Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Hollywood Studios Kill 'Family-Friendly' DVD Service

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » Hollywood Studios Kill 'Family-Friendly' DVD Service (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Hollywood Studios Kill 'Family-Friendly' DVD Service

System Notices
Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi

Posts: 215

Registered: Apr 2004

posted 02-23-2011 12:28 PM

Hollywood Studios Kill 'Family-Friendly' DVD Service

Source: hollywoodreporter.com

quote:
A coalition of Hollywood studios has scored a victory against a company that has been marketing and distributing films stripped of objectionable content.

In November, Paramount, Warner Bros., MGM, Disney, Universal and Fox filed a lawsuit against Family Edited DVDS, Inc. and its leader, John Webster, with claims that the company took such movies as Iron Man 2, The Hurt Locker, Prince of Persia and Date Night, altered them, and was distributing them to consumers as "family-friendly." The studios alleged that by selling its films in DVD-R format and stripping away copyright protection measures, the company had violated copyright laws and made them susceptible to further infringement by pirates.

The parties have come to a settlement.

According to the terms of the agreement, Family Edited DVDS has agreed to pay $274,000 to resolve the claim. Per the agreement, a judge has also permanently enjoined the company from further distribution of unauthorized edited versions of its films.

It's not the first time Hollywood has gone after so-called "sanitized" DVDs. The studios successfully shut down Cleanflix in 2006, an effort that led to an interesting documentary that played the Toronto Film Festival in 2008.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-23-2011 05:32 PM

If people are truly interested in sending Hollywood a message that they want less violence or bad language or sex in movies then they simply cannot watch Hollywood's "offensive" movies at all, in ANY form, despite editing. You can't try to support the movie when it's been edited to show on TBS. You can't watch the edited version in an airplane. You can't watch the movie with a special DVD player that skips past the "bad stuff" automatically (and, yes, such a player DOES exist).

Either the movie is good enough to watch the way it was a released or it isn't. Don't show it to your family if it isn't! There are plenty of entertainment alternatives in the world and there's nothing wrong with missing a popular movie that doesn't meet your standards.

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 02-24-2011 09:56 AM

> You can't watch the movie with a special DVD player that skips past the "bad stuff" automatically (and, yes, such a player DOES exist).

Actually, that was challenged and ruled legal since the company marketing the device was not copying or editing the original DVD. The player worked with a memory card (or some such media) that you would buy for each supported "clean" movie, that told the player what to skip when playing the "official" DVD.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-24-2011 10:13 AM

Oops. It was a typo. I meant to write that you CAN buy a "Clearplay" machine and, using their software, it WILL skip past the "bad stuff" and, since you are using the officially-released DVD, it is apparently legal. (...and someone else CAN make money from selling the player and the set of playback commands for a given movie.) But, again, I think it's a morally-hollow "solution" to the problem of "bad stuff" in movies.

I mean, they offer a "filter" so you can watch MacGruber. Give me a break!

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-24-2011 09:37 PM

quote:
The studios alleged that by selling its films in DVD-R format and stripping away copyright protection measures, the company had violated copyright laws and made them susceptible to further infringement by pirates.

Wait a minute -- they were selling DVD-R "sanitized" copies of the movies? How is this not outright copyright infringement? Why even mention the business about stripping copy protection? Are they not duplicating DVDs? Isn't this what the law overtly forbids and which they constantly say at the beginning of every DVD sold that it will get you $250,000 fine and a 5 year prison term -- for EACH infringement?

How is this not just out and out bootlegging, same as anyone who sells DVDs on the street corner? The fact that they use this moral cloak about "sanitizing" the movie is just a cover to obscure the fact that they are nothing but outright movie pirating thieves, stealing the producer’s intellectual property and selling it; making money off it in the name of morality makes it even more despicable. The "moral cleansing" is nothing more than a laundering scheme, so to speak.

And the buyers of this stolen, pirated material, who most likely think they are more moral that everyone else, are basically buying stolen (but oh so "clean") property, although I'd bet they feel morally superior to the rest of us who buy the legitimate DVD movie.

So how is it these guys who run the bootleg operation "Family Edited DVDs Inc" aren't being hauled off to jail? How come the FBI SWAT team didn't bash down their warehouse doors with battering rams and run in with automatic weapons like they did to that man and wife that had a duplicator in their garage, duping crappy off-the-screen bootlegs? How come they weren't thrown to the ground, face in the dirt, boots on their necks in front of their kids? Oh, I forgot, these guys are MORAL copyright infringers. The studios don't want to look like they are being harsh on the keepers of our moral compass -- you know, the crowd that walks around the museums with a briefcase full of fig leaves so they can cover up all the awful exposed genitalia on nude statues and paintings.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-24-2011 11:03 PM

The folks behind "Family Edited DVDs" were committing a form of movie piracy. They were taking a product they didn't create, nor provide any funding to create and then re-sold an altered version of that product. This is very clearly copyright infringement. The fact that an organized business was selling these DVD-R discs certainly makes it possible to file RICO charges.

