CleanFlicks Dead - Sued for Copyright Infringement

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ACADEMIC, Aug 25, 2006.

  1. ACADEMIC

    ACADEMIC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think U.S. copyright law is so byzantine it is ridiculous. The following news article all the more confirms this belief:

    Complete article is at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/009/8.29.html

    Thoughts?

    ------------------
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,273
    Likes Received:
    777
    Yea they would lose control over the filth that comes out of holywood.
     
  3. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice to see Christianity Today defend Mormon owned companys :tear:

    Here is all that happened. You can not change somebodys film, because of copyright violations. The director put his name on something and then somebody changes it and still clams it is the directors movie. I understand why this is a problem.

    It would be like taking a book adding a few chapters of your own removing a few by the author and then selling the book. The author would have a fit because that is no longer his book and you are selling it as such.

    So all this company is now doing is selling that video tape unedited. And after he tape is purchased then they edit it. They can do this because a coustomer can do anything they want to their own property after the purchase.
     
  4. ACADEMIC

    ACADEMIC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    Consider the Marvel feature film Daredevil, an outstanding film in my considered opinion. One theme that is excellent is that it shows someone overcoming many difficulties against huge obstacles. That is a moral lesson in parabalic form worthy of discussion.

    The Director made a version of Daredevil, and then just prior its release some Hollywood execs decided it needed a sex scene. So Ben Afflack and Jennifer Garner were called in to provide the skin and it was included in the theatre version and first DVD release. The Director was actually miffed at the addition.

    At home, I showed the film to my children but had to edit out the scene. I would have much preferred not having to do that myself.

    Another film is the Titanic, mentioned in the Christianity Today piece. The scene showing Kate Winslet's breasts, while somewhat meaningful to the overall story, is not appropriate for anyone but mature adults (and even then for many it is not!). I told my kids they could not watch the unedited film until after they were married. Without the skin, the film provides teens with an excellent modern-day parable about laying down one's life for a friend.

    Now I am a techno-geek am not aversive to appropriate civil disobedience (the latter which is a required element of civil duty in the U.S. system of government). I can decrypt, edit, and re-encode DVDs all on my own, and I am happy to be brought to court on the matter if called on it. But not everyone has that ability or willingness.

    Thus, I think the service provided for families in making films more family-friendly is fully within the purvey of sane fair-use. But that is the problem. The U.S. lacks sane fair use laws and has byzantine copyright laws in its place.
     
    #4 ACADEMIC, Aug 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2006
  5. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not about copyright or about creative license - it is about how and when filth can be sold for a huge profit . . .
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So seeing nudity is okay for married people?

    Isn't the biggest problem that Christians are looking to Hollywood for entertainment? Why do we think that cutting a few scenes and bleeping a few words will change the worldview that is being taught in these movies?
     
  7. ACADEMIC

    ACADEMIC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    I said many cannot handle that. I can and not lust. My wife and I both thought the film was excellent.

    Not entertainment but modern-day parables we can use to communicate spiritual truths. Huge difference.
     
  8. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lets think about this.

    Say you make nice clean family movies. You put your name on the movie and sell it as a product you directed.

    Now I start a company called Dirty Flicks. In my opinion your movies need some porn sceens added. I add the sceens leave your name on the box and sell the film. Any problem with that?

    How about if you make Christian movies with a salvation message and Clean Flicks edits out you salvation message and adds a Mormon message. Any problem with that?

    The second one is not that imposable, Remember Clean Flicks is an LDS company.
     
  9. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    But like I said the solution was simple. They sell the tape first, THEN edit the movie. No problem.

    There are several Clean Flicks around town still runing here.
     
  10. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    It doesn't matter if the director was miffed or not. The distribution company holds the rights, all of them, to the film. He knew that coming in to the project. Secondly, CleanFlicks should have been shut down for what they were doing, (although I have no problem with selling family friendly movies). Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. You cannot take someones else's work, re-tool it, and then sell it for your own profit. I would be livid if someone were to take my film, and change it, even if it was ever so slightly, and then re-sell it for a profit. We worked hard, very hard, to set the tone, and protect the message and integrity of our film, NO ONE has the right to change that, no matter how much they may disagree with it.
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why wouldn't we use the Bible? After all, it is God inspired and therefore guaranteed to be appropriate. Do we really need the movies to accomplish this? Is God's word insufficient? How did Christians survive and propogate all these years without movies to give us "modern day parables to teach spiritual truth"?

    I am not against movies per se. But surely you can see the flaw in your argumentation.

    Of course, to the larger point, this complaint rings hollow since it is already done all the time. Virtually every movie that ends up on TV has been "edited for length and content." If the complaint is about editing, it is an inconsistent complaint. If it is about editorial control, that is a different matter. These producers/companies have already agreed to have their films edited to be on network or cable TV.
     
    #11 Pastor Larry, Aug 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2006
  12. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    The people who own the movie agree to the editing and what can be edited. They obviously do not agree to let clean flicks edit their movie.

    Clean Flicks is taking libertys with movies that they dont have the right to take or permision from those who do have the right.
     
  13. ACADEMIC

    ACADEMIC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I was four years old I learned the difference between adding and subtracting. The issue is about subtracting only, not adding.

    Also, we ned not have this black and white either/or thinking. It is possible to remove skin from a film and it not in any way detract from it as an overall work. E.g., Daredevil was not first about sex and neither was Titanic and removing those scenes does nothing to detract from the film as an overall work. As regards content, it is no different from television which edits for content.

    Also, would you all please get beyond that this is an LDS owned company? If it were owned by Baptists the principles involved would still stand just the same.
     
    #13 ACADEMIC, Aug 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2006
  14. Inquiring Mind

    Inquiring Mind
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you approve of Clean Flicks of removing the violent scenes from "The Passion of the Christ"?

    To me that would be watering down Christs Suffering for us.
     
  15. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0


    Add or subtract you change the movie that a director made and still sell the film with his name on it.

    So if you made a movie with a message of salvation and I took your movie and removed (subtracted) all the doctrin that I disagre with. And I sold this move with your name on it. You would be fine?

    What if I took a speech you wrote and edited out all the things I disagre with. Changing your message, and leaving things out of context. Then put it out there as your speach.


    Even if the subtraction changed the message you were trying to get out.

    The fact that they are an LDS company is relivante to the points I made because I can see them doing this. However I would still disagre if it were a Baptist company doing it. So ok.
     
  16. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow ACADEMIC, you have had a hard life. I just quoted your post from above. I only subtracted words so it is ok, right.

    :thumbsup:
     
  17. Inquiring Mind

    Inquiring Mind
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some can't get beyond the issue of LDS. They have been preprogrammed as a child to reject anything that is associated with LDS. It was then systematically conditioned into them during the course of their childhood. No matter how hard you try, some people can never get past their ingrained predjudices and hatreds. For some the only way to overcome this pre-programming and conditioning is by their own death. Objectivity is not an option for them.
     
  18. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you don't like the movie, you can not see it, or buy it and change it yourself. Keep in mind, though, that by buying it, you are creating a market for the kind of films you don't want to see being produced.
     
  19. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is that right. I dont think I fit into your catigory IM. As I was LDS until the age of 19 when I was saved. Almost all of me family and friends (who I love dearly) are LDS. Look at my location.

    Maybe you dont know what they teach but rejection of LDS doctrin is not a bad thing. I wish more parents would teach their children to reject cults.
     
  20. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    To late. They did that already.

    http://www.hackingnetflix.com/2005/11/mel_gibson_suin.html
     

Share This Page

Loading...