Sunday, July 09, 2006

CleanFlix


Well, good news everyone: CleanFlix, the local company that butchers films for people too stupid to understand why that would be wrong, has been dealt a serious blow in the court systems.

According to the article on the front page of Utah County's own Daily Herald:

A federal appeals judge has ruled that sanitizing movies on DVD or VHS tape violates federal copyright laws -- ending a three-year legal battle between several Utah companies and 16 Hollywood directors.

Matsch ordered CleanFlicks of American Fork and others named in the suit, including Play It Clean Video of Ogden and CleanFilms of Provo, to stop "producing, manufacturing, creating" as well as renting edited movies. Those businesses also must turn over their inventory to the movie studios within five days of the ruling.

I've been an opponent of these businesses for a long time. I think they damage films. Having worked on a ton of films, I am disgusted by the idea that some random third party could tell me what is actually required in my movie. Here's a quote from the comments page on the Daily Herald and I find it maddening:
I'm amazed that the Hollywood folks wouldn't compromise in any way. I've been a renter of Clean Flicks for a long time and there are movies that you can't even tell were edited, but after talking to others you realize it was severely edited. However, all the story and artistic crap from the movie were preserved. It's really sad because I loved being able to see movies like The Matrix trilogy, Kill Bill series, and others without worrying that I'd be knocked over by a barrage of foul language, unimportant (to the story) sex scenes, and gore.
Who the hell are these people to decide what's important to the story? I think the story teller and the director and the editor are better judges of that than some kid who wouldn't know a real film from an Adam Sandler comedy.

Here's another great quote from the comments there:

There is a very insidious assumption being made here by the court:

The filmmaker's right to force people to view filth along with their movie is more important than the public's right to view the film without it.

The blame lies squarely in one place: the incredible arrogance and hostility to traditional values of Hollywood "artists."

Ummm.... If you don't want to see that kind of stuff, don't go to the movies. Don't think it's okay to alter a film after the fact to make yourself feel all warm and fuzzy. Think about Kill Bill. How could you cut that? And even if you did cut it, the story is still dependent on murder, ultra-violence and revenge. What would happen to the Showdown at the House of Blue Leaves? How do you get around Buck, who likes to fuck? That's pretty important to the flow of the picture.

I don't have an arrogant hostility to traditional values. I have values and morals that seem more Christian than most of the Christians in this world, particuarly the self-righteous bastards who think it would be all right to watch an edited movie. I've talked about it here, where you can read my analogy to Michaelangelo's David.

I don't know. I feel vindicated.

I'm glad they have to send back their inventory and I hope they go bankrupt because of it. This ranks up there, for me, with all kinds of corporate crime and piracy.

CleanFlix is every bit as offensive to me as the oil companys, Enron and George Bush. They all represent that arrogant version of 'Christian Conservatives" who have turned the bible into a get-rich quick scheme instead of a path to help make other peoples lives better.

Heres the scoop: If you aren't mature enough to watch a movie with violence, swearing or sex in it? Then don't watch it. I happen to like seeing those things at the movie theatre and so do a hell of a lot of other people.

Now that the Federal Appeals court made a good decision I know that there are now some instances where the justice system works.

55 comments:

Joel said...

Praise be to jebus! I've been waiting for this since they opened!

dbtg said...

Just curious. Did your movie have something to do with Redford and others finding out about Cleanflix?

Kitty said...

Bryan,

I have two things in my bedroom that might be of interest to you.

#1. I have a print of the painting "Ameican Gothic" that I painted on top of to make it appear like the the old man has a full head of black hair and eye-liner and
the lady is wearing creepy black and white make-up with a jet black betty page hairdo. I also tweaked the clothing and added some nice bracelets, necklaces and so forth.

#2. I also have a postcard picture of Michaelangelo's "David" that I took a hole punch to the crotch and above it I have a sign that reads "SEX CHANGE OPERATION"

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on these two items? Do you take any offense?

Bryan said...

Well, you aren't passing those things off as the originals. There are a lot of painters who alter other paintings and photographs of art. Andy Warhol did a lot of stuff with simple photographs.

The problem with this, is that it's being sold A) without consideration to the filmmakers B) without respect to copyright, C) without the permission of the copyright holders.

If these people wanted to do this legally, why didn't they try to organize a deal with the companies to get their "for television" cuts? Something that had the approval of the companies involved.

I don't know. Your paintings weren't altered because you found them offensive, it was a genuine artistic endeavor. But, if you have the problem with the content of a film, it's as simple as "don't watch the film."

Anonymous said...

Thank god, finally I won't get this crap about... "Why didn't you get the Clean Flicks version?" I always got sooo mad about that and the fact that I always had to remind them that I believe in seeing the movie in the way it was originally intended to be seen. I am an artist after all, and like you said it's not like they're gonna go and edit Michaelangelo's David by chiziling of his genitals...here's the part that gets me..."cause' it's a peice of art"... well what the frell do you call a FILM you frelling IDIOTS!!! Sorry bout' the run on sentence, I just couldn't stop myself. But yeah, if you don't want to see the film the way it was intended to be seen-then don't see it, simple as that.

kitty said...

Bryan,

I will admit that these companies (sqeekie-clean-video-whatever they're-called) are guilty as hell when it comes to copyright violations.

(Have you ever violated copyright law with perhaps mp3s on a harddrive or mp3 player? If so then you might be viewed as being hypocritical.)

They simply DO NOT have the mechanical rights to make additional copies whether they are edited or unedited! They can't make copies legally without the mechanical rights. That is that, it’s as plain as day!

