CLEANFLICKS: HUMILIATED, BUT UNAFFILIATED?

BY MICHAEL DOSSIER / Feb 2, 2008
The 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.)

CLEAN FLICKS FIGHTS BACK

BY MARK MORING / Feb 2, 2008
Christianity Today

CleanFlicks, once popular with Christians and families for its video “sanitizing” service, is working overtime to distance itself from a sex scandal involving a Utah man who apparently claimed he once worked with the company.

On Friday, CleanFlicks filed a federal lawsuit again Daniel Dean Thompson, who was recently arrested for allegedly paying a 14-year-old girl for sex. According to a press release, CleanFlicks is seeking damages for “harming the firm by illegally claiming a business relationship with the firm and infringing its trade name and trademarks.”

According to CleanFlicks, Thompson “was not a founder of CleanFlicks, LLC or CleanFlicks Media, Inc., nor was he ever a partner, officer, affiliate, dealer, franchisee, collaborator, consultant or representative of any CleanFlicks entity in any capacity.”

Several reports of Thompson’s Jan. 24 arrest—on two charges of forcible sexual abuse and two charges of forcible sexual activity with a 14-year-old—had referred to him as a “co-founder” of CleanFlicks. Other reports said Thompson had owned and/or operated one or more CleanFlicks dealerships—which offered edited DVDs to customers—in Utah.

But CleanFlicks says none of it is true. Its Friday press release says the business “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,” and thus the lawsuit, which seeks over $1 million in damages.

“We want everyone to see that we stand for the antithesis of everything with which we have been erroneously linked in recent reports,” said Ray Lines, whom CleanFlicks says is the true founder of their company.

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.

CleanFlicks has made more details about the situation available at FreeCleanFlicks.com.

CleanFlicks was founded in 2000 by Ray and Sharon Lines as a business which edits movies to remove objectionable content. The company—and other “video sanitizing” businesses like it—gained popularity with Christians and families over the next few years. But in 2006, such businesses received a lethal blow when a federal judge ruled that sanitizing movies violates copyright laws. Rather than fight the case, CleanFlicks abided by the decision and quit the sanitizing business.

CleanFlicks is still in operation today, but now as an online-only video rental company that claims to be “the world’s only DVD rental store exclusively offering family friendly movies.”

CLEANFLIX SAGA TAKES IRONIC FINAL TWIST

BY DADE HAYES / February 1, 2008
The Daily Varity

Flix Club's Thompson arrested in Utah.

The vexing saga of CleanFlix, the Utah-based service that excised naughty bits from DVDs, took an ironic final twist last week when one of its franchisees cued up a lurid scene in real life.

Daniel D. Thompson, 31, and Isaac R. Lifferth, 24, were arrested in Utah on suspicion of paying two 14-year-old girls for sex. Neither has been formally charged.

Thompson ran Flix Club, a branch of CleanFlix that offered sanitized versions of even PG-13 fare, attracting a sizable following, especially among Christian consumers. The company was forced to shut down in December after a federal court ruled that its versions of studio films constituted copyright violation.

The alleged sex acts took place at the Flix Club shop in Orem, Utah. Police also found a sizable cache of pornography there, but Thompson claimed it was for "personal use," authorities say.

DVD SANITIZER SAGA CONTINUES: CLEAN FLICKS SUES ALLEGED PEDOPHILE FOR CLAIMING AFFILIATION

BY ERIQ GARDNER / Feb 1, 2008
The Hollywood Reporter

Are you ready for this? Earlier this week we posted about the man who ran a business that edited salacious content out of DVDs getting arrested for having sex with underaged girls and using his business as "a cover for a pornography studio." Well, things have just gotten a whole lot stranger.

Now Utah-based Clean Flicks Media, which, if you remember, lost a copyright battle with Hollywood studios over DVD sanitation, is stepping up big-time to try to edit this guy, Daniel Thompson, out of the picture.

The company held a press conference today to distance itself from Thompson and released a timeline of its corporate history showing that the original Clean Flicks business was founded in 2000 by Ray and Sharon Lines.

But they didn't stop there. Clean Flicks Media also filed a lawsuit today in Utah District Court alleging that Thompson is falsely representing himself as a "as a founder, owner, franchisee or dealer of CleanFlicks." The complaint alleges violations of trademark, false designation of origin, cyberpiracy prevention, and tortious interference.

The company acknowledges that Daniel Thompson once played a role in the Clean Flicks business. But according to the timeline, the original brick and mortar store chain owned by the Lines family was largely shuttered in 2002 and 2003. The company sold three of the stores to Daniel Thompson's father, who hired his son as a manager. Apparently, Daniel had a criminal background, and when Clean Flicks found out, they say they notified the father they wouldn't do business with Daniel.

Flash forward to 2006, when, according to Clean Flicks, Daniel Thompson continued to operate a business under the Clean Flicks (also Cleanflix) name, and he later renamed it FlixClub. The two sides have been engaged in a trademark fight for a few years — but up until the time Thompson was arrested by police, he continued to operate a business that purported to take smut out of movies.

Of course, the irony here is how Clean Flicks is going after this guy by invoking a misuse of its intellectual property (trademark) after having fought so hard against Hollywood's claims of copyright infringement.

DVD SANITIZER ACCUSED OF X-RATED BEHAVIOR

BY ERIQ GARDNER / Jan 29, 2008
The Hollywood Reporter

Remember Clean Flix? It's the Utah-based DVD business that was a favorite of conservative politicians and an anathema to the studios because it edited feature films to remove or alter content deemed inappropriate.

The company's activities sparked a number of lawsuits, including one huge one filed by 16 prominent directors, including Steven Spielberg and Robert Redford, and entertainment studios such as Disney, Sony, Universal, Paramount and Twentieth Century Fox. In 2006, Hollywood won its copyright claims against Clean Flix and the company recently shut down, supposedly due to the industry's legal force.

Well, cover your eyes for this story. Clean Flix founder Daniel Thompson has just been arrested and is accused of having sex with underaged girls. And according to the Salt Lake Tribune, the "booking documents state Thompson told the 14-year-olds that his film sanitizing business was a cover for a pornography studio." Police found a "large quantity" of porno movies inside the business, "along with a keg of beer, painkillers and two cameras hooked up to a television." Thompson has been released after posting $30,000 bail.

We wish we could edit that story out of our heads.

CLEAN MEDIA UNITED LAUNCHES NEW WEBSITE

An extremely passionate and ambitious activist group called Clean Media United has relaunched their website and their mission.

Their motto?

"The choices we make in media reflect the choices we make in life."

Their mission statement?

"To unite and promote those persons and entities dedicated to promulgating clean media and to educate the general public of the harmful effects of pornography (in all of it’s forms); to maintain records and a history of the persons and entities that promote clean media: and to apply for educational grants to encourage and to further clean arts. When a million whispers unite, the world will have to comply to our scream for change!"

The Clean Media United website is now active. Available on the site are video interviews with public figures from professional snowboarders to business leaders, all of whom support "Clean Media." Among the video clips that can be found on the site are interviews with Clean Flicks founder Ray Lines and Clean Flicks CEO Allan Erb. Ads for Clear Play, TV Guardian, and Family Safe can be found under the heading "Buy Clean."

The following message was part of a recent Clean Media United press release:

"One of our first goals was to provide a list of Clean Organizations, which is constantly growing. Search for an organization that is involved in the same fight you are, and unite with them to make a greater impact. You can create your own group, invite your friends, and collaborate ideas and information together, send email updates to everyone through the new site, and lots of other stuff. Imagine a Google-type search engine that is family friendly! "GOOGLE-FAMILY". You can research pornography, without seeing any pornography! Everything that comes up is a family-friendly site! You go on vacation and want to support family friendly hotels, so you find hotels in our Clean Book that refuse to offer adult entertainment to their guests. You vote with your dollar, so support those businesses who support Clean! Think of it as an online phone book, search for any business, local or national, that has pledged to support Clean!"

Find more information at CleanMediaUnited.org

THREE LOCAL MOVIE STORES FORCED TO CLOSE THIS MONTH

BY MALLORY BATEMAN / Dec 5, 2007
Brigham Young University's Daily Universe

As Flix Club owner Daniel Thompson treated eager customers to a free copy of "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End," the gift was accompanied by news that the store would not survive to see the new year.

The owner greeted customers by name as they filed in to the small store on State Street in Orem Tuesday night. The media had already gathered to hear what few people knew - Hollywood had finally won the battle against edited movie stores and was closing them down.

Flix Club, along with Cougar Video and Family Video, once competitors, were all serviced papers in September from law firm Loeb and Loeb in New York stating the stores needed to shut down. "I wrote them back saying I was operating under educational use," an exception in copyright law, Thompson said. "They responded by giving me three options."

The firm told Thompson that his loophole to copyright law would not hold up and he could negotiate with each individual studio, close down, or continue to operate and face a lawsuit, he said. "I called the firm and said I don't want to fight," Thompson said. "They said that if I don't shut down they would break me and take everything I have." So he decided to quit.

