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.

CLEARPLAY PRESS RELEASE (2007)

Salt Lake City, Utah - Dec 6 2007

Best Buy Picks Up ClearPlay Nationwide

ClearPlay, the leader in advanced parental control technologies for consumer electronic products, today announced that the company's content-filtering DVD player is now being sold in Best Buy stores throughout the United States.

The award-winning ClearPlay DVD player empowers parents and other individuals with the ability to edit out content they find objectionable for themselves or their children -- such as profanity, graphic violence, sex and nudity -- during DVD playback. This is done by creating filtering information on a movie-by-movie basis, and then loading these "filters" into the DVD player using a USB "filter stick." This way, filters for the latest DVD releases can be constantly updated, providing parents and other adults with control over what they and their children watch. Analogous to airline or TV movie versions, it also makes many DVDs accessible to a broader audience.

The ClearPlay DVD player available at Best Buy includes more than 2,500 ClearPlay movie filters, a ClearPlay USB FilterStik(TM) for easy updates, and a USB port which can be used for easy viewing of digital photos and to load ClearPlay Filters. The Best Buy ClearPlay offering also includes twelve months of unlimited updates as new DVD are released. "We are delighted that the ClearPlay DVD player will now be available to parents everywhere through Best Buy's national distribution," said ClearPlay Matt Jarman, co-founder of ClearPlay. "This opportunity is a major step forward for ClearPlay and for the individuals and families we serve."

ClearPlay's innovative approach to providing edited movies has attracted a loyal following of users, and garnered numerous awards. In 2005, the company's DVD player became the first-ever product to receive the Parents Television Council's Seal of Approval. In 2007, ClearPlay received the Gold Award by Top Ten Reviews and the official Seal of Approval from the National Parenting Center.

"This is an inspiring success story about a small Utah company whose perseverance and resilience are beginning to bear significant results," said ClearPlay co-founder Lee Jarman. "Our recent expansion into retailers like Best Buy will help ensure that people everywhere have meaningful options for their home entertainment."

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.

FLIX CLUB EDITED MOVIE REVIEWS

Jason Pyles, a former movie critic for Utah Valley State College's College Times, offers film reviews for the sanitized selections found at Orem Utah's Flix Club. The reviews can be found on his Blogger site Flix Club Edited Movie Reviews.


Film critic, Jason Pyles

LEGAL LOOPHOLE BRINGS BACK EDITED MOVIES

BY BARBARA DAVIS / April 9, 2007
Brigham Young University's Daily Universe

Utah County said goodbye to edited-movie vendors last summer, but local movie businesses have brought edited movies back by finding a creative way to justify their actions. Flix Club and Cougar Video are renting and selling edited movies, an action outlawed last July in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The judge ruled that movie-editing businesses and vendors create injury to creative expression and should shut their doors and call off operations.

So how are these stores getting around this? The ruling that forced movie-editing companies out of business has a legal loophole. Daniel Thompson, owner of Flix Club, 908 S. State, Orem, said movie-editing stores are continuing to operate based on two criteria.

He said under the fair-use premise, editing is permitted if it is for an educational purpose. The second is that these businesses are not actually named in the lawsuit so they are not banned.

Flix Club edits videos such as "Glory" and "The Patriot" for local schools, said Thompson, former owner of the retail locations for Clean Flicks. But he also edits movies that may not be easily identified as educational and some wonder what is educational about "The Matrix."

Some businesses learned of this loophole and began operation a few months after the ruling. Scott J. Mikulecky, member of the Litigation Department of Sherman & Howard's Colorado Springs office and attorney for CleanFlicks of Colorado in the lawsuit that provoked the ruling, said he does not know the details of operations but is skeptical. "There is a valid educational exception," Mikulecky said. "The question is if [certain movies] qualify. I don't see how [some] movies can be made educational."

According to the Motion Picture Association of America Web site, the association is committed to promoting copyright protection and other intellectual property protection. This is so those who create movies, software, music or other works can make a living by creating products that enrich lives. It implements programs to help secure the original product and reduce editing. The Daily Universe attempted to contact a spokesman for the Motion Picture Association but did not have phone calls returned.