That in my mind is their downfall. Copyright violation. Nothing more nothing less. They ARE NOT damaging anyone's ACTUAL film, they might be "damaging" a copy of someone’s film, but to say that they are damaging an actual film or an actual work of art is nonsense.

I can buy a postcard or print of Michaelangelo’s “David” and wipe my ass with it and it hasn’t destroyed any piece of ACTUAL art. “David” is still stands for your viewing pleasure 100% shit free! By wiping my ass on this photographic copy, yes I have altered this specific copy (which I own mind you), but whether I have destroyed it or enhanced it is none of your fucking business! That is up to me to decide. How dare you try and tell people what they can and can’t do with a fucking COPY of art in the privacy of their own home theater! It isn’t infringing on any of your rights. Or am I missing something?

By the way there is a new technology that Sony is licensing that will soon be available on DVD players which enables individuals to “filter” out nudity, graphic violence, and bad language and such. This technique of “filtering” does not require violating mechanic rights.

Hollywood studios are pissed! Oh no! a mother in the privacy of her own home while watching a DVD that she paid for might consider pushing the “FILTER GRAPHIC SEX” button when her 3 year old son crawls out of bed in the middle of the night to curl up next to mommy!

Oh when will this injustice ever end?

PS

I just heard of an interesting tactic used by the North Korean government. This is no lie. They will shut off electricity to buildings in the evening when many are watching videos. The power shutting of will trap the VHS cassette in the VCR. They will then search apartments for VCRs and take them away along with whatever the people were watching. Things can get pretty scary when other people worry too much about what people watch in the privacy of their own home, don’t you think?

Missy Vixen said...

How dare you try and tell people what they can and can’t do with a fucking COPY of art in the privacy of their own home theater!

Completely agree! Can't possibly agree with you more!

But that's not what the CleanFlick people were doing. And that's not what Bryan had a problem with.

John said...

If Michelangelo were alive today, do you thing he'd protect his copyright?

If you wiped your ass with a photo of his sculpture and tried to sell it, he might try.

Anntichrist S. Coulter said...

"The filmmaker's right to force people to view filth along with their movie is more important than the public's right to view the film without it."

You know what slays me? That these squeaky-clean twits don't understand the difference between a CHOICE and a RIGHT. They have the RIGHT not to watch the movie. They can make the CHOICE to watch the real movie, or they can wait until it's been cleaned for the Disney Channel, when the integrity and soul of the film will be completely watered-down to the point of non-existence.

But their PERCEPTION of language as being a "bad" thing (they're only words, it's the people who make things bad or good), their FEAR of anything outside of their little cul-de-sac minds/versions of reality, and their ARROGANCE to think that the entire world should kowtow to THEIR "mores"/cult participation --- pretty much nullifies any point that they might have made.

The whole fucking world isn't christian. The whole fucking world is not subject to YOUR "rules"/commandments/what-have-you. You do NOT have the right to enforce the cult that you CHOOSE to belong to UPON THE REST OF THE FUCKING PLANET.

It's kinda like George Carlin said... "Religion... is kinda like a lift in the shoe. If it helps you stand taller, walk straighter for a while, that's great. But don't wear it forever, or you'll be permanently crippled. And for fuck's sake, let's not go down to the village and NAIL LIFTS TO THE NATIVES' FEET!"

I blame the megachurches. They pump up the egos of these "christians" to the point that they feel that not only should they be marketed to and flattered to within an inch of their lives in order for anyone to "deserve" their money/business, but that they think that they can make EVERY industry in this country bend over backwards in order to court these spoiled brats.

Whatever happened to "humble" christians? Whatever happened to live and let live?

I bet, if anybody tried to make an actual FILM out of their "Left Behind" shit, they'd be raising nine kinds of hell, but since they're stealing and mutilating "worldly" films, they really do see what they're doing as a "good" thing. They think that their cult membership entitles them to reshape the world to fit their closed-minded view of what it "should" be, no matter who gets hurt in the process.

Hence Dumbya and Iraq & Iran. Hence the people who pay snipers to kill gynecologists in their own homes, in front of their families. Hence the Crusades. Hence every deplorable thing that christians have perpetrated against humanity --- they feel that it is not only their "god-given" RIGHT, but also that no one can stand against what they want.

Worse than teenagers.

I just hope that you guys never have to deal with the Wally World Censors --- the ones who get to decide what is "valuable" in a film, and what can be discarded as if the writer and the director have no voice in the creation at all. They've been doing it to music albums for decades, I'm sure that the time will come that they will do it to films (if they haven't already). Wal-Mart is the biggest weapon in the Glorious Christian Cultural Revolution --- and don't ever forget that.

And frankly, I'm amazed that there still EXIST judges who still recognize the actual law and actual truth. I thought that the republicunts had already ordered hits on all of them.

Kitty said...

Re-read Bryan's latest post and earlier posts regarding this and you will see that his main issue is in fact that he is outraged that someone would alter “ART”. Sorry to disagree folks, but it's rather clear to me that the copyright issue (which I agree with 100%) takes the back seat to Bryan's main issue which again is the altering of “ART”. Don’t misunderstand Bryan’s stance on this and please don’t misunderstand mine.

Refer to:

“It is, in my opinion, morally reprehensible to revise an artists work.”

Yes people, I agree with this as long as you are talking about the ACTUAL PIECE OF ART. What Clean flixxx was doing DID NOT prevent anyone from seeing the original. Or am I missing something? Did cleanflxxx break into movie theaters in the middle of the night and cut out portions of the film? Or did they force Blockbuster Video to rent only their “re-edited” versions of all the films?