Flix Club has been in business for seven years, but Thompson said he couldn't fight the battle anymore, especially against companies like Disney, MGM and Dreamworks. "How many people know me?" Thompson said.

The crowd responded with cheers as nearly everyone raised their hands. "I've looked into every possibility," Thompson said. "They're wiping us out."

In an emotional speech, Thompson thanked customers for their business and asked for their support until he turns his sign off for good on Dec. 31. "You know me; you know that I'm here." Thompson said. "You mean everything to me."Customers thanked Thompson for his business and pledged their support as they gave their regards.

Orem resident Dana Johnson said Thompson knows every customer by name and said he thinks Hollywood is making a mistake "I think it's awful," Johnson said. "They're giving up money for something stupid."

BYU student David Ybarra said he and his wife Emily have rented from Thompson since high school and prefer Flix Club to any other video store. "I won't watch a movie if it's not edited," Emily Ybarra said. "It makes it so you don't have to brace yourself during the movie."

Cougar Video owner Kirt Merrill said he would be closing, too, even though 90 percent of his movies are not edited. However, he said, 85 percent of his income comes from renting the edited movies.

Family Video owner Ryan Van Dorn said he survived the first wave, which closed down Clean Flicks, but his edited movies won't survive this time. He said he will continue to rent movies rated PG-13 or lower. "This will be the final nail in the coffin," Van Dorn said.

CUTTING AND PASTING: HUNSTSMAN v SODERBERGH AND COPYRIGHT LAW

BY CHRISTOPHER JORDAN / Nov 16, 2007
Flow TV

Huntsman v. Soderbergh illustrates the ever-escalating efforts of corporations to control their every representation in culture as if copyright ownership is a natural right rather than a constitutional privilege. In Huntsman v. Soderbergh, filed in August 2003 and decided in favor of the Directors Guild of America (DGA) in July 2006, a Denver federal court ordered four companies to stop selling and renting unauthorized edited or altered copies of movies, while allowing another company to continue marketing its DVD players and software filters because it does not make derivative copies of movies.

The guild argued that the creation and distribution of the final edited film products violated these provisions. The basis of the main “reproduction” claim was that duplicating movies by copying them onto a computer hard drive as part of the process of making the final edited movie was infringing. Huntsman v. Soderbergh thus raised several questions: Did CleanFlicks violate fair use by using illegal means to create its clean DVDs and by selling a product that compromises the potential market for the copyrighted work? Did ClearPlay violate copyright law by selling software that omitted offensive content without actually altering DVD content? Did CleanFlicks have the right to modify copies of works it had paid for under the first sale doctrine and sell them for profit or did this violate the copyright owner’s sole right of reproduction of the work?The “fair use” law allows the reproduction and use of a copyrighted work in order to balance the author’s right to compensation against the public’s interest in the widest possible dissemination of ideas and information. Fair use thus acts as a defense against the copyright owner’s monopolistic control over who can access copyrighted material and how they can use it.ClearPlay and CleanFlicks contended that their enterprises were legal under two provisions of fair use: purpose and character of the use, and the effect on the potential market of the copyrighted work. In contrast to CleanFlicks, ClearPlay markets a DVD player equipped with filtering technology as well as downloadable software that allows consumers to edit potentially offensive material without actually accessing the DVD. Huntsman v. Soderbergh determined that ClearPlay does not violate the copyright owner’s exclusive right to prepare derivative copies because it is not feasible to have a derivative work when no copy (or “fixation”) of the derivative work exists.

CleanFlicks similarly argued that its modification of Hollywood movies conformed to fair use because the legality of the intermediate copying involved (e.g., reproducing works onto a hard drive) depended on the legality of the final product, and that such copying was a non-infringing fair use when it ultimately produced a transformative, non-infringing final product. Rather than compete with the market for the original product, CleanFlicks argued that it served an entirely new market and bolstered the original one, since the company purchased one copy for every copy it sold in edited form. By condemning this rationale, Huntsman v. Soderbergh threatens the role of fair use in offsetting the monopoly of copyright ownership conferred by the U.S. Constitution.

CleanFlicks also defended its business on the grounds of the first sale doctrine, through which the first buyer of a copyrighted work can use it in any way she sees fit as long as no violation of copyright occurs, such as the duplication of a copyrighted work. The ruling against this argument in Huntsman v. Soderbergh undermines the role of the first sale doctrine in counterbalancing the monopoly enjoyed by copyright owners.The counter suit filed by the DGA also alleged that CleanFlicks and ClearPlay violated the Lanham Act by misrepresenting the trademarked names of well-known directors. Because U.S. copyright law has never acknowledged an artist’s moral right to prevent the mutilation or distortion of his or her work, Hollywood studios protect the artistic interests of directors by using the exclusive ownership conferred by copyright law to define the alteration of film content as trademark infringement. The use of copyright law in this fashion primarily protects the interests of the major studios rather than directors in the digital age by allowing them to argue that manipulation of a specific movie distributed by them damages their ability to profitably exhibit it in theaters and market it to multiple consumer demographics, as they currently do by releasing the R-rated version of a film in theaters and an NC-17 version as a Director’s Cut on DVD.

The DGA argued that ClearPlay and CleanFlicks engaged in editing that is inconsistent, creating confusion in the mind of the consumer. In Pirates of the Carribean (2003), “God-forsaken island” is muted, but “heathen gods” slips through. According to the DGA, ClearPlay editing also resulted in the insertion of social, political, and professional prejudices. In The Hurricane (1999), racial conflict between law enforcement and people of color is deleted, even though it establishes a context for how people of color later react to the police. The argument that CleanFlicks and ClearPlay’s editing created confusion in the mind of the consumer is erroneous. Consumers seek out edited videos or editing software/hardware systems exactly because of the difference between the altered products and the originals.The DGA’s allegation that CleanFlicks and ClearPlay violated directors’ trademark rights is also questionable because directors rarely hold the copyright to their films, much less the underlying rights to the script. Their artistic efforts are “work made for hire” by the studios; thus the studios hold copyright. The designation of the studios rather than film directors as copyright owners of Hollywood movies nonetheless throws into relief the extent to which the Lanham Act actually serves the interests of Hollywood studios rather than the DGA.

Huntsman v. Soderbergh illustrates how the legal system constructs copyright ownership as a natural right rather than a constitutional privilege. Even though the Directors Guild of America prevailed in Huntsman v. Soderbergh, the case nonetheless demonstrates that copyright law ultimately protects the interests of capital rather than Hollywood directors. Content providers who wish to extend copyright protection well beyond its intended objective of ensuring remuneration for creators and promoting the progress of the arts and sciences will continue on the basis of Huntsman v. Soderbergh to exert absolute control over how and when legally acquired, copyrighted material can be used.

CLEANFLICKS CARTOON

BY AARON TAYLOR/ April 10, 2007
The Daily Herald

THEY'RE BAAACK!

BY MICHAEL DOSSIER / April 9, 2007
The DVD Dossier

CleanFlicks, the Utah-based purveyor of censored movies, is apparently back in business.

The Associated Press reports (via Forbes) that they've now seized upon a loophole in copyright law that they believe allows them to edit films for "educational purposes." Judging by a recent visit to their website, it certainly looks like they've resumed their online business.

A court ruled last year that the sanitizing of movies on DVD or VHS tape - which is what CleanFlicks had done - violated federal copyright laws. At the time, CleanFlicks - and a few other firms with similar business models - were ordered to cease and desist and turn over their existing inventory to the movie studios who had brought suit against them.

But now, they're back... and they want to be your "family-friendly DVD rental resource," providing "movies you can trust" (with a library of over 1,000 titles, including those scandalous - but educational - favorites "All About Eve," "Brigadoon," An American In Paris" and "Damn Yankees" plus those very naughty TV shows "Bewitched," "The Jetsons," "Gomer Pyle" and "Saved By The Bell").

I trust the Directors' Guild of America and the movie studios who originally brought the suit will be doing so again, if only for "educational purposes."

ARCHIVAL FOOTAGE WANTED

The makers of a documentary on Cleanflix are looking for archival news footage--national news coverage of anything related to sanitized movies. Specifically, they are looking for footage from the February 27th 2001 Daily Show report with Vance DeGeneres, the September 19th 2002 CBS report with Dan Rather, and the September 23rd 2002 NBC report with Tom Brokaw. They would also be interested in any CNN or Fox News coverage as well as the Daily Show clip from October 1st 2002 and a debate between CleanFlicks founder Ray Lines and Showgirls writer Joe Ezterhaus from an unknown program and channel. You may contact the filmmakers directly at "cleanflixmovie at gmail dot com" or send the footage to them at PO Box 970908, Orem UT, 84057. The filmmakers will contact all copyright owners to request permission before using the news clips in their film.

APOCAFLICKS

The skit Apocaflicks: The Curse of the Unedited Movies was originally performed by BYU's award-winning comedy troupe Divine Comedy at the Varsity Theatre in the fall of 2006. Divine Comedy, performs several times each semester on the campus of Brigham Young University. We've posted the script below in original format with production notes. Does the end of the world somehow revolve around movie editors, CleanFlicks? Read below to find out. The script was penned by Ryan Crocker with contributions from the Divine Comedy players.


