Hollywood wins legal fight against sanitized DVDs

I just posted the article Hollywood wins legal fight against sanitized DVDs.

 It seems  like Hollywood has finally won an extended battle with companies such as  CleanFlix and Family Flix that "sanitize" DVDs, editing for sexual and/or  violent content and...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/12080-Hollywood-wins-legal-fight-against-sanitized-DVDs.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/12080-Hollywood-wins-legal-fight-against-sanitized-DVDs.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

UTAH Based Company…These Mormons are weird. Lets have 5 wives, but take all the swears and kissing scenes out of a flik

Duh!! If you watch porn you wont want more than 1 wife. Whenever you get horny you can just watch some porn. They gotta do this so that with no porn to get them, they need to go for those 5th and more wife :slight_smile: lol - just joking - nothing against Mormons or anyone else!

Mormons are not polygamists. They kick out anyone who is.

i just think that hollywood just wants another payment for the “sanitized” version rather than “protecting” their copyrights. if hollywood licenses “sanitized” version without extra cost, i would support hollywood, but i don’t that would be the case

I was wondering how do they do this? Do they buy a copy of the original for every copy they sell of the sanatized version? Howelse do they have liscenses for all those movies? If so does that mean they destroy the original media? This sounds pretty shady buisness the way I see it. They could either not buy a copy for each copy they sell or they could buy 1 and then hold onto for awhile and then just sell it back and make a nice bit of change.

I think in this case Hollywood is absolutely right. You see, a motion picture is a form of art work. If the author desided to include certain scenes or use course language, it is done to enhance the message to viewers. How would people feel if museums decided to edit the content of classic paintings? And besides, when you watch a good oldie on tv and halfway through realize something is missing for commercial or the story line doesnt make sence anymore, dont you wonder if your own rights as a consumer not to get a fake should also be protected? For me the answer is obvious. Cheers.
[edited by FidelC on 12.07.2006 17:15]

To do what they do , don’t they have to crack the copy-protection? I thought that was the illegal part!:+

If they want to protect the creators rights they should start by not cropping and releasing full frame versions of their movies. The majority of people out there don’t even look to see which version of the DVD they grabbed before they buy it. Full Screen aspect ratio shouldn’t even be an option when buying a DVD. If you can’t handle the black bars then use your DVD player to scale and distort it for you instead of changing the directors work of art to suit your tastes.

AFAIK if you buy a “sanitized” movie from one of these companies you get two versions, the original and the edited version. So they do buy a copy of every movie and send it to you. So technically there is no revenue loss here. I think RIAA is just upset about the idea. There is no legal ground here to sue them.

You example with museums is flawed. As I said in the post above, those companies do send you a retail copy of the original, unedited disc. If you want to apply this example to museum, the museum would put two pieces on showcase, the original and the knock off. If you want to view the original you can rightly do so because you own it. If you don’t you watch the edited version.

If you own it, you should be able to do whatever you want with it for your own personal use. I think these companies are just selling an editing process for those that want it. The museum example is flawed, because if I bought the art work from the museum then I should be able to do whatever I want with it.

They aren’t altering for personal use though. They’re altering and making a profit on the altered material. With all the gray area these days about coptright infringement and fair use, in my opinion this is one things that’s pretty clear cut.