“I've been an opponent of these businesses for a long time. I think they damage films. Having worked on a ton of films, I am disgusted by the idea that some random third party could tell me what is actually required in my movie.”

I am disgusted that you Bryan can tell others what they can and can’t watch in the privacy of their own home. Your statement above is just plain silly. How many Clean Flixxx films have you watched? Let me guess, NONE , just like me, you fool! Get off your self-righteous-artistic-high-horse and stay off!

“Ummm.... If you don't want to see that kind of stuff, don't go to the movies. Don't think it's okay to alter a film after the fact to make yourself feel all warm and fuzzy.”

“Heres the scoop: If you aren't mature enough to watch a movie with violence, swearing or sex in it? Then don't watch it. I happen to like seeing those things at the movie theatre and so do a hell of a lot of other people.”

Bryan, I am mature enough to watch whatever the fuck I want you fuck face. Who the fuck are you to say that I can’t watch a movie with my 9 year old daughter with less fucking swearing because I fear that my filthy fucking mouth is starting to negatively affect her? LOL

“I don't have an arrogant hostility to traditional values. I have values and morals that seem more Christian than most of the Christians in this world, particuarly the self-righteous bastards who think it would be all right to watch an edited movie.”

“Self-righteous bastards?”
Bryan, do you actually think that it is morally wrong to watch an edited movie?


OK now can we all agree that Bryan’s main issue is the altering of “ART”?

BTW out of context, I agree with much of what bryan says here about the altering of “ART”.

However, THEY ARE NOT DAMAGING ART!

Let me explain. ( I thought I made it rather clear earlier but let me take another shot at it.)

Bryan’s statue of “David” analogy:

“That would be like me finding the genitals on the David offensive, so I cut that portion of the sculpture and append the remaining upper and lower pieces together. The art is ultimately different and altered beyond recognition.”

If I were to cut the genitals off of the ACTUAL sculpture, the ACTUAL WORK OF ART, then I am preventing others to view this work of art in the way Michaelangelo intented. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY EVIL AS HELL! It’s defacing the original work. The sculpture would be damaged and it would have to be repaired, right? And again would prevent others from viewing the original.

However, that’s not what going on here. What they were doing is more akin to me buying a stack of postcard photographs of Michalangelo’s “David”, taking a hole punch to his crotch in each copy, then offering them for sale or rent.

These two analogies, though similar, are two very different things.

Bryan, what is your stance on the technology that Sony is licensing that will enable people in the privacy of the own home to “filter” out certain things that they might not want their children watching?

Bryan said...

I think the crux of the issue is this:

As an artist, I make a film. I put it out there and tell people: "If you want to watch my film, the only why to do so is with every frame in it as I intended. If you don't want to watch it because something might offend you, that's your choice."

Too many people work too hard on films to let some self-righteous (yes, I think revising art to suit personal taste is immoral) ninny decide what others should see or not see after the fact.

The fact that they were doing it illegaly makes it doubly wrong.

People have a choice. They don't HAVE to see movies that might be offensive. The rating system is in place (something else I dislike, but that's a different story) so that people have some fore-knowledge of what they are getting into.

It's not their RIGHT to tell a filmmaker, I'm not going to watch your movie unless you change it just for me.

The "David" Analogy still applies thusly:

Say they were putting replicas of "David" up in various museums so that people who can't afford to travel to Europe to see the real thing can see it. It's not the original, it's merely a duplication. The purpose is to offer that experience to the masses in a different way. If I were to cut the genitals off, because some people visiting my museum might be offended that would be morally and ethically reprehensible.

That's what film studios do. They create a duplication of the original with very specific licensing standards so as to ensure a proper experience of the work of art. When I go to BlockBuster or RST Video or Big Choice or wherever, they don't do that because it's illegal. Just because someone fills a niche and can make money doing something, doesn't mean it should be done. Drug dealers for instance. They fill a niche and make money doing it. That doesn't make it right. I'm not comparing CleanFlix to Drug Dealers, but the principle is the same.

I don't understand the specific hostility toward me in Kitty's posts though.

I have to say, it's fun though. It's usually Steve in the hotseat.

Bryan said...

As far as the Sony thing, I think it's stupid, but not illegal. Not the way they're going about it.

Personally, I think if people did a better job of parenting, they wouldn't need crap like clean flix and filtering devices.

Maybe talking to their kids and monitering/restricting their viewing would do a much better job.

Bryan said...

This is something someone said over on the comments on the daily herald article and I don't think I can sum it up better than this:

But your opinoin that Hollywood is "forcing" anyone to watch R-rated movies is taking it a bit far. You do have a choice, one that the leader of the Mormon church has said time and time again: don't go see R-rated movies. The thing that people who disagree with R-rated movies hate is that fact that some really good, thought-provoking movies have been released with a R-rating, so they try to circumvent their own rules so that they can have their cake and eat it too.

And I don't think Hollywood is waging some kind of war against family-values. Here's what I thinking is happening: the majority around here are used to getting what they want because they are the majority -- they don't realize that taking into account normal people across the county, they are actually a very uptight, twisted and hypocritical minority.

Perhaps that was a bit harsh, but I don't know what to think of people who object so strongly to Kate Winslet's lovely breast and don't think twice about letting their 10-yr old watch people dying in the cold water as the ship goes down.

A lot of work and thought goes into the movies that are made, from the biggest blockbuster to the lowliest independent flick. Its a reflection of the creator's philosophies and ideals. To change it according to your own ethics is morally wrong.