APOCAFLICKS: THE CURSE OF THE UNEDITED MOVIES
By Ryan Croker

With Paul, Matt, Trevor, Jono, Lisa, Taylor, Brian, Ryan, Laurel, and Sarah.

We open with a short video showing newspaper clippings detailing the rise and fall of Cleanflicks. We see the some text explaining what happened, i.e.

On July 6, 2006, a federal judge in Denver presiding over a lawsuit between CleanFlicks and 16 Hollywood directors ruled that CleanFlicks' editing violates U.S. copyright laws. The judge ordered CleanFlicks to "stop producing, manufacturing, and creating" and renting edited movies, and to hand all inventory to movie studios within five days of the ruling.

"It is with great regret that we write to inform you that CleanFlicks is going out of business soon. As you may have heard or read, after three long years of legal struggles, a judge in Colorado has ruled that we cannot sell or rent edited DVDs anymore. While we thought very strongly about appealing the decision, the potential costs and risks to the company, its customers and shareholders was just too great. Accordingly, we have agreed to close our doors after a brief winding-up period.
...We want to offer our sincerest apologies for not being able to provide you with edited DVDs...We appreciate your support of our efforts to provide high-quality, family-friendly movies, and we will try to make this difficult process of closing our operations as painless as we can for all our loyal customers."
In the background, the words fade, except the word “painless” which turns to blood. In the background we hear screams and cries, and we eventually see a Cleanflicks store that looks as if it’s been burned out and destroyed. Finally, we see the words 28 Days After. The video ends and Matt stumbles on stage, wearing pajamas as if he’s just woken up.

Matt: Yawn. Oh, my! I feel like I’ve been sleeping forever!

Matt walks to Center Stage.

Matt: Why is it so dark in here? Trevor! Did you forget to pay the electric bill again?

Matt looks around.

Matt: Hello? Well, let’s see what we have in the fridge.

Matt mimes opening a fridge. Trevor makes a noise offstage.

Matt: Trevor?

Trevor shuffles onstage gnawing on a severed arm. His makeup is that of the LIVING DEAD!

Matt: Trevor? What are you eating?

Trevor: Grrrrr. Arrrghh. (Trevor spits out what he was eating on Matt)

Matt: Oh no, you did NOT just shoot that green *crap* at me!

Trevor: Fooooood.

Matt: What kind of monster are you!?

Trevor stops eating and looks at Matt. He tosses the arm offstage.

Trevor: Braaaiinnnsss!

Matt walks across the stage, Trevor shambles along behind him.

Suddenly Sarah appears from the other side of the stage, walking like a Zombie. And dressed like one too.

Sarah: Brains!

Matt: What is up with these Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!?

Trevor: Brains!

Both start walking toward Matt. Matt cowers girlishly in fear. Suddenly, Paul and Taylor rush in, Taylor brandishing a severed arm. Paul is dressed is a weird fur/leather ensemble.

Paul: Hey freaks!

Taylor holds up the arm like a stick.

Taylor: Here boy, here boy!

Trevor takes the bait and gets excited about the arm. Taylor throws it offstage. All three Zombies look after it.

Brian appears from offstage, holding the arm.

Brian: Did someone just throw a severed arm at me?

Everyone just looks at Brian.

Brian: Seriously. That’s gross.

Suddenly, Trevor lunges for Brian.

Trevor: Brains!

Trevor’s momentum carries both him and Brian offstage. Sarah follows.

Paul: Hey you! Let’s go!

Paul grabs Matt’s arm and leads him offstage. Taylor follows. Once they are gone, Trevor returns to the stage with the arm in his mouth. When he sees no one there, he lowers his head, chagrined, and walks offstage. Paul, Taylor, and Matt come from the other side.

Matt: Thanks for saving me, but what was going on back there? My roommate was going crazy and he had some crazy friends, which is really crazy because Trevor doesn’t have any friends!

Taylor: What do you mean, “What was going on back there”? Where have you been for the last month?

Matt: Asleep, mostly.

Paul: What! How can you have been asleep for a month?

Matt: Well, I had mono…

Taylor: Ah.

Matt: Well,….uh…So can you explain to me what’s going on?

Taylor: Sure. Tell me, do you like movies?

Matt: I like Air Bud and The Legend Of Bagger Vance!

Taylor: I’ll take that as a yes.

Paul: Are you familiar with Cleanflicks?

Matt: Absolutely. Without them, I wouldn’t know what to think!

Taylor: Okay. Well, last July the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling declaring Cleanflicks illegal. They were forced to close down on August 30. Exactly 28 days ago…

Matt: Sadness! But what does it all mean?

Paul: Don’t you see! Without Cleanflicks around to edit people’s movies anymore, people just started watching anything and everything. No one knew the danger, all of that violence and profanity, it filled people with rage, they started running around biting folks, and spreading the insanity. It’s a madhouse, I tell you, a madhouse!

Paul falls on his knees, crying.

Matt: How horrible! But without Cleanflicks around to tell you what you can and can’t tolerate, how did you both survive?

Taylor: Everyone turned into a zombie. We’ve had to take refuge in the Provo Public Library.

Paul: It used to be the original BYU, you know.

Taylor: We don’t have time for interesting historical facts. Let’s get moving!

Time passes. Somehow. As time passes, Brian reappears on stage, chased by Trevor and Sarah, he runs around as they chase him and he runs offstage.
Lisa, Ryan, and Jono appear from offstage. Jono is dressed like Bruce Willis in Die Hard.

Ryan: Hey guys. I’m glad you’re back. I didn’t expect you until Thursday.

Taylor: Tomorrow?

Ryan: No… the day AFTER Tomorrow. But it’s good that you’re here now. We’ve resorted to burning books to stay warm. We can’t stay here much longer.

Jono: Oh, I’m so glad you’re safe. He hugs Taylor.

Taylor: Knock it off, Willis! She shoves Jono away. Everyone, this is Matt. We found him when we were patrolling King Henry.

Jono: Hi Matt! He hugs Taylor. She shoves him away again. Where you from?

Matt: In West Philadelphia, born and raised, on a playground, where I spent most of my days.

Jono: Well, my name is Willis. I’ve been sent from the future to stop the zombies and kill Brad Pitt!

Everyone looks at each other, confused.

Jono: And then I was trapped in an office building at Christmastime!

Ryan: Okay, moving on… I’m Ryan, I work at the local S-Mart. I just found this book called the Necronomicon. It has a fascinating article about zombies. It says that zombies can be killed by removing the head or destroying the brain. What could that possibly mean?

Matt: How did you all survive?

Taylor: I’ve spent the last couple months catching up on DVD’s of 24 and Lost. I didn’t have time to watch any rated R movies.

Laurel: Rated R Movies! AAAAAAAAAAA! We’re all going to die!

Ryan: Settle down.

Lisa: Speaking with a Russian accent. I am from Russia. There, we have no movie ratings. In Russia, movie rates you! Since I don’t know what a rated R movie is, I can’t be affected by it.

Matt: You mean people in other countries don’t follow the Motion Picture Association of America! You don’t let them determine your righteousness?!

Lisa: Yes. Thank goodness for oatmeal!

Matt: All of my illusions are crashing down around me!

Laurel: I was just hanging out in a graveyard with my brother. We were doing genealogy. (ala 6th Sense) I research dead people.

Jono: How often do you research them?

Laurel: All the time

Paul: And as for me, as I’m sure you’re curious, my name is Dan. And since I’m probably the last Dan left in the world, you can call me the Omega Dan.

Matt: How did you get here?

Paul: I was an astronaut from the distant past! I crashed here only to find that in the future, you’d destroyed it all, you maniacs! You blew it up! Dang you, dang you all to fetchin’ heck!

Paul falls to his knees, crying.

Matt: to the others If he’s an astronaut, where are his astronaut clothes?

Paul gathers himself and gets to his feet.

Paul: When I got here, I went skinny dipping in Utah Lake. Someone stole my clothes. So I had to make do with this leather get-up you see here.

Laurel: Skinny Dipping! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Laurel goes into hysterics. Jono slaps her. She slaps him back. Jono goes into hysterics.

Jono: AAAAAAAAA! Jono runs away.

Matt: Okaaaay. So what do we do now?

Taylor: Now, we survive. The world is overrun by flesh-eating monsters. There’s not much we can do. They’ve seen too many rated R movies. They’re not even human anymore, just like UVSC students. For now, let’s rest. Laurel, you, Willis, and the Omega Dan here take the first watch.

Time passes, Jono, Laurel, and Paul leave the stage. Everyone else sits down.

Ryan: This necronomicon says that we can destroy all the zombies, but I can’t make out what the book says. Klatu, Verata, Hall Ess Torm? I just don’t get it!

Just then, Jono, Laurel and Paul run in.

Laurel: Everyone! They’ve found us. I don’t know how, but they’ve found us! Run for it! AAAAAAAAAAAA!

The Two Zombies start walking across the stage. Everyone gets up and panics.

