THOM POWERS PREVIEWS TIFF DOC LINE-UP

BY AJ SCHNACK AND THOM POWERS / August 21, 2009
All These Wonderful Things

This morning, Toronto announced most of their line-up (there's always room for a few stragglers as we move closer to the September festival) - and we'll have a look at this year's nonfiction titles in the coming days. But we asked our colleague Thom Powers to talk about some of the titles that were unveiled this AM and he was kind enough to offer a preview:

ATWT: The CLEANFLIX story is really interesting to me, because it deals with so many of the ownership issues that we talk about and that, as documentary filmmakers, we wrestle with. On the one hand, as artists, we want and believe that our work should be protected and seen the way we intended, but on the other hand, we want and need to have access to others' material in order to reflect the reality of what happens in a given situation.

TP: Films about film always have a strong place at TIFF. CLEANFLIX looks at a phenomenon in Utah where the Mormon religion discourages its followers from watching R-rated content. Several companies sprung up that re-edited Hollywood films to remove the sex, violence and vulgarity that Mormons find offensive. The “clean” dvd movement turned into a thriving video rental business – until it ran into legal problems and a sex scandal involving one of its proponents. The film raises all kinds of provocative questions and delivers a powerful ending. It’s noteworthy that the co-directors Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi both come from the Mormon community.

Direct Link to Full Article at All These Wonderful Things

CLEANFLIX DOCUMENTARY TICKETS NOW AVAILIBLE

BY THOM POWERS / August 21, 2009
TIFF Blogs

Mormons can be movie lovers too. The problem is that their religious leaders strongly discourage R-rated content. As one Mormon prophet explained, “The mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards.” In order to better serve their Mormon clientele, enterprising video stores in Utah started to offer “clean” versions of popular titles like The Matrix and Titanic. Using digital editing software, self-appointed censors removed nudity, gratuitous violence and profanity, then mass duplicated the clean versions for DVD rental. Soon the idea took off, and multiple franchises sought to capitalize on brands like Clean Flicks and Flick's Club. For a brief spell, it seemed like the perfect business.

Unfortunately, no one consulted the copyright holders. Hollywood figures such as Steven Soderbergh, Curtis Hanson and Michael Mann became vocal opponents of having their work re-edited. As quickly as the clean movement blossomed, it started to unravel, with legal threats from Hollywood, accusations among rivals and even a sex scandal in the backroom of a clean video store.

In Cleanflix, directors Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi chronicle the rise and fall of the clean movement. Having grown up in the Mormon community, the duo gained close access to the main players that outsiders might never have achieved. The controversy over cleaning films raises further questions: Who gets to set cultural standards? Does what we watch affect how we behave?

The film gives a broader context for understanding the Mormon institution (known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) by talking to its adherents and those who have dropped out, most notably the playwright and filmmaker Neil LaBute, known for the dark themes in scripts like In the Company of Men and Bash.

As events unfold, one thing becomes clear: in movies, you can skip over the parts you don't like. But in real life, you can't.

Thom Powers

Tickets Now Available Directly From TIFF

DOC PICS: DAVE COURIER OF SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL

BY DAVE COURIER / August 21, 2009
TIFF Blogs

I'm a total film buff. I fiercely oppose censorship. I'm a film festival programmer and my festival happens to be smack dab in the middle of Utah. These are just some of the reasons that I find the subject matter of Cleanflix absolutely irresistible.

Direct Link to TIFF Blog

CLEANFLIX: THE MOVIE

BY KYNAN GRIFFIN / July 28, 2009
The Examiner

Those who follow the film industry will remember the much publicized battle between the Directors Guild of America (DGA) and purveyors of self-edited Hollywood films, most notably CleanFlicks, a Utah-based company.

Through a series of perceived intellectual property rights loopholes, these companies edited content they deemed offensive from R and PG-13 rated films, and then sold or rented them to consumers. The DGA took offense, launched a lawsuit, and in 2006 the US District Court ordered the fledgling industry shut down.

However, dozens of sanitized-movie retailers defied the judgment and remained open well into 2007 and beyond, supported by their largely Mormon customer base, who saw the Hollywood filmmakers behind the suit as self-important and morally bankrupt.

During the time these stores were operating illegally, documentary filmmakers Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi had unprecedented access to dozens of renegade stores and their owners, including the infamous Daniel Thompson, who was arrested for statutory rape after supposedly paying underage girls for sexual favors in his edited movie store (at least he had a screenwriters sense of irony). James and Ligairi have now finished their film, and it has been accepted into the Toronto International Film Festival, one of the world’s most prestigious film venues.

The film is called CleanFlix and follows the publicly open but privately conflicted Daniel Thompson through the legal and moral battles he would face, while offering a revealing look behind the scenes of the sanitized movie industry and the Mormon culture that spawned it.