Use your dollar, Reason, if you don't like what's being offered. Quit going to the movies. Stay home and read -- its so much easier tearing out the pages that contain the stuff you don't want to know about.

Anonymous said...

So is fast-forwarding morally wrong? What about walking into the room in the middle of the movie? What about taking a break to grap the popcorn from the kitchen? What about falling asleep in the middle of the film? What about pausing the movie and coming back later?

Of course it is not morally wrong to do whatever the fuck you want with the thing you bought, so long as you are enjoying it in the privacy of your own home and not copying it for redistribution or showing it to audiences. There is a lot going on in the world that is morally wrong. So let's save the expression "morally wrong" for what is really morally wrong, and not water it down to describe "an act that I am not fond of."

Anonymous said...

i find this defense of big money hollywood copyright holders bizarre.

funny how people's positions get turned all around when utah county mollys are involved.

Greasy Jesus said...

Why the hell would someone want to watch a sterile version of a film called "Kill Bill"; a movie about murderous revenge?

That’s like wanting to kill kittens with a hammer but only if Enya is playing in the background.

God doesn't want you to watch movies with titles like "Kill Bill" regardless of how much editing you do to it. The fact is you are still enjoying a film about death and misery.

Would it make sense if I being a non-christian complained that the Bible movie "Samson and Delilah" was too preachy? BUT ITS MY GODDAMN RIGHT TO BITCH ISNT IT??


Pull your heads out of your asses you close-minded arrogant fucks.

Bryan said...

CleanFlix isn't the privacy of your own home.

Duckie Butters said...

Hey Bryan,

Guess what I'm doing right this very moment?

You guessed it! I'm editing out some of the duller portions of "This Divided State" on my new computer.

At the begining I have placed a disclaimer that states:

"The following film was re-edited by Duckie J. Butters for private viewing in his own home. Anyone who DOES NOT wish to view this version of the film can piss up a rope"

What do you think of that?

John said...

So is fast-forwarding morally wrong? What about walking into the room in the middle of the movie? What about taking a break to grap the popcorn from the kitchen? What about falling asleep in the middle of the film? What about pausing the movie and coming back later?

I think those things are morally wrong.

Duckie Butters said...

John,

I think you're morally wrong.

Your pal,

Duckie

Bryan said...

Duckie,

I can understand your hostility to Steve, but why me? What you do in your own home is your business. If you bought the copy of the disc and don't plan on showing in public or for profit or renting it out, go ahead.

Personally, I like the movie the way it is. In fact, there's a bunch of stuff I wish we could have kept in. The first cut was something like close to two hours long.

With all the love I can muster,

Bryan

Duckie Butters said...

Here's the deal Bryan,

You are cool dude, no doubt about it. I have no hostility towards you at all. Perhaps you're a little on the defensive 'cause that Kitty broad laid into you a bit.

I don't appreciate her harsh language 'cause as you know, that sort of thing isn't good for my psychology but your argument that it's "morally wrong" to watch an edited film is nothin' but bull crud. Ever flown on a plane and watched a movie? How about watched a film on TV?

Kitty spoke very well when she said that these companies who re-edit videos are guilty of copyright violations and nothing else.

And to my astonishment in your last post you finally came around and said: "What you do in your own home is your business."

That blew me away because it contradicts everything you were saying earlier.

How did you get from:

"A lot of work and thought goes into the movies that are made, from the biggest blockbuster to the lowliest independent flick. Its a reflection of the creator's philosophies and ideals. To change it according to your own ethics is morally wrong."

to

"What you do in your own home is your business."?

Did Kitty change your mind about this whole editing deal or was it me? What made you flip flop your stance on what is OK to do in the privacy of your own home?

For the record, I hate censorship with a passion. The big studios censor directors' artistic vision all day long and that's the truth. The filmmaker should be able to make the film however he/she pleases regardless of who it offends and how much money it might lose. And individuals should be able to watch the film in black and white, fast-forward, reverse, hanging upside-down, with French subtitles, or without nudity, graphic violence or harsh language if they so choose.

In your earlier posts, your ridiculous stance was restricting choice.

And that's why I really feel you were barking up the wrong tree with all of your self-important "it's morally wrong to watch edited movies" bull crap!

I’m glad you finally came around! That's something Steven would have never done because he just turns to cussing and asking people for sexual favors when they disagree with his ideas.

Your pal,

Duckie

PS

You latest version of the “David” analogy still doesn’t make sense. Unless you are comparing it to how big Hollywood studios virtually never give directors “Final cut”. And we are therefore virtually always watching the version of the film that a bunch of suits want us to watch.

In your latest version of the “David” analogy you compare it to several museums with neutered statues of David on display to not offend the masses.

Museums aren’t private homes, that’s where you have it all wrong.

With your privately owned replica of David, you could do anything you want with the genitals of David, I suppose.

PPS

What specific group of people are you referring to when you say:

“And I don't think Hollywood is waging some kind of war against family-values. Here's what I thinking is happening: the majority around here are used to getting what they want because they are the majority -- they don't realize that taking into account normal people across the county, they are actually a very uptight, twisted and hypocritical minority.”

This doesn’t sound like the laid back Bryan I am used to. You sound as if you have a chip of narrow-mindedness and bigotry on your shoulder.

Bryan said...

I think both statements are true. You can do anything you want in your home, that doesn't make it immoral.

And that second quote was me quoting someone else because I thought his point about choice was good.