Ryan: Oh my gosh…(Trevor bites his hand off)

Matt: (punches Trevor, like Independence Day) Welcome to Provo!

Jono: I can do this. I can handle it. Let me handle it.

Matt: What?

Jono: No Matt! Don’t volunteer. I know you’re younger than me, but you have your whole life ahead of you! He turns to Taylor. I don’t want to close my eyes, I don’t want to fall asleep, ‘cause I’d miss you babe, and I don’t want to miss a thing.

Taylor: Willis, what are you doing? Let’s just run away. Can’t you see how slow and dimwitted they are?

By this time, the two Zombies are following each other around in a circle.

Jono: No! I can do this! Because I don’t want to miss a thing!

Taylor: Okaaaay…

Jono hurls himself at the bomb as everyone else runs away. Suddenly, the room goes dark, and on the screen, we see: EDITED FOR CONTENT. When the lights come back on, Jono and the Zombies are gone. Everyone else wanders onto the stage.

Matt: Wow! What an amazing getaway! That car chase was the best thing ever!

Lisa: In Russia, cars chase you!

Ryan: Too bad it was so gory, Laurel died, and I replaced my hand with a mixer. (holds up where his hand used to be, there is a mixer in its place)

Matt: So how did it get like this? Most people in the world don’t care about movie ratings.

Ryan: Once people got infected with all of the violence and profanity from unedited movies, they just went bezerk. At first it was just here in Utah County, but once one of the infected people bites you, you become just like them. Soon Utah was gone, and then the rest of the world.

Taylor: We do have a very aggressive Missionary program. rimshot

Matt: Is there anything we can do to cure them, to make all of this aggression go away?

Lisa: In Russia, aggression makes you go away!

Ryan: Lisa’s right, we can’t stay around here, there’s got to be somewhere where the scourge of unedited movies can’t be found.

Taylor: It’s too bad we can’t make our own movies. I’m, sure they’d be pure, wholesome and lacking in artistic qualities. Like “Church Ball” and “Charly”.

Ryan: I know! This word I’ve been trying to discipher! Halestorm! Halestorm studios. The zombies have something to do with that.

Taylor: Sounds like a plan, but Halestorm studios are way across town and we’re in enemy territory.

Matt: Dan, you’re an astronaut, right?

Paul: Yes, from the distant past!

Matt: Well, do you have any technology that could help?

Paul: Well, I was thinking that we could hole up in a shopping mall. Think of it, all the Cinnabon you could eat!

Ryan: No, don’t you have any astronaut powers or anything?

Paul: Okay, fine. I’m not an astronaut. I just came back from a Charleton Heston Festival. HestFest ’06. So much better than HestFest ’05. Seriously.

Matt: How does that help us?

Paul: I have these original Ten Commandment props. Holds up cardboard cutouts made to look like the ten commandments. And this can of soylent green. Now with 30% more people!

Taylor: That doesn’t help us at all. Let’s keep moving.

Matt, Taylor, Paul, Lisa, and Ryan run around the stage

Paul: Careful around the HFAC you guys, this place is crawling with the most vile, disgusting, horrendous creatures imaginable.

Matt: Cursed zombies?

Paul: Worse.

Ryan: Hey, you guys look, Vocal Point is putting on a concert.

Paul: No! The horror!

Lisa: In Russia, Point vocals you.

Taylor: Their songs of mindless optimism might cheer us up. Let’s listen.

Vocal Point comes on stage, it is Trevor, Jono, Sarah, Laurel

Trevor: (does crappy vocal percussion) Beat, box, beat, box, cymbal crash, etc.
Jono/Laurel: (does “In the Jungle”) A-wheem-a-wop, a wheem-a-wop
Sarah: (singing) In the Jungle, In the Jungle, the Lion Sleeps Tonight…

Matt: Man, Vocal Point isn’t good this year. I’ve heard tunnel singers better than this. Another rimshot

Taylor: Something’s wrong! This can’t be Vocal Point, there’s women in it!

The zombies suddenly throw off their robes and stand revealed as zombies.

Ryan: Zombies!

The zombies attack. Lisa is bitten by Trevor and dragged off the stage. Ryan is fighting with Jono, who he manages to fend off with his mixer/hand. Paul is tackled by Sarah. Matt and Taylor are poking Laurel with sticks.

Paul: Get your festering hands off me, you darn dirty zombie!

Paul throws Sarah off him and runs offstage. He appears seconds later with a gun, which he uses to kill Sarah. Seeing this, all the zombies scatter.

Taylor: Thanks, Omega Dan.

Paul: Thank the NRA!

Matt: Now that’s what I call a close encounter.

Taylor: And Lisa’s dead.

Paul: Meh.

Our intrepid survivors walk across the stage. Time passes, somehow. They find themselves at some ruins.

Matt: Where are we?

Taylor: This is, or was, the Halestorm Studios.

Paul: But how could it have been so damaged in such a short amount of time?

Matt: I think I have a clue. Look at these posters of the movies they were working on.

Matt steps forward, behind him we see a projection a ruined wall with movie posters behind him. Gladys Knight Rider, Quorum Leap, Saints on a Plane, Peyton Buhler’s Day Off, The Fast and the Furious: Provo Drift.

Ryan: How horrible! Gladys Knight Rider?

Matt: Quorum Leap?

Taylor: Saints on a Plane?

Paul: Peyton Buhler’s Day Off?

Matt: This one actually looks cool, The Fast and the Furious, Provo Drift.

Ryan: Are you insane? I bet you also listen to boy bands.

Matt: So?

Paul: What were they thinking?

Taylor: Guys, I think that this place was destroyed BEFORE the zombies started attacking.

Matt: But that would mean…

Paul: Don’t say it.

Ryan: That it was Mormon Cinema, and not Cleanflicks that was responsible for the zombies. People were so upset about the poor quality of movies that they had been producing that they became rage filled zombies.

Paul: You maniacs! You blew it up! Dang you, Mormon Cinema, dang you all to fetchin’ heck!

Matt: But if the zombie infection started here, that would mean…

Taylor: They’re here…

The zombies walk in. The music from Thriller starts playing and the zombies begin to dance.

Paul: Is there no one to deliver us? Let my people go!

Brian: Sorry I’m late. I came as soon as I felt like it.

Taylor: Who are you?

Brian: I’m the president of the USA! The BYUSA!

Ryan: What are you doing here? You planning to organize a dance or something?

Brian: We don’t tolerate sarcastic voices like that at BYU! Kill him!

Zombies kill Ryan

Brian: To me, zombie minions!

Paul: He controls the zombies!

Matt: Gasp!

Brian: The zombies needed a strong leader. They elected me. Now give me that gun!

Paul: You’ll take my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!

Brian: My pleasure. (uses can of Whoop-A and kills people)

Paul: Western Family can of Whoop-A is made of people. It’s people! (dies)

Brian: (to Matt and Taylor) You can’t possibly win. Look at my motivational skills! In less than an hour, zombies from here will join others from around the world, and they will be launching the largest undead attack in the history of mankind. Mankind. That word should have new meaning for all of us today. Because of all the zombies. We will be united in our common undead interests. We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish…without a fight! We're going to live on as undead! We're going to survive! Today we celebrate our Zombie Independence Day!

Matt: Oh, you have SO got to die!

Taylor: Is there no hope? Why must we be consigned to this state of endless woe?

Matt: (EFY song, but he doesn’t sing) Like stones in the river, we are tossed and turned, bruised until the edges are gone. (some of the zombies start dying)

Brian: (covering his ears) What are those horrible lyrics?

Taylor: Matt, that’s it! Horrible EFY songs kill zombies, why didn’t I think of that before?

Matt: Because it was already used in the ending to Mars Attacks. (singing) Remember the promise, remember who it’s from…

Trevor: Ah, my ears, my undead ears!

Sarah: Groaaaaannnn!

Laurel: Make them stop!

Brian: Doesn’t anybody have any missiles left?

Taylor: Sing, keep singing!

Matt: (sings like Little Mermaid)

The zombies all die. Matt and Taylor are left standing in a pile of corpses.

Taylor: Well, Matt, it looks like it’s just you and me in this brave, new world.

Matt: Taylor, there’s something I’ve been meaning to tell you.

Taylor: Oh, what’s that?

Matt: I’m not like other guys…(puts on one glove and sunglasses)

The music from Thriller starts playing again.

GOOSH!

End.

Props:

Matt: Pajamas

Taylor: Normal clothes

Paul: A fur/leather outfit reminiscent of the original Planet of the Apes. He also needs a toy shotgun, some fake ten commandments, and a can of Soylent Green.

Ryan: A fake hand, a Necronomicon (This is a book made from human skin with a scary face on it. Find a picture from Army of Darkness to see what it looks like.) I also need a small, battery powered mixer or something to that effect that I can use to replace my lost hand.

Jono: He is dressed like Bruce Willis in Die Hard. This means a “wifebeater” and bare feet.

Lisa: A fur Russian hat would be nice. Otherwise, normal clothes.

Laurel: Normal clothes.