Dan Pia, UVSC student from Pasadena, Calif., said he believes movies are a creative effort of many people to produce art, and he is not buying the educational claim. "I think it is ridiculous to allow them [editing companies] to do this," Pia said. He said editing movies is both dishonest and hypocritical. "They are taking advantage of the legal loophole," he said. "And people are hypocritical because they are watching movies they wouldn't choose to watch without the edited parts."

But many families in the area want edited movies and support movie-editing companies. There is a need for edited movies in this area where family values are important, Thompson said. "They [studios] may not realize there is a market here for edited movies," he said. "It is not R-rated movies necessarily that need to be edited; it is about family values in general. The support people here have for edited movies is amazing."

Thompson added that if someone owns a copy of a movie, then the individual should be able to do anything to it. "What if you took 'God's Army' and added profanity to it?" he said. "My response is, do with it what you want. The principle of editing goes both ways."

FRESHLY SCRUBBED FILMS

Art by Leia Bell

BY DOUG FABRIZIO & ELAINE CLARK / March 21, 2007
National Public Radio, Radio West

Doug Fabrizio discussed the sanitized movie phenomenon with Daniel Thompson of Flix Club, Vince Horiuchi of The Salt Lake Tribune, and Dean Duncan of Brigham Young University today.

"Last year, the US District Court decided that movies edited by companies like the now-defunct CleanFlicks are in violation of copyright law. Logan-based Flix Club has stepped in to fill the void under a "fair-use" loophole. Radiowest will discuss the consumers who are willing to pay for these sanitized movies, and the artists who want their work to be left alone."

The show is available for download in its entirety at KUER.org

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.

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."

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.

TV GUARDIAN BACKS CLEARPLAY

September 5, 2005
The Daily Variety

CleanFlicks Conundrum: Solutions prez Bray 'sick and tired' of racy films -- The company that sells the TVGuardian filtering device has sided with ClearPlay in its fight with the DGA over the issue of excising sex, violence and foul language from video and DVD versions of movies.


View full story at www.variety.com

CLEARPLAY TO FILE COUNTER-SUIT

September 5, 2005
The Daily Variety

CleanFlicks Conundrum: Movie scrubber seeks court injunction -- The legal battle over sanitized versions of Hollywood movies has heated up with a software supplier announcing it will file a countersuit against leading directors, the Directors Guild of America and the major Hollywood studios.


View full story at www.variety.com

HOLLYWOOD BURNING CLEAN VIDS

September 5, 2005
The Daily Variety

CleanFlicks Conundrum: Majors join fight, file suit against sanitizers -- Hollywood's majors have decided it's time to put the CleanFlicks genie back in the bottle. The studios have filed copyright and trademark infringement claims against CleanFlicks and 14 other businesses that traffic in sanitized versions of films.

View full story at www.variety.com

MAJORS SUE OVER 'CLEAN' VIDS

September 5, 2005
The Daily Variety

CleanFlicks Conundrum: Studios back claim alleging copyright infringement -- Hollywood studios are expected to back the Directors Guild of America in a legal move today against companies and stores that rent and sell sanitized versions of films.


View full story at www.variety.com

TV GUARDIAN BACKS DGA VID FIGHT

September 5, 2005
The Daily Variety

CleanFlicks Conundrum: Foul language filter sellers oppose CleanFlick's suit -- The company that sells the TVGuardian filtering device has sided with the DGA in its fight with retailer CleanFlicks over the practice of cutting sex, violence and foul language from movies it rents.

View full story at www.variety.com

ACE IS DGA'S REEL FRIEND

September 5, 2005
The Daily Variety

CleanFlicks Conundrum: Board joins guild in fight against CleanFlicks -- The board of the American Cinema Editors has strongly supported the DGA in its fight with CleanFlicks, the Colorado retailer that cuts sex, violence and foul language from movies it rents.


