CleanFlicks Finds New Loophole to Legally Cut Filth Out of Movies

I chimed in the last time this was covered by Cinematical (when they lost the case), and I still feel the same way (I think these companies are great). It seems ridiculous to me that anyone would complain this is going on. They don't edit these movies and then populate the local blockbuster etc... with the edited films, you have to go to them and request the edited film. The only people this really affects is the people who want to watch these films edited (it doesn't really affect people who are happy to watch the unediting versions). No one forces you to watch the edited (just like no one forces us to watch the unedited).

It seems like it would be a win win situation since without this editing service, I would not be watching the movie, so it is a missed sale from the company (as buying the edited movies means buying the unedited movie also, so they cost more, but in my view are worth it).

I think this would be a problem if they were advertising the films as the original and selling them to confuse people that wanted the original, but as it stands, you have to go out of your way to pick up an edited copy.

Reply

Come now... tell me you wouldn't like to see them tackle 300 or "the grindhouse" flicks? I'm sure the comedic value in that alone would be HUGE!

~B.

Reply

Screw that. If you can legally remove material, now can you legally add some? Same thing right? What about director's vision? That's the version the studios copyright. Should art be dismantled without the creator's consent?

My vote is HELL no.

Reply

Why on earth is anyone upset about this? It's also called, "Edited for Television" - where's the outrage?

Reply

What country is this? Where am I?

Reply

What is the problem here? They already edit for tv. They already edit for Airplanes. No one is editing the movie YOU watch. What does it matter to you or anyone else is someone else wants to see a clean version for themselves and it doesn't efect you at all?

Reply

The "airplane" and "TV" argument are what make me wonder why people go so nuts over this issue? Movies have been edited to pieces in those two venues for DECADES. The only argument that I've heard that differentiates between these new companies and the existing edited material is that the new companies aren't getting permission from, or aren't working with the studios.

Now if someone could answer WHY the studios aren't willing to work with these companies while they ARE willing to work with TV and the airlines?

Anyone, anyone? Bueller?

Vic

Reply

So there's a few issues at work here that make it more complicated that "But it's only available if I ask for it." and "They do this on TV all the time!" But this wouldn't be the comments section without simplified arguments of more complex issues.

(NB: IANAL) First off, this seems to violate fair use. If I buy a copy of a movie, I can legally do whatever I want to it. But I can't make money off that modified copy without the studio's permission. So unless they're lending this out for free, it's not legal.

Second, their criteria goes far beyond your standard TV/airline editing. Nudity, explicit sexuality, profanity and realistic graphic violence are edited out of shows meant for PUBLIC viewing. These guidelines are well laid out because as much as we'd like to think that parents will police their kids, and people with tender sensibilities won't watch, that's just not the case. What this company is doing is arbitrarily determining what to cut. What is implied sexual content? Is it a scene where two people are lying in bed together? A kiss? A lingering hug? A lustful glance? There wouldn't be a soap opera that would make the grade. Jump scenes? Is there a point for nearly any thriller or horror movie to even be considered then? How good is a Hitchcock film without a startling scene? Violence? Where do they draw the line on that? Profanity? We know the road to heck is paved with good intentions.

And NONE of this is done with the studio's consent. TV and Airline edits are, cuts to avoid an NC-17 or R rating are, director's cuts are... but not these. How would it go over if someone made replicas of the great works of art and censored them and then charged to show them in a museum? The Mona Lisa with a burka, David in a loin cloth, the Venus de Milo in a dress, Birth of Venus in a closed clam shell?

These are people making wholesale changes to copywrited material and making a profit off it to suit their own motivations. Nobody has authorized this. I could just as easily take The Nativity Story or The Ten Commandments, or Stepmom, or Harry and the Hendersons and ADD profanity, nudity, sex, graphic violence and sell it (but only to those who wanted it of course)... but somehow I think it would meet with more objection. Even though it's the same coin, just the other side.

Reply

The sad truth is if it weren't Mormons doing this, or some other religious minority, no one would care.

It's interesting that those who cry the loudest about individuality, about others staying out of their business, about personal freedom and independence, are also the loudest to mock people who want something as simple as to have a great time watching a good movie without the fear that someone's going to flash their breasts or drop an F bomb.

Reply