Trevor: Zombie Makeup

Sarah: Zombie Makeup

Brian: A Suit

Other: Jono, Lisa and Laurel become zombies halfway through, so we’ll need some quick zombie makeup for them. We also need as many fake arms as we have, and a fake leg. (I’ve seen those somewhere). Matt has the Can of Whoop-A.

GOING, GOING, GONE

BY MICHAEL DOSSIER / July 28, 2006
The DVD Dossier

CleanFlicks, which lost a lawsuit brought by Hollywood directors and movie studios a few weeks ago - but vowed to continue to fight for its right to excise sex, violence and profanity from movies - is closing up shop.

As of today, those who go to the company's homepage are redirected to a "liquidation sale" page with an animated "Going Out of Business" banner informing visitors that this is your "last chance to buy your favorite edited movies" and to "hurry while supplies last."
The sale - restricted to former customers only - may come as a surprise to Judge Richard P. Matsch, who ordered the firm to hand over all inventory to the movie studios.

CLEAN FLICKS AND CLEAN FLIX

BY THE BARON OF DESERET / July 14, 2006
Opinion Piece

Once upon a time, back in February 2004, I started a weblog.

I knew that in addition to general LDS issues, I wanted to focus on movies--and to that end I created a special movie section on the site which, despite not being read by very many people has been a rewarding experience and has generally been updated consistently with two or three new articles every month. At the time, CleanFlix and other such movie cleaning services and technology were in their infancy, and I figured it would only be a matter of weeks before a comprehensive article on them would see the light of day on my new website.

Never happened... The CleanFlix blog article remained on the back-burner for the last two and a half years and has never materialized...mostly because in those two and a half years I've never once used CleanFlix, ClearPlay, or any movie editing service. Surprising, in a sense, because (a) we don't happen to watch R-rated movies, and (b) we live in Utah County where opportunities to rent edited videos are rampant. Seemed like the perfect alignment of stars to make us regular customers....

And yet, everytime I think, 'You know, it might be nice to check out "Lost in Translation" or "Sideways"' and drive by a CleanFlix, I just keep on driving, and have never really developed any serious interest in trying out edited movies. Since CleanFlix and the like have been hot discussion topics lately (see here also) I figured it's probably time I attempt to figure out why I'm not part of the edited movie craze when it seemed inevitable back in 2004.

The key issues from my perspective:

(1) Purism: As a movie purist, I want to see the real movie, not just some arbitrary subset of it. If the movie is supposed to be dark, ugly, and violent--then perhaps it should be seen in its dark, ugly, and violent fullness...or not seen at all. As a commenter in the M* thread remarked, editing movies away from their original intent is a little like buying a copy of Playboy with the pictures cut out just to read the articles. If you care about objectionable content (and I submit you should) it's probably more appropriate to just find some other movie to watch. There's plenty of clean(er) ones out there...

(2) Funding the Enemy: Buying an unedited DVD, and buying an edited DVD from a place that had to buy an unedited DVD first looks exactly the same on the movie studios' income reports. While this fact is a good argument why the studios shouldn't be complaining about edited video places as much as they have, it is also an argument why you might not want to buy edited videos in the first place. Like that pictureless copy of Playboy, you may feel morally superior for finding a way to get some value out of it without wading through the smut, but the purveyors of that smut got just as much of your money with which to line their pockets regardless. You still become one more name on the list of Playboy 'consumers' who keep them running.

If the goal is to encourage the production of better and cleaner entertainment, directly supporting the production of 'bad' forms of entertainment financially, even through a sanitizing middleman, seems to be the exact opposite of what you'd want to do...

(3) The Appearance of Evil: Suppose your bishop is having a casual conversation at a ward activity and says, "Oh, yeah--I read about that in an article in last month's Playboy..." What would your first reaction be? Does that bishop have the luxury of saying to himself: "Of course I only read the 'sanitized' version of Playboy. If everyone else ignorantly jumps to the conclusion that I read the unedited version without first finding out the facts, that's their problem..." But it's not just their problem... Appearances matter.

Many scoff at the idea of "the appearance of evil", and act as if you can take a can of Coors Light, dump it into the sink, fill it with orange juice, and then drink it in public all you like without any harm being done. ("Hey, if people ignorantly assume without finding out the truth, that's their problem...") Lack of credibility or the appearance of unworthiness can have many devastating effects on other people (and yourself), and knowing that people will jump to conclusions without all the evidence, wise people will actively avoid circumstances where they could be misunderstood. The 'truth' doesn't matter much when one or more members have already gone inactive out of disgust for the seeming low standards of their current bishop...

Likewise, if you're on a date and casually start quoting lines from "Sin City" or "Pulp Fiction"--do you have the luxury of assuming your companion won't assume you've just revealed something about your standards in entertainment? Protesting later that you had only seen the clean versions won't matter much if your potential boyfriend/girlfriend has already presumptively crossed you off of the partner suitability list in their head...

(This fact forces some people I know to speak defensively all the time--"I was watching the TV-edited version of "Braveheart" the other day...", "We rented an edited version of "Goodfellas" with all the profanity and violence removed and..." This may help avoid misunderstandings, but at the cost of sounding awkward and/or self-righteous instead.)

Basically, if you're going to maintain standards inwardly, it's frequently beneficial to make sure they are reflected outwardly as well, without attempting to be 'in' the R-rated world but not 'of' the R-rated world amongst people who might not be able to tell the difference...

(4) "Hey, they're just movies...": Both "The Baroness" and I like movies...but they're just a casual, unimportant form of entertainment.

Back in '99 (pre-CleanFlix), when I was at BYU and "The Matrix" came out, it quickly became the hot controversy around campus, with a lot of students who felt they probably shouldn't see it, but couldn't resist, simply because (a) it was supposed to be a 'light' R, and (b) it was the "It" movie of the year, which you just HAD to see if you were anyone. I never did see "The Matrix" (or its 2003 sequels) part because my standards had already been determined, and part because no movie is "must-see". Big name movies come and go every year and no movie--even "The Passion of the Christ" (also unseen by me)--is 'important' and 'life-changing' enough to be worth losing sleep over not seeing. We liked all three "Lord of the Rings" movies, but had we not seen them (as with our friends who don't watch PG-13 movies) it would be no more tragic than going through life not having read "Pride & Prejudice" or not having tasted Rocky Road ice cream. Movies just aren't that important...

This isn't to say CleanFlix and the like shouldn't exist--I think the movie studios' case against them lacks merit especially since (a) they still make the same amount of money and (b) they have little credibility from an 'artistic' standpoint since they edit movies for content on airplanes and TV all the time.

(Tangent: We saw the TV-edited version of an originally R-rated movie last year. After watching it, I glanced at some of the online articles about it, and discovered most of the discussion revolved around the full-frontal nude scene of the lead actress. This nude scene was not in the TV version of course, but more oddly, looking back, "The Baroness" and I couldn't figure out for the life of us where in the movie the scene would have been, as a nude scene from this actress's character had no relationship with anything that happened in the movie. This is significant only to show that oftentimes the R-rated material has no artistic value whatsoever, and is often completely superfluous to the underlying story...)

Due to the technicalities of copyright law, CleanFlix themselves may be in trouble, but ClearPlay seems to be completely legal, so regardless of the outcome of recent court cases there will always be some outlet for those who wish to partake of sanitized films. And yet, for all the reasons above, I don't think we'll be joining them. Edited films seem to present just as many concerns as solutions to the problem of finding clean entertainment, and for the time being it looks like my rendezvous with Scarlett Johansson and Virginia Madsen will just have to wait...

FEDERAL JUDGE BLEEPS DVD EDITING

BY DEBORAH NATHAN, ESQ. / July 13, 2006
Find Law: Legal News & Commentary

A federal judge has stopped the distribution of major motion picture DVDs that were edited by several companies to remove objectionable content, ruling that the sanitized versions infringe the copyrights held by several major movie studios and directors.

Judge Richard P. Matsch of the District of Colorado granted the motion for partial summary judgment made by such cinema luminaries as Steven Soderbergh, Robert Redford, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and Sydney Pollack.

The directors and several movie studios were defendants in a 2002 lawsuit filed by Clean Flicks of Colorado, Family Flix USA, CleanFilms and Play It Clean Video.

The movie studios included Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., Time Warner Entertainment Co., Disney Enterprises Inc. and Dreamworks LLC.

The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that they were not infringing any party's copyrights by making edited versions of motion pictures.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging copyright infringement, and then moved for partial summary judgment.

In response to the counterclaims, the plaintiffs argued that their actions did not constitute copyright infringement because they were making fair use of the copyrighted works.

The fair-use doctrine is an affirmative defense to allegations of copyright infringement. The doctrine allows use of copyrighted works for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.

Courts balance four factors to determine if a particular use is fair: the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion of the work used; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the work.

As explained in Judge Matsch's opinion, Clean Flicks and Family Flix operated similarly by purchasing an original DVD of a movie. After downloading the DVD onto a computer, they edited the film by deleting sex, nudity, profanity and gory violence.

The companies either sold the edited movies directly or through distributors CleanFilms and Play It Clean.