Even if the practice were legal any efforts like it are a laughable waste of time.

R-rated movies cut to ribbons in order to be shown on commercial-paid cable networks or broadcast networks still get out a lot of the harmful message. Bleeping out a curse word or dubbing "bull stuff" over "bull shit" doesn't fool anyone. They can fill in the blanks. Fuzz out an exposed breast or crop into the image, the viewer can still tell that lady is naked and then imagine her supple, swaying hooters.

Talk shows like The Jerry Springer Show are some of the more hilarious examples of how window dressing censorship doesn't work. I consider those tabloid talk shows to be every bit as toxic to children as hardcore porn or explicit videos of people getting brutalized or killed. Kids shouldn't watch that crap. Most adults shouldn't watch it either, IMHO.

The toxic thing about those talk shows is the "guests" often discuss all sorts of harmful behavior involving sex, drugs, etc. Bleeping out profanity or fuzzing the video when some lady takes off her shirt does nothing to cover up the adult content still getting through to anyone watching.

I think tabloid talk shows need to be on premium cable channels not so easily accessible to kids. They shouldn't be free TV channels late in the afternoon when the kids get home from school.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-25-2011 07:59 AM

I don't know about the particular operation that is mentioned in the article but I know that, in the past, some of these "editing" businesses required you to buy the "real version" of the movie and then charged you for their service of creating a "clean back-up" version. So maybe that's how they get around the outright piracy label.

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 02-25-2011 12:20 PM

> So maybe that's how they get around the outright piracy label.

That may be how they hoped to get around the piracy issue, but the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 2000 specifically prohibited the copying of digital movies and audio regardless of whether the copy is a backup or any other use.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-25-2011 01:19 PM

Then, as Frank asked, why aren't they subjected to the $250,000 fine and a 5 year prison term -- for EACH infringement?

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 02-25-2011 01:34 PM

Because the MPAA has no problem going after "nameless" individuals, but when it comes to someone providing a service such as this, there are enough people that want this type of service that laying down a massive hammer on them could easily backfire.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-25-2011 01:48 PM

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
...but the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 2000 specifically prohibited the copying of digital movies and audio regardless of whether the copy is a backup or any other use.

So... that was before the invention of the iPod, right? Are you telling me that it's illegal for ME to take a song from a CD which I purchased legitimately and create an MP3 version for my iPod even if NOBODY ELSE ever uses it? Even if I never use it either?

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 02-25-2011 02:00 PM

The DMCA did not prohibit copying something for backup purposes or for using on a device such as an ipod.

What it did prohibit is circumventing an access control whether there was infringement occuring or not. So like if you have a file that's got DRM and want to play it on a device that doesn't support that type of DRM, circumventing the DRM is still illegal regardless of the fact that there's no infringement by simply making it playable on some device.

Hope that clears it up.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-25-2011 02:31 PM

Okay... so there's still a problem. I bought DVD and I have no idea whether it has anti-copying encryption because I have this open-source software which has no trouble converting it to a file which will play on my very own iPad. The new file is never shared with anyone and after I watch the movie I trash the file (because I could always make another one from the original DVD). But you're telling me that I'm a criminal.

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 02-25-2011 03:00 PM

> But you're telling me that I'm a criminal.

Most likely. However, since you are not distributing your copies to others, it is unlikely you would ever be caught, or that the MPAA even cares.

Remember the original Rio mp3 player? It was one of the first mp3 players on the market. Although it did not have record capabilities, the RIAA crushed it because it did not honor any kind of DMR technology. The RIAA claimed that the primary purpose of the device was to play mp3's illegally made from CD's, and although the RIAA would probably have eventually lost, the manufacturer discontinued the original model and replaced it with one that honored the DMR of the time.

Also, even if making digital backups is not illegal, selling those backups certainly would be.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 02-25-2011 03:23 PM

Greg, anyone who owns an iPod, iPad or any MP3 player is a criminal and will burn in hell. Yup, even if you only make copies of music you physically own. You. Criminal. Yup. Just as bad as a child rapist. No... even worse! [Roll Eyes]

I, for one, am happy to see the Family Friendly thing potentially go away. I just don't like re-editing of movies. I remember when Wal-Mart only sold family-friendly cuts of movies. Suffice it to say I am afraid to buy ANY movie at Wal-Mart as a result because I want to make sure I am getting the proper cut. Wal-Mart gets no money for movies from me.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.