I sat down with Joshua Ligairi and Andrew James to discuss their film, their careers, and documentary filmmaking in general.

Examiner: How did you get into documentary film making?

Joshua Ligairi: I had been interested in film for a long time, taken some film classes, and interned on some sets when I started my first documentary. The subject just fell into my lap. It was largely a case of being in the right place at the right time, but I was also ready to capitalize on that opportunity. I had a camera, I had some training, and I realized very quickly that instead of getting people coffee or driving actors around (which is the kind of stuff you start out doing on a film set), I could be making my own movie.

Andrew James: My first documentary project was Cleanflix. Before that, I had been shooting short films. A friend suggested that I make a documentary about CleanFlicks and it seemed like a great idea. So I jumped in head first, and figured it out along the way. It just so happened that this friend knew Josh as well and paired us together for the project. When we started shooting Cleanflix, I was busy with another film, Una Vida Mejor. That film is now complete and has since played festivals and won an award.

Examiner: And what were your roles on the film?

Joshua: Not sure if you mean this film or that first documentary film.

That first one was called This Divided State (you can find the DVD online) and my credit was "Key Videographer." Basically, I was there everyday of production with a camera in hand, directing, producing, and shooting all of my own footage, paying for tapes and other materials out of pocket, that kind of thing. I was deep in the trenches and I shot about a quarter of what became the final film.

On the Cleanflix film, I'm the co-director with Andrew James. We also share producing, cinematography, editing, and writing responsibilities, which basically means that we argue a lot.

Examiner: What first attracted you to this subject matter?

Joshua: I had been interested in the cleaned-up movie industry for a long time. It was just one of those cultural phenomena that brought up so many interesting questions about ethics, morality, and film as art or commodity. And then, of course, there were the religious underpinnings which made the topic really personally appealing to me.

I had actually been debating the idea of doing this film for several months when a friend (Xavier Gutirrez, who is now a co-producer on Cleanflix) approached me about doing it together. I struggled with answering him because I wasn't sure how interesting the topic would be to people outside of Utah. Then, a few days later I was in Salt Lake watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated at the Broadway, and I thought to myself, "We could make a Cleanflicks documentary easily as good as this one." No offense to the makers of that film whatsoever. I love it and Eddie Schmidt (the producer of This Film Is Not Yet Rated) has been a big help with Cleanflix. I just realized in that moment that we had a topic equally as charged and complex. I drove straight back to Provo and told my friend that I was in. By the way, for the record, it turns out that the topic of Cleanflix is actually far more interesting to people outside of Utah than inside the state.

Andrew: To be honest, I just really hated edited movies and thought it would be fun. I never imagined this project becoming what it is now. I think back then, I envisioned a short film about the lawsuit or something. Now my view on the matter is much more nuanced, having gone on this journey.

Examiner: You’ve been involved with this film for a really long time now. Has it been a fun journey?

Joshua: For the most part, this film was not fun to make. We shot for two years and edited for another year on an almost non-existent budget. That said, we rarely had a day where we wrapped and weren't very pleased with the days work. We were really fortunate to get some great material.

The most interesting thing to me is that we set out to make a kind of historical document, like, "This is what Cleanflicks was." They had just lost the court case with the DGA and we were going to film the aftermath. On our first day of production, however, we realized that many of these guys were staying in operation, defying the court judgment. CleanFlicks the corporation was shutting down, but there were all of these former dealers and competitors that decided they were going to take their chances and stay open. The movie changed on day one. The story became, "How did these guys that were ostensibly breaking the law feel justified in taking a moral stance? And how long could they get away with it?"

Andrew: Well, like Josh said, the film took 3 years to make. We met lots of interesting people along the way and new surprises popped up every day. As mentioned earlier, when we first started this, the lawsuit with the DGA had just happened and there were quite a few stores that were defying the judgement. Because of this, people were scared to talk to us. As such, it took us a long time to get all the information that we needed. There are lots of facts in the film that seem very matter-of-fact, but in actuality were big mysteries to us for years.

Examiner: What does getting into a prestigious festival like Toronto mean to an indie filmmaker like yourself?

Joshua: It means a lot.

Practically, it means that that we have a good chance of selling the film which, in this economy, I wouldn't complain about.

Emotionally, it is also very gratifying. You work so hard on something for so long and you live in this bubble. It feels really good to finally show your work to someone in the industry like Thom Powers (the TIFF Documentary Programmer) who has so much experience and sees so many films. For a guy like that to show such interest and support for our little movie when he is usually dealing with projects from the likes of Werner Herzog and Michael Moore, well, it is very humbling.

It also brings up this question of validation. On one level you feel kind of validated, but you also kind of resist that. At least I do. If someone didn't like our film before we got into Toronto, I don't want them to like it now. The film industry is funny that way. Our film would be just as good or just as bad whether we got into Toronto or not. I am not a different filmmaker now. I don't have any more or less talent. But in the industry everything changes. I tend to want to resist that.