View full story at www.variety.com

THE BATTLE CONTINUES

BY RAY RICHMOND / March 2003
DGA Magazine

What began in August 2002 as a preemptive lawsuit filed against 16 prominent Hollywood directors continued Feb. 14 with a hearing in Denver, Colo., the first such court proceeding in a case that is expected by all involved to stretch well into 2004.

Since the original suit was brought by Robert Huntsman and CleanFlicks of Colorado, L.L.C., the DGA has filed a countersuit (on Sept. 20, 2002) — and that was joined on Dec. 13 by the major film studios of Disney, DreamWorks, Fox, MGM, Paramount, Sony, Universal and Warner Bros.

The overriding issue, of course, remains the fact that by selling edited versions of existing films and/or selling software that contains pre-programmed "masks" or filters, services such as CleanFlicks, ClearPlay, MovieMask, Clean Cut, FamilyFlix and Family Safe are compromising the work of the directors as well as the copyright protections of creative works.

The case stands to be a protracted one, rife with discovery issues and conferences and motions and possibly a trial on the relative merits of the suit and countersuit well down the line.

The studios suit is based on copyright, while for the DGA the legal issue is the Lanham Act, which is based on the concept of brand integrity.

The 16 directors named as defendants in the original lawsuit — all of whom are being represented by the DGA — are Robert Altman, Michael Apted, Taylor Hackford, Curtis Hanson, Norman Jewison, John Landis, Michael Mann, Phillip Noyce, Sydney Pollack, Robert Redford, Martin Scorsese, Brad Silberling, Steven Soderbergh, Steven Spielberg, Betty Thomas and Irwin Winkler.

The purported goal of the companies is to cleanse films of raw language, violence and sexually explicit content, but the analyzed examples go far beyond even the obvious. Indeed, some directors have said they felt the edits and muting have been in many cases jarring and far beyond the realm of simple trims to bring a film in line with an "E" (for Everyone) rating.

Take the case of Spielberg's Oscar-winning classic Schindler's List. A CleanFlicks copy of the film detected 43 audio and/or video cuts and some 10 minutes cut from the movie's total running time. The horrific impact of the film has actually itself been muted in the trims. A prisoner inspection scene in which SS guards manhandle nude prisoners and determine whether they will live or die is effectively eliminated from the film.

Clear Play's edit of Hackford's Proof of Life deletes the entire opening sequence involving rebel brutality, the first killings and subsequent kidnapping — leaving gaping plot holes in its wake.

Not even subtlety is a guarantee against surgical manhandling, however. A scene from Redford's The Horse Whisperer depicts Redford doing a tender slow dance with co-star Kristin Scott Thomas that features his hand touching her back. Thomas' character is married to another man, and the FamilyFlix cut of the film completely eliminates this dance, despite its import in illustrating her character's struggle with her marriage and her attraction to another man.

And those who believe that a movie as benign as the Betty Thomas-directed Dr. Doolittle should be spared the knife might be surprised to learn that it isn't. FamilyFlix makes 58 individual audio and/or video edits and cuts, taking seven minutes from the running time total. Most glaring is the complete butchering of a scene in the vet's office (featuring Jeffrey Tambor and star Eddie Murphy) involving a thermometer and a "talking" dog's rear end. Other edits cut straight to the heart of Murphy's comedic timing.

Then there is the utter evisceration of the freebase scene in Soderbergh's Traffic. We see the drug being prepared, but never the ingesting or its immediate aftermath. Some might note the foolishness of trying to edit, for family consumption, a film as rife with raw language and hard imagery as is Traffic. At best, the attempt unacceptably blunts its edge.

Silberling harbored no illusions before finally mustering the courage to sit down and watch a CleanFlicks edit of his 1998 feature City of Angels. He knew that the company came at its job with a particular outlook. Yet he wasn't quite prepared for what he saw — or, perhaps more accurately, what he didn't.

"They didn't take that much out — less than three minutes, I think — but I was still actually shocked," Silberling admitted. "It was weird because it went beyond language and nudity. It was a mores question. And I guess I wasn't prepared for that."