Judge Matsch weighed the four factors and concluded that the scales tipped in favor of the directors and studios.

The plaintiffs conceded that they were using the DVDs for commercial gain. Second, Judge Matsch said the edits to the movies, although constituting a small percentage of the original films, did nothing to transform the creative expression of the movies.

He explained further that the non-transformative nature of the edited copies, coupled with the creative expressions of the movies, weigh heavily in favor of the studios and directors under the second factor, the nature of the copyrighted work.

The judge also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that their use of the movies had no adverse effect on the value of the copyrighted work to the studios, noting that the argument ignored the intrinsic value of the right to control the content of the copyrighted work.

The plaintiffs also raised a public policy argument, claiming they were criticizing the objectionable content in many movies and were providing more socially acceptable alternatives.

Judge Matsch said that argument was addressed to the wrong branch of government, because courts are not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works.

He observed that during the pendency of the case, Congress enacted the Family Movie Act of 2005, which allowed private households to edit movies if no fixed copy of the movie is created.

The judge said Congress had the opportunity to make the policy choice now urged by the plaintiffs and rejected it.

Agreeing that the plaintiffs were infringing the defendants' copyrights, Judge Matsch enjoined them from continuing to produce and distribute edited versions of the films.

The plaintiffs' attorney, David N. Schacter of Sherman & Howard in Denver, acknowledged that Judge Matsch's opinion was well-reasoned, but said, "I'm disappointed that the court took the decision-making role away from the jury."

COURT BLOCKS SALE OF SANITIZED DVDs

BY CYNTHIA LITTLETON / July 10, 2006
The Hollywood Reporter

A federal judge in Colorado has handed the industry a big win in its protracted legal battle against a handful of small companies in Utah, Arizona and Colorado that offer sanitized versions of theatrical releases on DVD.

The case encompasses two of Hollywood's biggest headaches these days: the culture wars and the disruptive influence of digital technologies.

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Richard Matsch came down squarely on the side of the DGA and the major studios in his ruling that the companies must immediately cease all production, sale and rentals of edited videos. The summary judgment issued Thursday requires the companies -- Utah-based CleanFlicks, CleanFilms and Play It Clean Video, Arizona-based Family Flix United States and the separate entity CleanFlicks of Colorado -- to turn over all existing copies of their edited movies to lawyers for the studios for destruction within five days of the ruling.

Utah-based CleanFlicks, which describes itself as the largest distributor of edited movies, through online sales and rentals and sales to video stores in Utah, Arizona and other states in the region, said it would continue its fight against the guild and the studios. CleanFlicks and the others make copies of official DVD releases and then edit them for sex, nudity, violence and profanity.

"We're disappointed," CleanFlicks chief executive Ray Lines told the The Associated Press. "This is a typical case of David vs. Goliath, but in this case, Hollywood rewrote the ending. We're going to continue to fight."

David Schachter, attorney for CleanFlicks of Colorado, said Sunday that it was unclear whether any of the video-editing companies would seek an emergency hearing this week to request a stay of the injunction pending an appeal. He said such a move was unlikely for CleanFlicks of Colorado, which operates a retail store in Colorado Springs, Colo. It was unclear Sunday whether the store was still open.

Representatives for Family Flix could not be reached for comment during the weekend. A posting on the Web site www.clean-edited-movies.com reported that the Family Flix had decided to shut its doors after five years as a result of the litigation, though the date of the posting was unclear. The site quoted Family Flix founders Richard and Sandra Teraci as making plans to establish their own production company.

CleanFlicks and the others maintained their edited DVDs were legal under fair use guidelines that allow for the use of copyrighted material in criticism, news reporting, parody and other circumstances. The slogan on the CleanFlicks Web site is "It's About Choice." An online listing for Family Flix's offerings on the Web site of the Mormon-based Meridian magazine noted that the content snipped out of its edited videos included all references to "homosexuality, perversion and co-habitation."

The mainstreaming of sophisticated digital editing technologies has fueled the cottage industry of movie sanitizers. CleanFlicks and others purchase an official DVD copy of a film on DVD for each edited version of the title they produce through the use of editing systems and software. The official release disc is included alongside the edited copy in every sale or rental transaction conducted. As such, the companies argued that they had the right on First Amendment and fair use grounds to offer consumers the alternative of an edited version for private viewing, so long as they maintained that "one-to-one" ratio to ensure that copyright holders got their due from the transactions. Matsch disagreed.

"Their business is illegitimate," the judge wrote in his 16-page ruling. "The right to control the content of the copyrighted work ... is the essence of the law of copyright."

The fight began in August 2002 with a pre-emptive legal filing by CleanFlicks against the DGA and 16 prominent directors after it got wind that the guild was preparing a legal case against the company. CleanFlicks sought a court ruling clarifying its right to market the videos on First Amendment grounds. The DGA and directors countersued the following month. After initially staying out of the fray, eight Hollywood studios joined with the directors and the guild in December 2002, filing claims of copyright infringement against CleanFlicks and other companies.

"Whether these films should be edited in a manner that would make them acceptable to more of the public playing on a DVD in a home environment is more than merely a matter of marketing; it is a question of what audience the copyright owner wants to reach," Matsch wrote. "This court is not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works. What is protected are the creator's rights to protect its creation in the form in which it was created."

The studios involved in the suit are MGM, Time Warner Inc., Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., the The Walt Disney Company, DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., Universal, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Paramount Pictures Corporation. The directors named in the initial August 2002 filing included Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Steven Soderbergh, Michael Mann, Robert Altman, Curtis Hanson, Betty Thomas and DGA president Michael Apted.

Apted called Matsch's ruling a vindication for the guild and its members, especially with its clear support for rights of the work's original creator to protect how their film is presented.

"No matter how many disclaimers are put on the film, it still carries the director's name," Apted said. "So we have great passion about protecting our work, which is our signature and brand identification, against unauthorized editing."

Early on the legal sparring involved Salt Lake City-based ClearPlay, which offers video filtering software that allows for home viewing of cleaned-up versions of Hollywood titles.

ClearPlay offers software programs developed for specific titles that users can run on their computer or ClearPlay's proprietary DVD player along with an official copy of the DVD. With this technology, a nude shot of an actor can be altered to show a silhouette, or profanity can be bleeped out. Because ClearPlay's technology does not involve making an altered DVD copy, it has been shielded from the copyright infringement claims. The debate over movie content filtering activities made its way into Congress, which passed the 2005 Family Movie Act that protects ClearPlay and other software-based filtering companies. Matsch noted that Congress at that time had the opportunity to also carve out legal protections for CleanFlicks and its ilk, but chose not to.

The DGA said in its statement on the ruling it "remains concerned about this exception to copyright protection."

Matsch's opinion could wind up eliminating most of ClearPlay's competition, but company Bill Aho still criticized Matsch's reasoning.

"While it may be good for ClearPlay Inc., it's bad for parents," Aho said. "Moms and dads need all the help they can get to protect their kids, and these companies were providing a valuable service."

THE FILTH STAYS IN THE PICTURE

July 10, 2006
The Guardian

Hollywood last week won a protracted legal battle against companies which produce sanitised versions of its films on DVD when a US judge ordered those firms to turn over all existing copies to studio lawyers for destruction within five days of his ruling.

Senior district court judge Richard Matsch of Colorado ruled that editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence was an "illegitimate business" that hurt Hollywood studios and directors who owned the movie rights.

The order affects the likes of Utah-based CleanFlicks, CleanFilms and Play It Clean Video, Arizona-based Family Flix USA and another CleanFlicks, from Colorado, all of whom have been editing films for violence, sex and bad language, in the face of the studios' wrath. The fight started in August 2002 when CleanFlicks of Utah filed a suit against the Directors Guild of America and 16 leading directors, seeking a court ruling clarifying its right to market the videos on First Amendment grounds. The DGA and directors countersued the following month. By December 2002, the case had snowballed when eight major studios filed suit against CleanFlicks and its peers for copyright infringement.

Utah's CleanFlicks, which says it is the largest distributor of edited movies, declared it would continue to fight studios for the right to produce edited movies.

It claims it should have the legal right to do so because it purchases one copy of a DVD for every edited movie it produces, and includes the original version with the new version when mailing packages to customers. David Schachter, attorney for CleanFlicks of Colorado, said yesterday that his client was unlikely to seek a stay on the injunction, but that it did not preclude others from choosing to do so. A posting on Family Flix's website reported that the company had decided to close its doors after five years as a result of the ruling. The company would routinely edit content for homosexuality, "perversion" and cohabitation - its version of Brokeback Mountain must have been a sight to see.

CLEARPLAY PRESS RELEASE (2006)

Salt Lake City, Utah—July 7, 2006

ClearPlay Responds to CleanFlicks Ruling—Disappointed by court ruling against its competition.