At the end of the day this is about choice. I have the choice to watch a movie or not watch it. As far as the content of the movie, I don't believe I should be able to make the choice to decide which parts of the art I want to see.

I've never watched movies on planes and I refuse to watch films on television (commercials destroy the pace) but if you read my other arguments (maybe they were responses on myspace) but I said that, although I felt it would still be wrong, CleanFlix should have tried working in conjuction with the studios to make those versions of the films available instead of arbitrarily deciding what's in and what's out and profiting from it after the fact.

That's the issue.

Yes, I think it's wrong to watch an edited movie, yes, I'm glad CleanFlix was dealt a blow, but no, I would never support the passage of legislation that forced people to only watch the artists version of the movie. Yes, I think they can do what they want in their own home, right or wrong, morally.

And the David analogy... let me try reexplaining it, because it makes perfect sense in my head.

Okay: The museum that houses David (the original films) says that they'll make exact replicas (the dvd copies) and distribute them to other museums (video stores) with the express license to display them as is. One of the museuems (cleanflix) decides that they don't like David's genitals (the "objectionable" parts of the movie) and they cut them off. To pass this off as the original or something as good as the original is disingenuous and wrong.

And like greasy jesus says, they aren't saving themselves from seeing any of the thoughts or action in an unedited film. At the end of the day, Kill Bill is still about murder and revenge and the "edited" version is just a way to make them feel like they aren't sinning.

I don't mean to be a monster Duckie, but you can understand how close this issue is to my heart. I'm working ten hours a day cutting my film and it would break my heart to see some asshole make cuts in it because he found them offensive. I'd rather him just not watch the movie.

And maybe Kitty did rile me up a little too, but I'm enjoying this debate.

Steven Greenstreet said...

"That's something Steven would have never done because he just turns to cussing and asking people for sexual favors when they disagree with his ideas."

Duckie, wanna fuck?

Anonymous said...

Club boo boo says okay. Let's shut em down. But I will edit my own movies and keep the r-rated clips in a special folder on my computer where I can view them in private. My children will not get to em that way!

Duckie Butters said...

Bryan,

One thing I admire about you is that you stick to your guns (even when you're wrong) and that takes guts. (but not as much guts as admitting when you are wrong.)

I think you and I are not too different. Neither of us has ever watched a clean flix film. Neither of us pay the two bucks for headphones on the airplane so we can watch "Air Bud", and neither of us waste time watching movies on broadcast TV.

I sense that you are passionate about this CHOICE deal. Not to have a pissing contest, but I think that I am likely far more passionate about CHOICE than you.

Let me explain, I think people have every right to make the CHOICE to fast-forward any portion of any film for any reason under the sun; To cover their kids'eyes during any portion of any film for any reason under the sun; to shoot the TV if they so choose. They have the right to mute any portion of any film for any reason at all (whether it be because it praises or blasphemes God, or it praises the devil or speaks ill of the devil) They also have the right to walk out in the middle of any film and ask for a refund because any reason at all (the film was dumpy, racist, crummy, stupid or whatever)

The only choice that you seemingly want to give people and still be considered "morally right" by your self-imposed standard is whether they CHOOSE to watch a film or CHOOSE to not watch a film.

I'm not sure if you have thought this through all the way or if this debate is the first time that you have had to, but it plumb doesn't add up.

Therefore, I hereby impose upon you, Bryan Young, this tenth day of June, 2006, the Official Duckie J. Butters' Self-imposed Moral Code of Honor:

You have the CHOICE to either be offended by others who mute portions of films, walk out of films, cover their children's eyes during portions of films, watch their films in fast-forward or in reverse, turn the contrast way up on their TV, Turn the chroma dial way down, watch foriegn films with English dub-over, blink their eyes more than is necessary or mess with the "VERT" OR "HORIZ" dials for homemade special effects - Or not be offended by such people. The power is in you.

You hereby DO NOT have the choice to judge or impose your arbitrary moral standard that people who do such things are "immoral".

your pal,

Duckie

PS

I deleted the above post on account of a rather major typo. Thank goodness for the ability to edit and delete if I should so CHOOSE.

Anonymous said...