As Silberling describes one trimmed scene in question, Meg Ryan's character has an on-again, off-again boyfriend but longs for a character played by Nicolas Cage. Finally, after much pushing and pulling, she and her boyfriend get together and make love. In Silberling's movie, the entire episode is off-camera. All that was shown is Meg Ryan getting out of bed. Still, it is cut from the film by CleanFlicks.

"It was the most shocking cut imaginable," Silberling maintained. "I guess someone didn't like the idea of Meg Ryan sleeping with someone out of wedlock. It astounded me."

Indeed, Silberling believes that "if every director saw what these people are doing to their work, it would make them even more upset. The storytelling itself is just being pilloried. And that's your name on the film. I thought I went in prepared, and yet I was really floored by what had been done to my movie."

Having educated himself on the particulars of the debate, Silberling believes he is now fully armed for the battle ahead.

"Another thing that's bothersome," Silberling says, "is that people like ClearPlay, who are supposed to be selling masks and filters, can't sell a pre-programmed technology that immediately recognizes, say, the fact that 'skin' would mean nudity vs. the bottom of someone's leg. Someone still has to go in and pre-program the omissions. They may sell you a template that makes the edits in real time, but someone has to create that template in the first place."

What that means, stresses Silberling, is that morality is still being programmed into a device that is claimed to be amorphous.

"Someone is still making editorial decisions and selling the public those decisions," Silberling adds. "Their decisions happen to be in the form of an edit list. That's something I have a real problem with."

And there is a real difference between viewers customizing their movie viewing experience and having it customized for them, Silberling emphasizes.

"All that any filmmaker can hope for is that the viewer at least has an opportunity to take in the intended storytelling experience," he says. "If people restructure your film for the hell of it, that tends to get in the way. I mean, if you own a copy of a film it should be yours to do with what you want. But for a company to externally distribute a whole set of editorial choices, well, that runs counter to the whole creative process."

IT'S A TOUGH JOB, BUT SOMEBODY HAS TO DO IT

BY TRAVIS MORGAN / Nov 21, 2002
Brigham Young University’s Daily Universe

Nothing seems to soothe semester-end stress like a great scary movie. Unfortunately, every time I see a commercial for a perfectly disturbing film, it seems to be rated 'R for violence, content, language' or some other indiscretion. Come now, can't film producers create more disturbing and distressing films for my PG-13 eyes?

Enter Clean Flicks.

Here in Utah Valley, we have another alternative to satisfy our hankering for mind-numbing motion pictures. Suddenly, all those naughty words and unsettling scenes magically disappear with the snip of a pair of digital editing scissors. Clean Flicks president, John Dixon, reassured me that movies are not edited "so much that you can't figure out what's happened."

So, you can still watch all those popular satanic and troubling films without the swear words. But don't fret, the underlying messages of doom and gloom should remain fully intact.

With the holiday season soon approaching, scores of inappropriate movies should be hitting movie theaters any time now. I hear Eminem's new movie is sprinkled with enough colorful language to keep movie editors clipping for hours on end. But within a few short months, you should be able to watch his rise to rapper greatness without his pesky rapper tongue. You may need to find a good organist, however, because the film may end up as a 1920s-style silent movie.

I've always wondered who edits out all those naughty parts of the films. Can just anybody get into the movie-slicing business? I thought I would do some investigating to see if they are looking for any extra help. It turns out that Clean Flicks already has a very competent movie editing staff, based out of Payson, Utah County. And apparently, they already get offers from a few prospective smut-slashers. "Sometimes we get people who offer to edit from their homes for us, but we don't need that," Dixon told me.

I can almost hear the conversations of potential edit-from-home applicants: "I already told you, honey, I'm not watching rated-R movies in our living room, I'm editing rated-R movies. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it."

The sacrifices people are willing to make for the good of the rest of us!

I thank you eager and dedicated stay-at-home movie editing hopefuls for offering your souls in exchange for my salvation. I will never watch the edited Exorcist again without thinking of your generosity on my behalf.

Image courtesy of Divine Comedy, BYU's award winning comedy troupe.

WHY THE DIGITAL PIRACY WAR HAS TO BE FOUGHT

BY LIONEL S. SOBEL / November, 2002
DGA Magazine

Legal battles over digital piracy began with photos of naked women.

