(This is a sample online presentation for Kate Beutner's RHE 306 Fall 06 class at the University of Texas at Austin. It is not a complete version of a paper altered for web presentation -- it's meant to show you what a sample web site might look like, visually.)
What was CleanFlicks?
CleanFlicks was a DVD-censoring service that altered the content of already-produced DVDS and sold those disks to consumers. CleanFlicks was recently sued by film and distribution companies, who sought to prevent the business from continuing to edit and sell content that does not belong to it. The lawsuit was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; in response to this decision, CleanFlicks was forced to close. This has not stopped other companies from stepping in to provide similar services, though. The companies currently in operation include:Some other companies, such as ClearPlay, provide consumers with the ability to skip "objectionable" content themselves, through the use of specialized DVD players. But others still seek to profit from the sale of altered films.
Violating Artists’ Copyrights
The CleanFlicks business model depended on a violation of copyright. As Ed Felden from the copyright-related blog Freedom to Tinker notes, services like CleanFlicks are allowed to sell edited versions of films, as long as that editing process does not produce a new copy of the film. But when CleanFlicks expunged naughty content from a film, it did produce a new, edited copy of that film. According to current law, this was an illegal act.
Under the terms of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), copyright terms were recently extended for another 75 years. (You can read the Act itself in PDF format here.) While many disagree with this extension of copyright on cultural grounds, arguing that it will cripple the public domain, the CTEA also affects businesses that rely on the use of copyrighted content.
You may or may not agree with the CTEA, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and other forms of current copyright law. Indeed, as Pete Rojas notes, a persuasive case can be made that fan-editing and other forms of derivative film work should be legalized and supported, in the interest of promoting creative innovation. While I disagree with CleanFlicks's business model, I also believe that these laws cater to corporate interests at the expense of artists' creativity. My distaste for these laws, however, does not exonerate CleanFlicks and its law-breaking business practices. CleanFlicks did not aim to inspire creative innovation -- it sought to profit by butchering already-produced films.
Why should CleanFlicks have cared about this violation of copyright? Let's look again at the language used by CleanFlicks to describe its goals as a business. CleanFlicks's website, now just a splash page containing a notice that the company has gone out of business, states that they provided:
EDITED DVD's [sic]An email sent to clients expressing the company's decision to close described the company's products as "high-quality, family-friendly movies." How "family-friendly" was CleanFlicks? CleanFlicks's customer base consisted largely of religious families -- in particular, Mormon families -- who wanted to avoid "offensive" content. Was it morally responsible for CleanFlicks to answer that need with an illegal product, in the interest of making a profit? I don't think so.
No offensive content!
Censoring Free Expression
CleanFlicks censored artists’ rights to free expression by altering already-produced films. While censorship is not always illegal, it is often morally wrong. In this case, it was also unnecessary.
CleanFlicks stated that its goal in censoring movies was to produce "family-friendly" films, but consumers already have a way to express displeasure with the movie market: by refusing to buy DVDs that contain material they find objectionable.
Just in the last three months, the following film artists have spoken out against CleanFlicks’s censorship of their art:
- Famous Director A
- Actor B
- Celebrity Actor C
- Oscar-winning Screenwriter D
- Director E
- Actor F
But What About the Children?
Some would argue that CleanFlicks had a moral right to censor violent or sexual content in films. As you can see from the following image, the company itself emphasized the morality of its business model, trumpeting the "cleanliness" of its freshly-scrubbed products.
But who gives CleanFlicks the right to make these moral decisions for consumers? And why do consumers need such a service to assist them in making moral choices? If consumers are not interested in renting or buying DVDs that contain "SEX, NUDITY, VIOLENCE, or PROFANITY," why not simply choose to avoid films that do not fit their viewing criteria?
Image sources: Cleanflicks logo, Cleanflicks sign photo
(Remember, this is just a sample, not a complete web presentation -- hence its brevity, lack of conclusion, etc.)
