CleanFlicks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CleanFlicks

by known • 7 years ago

51 60 7 years ago

en.wikipedia.org

markdown• 7 years ago

There's a service you can pay for right now that does this on the fly for Netflix and other streaming services.

Edit 1: I just found this one: https://www.vidangel.com/ but that's not the one I saw originally. Must be quite a popular service if there are competing providers.

Edit 2: It looks like vidangel got into trouble: https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/vidangel-jury-verdict-dama...

Edit 3: Here's another service: https://clearplay.com/

Animats• 7 years ago

Vidangel got into trouble because they were a for-pay streaming service selling copyrighted content. Clearplay is just an add-on for Google Chrome which downloads edit lists. They also sell a DVD/BluRay player which uses their lists.

I wonder what Clearplay found to censor in Disney's Toy Story 4, Aladdin, Paddington, and Frozen.

From their privacy policy: "ClearPlay Inc. uses remarketing services to advertise on third party websites to you after you visited our Service."

pontifier• 7 years ago

As someone very close to this story, the way they were doing it should have worked, but Disney writes the laws and owns the courts.

bigwavedave• 7 years ago

+1 for clearplay. My folks use it religiously (I don't mean it's literally because of religion, it's just an expression. But if I'm being honest, religion probably has to do with it) and I'm very grateful they do. My youngest siblings are adopted and have special needs, so while they're getting older and are really quite smart, they're extremely vulnerable to the influence of any media they consume, especially when they can't quite understand fiction vs nonfiction. Putting on clearplay 100% of the time when they watch a movie helps keep a lot of nasty surprises from doing so much damage.

riffraff• 7 years ago

I could see myself using this often if it was a built-in feature in netflix/primevideo.

Often I am trying to watch something of low importance on TV while kids are running in and out of the room and I'd rather not accidentally expose them to a pointlessly prolonged sex scene, which seem to be in every single tv show these days for no apparent plot reason.

sneak• 7 years ago

I would like to hear about the doublethink employed by the good mormon workers who compile these edit/skip timecode lists.

dakom2• 7 years ago

I'd imagine it's along the same lines as good police officers who sift through all the photographs, video, and audio recordings that conflict with their moral compass.

beatgammit4• 7 years ago

What do you mean? I screen stuff before allowing my children to watch all the time. My parents did the same and would sometimes skip scenes they knew were bad (e.g. a sex scene in an otherwise adolescent-friendly film).

Nobody was forced to take the job. Everybody has different standards for what they want to allow into their home, and it makes sense for parents to be able to block certain content they feel is inappropriate.

Tade0• 7 years ago

I've spent the first years of my life in Kuwait and that's how stuff you would see on TV was edited there.

It was actually pretty well done(at least from the perspective of a five year old).

Oddly, Baywatch went mostly uncensored.

DeepYogurt• 7 years ago

I hate this bullshit

BjoernKW6• 7 years ago

When I saw the title I hoped this to be about a particular kerning issue ...

This is hypocritical at best.

If you don't want sexual content or profanity in your media then either create your own content or pay for the creation of such content.

Manipulating original content to suit your particular moral convictions not only truncates that content but also doesn't help with incentivising the production of original content you might rather want to see.

ballenf• 7 years ago

Are you against ad blockers too?

BjoernKW6• 7 years ago

Ads are a different topic.

Anyway, ads aren't content themselves but a means for paying for that content, which in itself is completely legitimate.

The reason why I'm not against using ad blockers is that the way ads often are used today poses security and privacy risks as well as performance problems.

dTal• 7 years ago

Ad blockers are distinct as ads are separate from, and frequently interfere with, the actual content. The ads themselves are written by different people.

If the goal is "consume media as the artist intended", then ad blockers are entirely in line with that goal.

jasonkester• 7 years ago

I see this reaction every time one of these services is discussed here. People with angry, even violent opposition to people fast-forwarding through parts of movies.

It's fascinating. I can't imagine an issue that could affect the parent's life less than this. And yet he and a couple other folks downstream are properly losing their soup over it.

As to the point in question, I tend to disagree that Disney will be disincentivised from making more Star Wars movies because of that time somebody skipped the "Luke's Parents On Fire" scene when showing Episode 4 to their kids the first time.

BjoernKW6• 7 years ago

Fast-forwarding parts of movies for your own private use is entirely different from selling an unlicensed edited version of original content, which is precisely what CleanFlicks did.