Even though it could clear the field of all competitors, ClearPlay would rather have the courts allow companies that edit DVD’s to continue operations. ClearPlay CEO Bill Aho expressed concern over yesterday’s summary judgment ruling from the District Court of Colorado, which favored Hollywood studios and ordered an immediate injunction against CleanFilms, CleanFlicks and other companies that edit and resell DVD’s. "While it may be good for ClearPlay Inc., it’s bad for parents," said Aho. "Moms and dads need all the help they can get to protect their kids, and these companies were providing a valuable service."

ClearPlay’s unique movie filtering technology was protected by Congress with The Family Movie Act of 2005, and was not affected by yesterday’s ruling. ClearPlay works as a feature in a DVD player to filter regular DVD’s from sex, violence and profanity. CleanFilms, CleanFlicks and others sell or rent edited copies of DVD’s, which the courts deemed a copyright violation.

Unless the courts grant a stay of injunction, ClearPlay will have the only product on the market that offers a legal filtered alternative for popular Hollywood movies. The company currently has filters for 2000 movies, with new titles available every week. ClearPlay is also licensing its movie product, as well as other leading-edge parental control technologies, to multiple markets in media and consumer electronics.

CLEANING UP THE MOVIES (PART 1)

BY KIETH MERRILL / April 15, 2006
Meridian Magazine

"It's a great movie!"
"But it's R-rated."
"Ya, but there are only a couple of bad scenes."

Sound familiar? Ever caught yourself reciting this dialogue? Ever been caught in a compromise between 102 minutes of really great cinema and 2 minutes of trash?

The list of otherwise excellent films polluted by a few minutes -and sometimes seconds—of unworthy images, actions, words and ideas is longer than you think. The notion that "there are no good movies anymore," simply isn't true. There are a remarkable number of good films, and a few great ones, rendered "no good" [or at least "inappropriate" by LDS standards] by a brief inclusion of sex, profanity and/or graphic violence.

Remarkably, these offensive moments are most often not essential to the story, the characters or the impact of the film.

Frank Capra, the wonderful director of A Wonderful Life, said, " Only the morally courageous are worthy of speaking to their fellow men for two hours in the dark." But social morality changes and "morally courageous" in our topsy-turvy world is too often twisted into "politically correct" and tainted by a perverted notion of "normal."

GIVING OUR SELVES TO THE WIZARDS BEHIND THE CURTAIN

When we go to a movie, we choose to spend two hours in the dark with the mind and morality of the "wizards behind the curtain." They manipulate our emotions and etch ideas in our sub-conscious. They consume us with the absorbing power of images and sounds to which we willingly connect our senses. We are wired to a little black box not always certain what's inside or whose hand is on the switch.

If we choose to see a movie in the theater, we see it the way that it was intended to be seen. The way the director wants us to see it. The way the producers and distributors believe it will earn the greatest profits. Their sensitivities are often different than our own.

If the movie contains scenes that offend us, our only line of defense is closing our eyes, covering our ears and humming loudly to ourselves. If you have ever been in a movie and actually seen a woman doing this, it was probably my wife. "Mothers," she explains, "do not need to go to movies to have emotional experiences. Our whole life is a vicarious roller coaster ride. Why buy a ticket for another?"

After raising and surviving 8 kids, Dagny has NO interest in paying money to be anxious, nervous, frightened, startled, emotionally engaged, vicariously empathetic or for goodness sakes offended.

As a voting member of the Motion Picture Academy, I watched 76 films last year. Dagny watched 5 of them with me. She covered her eyes and went HMMMMMM in only 2.

Dagny feels safer watching movies at home with her finger on fast-forward and the mute button near by. Home theater is changing the way we watch movies. Hollywood Video, Blockbuster and the mini-market around the corner have walls covered with video movies for rent. Large screen TV, surround sound, and elaborate home entertainment centers have made watching movies at home a major entertainment event.

A significant force driving the home movie market is a miraculous little four and a half inch disc, called DVD. Digital images, digital sound and all kinds of extra stuff make movies on DVD the best bargain of the new millennium. The "v" stands for "versatile". We have only begun to see the possibilities.

A GREAT BARGIN

Movies at home are a great bargain. Think about it. If they go out a family of six packs up for a night at the movies to see Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Mom and Dad pay $8.50. Kids pay $5.00. Babe in arms is free. You gotta have popcorn and drinks. [Dad was willing to smuggle cheap treats in under his coat. Mom said "no way". ] Mom loves butter. Dad is watching his cholesterol but likes a lot of salt. The kids have to share an extra large 'cause the refill is free. That's $24.25 for "the goodies" and $32.00 for the tickets. The Family Home Evening night with Harry Potter costs a whooping $56.25; not counting gas, inconvenience, and the fact Mom missed the best scene because she was out changing the baby.

At home the baby is asleep. The popcorn costs less than a buck. Dad gets salt. Mom gets butter. The kids each get their own bowl of popcorn. The drinks are made from powdered lemonade and you get all you want. Even if you spill you get another one.

The DVD rents from Hollywood Video for $4.30 for five days or you can buy it brand new at Amazon.com for $19.95. If you do six family movie nights a year and invest the $49.00 you save in a good hedge fund, by the time the 6 year old is ready for college, you've racked up $2,500 dollars - and all from watching the movie at home.

Among the movies I've made are a pile of IMAX films. For me bigger is better. I love watching movies on the big screen, stadium seats and immersion in digital sound. But when it comes to Hollywood movies a night in the theater comes at a PRICE and it comes with some RISK.

We've talked about the price. Let's talk about the risk.

Relying on ratings from MPAA may not always protect you from exposure to inappropriate language, images and ideas. PG-13 may be the most dangerous movie zone of all. On the other hand, some truly great films are rated R. What's a person to do?

Taking Hollywood movies home saves money but the risk of exposure to unwanted scenes remains. Not any more! We may never have to close our eyes and cover our ears and hum a loud church hymn again.

A REVOLUTION IN VIEWER CONTROL

A revolution in viewer control for home theaters and computer based DVD players has arrived. It surfed in on the wake of the same technology largely responsible for the surge in personal home entertainment options in the first place. Half a dozen young companies have bubbled up in the churning foam. They offer conservative consumers some fascinating options to remove nudity, sex, profanity and violence from Hollywood movies viewed at home or on personal computers.

The dialogue can be rewritten now.
"It's a great movie!"
"It's R-rated."
"There are only a couple of bad scenes."
"In that case I'll watch it in a "cleaned up" version.

"Cleaned-up" movies are available from several sources. The promotion of these products is straightforward but the process remains a mystery to most. The Mom who wants to watch a cleaned-up R-rated Brave Heart with her family with adolescent children doesn't really care how it happens. She doesn't care about companies, controversies or copyrights, but a look inside this business is fascinating.

Each of the various companies distinguish themselves in one way or another, but in the end there are two basic ways that Hollywood Movies are being "cleaned up." The business is too young to have generic nomenclature to describe the process, so I'll choose my own. I will identify the two basic approaches to "cleaning up the movies" thus: (1) DIGITAL FILTERING and (2) RE-EDITING.

DIGITAL FILTERING is a technically complex option with almost endless possibilities. It deserves its own page. I will explore this fascinating solution and the primary companies doing it - Clear Play and Movie Mask- in Part II of this 2-Part article. Digital Filtering offers remarkably sophisticated solutions to sanitizing content. I can promise you a fascinating read in Part II.

RE-EDITING is by far the most common technique used to "clean up" Hollywood movies. You may already be familiar with the companies doing it and the products they produce. The clever and explicit names of the companies offering "editing services" and access to re-edited films leave little doubt about purpose, products or perspective.

In preparing this article, I contacted the principles of most of the companies noted above. Most were cooperative, helpful and willing to provide background, personal motivations and perspectives on the industry and their role in it.

My intent is NOT to evaluate or compare services or products, but rather make you aware of the options available to you to take control of the way you watch Hollywood movies at home.

OPTIONS FOR CLEANING UP

[ A tremendous source of information is The Viewer Freedom Foundation. Founder. Merrill Hansen has set forth the mission statement; " We promote and enable the freedom of choice to avoid offensive content in videos. We build win-win-win solutions for the viewers, artists and production companies." For an excellent overview of the movement and links to all the players, I suggest you visit them on the web at http://viewerfreedom.org.]

While each re-editing company emphasizes their "unique differences" all of them have two things in common. 1) They were started by people who enjoy films but don't want to be exposed to "the garbag,e" and 2) In one way or another they edit out nudity, sex, violence and mute or cut out profanity, then make these "edited versions" of the movies available to their costumers.

Clean Flicks was started by Ray Line who began by editing movies for family and friends. "I enjoy movies but I got tired of sitting in theaters saying, if only they had left that one scene out." Ray has been on the front lines of the rising controversy over companies who take it upon themselves to re-edit Hollywood's sacred treasures. Ray has been invited to appear on the Today Show, Fox News and has been the target of Jay Leno's sardonic humor. Today Clean Flicks have 70 stores in 6 states. [10 wholly owned, 60 franchises]

Edit-My-Movies was created as an additional service of Jared Martin and Terry Hale whose company was already offering TV Guardian, TV Time Manager, Internet Filtering and Channel Blocker to provide families with all kinds of solutions for managing entertainment and media in the home. As the product line expanded, the name of the company was changed to Family Safe Media.