Okay to start with let me just say WHO THE HECK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!? No humble, they HAVE a choice…can we say hypocritical extremist!!! I def hope so!! Now for my first freakin point: referring to this jolly comment:
“I can buy a postcard or print of Michaelangelo’s “David” and wipe my ass with it and it hasn’t destroyed any piece of ACTUAL art. “David” is still stands for your viewing pleasure 100% shit free! By wiping my ass on this photographic copy, yes I have altered this specific copy (which I own mind you), but whether I have destroyed it or enhanced it is none of your fucking business! That is up to me to decide. How dare you try and tell people what they can and can’t do with a fucking COPY of art in the privacy of their own home theater! It isn’t infringing on any of your rights. Or am I missing something?”
What the heck!! In this comment you say it is okay do to whatever the heck you want with a COPY of art, yet the article above aggressively states how the heck you hate cleanflix and the services that it provides to people? Hypocrite is all I have to say. Oh and this: “What Clean flixxx was doing DID NOT prevent anyone from seeing the original.” Sound familiar? Hope so that is what you said.
Now point number 2: referring to this comment: “The whole fucking world isn't christian. The whole fucking world is not subject to YOUR "rules"/commandments/what-have-you. You do NOT have the right to enforce the cult that you CHOOSE to belong to UPON THE REST OF THE FUCKING PLANET.” Okay last time I checked yea the world world is not Christian, so simple put then what is your freakin problem? If that’s not a problem why the heck are you this upset about it and trying to make it a problem. Realize that you are in UTAH! There are so many religious centers and populations there what do you expect, of course they are going to be influential. And for someone who says “I don't have an arrogant hostility to traditional values. I have values and morals that seem more Christian than most of the Christians in this world…” you completely fooled me. Not arrogant eh? That means you don’t believe that your opinions are any better than anyone else right? Meaning that their opinion is just as equal and okay as yours right? And that means that your opinion is not superior to those that believe that cleanflixs is okay right? So then this comment: “I'm glad they have to send back their inventory and I hope they go bankrupt because of it...” is this not self righteous, arrogant, oh and hostile. Which leads me to the next issue of hostility, well you get the point by now…. And on that same point, it’s the same idea as cliff notes and postcards. Cliff notes is a majorly reproduced copy of the original and you can do whatever you want to it, highlight it, write on it, draw on it, rip it up, or even burn it if you want…illegal- NO!
Next: Comment: “Whatever happened to "humble" Christians? Whatever happened to live and let live?” Like I mentioned earlier the whole world is not Christian, so get over it, I don’t live in a strongly Mormon culture like Utah there are Muslims and a bunch of Christian sects. Personally I have of friends from different religions and we tolerate and help and support each other good enough, so to say you are assuming all are like so and that is not true. You are just ignorant stuck up Utahian that needs to get over it.
Next: Comment: “People have a choice. They don't HAVE to see movies that might be offensive. The rating system is in place (something else I dislike, but that's a different story) so that people have some fore-knowledge of what they are getting into….Use your dollar, Reason, if you don't like what's being offered. Quit going to the movies. Stay home and read -- its so much easier tearing out the pages that contain the stuff you don't want to know about.” So being one with choice and after reading your comments, particularly these two above, you are implying that I really do not have a choice to go to the movie theater to see things? Is this because I have a different opinion than other people, but are I not entitled to my own opinion? Bull it that I am not going to just sit at home if I don’t have to! Do you like to do that if there is s movie preview that caught your interest, I reckon no? Why do you think I would want to? So if I do have a choice, Since according to you “people have a choice” then there is choice to see movies that have been edited and to see movies unedited, otherwise no choice really exist. The end.
Now Next: I am actually one who has always wondered about the legality of stores like Cleanflixs and how that actually works. But come on they have a right to do it so that people can view them edited as they want, just as much as others have the right not to do it and view it unedited. It freakin goes both ways!! Both extremist sides have strong points so it’s going to always be that ping pong ball live with it. So with that said what the heck it this all about! I can totally understand the point of view that you stated but don’t be so freakin stupid and one-sided about it all. To me this subject is kind of idiotic, first of all, as you said, everyone has the right to choose what to see, and what not to see. Also when you purchase a copy of an intellectual property such as a movie or a picture, book, etc. you are given some rights to fair use of the property that you have just acquired, when you purchase a movie you are not obligated to watch the whole movie if you don’t want to, you can selectively skip, fast forward, etc. that’s why you purchased the movie, so that you can watch it at your own hearts content. If you want to have certain parts of the movie cut out for you own viewing it is perfectly fine because it is your own personal copy otherwise DVD players would not have a fast forward button, because that could anger the producers right? It is the same principle, and it really is quite idiotic that it is being blown out of proportion.

Anonymous said...

Godless liberals with their courts and their laws. What ever happened to America? America was founded when Jesus walked across the ocean from wherever and claimed this land his. It is time we oust these souless servants of satan. It is time to take back Christian R rated movies.

Hail Jesus!

Son of Stenar said...

Steven,

Is that an open offer for others to take you up on?

kitty said...

Does anyone know where I can get Cliff Notes for the long ass anonymous comment?

Thanks in advance

Steven Greenstreet said...

Stenar,

Q: What can I get for 10 dolla?

A: Any ting you wan.

Steven Greenstreet said...

Kitty,

Word. Cliff notes.

Son of Stenar said...

So did you check out Bel Canto?

all4bubbles_06 said...

back by popular demand: a cliff notes version: first part:
No humble, they HAVE a choice…can we say hypocritical extremist!!! I def hope so!! Now for my first freakin point: referring to this jolly comment:
“I can buy a postcard or print of Michaelangelo’s “David” and wipe my ass with it and it hasn’t destroyed any piece of ACTUAL art. “David” is still stands for your viewing pleasure 100% shit free! By wiping my ass on this photographic copy, yes I have altered this specific copy (which I own mind you), but whether I have destroyed it or enhanced it is none of your fucking business! That is up to me to decide. How dare you try and tell people what they can and can’t do with a fucking COPY of art in the privacy of their own home theater! It isn’t infringing on any of your rights. Or am I missing something?”
What the heck!! In this comment you say it is okay do to whatever the heck you want with a COPY of art, yet the article above aggressively states how the heck you hate cleanflix and the services that it provides to people? Hypocrite is all I have to say.

all4bubbles_06 said...

and: part 2:Oh and this: “What Clean flixxx was doing DID NOT prevent anyone from seeing the original.” Sound familiar? Hope so that is what you said.
Now point number 2: referring to this comment: “The whole fucking world isn't christian. The whole fucking world is not subject to YOUR "rules"/commandments/what-have-you. You do NOT have the right to enforce the cult that you CHOOSE to belong to UPON THE REST OF THE FUCKING PLANET.” Okay last time I checked yea the world world is not Christian, so simple put then what is your freakin problem? If that’s not a problem why the heck are you this upset about it and trying to make it a problem. Realize that you are in UTAH! There are so many religious centers and populations there what do you expect, of course they are going to be influential. And for someone who says “I don't have an arrogant hostility to traditional values. I have values and morals that seem more Christian than most of the Christians in this world…” you completely fooled me. Not arrogant eh? That means you don’t believe that your opinions are any better than anyone else right? Meaning that their opinion is just as equal and okay as yours right? And that means that your opinion is not superior to those that believe that cleanflixs is okay right? So then this comment: “I'm glad they have to send back their inventory and I hope they go bankrupt because of it...” is this not self righteous, arrogant, oh and hostile. Which leads me to the next issue of hostility, well you get the point by now…. And on that same point, it’s the same idea as cliff notes and postcards. Cliff notes is a majorly reproduced copy of the original and you can do whatever you want to it, highlight it, write on it, draw on it, rip it up, or even burn it if you want…illegal- NO!