Playboy led the charge a decade ago, when it sued electronic bulletin boards (early versions of today's websites) for distributing digital images scanned from the magazine's centerfold. Playboy won all of those cases. But that didn't deter others from using computer technology to distribute — without authorization — computer games and software, then musical recordings, and now movies and television programs.

These works are protected by federal copyright law, so people who copy and distribute them without authorization are guilty of infringement. But despite injunctions and big money judgments — against MP3.com, Napster, iCraveTV and others — the infringements did not stop. Instead, those who infringe simply devise more elaborate justifications and defenses, and argue that if the law does prohibit them from doing what they'd like, the law itself should be changed.

As a result, battles over digital piracy have escalated to all-out "war." Fortune magazine said exactly that, in the title of a recent article that featured Andy Grove and Michael Eisner as the leaders of opposing armies. Intel's Grove is an icon for Silicon Valley, and Disney's Eisner is an icon for Hollywood. The war, however, is not just between those two California regions.

"Silicon Valley" represents all technologists, from college sophomores who upload and download music and movies from their dorms, to computer and home electronics makers, to Internet service providers. "Hollywood" represents those who create entertainment, from DGA members and the studios that finance their work, to recording artists, songwriters and record companies, and all others who create entertainment for a living.

The war between Silicon Valley and Hollywood is about the future of copyright, and the role that copyright should play in the digital age. Technologists say it should play no role, or at least none of significance. Those who create entertainment note that copyright law was itself created in response to a then-new technology — moveable-type printing presses — and they say it should play the same role it always has, through generation after generation of new technologies.

Copyright's role is to create necessary incentives for the creation of entertainment.

It has been said that people would create entertainment without being paid to do so, and I have no doubt some would. But everyone has to buy groceries and pay the rent. So the universe of those who would create for free would be limited to amateurs and the independently wealthy. Unless we'd be satisfied with their meager output, we need some way to provide financial incentives that permit people to create entertainment professionally, for a living.

In the history of humankind, only three techniques have been conceived to provide those financial incentives.

One is patronage. Wealthy people and companies provide financial support to artists and entertainers, thus enabling them to buy groceries and pay the rent while they create. Patrons, however, are not foolish or selfless, nor are there very many of them. Patrons support the creation of the kind of entertainment that is pleasing to themselves. And, as compared to the amount of money Hollywood invests in entertainment, patrons invest very little. This means that the variety and quantity of entertainment produced with incentives provided by patrons would not even begin to satisfy the appetites of Americans, let alone others in the world who also are fans of American-made entertainment.

Government grants are a second technique for providing financial incentives for the creation of entertainment. Other countries, like Canada and France, make significant use of grants. The United States uses grants just a little. The National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are two grant-giving agencies of the federal government. But all of the grants they give in a year amount to but a sliver of what Hollywood invests each year. What's more, their grants often generate as much controversy as entertainment, and thus regularly become tangled in overtly partisan politics. Entertainment produced with government grants, even in countries like Canada and France, does not satisfy local appetites for entertainment. It certainly wouldn't satisfy the appetites in the United States.

Copyright is the third, and by far most successful, technique for providing financial incentives for the creation of entertainment. Copyright gives creators exclusive rights in their creations — rights they may use, or authorize others to use, in the entertainment marketplace. By doing so, copyright encourages people to create whatever they think may appeal to the audience they hope to reach. It gives them the right to charge their audience money for the privilege of enjoying what they have created. Creators themselves decide how great a financial incentive they require to continue to create, while their audiences decide how much they are willing to pay for particular creations. Creators are accountable only to their audiences, not to patrons or government agencies. It is democracy — of the marketplace — in action.

The exclusive rights at issue in the digital piracy war are old:

* The right to make copies and distribute them is more than 200 years old, here in the United States (and even older in other countries).
* The right to make new or edited versions is almost 100 years old.
* The right asserted by DGA members in the CleanFlicks case — the right to prevent the sale and rental of edited versions of movies they have directed — was first recognized by a federal appellate court more than a quarter-century ago.
* And courts have recognized that people may be held liable for infringements committed by others, rather than by themselves, for more than 60 years.

