Remember a few months back there was that whole big debate going on about if family friendly video retailers should have the right to edit out questionable content so that people who want to see certain movies, but just not the swearing or sex or whatever… can still rent and enjoy them. A Judge ruled that the companies, like CleanFlicks, was NOT allowed to do this.
But now the issue is being raised again and Cleanflicks is claiming to have found a legal precedent that they believe covers them and allows them to carry on the practice. From the good folks over at Cinematical:
In July of last year, Judge Richard P. Matsch had ruled that sanitizing movies on DVD or VHS violates federal copyright laws — the assumed ending to a 3-year legal battle between the crazy companies and some Hollywood directors. Now, CleanFlicks and other such organizations are using the loophole that allows cinematic cuts for educational purposes.
I think they have a case here. But as always, the question I’m interested in is not “IS IT LEGAL” but rather “SHOULD they be allowed to do this?” Personally I’ll NEVER EVER EVER rent an edited DVD. But… I’ve always maintained… and still do.. .that YES… companies like Cleanflicks should have a right to rent out movies edited of certain content.
Many many many people disagree with me on this… however, I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument as to WHY these companies shouldn’t be allowed to do it. Here are some of the arguments I hear about why they shouldn’t be allowed to do this, and why I don’t find them to be legitimate arguments:
1) “It messes with the artistic vision” – Ok, this one is lame. Who’s artistic vision are we talking about here? Where are these people when a director messes with the artistic work of the screen writers? Where are these people when a movie is edited for TV of for Airplanes? If you follow the flawed logic of this argument through, then anyone who closes their eyes at a tit shot, or fast forwards through a particularly violent scene should be sued, because they’re not watching it the way the director says it should be watched.
2) “Editing out stuff is just as bad is putting new stuff in” – One word… HORSESHIT (I think that should be two words… but the phrase “one word” sounds cooler). There is a massive difference between cutting out a scene showing 2 teens fucking, and adding a new scene into the movie. This argument is hyperbole at it’s very worst.
3) “I don’t want my movies edited” – This is one of the stupidest arguments I hear because NO ONE IS TRYING TO EDIT THE MOVIE WE SEE IN THIS SITUATION!!!! We’re talking about a small small small number of people who would like to enjoy a movie, just without the objectionable content. It in no way effects you or me in anyway, shape or form. This is NOT about editing the movies you and I rent.
4) “If they don’t want to see it as it is, then they shouldn’t watch it” – This is the argument I have the biggest problems with. It exhibits a “my way or no way” way of thinking. It’s the exact same argument that some neo-conservatives make about gay rights to marry. “If they don’t want to marry a woman, then they shouldn’t get married”. What the hell do I or you care if Eddie up the street wants to watch “Trading Places” just without the sudden tit shot? How does that effect me? How does that effect you? It doesn’t at all. Basically this argument is about controlling what OTHER people can and can’t do that doesn’t effect anyone else at all.
5) “If we let them edit movie for themselves, it will lead to censorship for all movies” – Oh I just love it when people pull out these “Slippery Slope” arguments. It reminds me of those Neo-conservative arguments that if we “let the gays have a parade, pretty soon schools will be teaching your children to be fags”.
Now let’s keep in mind here that there is one VERY legitimate argument for NOT allowing Cleanflicks to edit films for their customers… the will of the Studios. If the film belongs to the studio, and the Studio says “we don’t want OUR movies edited”… then right or wrong, their wishes should be honored… after all the movie belongs to them. Period (my same argument with why studios should be perfectly allowed to edit a movie even if the director doesn’t want it to be).
Now, I personally think the studios SHOULD allow this practice because it will increase sales and not hurt them in any imaginable way. Personally I think they just said “no” to appease the directors guild.
So there you have it. What are your thoughts?