Unless that content is licensed under a free licence that specifically permits you to remix content (e.g. some Creative Commons variants) selling an unauthorised edited version is unethical and probably illegal as well.

By arbitrarily removing parts of original content and publishing the changed versions CleanFlicks were altering it in ways the content creators didn't intend and it's perfectly understandably that those content creators don't want to be associated with these versions.

smcl• 7 years ago

BjoernKW isn't angry, violent or "losing their soup" over anything. It was just a comment that stated pretty plainly and succinctly what their impression of the problem was.

brobdingnagians3• 7 years ago

I pay for content that I want to support and I'm very active in choosing media I want to support and putting my money where my mouth is, but there are many reasons why someone might want to use a service like this:

1. Editing for their children as an audience. Something like Lord of the Rings is a classic with an amazing set of movies, but I might not want to edit a few things for children.

2. Editing gratuitous violence out of an otherwise good film. A lot of movies put in gratuitous violence or swearing just because it is expected to be a "serious film" even though it has no reason to be in it. If there is simply a choice between "Barnie goes to Paris" or "Lord of the Rings" with a few things edited; I know what I'll pick.

3. Slipping standards and ratings in modern movies: classic movies managed to be great without the violence, sex, and profanity. A PG13 of today is very different than a PG13 of yesteryear.

4. Production costs and minority status: the demand for clean films seems low. Producing a state of the art movie costs a lot of money, it's easier to cleanup a film than to produce the same movie from scratch without the objectionable parts. This is something of a minority rights issue and how to fit into a larger society.

5. Triggers and Choice: people have a wide variety of psychological needs and quirks. It is important for them to be able to fit into society and not be traumatized by it. These solutions help a oid things that may trigger things or aggravate conditions.

Choice is similar. You can and should be able to choose what you eat, drink, etc. Same with "mental eating". You can filter your water for things, why not filter what your mind eats to suit your tastes?

BjoernKW6• 7 years ago

Sure, everyone is fine to do as you described for his or her own private use.

You might think that an otherwise good film contains gratuitous violence but the film's creators put it there for a reason. Even if that reason was a shallow one you can't simply decide for yourself to sell a new "improved" version of that content without asking for permission first, which is precisely what CleanFlicks did.

pjc505• 7 years ago

This is going to be controversial, but I would say this is the sort of thing HN would be in favour of if it wasn't Mormons doing it:

- consumer-side voluntary filtering as an alternative to demanding censorship

- elastic approach to copyright

- technological solution to social problem that's also a neat hack ("customized DVD player with software running concurrently with the DVD playback to perform edits")

It does raise the question of how OK it is for people to construct a bubble from which they remove entire classes of people (I'm betting that queerness is very heavily edited, even in its least explicit forms).

golergka• 7 years ago

they remove entire classes of people

They remove themselves, voluntarily. I have a problem with censorship by Twitter or Facebook because of their near-monopoly status on social media, but I have no problem if some small company serves their small target audience with censorhip that they choose themselves.

pjc505• 7 years ago

I meant "Mormons removing queer people from their media because they don't like the representation".

For a more international version of this, see Eurovision and the refusal of various Arab countries to broadcast the Israeli entries at all - which led to said Arab countries being excluded from it for refusal to comply with the rules.

UserIsUnused• 7 years ago

It's two different things indeed. Still, I do have a problem if it is the religious sect censoring but I do not if it is a company offering that service to the religious, and customers choose to use it, but not because a religious leader said so. This is because religious leaders have too much power, easily becomes cultish, I'm really afraid of religions that are just ways to make money, I think it's unethical, and because religion can be like a drug, if you add censorship into the mix, it's too dangerous. Basically, don't put censorship into the hands of powerful entities, being it facebook, or religious leaders.

As a disclaimer, I'm a Christian, with a catholic upbringing. I like religions, I think it's an important part of human life, it's just that they can be very dangerous as well.

scarface745• 7 years ago

So why couldn’t a company create a social network to serve their own small group of people?

ahbyb• 7 years ago

So it shouldn't be OK for someone not to watch something they don't want to watch? I don't understand or perhaps I'm misreading.

pjc505• 7 years ago

Per other comment: that is explicitly what I'm avoiding saying, because obviously that's an illiberal and unworkable idea. In fact, I'm not trying to mandate anything at all. Not every observation is a criticism, not every criticism is a threat.

scarface745• 7 years ago

Would you want your creative work edited to say something you didn’t intend it to say and still have your name attached to it?

wodenokoto• 7 years ago

No, but on the other hand I also don't want copyright holders to decide if and what parts of a video I am allowed to fast-forward in, or if I am allowed to skip chapters or paragraphs in a book.

beerandt3• 7 years ago

That's irrelevant. I'd argue, at a minimum, that this falls under fair use, if not by statue/regs, then by principle.