Anonymous said...

whatever ...ya'll can read...read and weep

kitty said...

Now that's what I call service!

Thanks for the Cliff Notes.

But what was his/her point?

Anonymous said...

Next: Comment: “Whatever happened to "humble" Christians? Whatever happened to live and let live?” Like I mentioned earlier the whole world is not Christian, so get over it, I don’t live in a strongly Mormon culture like Utah there are Muslims and a bunch of Christian sects. Personally I have of friends from different religions and we tolerate and help and support each other good enough, so to say you are assuming all are like so and that is not true. You are just ignorant stuck up Utahian that needs to get over it.
Next: Comment: “People have a choice. They don't HAVE to see movies that might be offensive. The rating system is in place (something else I dislike, but that's a different story) so that people have some fore-knowledge of what they are getting into….Use your dollar, Reason, if you don't like what's being offered. Quit going to the movies. Stay home and read -- its so much easier tearing out the pages that contain the stuff you don't want to know about.” So being one with choice and after reading your comments, particularly these two above, you are implying that I really do not have a choice to go to the movie theater to see things? Is this because I have a different opinion than other people, but are I not entitled to my own opinion? Bull it that I am not going to just sit at home if I don’t have to! Do you like to do that if there is s movie preview that caught your interest, I reckon no? Why do you think I would want to? So if I do have a choice, Since according to you “people have a choice” then there is choice to see movies that have been edited and to see movies unedited, otherwise no choice really exist. The end.
Now Next: I am actually one who has always wondered about the legality of stores like Cleanflixs and how that actually works. But come on they have a right to do it so that people can view them edited as they want, just as much as others have the right not to do it and view it unedited. It freakin goes both ways!! Both extremist sides have strong points so it’s going to always be that ping pong ball live with it. So with that said what the heck it this all about! I can totally understand the point of view that you stated but don’t be so freakin stupid and one-sided about it all. To me this subject is kind of idiotic, first of all, as you said, everyone has the right to choose what to see, and what not to see. Also when you purchase a copy of an intellectual property such as a movie or a picture, book, etc. you are given some rights to fair use of the property that you have just acquired, when you purchase a movie you are not obligated to watch the whole movie if you don’t want to, you can selectively skip, fast forward, etc. that’s why you purchased the movie, so that you can watch it at your own hearts content. If you want to have certain parts of the movie cut out for you own viewing it is perfectly fine because it is your own personal copy otherwise DVD players would not have a fast forward button, because that could anger the producers right? It is the same principle, and it really is quite idiotic that it is being blown out of proportion.

Bryan said...

Duckie,

Here's what you wrote:

You have the CHOICE to either be offended by others who mute portions of films, walk out of films, cover their children's eyes during portions of films, watch their films in fast-forward or in reverse, turn the contrast way up on their TV, Turn the chroma dial way down, watch foriegn films with English dub-over, blink their eyes more than is necessary or mess with the "VERT" OR "HORIZ" dials for homemade special effects - Or not be offended by such people. The power is in you.

I'm not so much offended (although I am a little) as annoyed by them.

They have the choice to do those things, even if I think they are stupid for doing so. And believe me, I seem more worked up about this than I am.

My point was, Clean Flix doesn't have the right to facilitate that choice in the manner they were doing, hence the lawsuit.

People should cover their kids' eyes and mute offensive parts, but to create a third party to profit from that outside the copyright holders purview is wrong.

No one seems to want to concede that point.

Word Up

Bryan

Bryan said...

Thinking about it, I have the choice to think people are immoral or not. Who's to judge if I'm wrong?

I think that George Bush is an immoral leader. Some Christians, with different moral and ethical codes would disagree.

We're both right.

Immorality is a matter of perception. I perceive the damaging of art as immoral. That doesn't make it immoral to someone else.

What I'm saying is that I'm right and wrong. I can't help the way I feel, but I know that truth to one person is a lie to another.

all4bubbles_06 said...

yea you are right. it totally goes both ways. sorry if i sounded too rude, just wanted to get my point across just like you did. it is very much based on perception.

kitty said...

It sounds like you need a hug Bryan.

I'm glad to see that you realized the error in your thinking. It takes a big man to do that.

See that wasn't so hard. It's perfectly fine if someone decides to watch the entire movie, the first half, the last half, the middle section or none of the above.

World leaders are capable of killing millions of innocent people. To rationalize your bigotry towards people that choose to watch less than an entire film by comparing them to world leaders whose decisions kill innocent people is insane, ridiculous and dare I say "immoral."

Speak no more ill of the innocent who watch less than entire films lest I smite you across your butt cheeks. Do I make myself clear?

Here's a question for you:

I love to read and ever since a was in Jr. High, I have had the habbit of reading the last page of books in bookstores that I thought looked interesting. Some of those books I wound up reading in their entirety, most I did not.

