversation?
But all that is my own frustration talking. If you believe in free speech, and I do, I figure you just have to grow up and take it: that's the marketplace of ideas. Hopefully yours win out. People _should_ be able to do what they want, that's how it works. It doesn't make it any more fun to let them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What a censor I am. Perhaps I shouldn't have even read the book to them if I wasn't prepared to read every word as is. I completely trampled on the artistry of the book. Shame on me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What a censor I am. Perhaps I shouldn't have even read the book to them if I wasn't prepared to read every word as is. I completely trampled on the artistry of the book. Shame on me.
Did you omit entire scenes from the book as you were reading it to them? Would you choose to read them an adult novel and censor all the naughty parts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child abuse???
Economics 101: if the service wasn't wanted, it wouldn't exist.
Fact is, there are a LOT of movies out there with great stories, but where some idiot decided the main actor had to swear every third word or a director thought they had to throw in a sex scene somewhere just to broaden the audience, and removing the swearing or that sex scene does absolutely nothing to the story of the film itself. Just look up Titanic, as an example.
As far as movies where removing the sex removes the film, obviously it would be pointless for such a service to try to edit them. Trying to pretend that all movies that have some sex in them fit that scenario is just ridiculous.
And then there are all those pretending that my desire to filter what comes into my home for my children is somehow deluding myself into thinking they'll NEVER see that kind of stuff. Of course they'll encounter it, you think I'm an idiot? If I want to teach them that it's the sleazy filth that it is, that in no way pretends that they'll never see it. Obviously they will grow up to make their own choices as to what they watch, my sharing with them the values I feel are important in no way removes their freedom to choose for themselves when they grow up.
The only one of these commenters I would agree with is that it's ridiculous to filter content based solely upon a persons age. The idea that viewing something is ok for an adult but somehow not appropriate for a child is stupid. The only thing is, I flip the intent of that comment on it's head. Pornography is not appropriate for anyone, IMHO, regardless of age. That is, of course, my OPINION, so I have every right to it.
And child abuse for teaching my children right vs wrong??? Seriously???
As surely as we do not call you stupid or idiotic names for choosing the values you do, do not do so to us.
And a final note for all those who question the legality of these services:
Copyright 101: once someone has purchased a legitimate copy of something, they can modify it and EVEN SELL THE MODIFIED COPY as long as they include the original. Look up First Sale Doctrine if you don't believe that. I think that's the only failure most of these services made, they failed to provide the original along with the modified copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Child abuse???
The point is, they are not doing it. They are buying 1 copy, modifying it, and selling copies of the modified versions WITHOUT ANY ORIGINALS.
Further, modified may not apply to re-edits or content that is changed, as it isn't what was originally licensed. They don't have a license for the modified version.
Sorry, it's a fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Child abuse???
"I think that's the only failure most of these services made, they failed to provide the original along with the modified copy."
As for not having "permission" to modify, or edit, the content, that's where we get into laws contradicting each other (again see first sale doctrine) and ppl pretending they can just sell a "license", but not bothering to include all the normal benefits to the consumer that a license provides (if something I license wears out from normal use, you have to replace it for me, etc.).
Pretending that first sale somehow doesn't apply in these so called special cases is what fails, and is one of many reasons that copyright no longer protects the consumer and creator equally, the way it was originally intended to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Child abuse???
First sale would apply, but only if they sold an original full version with each. Even then, it is likely that the modified version would become illegal anyway, because it is modified and different, not a backup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Child abuse???
As far as the copy being modified and therefore not a backup, it doesn't matter. First sale doesn't care why you're making a copy, it deals specifically with a buyer's right to make modifications to the original. In simple summarized form, it says that once the seller has sold a legitimate copy to someone, they no longer have any say over what the buyer chooses to do with it. While they still hold copyright over the item, that specific copy no longer belongs to them in the least bit. It even gives the buyer the right to make copies for their own use, as long as they don't distribute anything without handing everything over, including the original.
From there we enter into the debate over whether or not the seller can get away with pretending they only sold a license and not a physical copy, but that debate is beyond what's being discussed here and is still being debated in legal circles as it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Child abuse???
You can do that without child worship editing as well. OH what value(s) does that fall under?
Thanks I'll spare my children the frustration of not seeing a complete work, I rather them be content with the full experience. I understand a derivative work when it adds something but don't tell me taking away based on child worship is somehow productive for any work let alone culture. Its like asking my child not to watch Alice in wonderland, Aristocats or Oz because there great videos for LCD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
don't they do this in Saudi Arabia?
I wonder if these "family friendly" groups like being compared to Wahhabist Islamic extremists... I bet they don't!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, I don't hold the studios to blame for opposition to censorship in any form, evne if they normally favor censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That analogy is flawed. Your example lacks the copycat site informing people that it's made changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]