Obviously there's a process in place for when movies are edited for TV. More times than not, nowadays it's not even for censorship, but to cut down time so they can add more commercials. That's more of editing a work specifically for direct financial gain than what we're taking about here.

reallydontask2• 7 years ago

Isn't this similar to what airlines used to do (maybe still do) when movies played on shared screens?

If it's opt-in I don't see a massive problem with such a service per se. Tricky to gauge how to move your kids to regular stuff though

mikekchar• 7 years ago

Mainly its copyright infringement and also potentially infringement of the creator's moral rights if you do it without permission of the copyright holders and/or creator. The latter part is the most interesting to me. It says "You can't represent this as being my movie if you alter it in a way that I don't approve of". I certainly understand the desire to do it and I find it a bit of a shame that the company couldn't handle the agreements to do everything above board.

scarface745• 7 years ago

The airlines don’t do it. The company that owns the copyright creates edited versions for different venues.

reallydontask2• 7 years ago

thanks for that, I had assumed that it was the airlines but it makes sense that it's the copyright owners that do it.

FineTralfazz• 7 years ago

Growing up as a Mormon kid and seeing these DVDs around, I was always curious why it was legal, and none of the adults I asked had an answer, or even seemed to understand why it wouldn't be. It's funny to discover this article >10 years later and learn that the answer was "it's not."

dakom2• 7 years ago

Sounds like a legitimate idea executed the wrong way. If there is a genuine need in the market for such a service, surely the studios would cooperate (ideally with the director) in order to produce a clean cut?

Seems to me very similar to overdubbing with other languages. Definitely kills all the hard crafted work of sound design and nuance in actor's performance, something the director should be the authority on - but deals are worked out and films are distributed with language tracks because there's huge global markets and it's ultimately a business decision.

winkeltripel2• 7 years ago

surely the studios would cooperate

There's are a lot of market needs not being met by the studios. A need has to be huge for them to care.

beatgammit4• 7 years ago

Check out the VidAngel case where they tried to work with the studios to get a licensing agreement but were instead litigated against. They wanted to work with the studios, but they wouldn't, so they found a way that they thought was technically legal.

There absolutely is a sizable market for this type of content, but content producers don't want to budge. I think there are a lot of great films that have content I don't want my children watching, and my choices are either to find an edited copy or not consume the content. The problem is that the copyright holder's position is that I'm free to consume other content, whereas my position is that I should be able to modify whatever content I purchase or pay to have access to.

Personally, I don't think copyright owners should have any standing to force consumers to consume content in the way the producer intended, they should only be able to offer the content or not. As long as there copyright owner is compensated for each sale, I see no problem with adding value, such as by editing the content or adding to it, provided the modifications are enumerated.

jhanschoo3• 7 years ago

Hi, almost all the comments are missing the reason why copyright was infringed. To be fair, the Wikipedia article does not make that clear, and the rhetoric on both sides of the lawsuit tries to frame it as an issue of editing content and preserving the artist's wishes, which is not.

From a source article for the Wikipedia article (https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4026743&itype=NGPS...)

CleanFlicks is a distributor that produces copies of Hollywood blockbusters on DVD by burning a scrubbed version onto a blank disc.

They made copies of substantial portions of film without changing their essential creative expression. Today we'd recognize it as clear-cut copyright infringement.

On the other hand, as much as creatives and their publishers dislike it, the law is friendly toward those trying to subvert a work's creative expression; e.g. parody, remixes, etc. are protected by fair use.

If, for example, CleanFlicks restricted its operations to selectively scrubbing bought VHS tapes (without making copies), there wouldn't be a case.

beatgammit4• 7 years ago

What exactly is the difference between modifying copies produced by the manufacturer and creating new copies with unwanted content removed, provided the copyright holder still gets paid for each sale? Does it really matter that they automated the process?

CleanFlicks

Related Stories