Am I "immoral" for "choosing" to read only a portion of these books and am I going to hell?

all4bubbles_06 said...

so um yea...what topic are you talking about!? ya lost me all!

DF Maverick said...

In Brians life art is a major aspect, he makes films.

There is no standard of morality, everyones views differ.

Morality being based upon religion, political preferences, personal experience, etcetra is going to be different for every man, so lay off.

To Brian it is morally reprehensible.
To you it is not.

Leave it at that, your not going to change each others views.

Bryan said...

I think there is a difference in intent behind reading the last pages of a book before deciding whether or not to purchase it. There is also a difference in intent behind getting up in the middle of a movie and going to the bathroom, or pausing it and fast forwarding to a part you like.

Personally, I feel films are designed to be watched in one sitting, beginning to end. That's how they're built.

I know people who do that and it would frustrate the shit out of me. I know people who watch edited movies and it frustrates the shit out of me.

But, whatever, so long as CleanFlix isn't making a profit facilitating it, I'm okay.

Duckie Butters said...

DF Greenstreet,

I think Bryan's mind WAS changed through all of this. Seemingly anyway.

Bryan recently said"

"People should cover their kids' eyes and mute offensive parts, but to create a third party to profit from that outside the copyright holders purview is wrong."

That has been precisely my main point all along! I couldn't have said it better myself. Re-read Bryan's earlier comments and you will not find anything remotely close to the statement - that "people should cover their kids' eyes and mute offensive parts." I would only add: “if they so choose.”

I can't speak for Kitty but a careful re-read of her comments would bring you to the conclusion that this was precisely her main beef as well.

1. Clean Flix was breaking copyright law and therefore it is illegal and therefore wrong.

2. However, It is NOT "morally wrong" to want to cover a child's eyes or ears if you know that that child isn't ready for those images or language yet. Or to cover your own eyes or ears if you so choose.

I think it is all too often the case that we go into the defensive mode and react to people who disagree with us and momentarily don’t think clearly.

I think this is what happened to Bryan and quite understandable because of the harsh tone that Kitty was using to illustrate her point.

That being said, I think this has been a very good debate!

Bryan, I respect your ideas even though I often don’t agree with them. But it appears that we DO agree on points 1 and 2.

Good luck to you with all of your writing and filmmaking and such.

Your pal,

Duckie

kitty said...

Bryan, sorry for being so harsh. You didn't deserve it. I wasn't as mad as I sounded. I was just making my point the best way I knew how which unfortunately involved my trashy mouth. Your blog is pretty interesting, maybe I will debate with you again sometime. I promise I will be a little easier on you next time.

Kitty

Bryan said...

I don't feel like my mind was changed. I feel like I wasn't articulating myself as well as I should.

the narrator said...

i haven't had the time nor desire to read all the comments, so this point may have already been made. my problem with the whole "i don't want my work edited" arguement is that 95% of these movies are usually edited for cable and television within the next year. if the artists really want to make this stand... they should make it, and not get all wet as soon as a network offers them money for the broadcast rights. this whole cleanfix hoopla is not about preserving original artistic intent, it's about securing $$.

the narrator said...

i guess one could argue that the difference between cleanfix and editing for television is one of consent. that's fine, but i'm tired of hearing steven spielberg bitch about not wanting his movies edited, and then selling off edited broadcast rights the next minute.

Bryan said...

didn't he insist that schindlers list and saving private ryan be shown only in their entirety with no breaks?

I thought that's how they appeared on TV and it pissed a lot of people off.

cowboy said...

And what team of people at CLEAN FLIX decides what is censored? Is it a council of 12 people? A random pick of citizens in a particular neighborhood?

Who says what is too sexy?
Who says what is too violent?

Most of the unauthorized editing is not just the language but also the very context of the movie.

It's better to have the public not see the movie. It is tantamount at having someone altering an artist's painting. It will be a bastardized, unauthorized representation of what the producer of the art (movie) intended.

Encouraging diversity and the art of dissonance is a greater good for a strong society. Censorship is a keystone in a dictatorial government.

kitty said...

Cowboy,

Clean Flixxx DOES NOT censor, they perform "unauthorized edits". You might also say they "filter" but to say they "censor" is not understanding the meaning of the word.

China cenors, North Korea censors. Clean Flixxx edits. And yes they have been breaking copyright laws while doing so.

Sony will releasing DVD players that can "filter" out specific things in films like language or nudity etc. People will have the CHOICE to buy this type of DVD player and then will have the CHOICE whether they use the capabilies it offers. They will also have the CHOICE to never use it all.

If that's too much CHOICE for you to handle maybe you should consider a nice vacation to North Korea to clear your head. Who knows, maybe when return you will have learned what the word "censor" means.

Anonymous said...

first off, why do you care how other people take the movie? If I hate to watch the credits, am I cheating the artist?
If I start to read a book, I am obligated to finish it?
If I have a friend who does drugs and I don't go with him to the drug house,
am I in denial, "creating" an edited friend in my own mind?

Let's get to the heart of the matter. You don't believe in moral truths or Jesus Christ for that matter, therefore, you are offended by this attempt at upright, wholesome living.
Respond how you like, you know it is true.

Karl Mellor said...

Wow. Your are really a bigot. How can you in good conscience make such blanket statements about a particular group of people. That's no different than what the Nazi's, KKK and other bigoted extremist did. You claim to be so socially responsible and intellectually advanced, yet you resort to such antiquated, primordial rhetoric.