BY MICHAEL DOSSIER / Feb 2, 2008The DVD Dossier
We knew this was coming.
A week ago, we ran a story about two guys in Orem, Utah who were arrested and charged with sexual abuse of a minor. They had been operating a video store called Flix Club, which rented edited movies.
These were big Hollywood hits from which they removed the nudity, sex, violence and "objectionable" content. They rented these videos to people who believed that was the only way these films should be viewed. This (as my mother used to ask when I told her what I did for a living) is a business?
In any case, we called them hypocrites and they are. You don't make the world a safer place by removing sex from movies and then go and pay a 14-year old twenty bucks for a blowjob.
We mentioned in our original post that the two were "apparently an affiliate for CleanFlicks," the online rental store that pioneered the concept of sanitized versions of hit films for the rental market. That little tidbit - that they were an "affiliate" of CleanFlicks - was picked up from other published reports.
This week, we began to read coverage in various blogs and newspapers that said that those arrested and charged were the founders (or co-founders) of CleanFlicks.
Well, we knew that wasn't true. But we thought it was a case of the category leader becoming synonymous with the category itself. (How many times do you hear someone ask for a "Kleenex" when what they really mean is they'd like a tissue?) After all, there were no edited movies being rented using a Netflix-like business model until CleanFlicks entered upon the scene.
We had no idea that the owners of Flix Club might be attempting to elevate their stature in the "clean movie" business by claiming a false affiliation with CleanFlicks.
We regret including that line in our original post and in an earlier version of this post we apologized for the error. But there's much more to this story...
CleanFlicks, of course, was put out of business when a court ruled in 2006 that the editing of movies on DVD or VHS violated federal copyright laws. We think the practice is reprehensible (even if it wasn't illegal) because it messes with the creators' original vision. That's why, when we were approached to become online affiliates for CleanFlicks, we refused. (In fact, we told them they were headed for a lawsuit. They insisted they were on firm legal ground.)
CleanFlicks is back online - sort of - and we were wondering how long it would take for them to speak up about the events of the past week, in which they got caught in the crossfire.
Yesterday, the company - which has reinvented itself as an online rental store offering unedited family-friendly films - held a press conference during which Ray Lines, the actual co-founder of the firm, attempted to clarify what he believes is "false, inaccurate or misleading information published and/or circulated" about an alleged relationship between it and Flix Club.
“Let me be perfectly clear about this," Lines said, "Daniel Dean Thompson, a twice convicted felon who was recently arrested in Orem, Utah, on charges of forcible sexual abuse and unlawful sexual activity with a 14-year-old, was not a founder of any CleanFlicks entity. In addition, Thompson has never been a partner, officer, affiliate, dealer, franchisee, collaborator, consultant or representative of any CleanFlicks entity in any capacity."
CleanFlicks also announced that it has "uncovered data it believes proves that Thompson has knowingly lied about his relationship with CleanFlicks and that such activity has caused great harm to the company."
Accordingly, CleanFlicks has filed a federal lawsuit against Thompson seeking damages for trademark infringement and requested that the Court "enjoin Thompson from falsely claiming a relationship with CleanFlicks in the future."
We wish them luck with their lawsuit, despite the inherent hypocrisy (and irony) of bringing a court action to protect their trademark, when they saw nothing wrong with altering the copyrighted property of other rights holders (directors, Holywood studios).
But the actual facts surrounding their relationship with Thompson seem untidy at best. Christianity Today, which did indeed refer to Thompson as a co-founder in their initial blog post, has followed up this morning:
"Christianity Today asked CleanFlicks publicist David Politis how several reputable news outlets - including The Salt Lake Tribune, the Provo Daily Herald, and a local CBS News affiliate - could have mistakenly associated Thompson with CleanFlicks.
Politis said that CleanFlicks used to run a number of brick-and-mortar dealerships in Utah, but when they decided to become exclusively an online DVD rental business in 2002, they sold the stores to individuals. Thompson’s father apparently bought three of the stores, and later hired his son, Daniel, to manage one of them. CleanFlicks later required all of the brick-and-mortar stores to cease using the CleanFlicks name.
Meanwhile, CleanFlicks had also learned that Daniel Thompson had served time in the Utah County Jail for various indictments on securities fraud, money laundering, and theft. (Documents from the Fourth District Court in Provo confirm this.) At that time, CleanFlicks told Thompson’s father that they would no longer do business with his son."
Hey, I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like a relationship to me. It's a relationship they've since disavowed, but they certainly had some sort of relationship with the man.
It's wrong for Thompson to claim that he founded the company and it was right for CleanFlicks to sever all ties to the man once they found out about his past transgressions, but, gosh, it certainly looks like there was indeed a relationship of some sort.
Or does it depend, as the 42nd President of the United States once suggested, "on the meaning of the word" relationship?
How can they say that Thompson has never been involved with or represented "any CleanFlicks entity in any capacity" when they sold a store to Thompson the Elder and let him keep the "CleanFlicks" name on the store for a time while his son served as the store manager?
Here again, I guess it depends on the meaning of the words "never," "entity" and "in any capacity."
They have every right to stop Thompson from claiming an affiliation with CleanFlicks going forward, but you can't deny the past. The man very definitely had a connection - tenuous at best - but he had a connection to the company.
He didn't work for the company, he wasn't hired by the company, the company did not sanction or approve his actions, but Thompson clearly held an affiliation of sorts with CleanFlicks.
Doth CleanFlicks protest too much?
In an attempt to clarify "false, inaccurate or misleading information" and distance itself from Thompson, hasn't CleanFlicks gone a bit overboard and put forth information that, at the very least, is also misleading?
Hey, we're just asking.
More of CleanFlicks side of the story can be found at a new website they've set up at www.freecleanflicks.com.
(Don't you think that URL also goes a bit over the top in describing their predicament? They don't need to be set free. They just need someone to buy them a good dictionary. But we applaud the publicity they've received for their new - and perfectly legal - business model of renting unedited family-friendly films.)
Posts