The only "new" right asserted by entertainment creators is the right to prevent circumvention of technology-based protection measures. Congress enacted that right in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in the belief technology has a role to play in solving the piracy problem that technology itself created.

Today's technologists argue that computers and the Internet are revolutionary means for efficient communication, community-building and commerce, and in order for these wonderful new technologies to achieve their full potential, they must be permitted to develop and evolve, unfettered by the law's requirement that certain things not be done, except with consent.

It is significant that the exclusive rights of copyright, to which digital technologists take exception, are old rights, because digital technologies are not the first new technologies developed since moveable-type printing presses.

When motion pictures were new, producers could have argued that movies were so revolutionary and efficient a technology for bringing stage plays to the public that producers should have the right to make movie versions of plays without the consent of playwrights. But movie producers never made that argument. They acquired copyright licenses, and the movie production business thrived nonetheless. When one early movie producer did argue that he should be able to produce a movie of the novel Ben-Hur without a license, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise; yet novels remained, and still are, a fertile source for movie producers.

When makers of the first music recordings — player piano rolls — persuaded the Supreme Court that they did not need licenses from music publishers or songwriters, Congress immediately intervened and changed the law so that copyright licenses became necessary. Yet the record business thrived nonetheless.
When early radio broadcasters contended they did not require licenses from music publishers or songwriters, federal courts ruled otherwise. Radio stations have obtained copyright licenses every since, and have thrived nonetheless.

Early television broadcasters could have argued that television was so revolutionary and efficient a way to bring movies to viewers that they should have the right to broadcast movies without copyright licenses. But television broadcasters never made that argument. They acquired copyright licenses, and the television business thrived nonetheless.

When early cable TV system owners persuaded the Supreme Court that they did not need licenses to retransmit broadcasts of copyrighted television programs, Congress responded by amending the law so that licenses became necessary. Yet, the cable TV business thrived nonetheless.

And when the home-video business was new, companies that made videocassettes could have argued that theirs was so revolutionary and efficient a way to deliver movies to viewers that they should be able to do so without copyright licenses. But they never made that argument, and thrived nonetheless.

In other words, today's digital technologists claim the right to do what none before them was permitted to do. Why has that happened?

Many technologists are "consumers" who simply want things for free, or who assume that whatever can be done — as a matter of technology — is legally permitted to be done. Other technologists are companies — like MP3.com, Napster and now CleanFlicks — who want to build their businesses using, as their inventory, entertainment created by others. Like some consumers, these companies assume that if technology enables them to use the creations of others, they are legally permitted to do so.

Finally, some technologists are companies that manufacture computers or consumer electronics, or provide services like online hosting or Internet connections, who believe that consumers are more likely to buy their goods and services if they can be used to get free entertainment.

Hence, the digital war. Record and movie companies, and even the DGA, have been forced to pursue expensive and unpopular lawsuits, for at least two reasons.

The first is purely a trial lawyer's reason and goes by the name "waiver." If those who create entertainment had not objected to the unauthorized use of their work — say, on the grounds that the Internet is not yet profitable, or the Utah marketplace for edited videos is too small to bother with right now — it would have been too late to object when the Internet finally becomes profitable or the market for edited videos grows. Judges might say that by delaying, creators had waived their rights, by inducing others to build their own businesses in the belief that their behavior did not violate anyone's rights, or at least none that would be asserted.

The second reason is related to this lawyer's version of waiver. It is a practical version of waiver. Most people assume that if they do something improper, they will be told so. If they aren't told, they assume that what they are doing is proper. Lawsuits thus perform an education function: they let people know that if they make unauthorized copies of entertainment, or distribute it to others, or edit it without consent, they're doing something improper.

In short, if entertainment creators don't assert their rights, computer manufacturers and Internet service providers certainly won't. Eventually, if history is any guide, digital technologies will be licensed like earlier technologies were and are. In the meantime, however, entertainment creators are forced to show why licenses are necessary, as a matter of law.