Family Fix is the brainchild of a husband and wife team, Terry and Sandra Teraci. "We were motivated to start this company when we just grew tired of the extra trash that the Hollywood producers write into the movies. After watching every Disney Movie, at least twice, we decided to do something."

The MPAA, which rates Hollywood motion pictures, claims that the film ratings come "from parents just like you." You only have to watch a couple of PG-13 movies to know that whoever decided it was appropriate for young teenagers is NOT a parent who shares our values and concerns.

My personal conversations with the men and women editing Hollywood films to make them family friendly are-on the other hand-what MPAA promises, "parents just like us." {Whether or not they are actually parents.] The conservative standards they use to "clean up" Hollywood movies are much more in line with Middle America than the nameless, faceless few living within 50 miles of Encino California who rate movies for MPAA.

Company to company, the business model varies only slightly. The customer buys a movie on VHS video or DVD. The customer sends the movie to the company. The company edits the customer's movie by taking out nudity, profanity, graphic violence and profanity.

THE DELICATE TAP DANCE

This rather cumbersome process is in place for practical reasons. By only editing movies owned by their customers, the companies argue that there is no violation of copyright. In their vigorous defense of this approach they make an interesting point. By requiring their customers to purchase films that they might not otherwise purchase, it adds revenue to Hollywood. (which may explain why Hollywood is unhappy but leaving them alone.) The added cost of editing is for service, not "a version or a copy" of the film so their delicate tap dance on the tight wire of copyright is fiscally sound if not technically accurate.

I say "delicate tap dance" because while the theory of the process seems defensible, in practice there are some practical short cuts. For starters, you don't have to buy your movie at Wall Mart or the local video store and send it to the re-edit company. You can buy your movie online from the company itself so the "ownership" is at that point a digital notation in cyberspace. But in the electronic world of information, the old adage that "possession is 9/10 of the law" is meaningless. This is no different from buying at Amazon.com so this convenience changes nothing and the theory is in tact. [If you like tangible commodities, you can also buy them at the store and have them shipped to where the editing takes place.]

So now the customer's VHS or DVD is at the company along with an order to "edit out the bad stuff." At this point, the actual process begins to slip away from the purity of theory. None of the companies actually edit the physical original video tape or DVD purchased by the consumer. It would be impossible for any of these companies to survive if in fact they disassembled the VHS tape, threaded it up on an editing system to cut and splice the videotape. Moreover, DVDs are digital and can only be edited when the digital information is dumped into a computer. In practice, the editing takes place electronically, but only once for every title, not discretely for each and every customer.

Before your or I ever order our "cleaned up" version of The Patriot, the company has already purchased it in DVD* , dumped it into a computer, and dropped the graphic violence. [* Not all of the companies have DVD available. When selecting a service be sure to check if DVD is your medium of choice as it is mine.]

THE REALM OF CONTROVERSY

We have now enter the realms of controversy. Let me state for the record that I believe in the right of consumers to have control over the content of entertainment exhibited in their home. These companies offer a positive solution. My goal here is to provide information, not pass judgment.

The editing of a Hollywood film requires that the DVD [or video] be digitized. DVDs are encrypted to prevent piracy. None of the people interviewed were willing to discuss the details of the technology they used to digitize the DVD. Those willing to discuss it at all assured me that, "We don't crack encryption, but have other ways of getting it into the digital domain."

Since I believe in the rights of consumers to see movies the way they want — and this is one of the ways that is possible - I am disinclined to become Sherlock Holmes on this issue.

With the movie inside the computer - usually a high-end Macintosh with Final Cut Pro 3 - the movie can be completely re-edited. But the only edits of interest are the ones that eliminate nudity, sex, profanity and graphic violence.

The result of the edit is a digital master of the movie - or edits - on hard drive. It is this "version" — a word none of the re-editing service companies like very much — that becomes the target of those who believe the process is a violation of copyright. This re-edited digital copy, opponents claim, creates "a derivative work" which is a pivotal concept of copyright law.

It is interesting to note of course that this "derivative work" - if that is what it is— is never sold "in stead of" an original copy of the movie. It is sold as a "replacement of" a movie already purchased. A copy of this digital master is returned to the costumer. What the customer actually receives is NOT a re-edit of the actual DVD or VHS purchased by them, but a re-edit of the same movie used to replace it.

"Replacement " is very interesting. If the movie purchased by the consumer is on VHS, the copy of the edited digital master is recorded onto and OVER the customer's original VHS tape.The original video, purchased by the consumer is returned to them on the same piece of video tape and in the same package, even though the movie has been erased and replaced by a copy of the edited digital master.

If the movie purchased by the consumer is on DVD it is not possible to erase and over-record. In this case the digital master is used to burn a new DVD-R, which is returned to the customer, together with the original DVD. Some of the companies disable the original DVD to diminish any claim that the process creates a pirated copy and deprives Hollywood of revenue.

There are variations on a theme. Play It Clean Company operates a membership co-op. When you become a member, you "co-own the videos with the company and share them with other owners." Some argue that this approach deprives Hollywood of rental income from their films. With only 6 stores the impact of Play It Clean product does not merit the focus of Hollywood legal eagles at $450 per hour. At least not yet.

Copyright is the big discussion. Revenue is the big issue. I know enough about copyright law and re-editing process to believe a case can be made for copyright infringement. That said, I agree with Richard Teraci, Family Flix, who said "As far as copyright issues, they have been in existence for over one hundred years, and we take them seriously. I think because editing movies is such a fairly new thing, there is no definitive case law to determine legality. I truly believe it's really a win-win situation. We purchase every movie that we edit, so we are creating a whole new market of buyers. It's a whole new area."

When the New York Times did a story on Clean Flicks in January, 2002, they interviewed MPAA president, Jack Valenti. He went on record to say that he didn't like what they were doing. Clean Flicks called Valenti and explained, "that this is a win-win. Every time we edit a movie the cash register goes "Ca'Jing". Every time we do a movie we have to buy a movie. We are making you more money because more Mormons are watching R-rated movies."

Valenti was silent for 3-months. Finally an attorney called from Washington "on behalf of Jack Valenti's attorney" to offer a formal response. "We don't like what you are doing. We feel it is a violation of copy right, but to be honest with you this is not a priority with the studios right now."

The bottom line may ultimately have nothing to do with copyright. It may only have to do with the bottom line. Movie making is a business. The art of Hollywood is making money. The fact that all of the companies with whom I discussed the revolution in viewer choice go to great length to insure that for every edited version of a Hollywood film made from their resident digital masters, a new copy of the film must be purchased by a consumer. Curiously, they do not participate in the profit of the purchase of the original movie. That revenue - and to a large extent new revenue - belongs to Hollywood.

The issue is a simple one. Even if there is a technical copyright infringement, how has Hollywood been disadvantaged? As long as the companies continue to demand that their customers buy a new copy of any film they wish to "clean up", Hollywood makes money. The moment any of them decide to sell their "cleaned up" versions on any other basis, they become media pirates and will end up in jail.

It stands to reason that people willing to commit themselves to "cleaning up" Hollywood movies are men and women of values, principle and integrity. That was certainly my conclusion as I listened to the strenuous efforts made to insure that nothing being done to deprive Hollywood of revenue. It may be self-serving and essential to survival, but I opt to believe that they have simply taken the higher ground.

Impressed with such fundamental integrity, I was surprised to discover that some of the smaller operations — not mentioned in this article — have allegedly been "ripping off" their larger competitors by making copies of the copies. One of the most successful of the editing companies told me, "The sad part is that most of the competitors are break-offs from our company and they basically have taken all of our movies and copied them. They buy one copy and dupe them and sell them in their own stores."

Industrial espionage aside, I have been impressed by the moral integrity I encountered in my interviews and conversations. The people I met in this curious new industry are motivated by a genuine desire to offer products that expand entertainment options without polluting personal lives. In most cases the founders remain in charge of editing choices. The choices are not easy.

Ray Line said, "PG-13 has as much sexual innuendo as R would ever have because it is based on comedy. It is very difficult to edit out because it changes the tone and story of the film. It is almost always more difficult to edit PG-13 for sexual content than an R. In an R movie sex and nudity is easy to get out."

Richard Teraci explained, "One of the most difficult edits was Erin Brockovich because of the amount of language used and the way she dressed. This movie is clearly on the border of what Family Flix edits. We obviously could not edit out her clothing attire with the low-cut, push-up bra scenes. She dropped the "F" bomb numerous times. That required more time to carefully cut-away the language but leave the story intact. The movie required over 100 edits. By comparison, The Patriot required minimal editing. There was virtually no language, no nudity, but a few graphic scenes."

For all of the clean-up-Hollywood crusaders, the moral thermometer is simple and consistent. No nudity. No sex. No graphic violence. No profanity.

The rising popularity of re-edited Hollywood movies, the increasing number of stores, and growing number of people willing to pay a premium for re-edited Hollywood movies suggest that "cleaned-up" movies are not a fade but an orphan child of the entertainment industry that must be taken seriously.