Ultimately, though, I'm just pleased to be playing alongside such amazing films as the other documentaries in the Real to Reel category. There is some wonderful work being showcased in Toronto this year. I can't wait to be a part of it. I'm also looking forward to my first visit to Tim Hortons. That's a joke.

Andrew: Getting into Toronto means everything. We have sacrificed all kinds of time, energy, and money to make this film. Playing Toronto makes it all worth it. You feel validated and you feel relieved, knowing that all your hard work has been appreciated and recognized.

Examiner: What else are you working on?

Joshua: I'm shopping two fictional feature film scripts around; one that I want to sell and another that I want to direct. I'm also beginning production on my next documentary, with the working title Gay and Mormon.

Andrew: I'm working on several projects, including a documentary about a Peruvian drug smuggler who for years, smuggled cocaine into the US disguised as a Mormon missionary. Its a great story and its true. This project is in its early stages, but hopefully any success we have with Cleanflix, will help me get it off the ground.

Examiner: Any tips for aspiring documentary filmmakers?

Joshua: My main tip is: Do not begin a documentary unless you are extremely interested in the subject. I'm the kind of guy that gets an idea for a documentary every time I listen to This American Life. You can't think that way. If you are serious about making a film, and actually follow through, you are going to be living with this topic for the rest of your life. Never mind the year you spend shooting it and the hundreds of hours you spend editing it. Next there are festivals, press, and this film becomes your calling card. People only know you from your previous work. Think long and hard before choosing a topic and make sure you are passionate about whatever it is. Otherwise, you could find yourself pontificating about something like edited movies at every opportunity and really start to annoy your friends.

Andrew: You need to know how to tell a good story. Read a lot and study. I'm still doing this and I know Josh is as well.

Direct Link to the Examiner

CLEANFLIX GOING TO TORONTO

BY SEAN MEANS / July 22, 2009
The Salt Lake Tribune (Blog)
Two Provo filmmakers will premiere their first documentary at the biggest film event in North America: The Toronto International Film Festival.

"Cleanflix," a documentary by Provo's Andrew James (pictured at far left) and Joshua Ligairi, is among 17 documentaries selected for Toronto, according to IndieWire.

The movie tells of Utah's once-thriving industry in selling and renting sanitized home-video copies of Hollywood movies, and the court battle these stores faced when the Directors Guild of America successfully sued them for violating the studios' copyrights.

The Provo filmmakers will be in heady company. Other documentaries at Toronto include new works by Chris Smith ("American Movie"), Mark Levin ("Slam") and Michael Tucker and Petra Epperlein ("Gunner Palace"). Also, at least one of the DGA members involved in the Cleanflix lawsuit, Steven Soderbergh, will be in Toronto with a new movie ("The Informant!").

Direct Link to Salt Lake Tribune Blog

GOING TO JAIL, FLIX CLUB OWNER ASKS MEDIA TO STOP USING MUG SHOT

BY CALEB FUCKNOCK / August 29, 2008
The Daily Herald

Daniel Dean Thompson, the owner of the now-defunct Flix Club edited movie store, was sentenced on Friday to serve 44 days in jail and 119 days with an ankle monitor.

The sentence stems from an incident in which he and an employee were accused of paying two 14-year-old girls for oral sex.

As he heard the sentence, Thompson's hands, clasped behind his back, shook violently.

In an impromptu press conference held in the courthouse hallway after Friday's hearing, Thompson, 31, said he was shocked by the judge's decision to send him to jail.

"I don't want to go to jail," he said, teary-eyed, calling the sentence "severe." "I was surprised. But I also accept the judge's decision."

Thompson said he had never before had a chance to tell his side of the story. He said his co-defendant, Isaac R. Lifferth, was never a co-owner of the Flix Club, though Lifferth claimed to be, that the store was never a front for producing porn, and that Thompson himself had never solicited anyone for sex.

"I never propositioned anyone for anything, contrary to every report. I am sorry because I failed in doing what is right," he said to reporters, his voice emotional. "I am going to jail, which is very difficult for me. If I could change what happened I would, but I can't."

Thompson then pleaded with reporters to never use his jail mug shot again. When asked why, he said because "it is a bad photo."

Thompson's attorney had asked that the entire sentence be served on an ankle monitor, foregoing any time in jail, saying his client had been with the girls for less than 60 seconds before deciding to leave because he felt what he was doing was wrong. The attorney, Mike Petro, said monitoring would allow his client to continue to have shared physical custody of his two sons and to continue to pay restitution of up to $1,000 a month.

But Judge David Mortensen of American Fork's 4th District Court said Thompson had asked the underage girls their age and that Thompson must have known he was getting into "dangerous territory."

In his press conference, Thompson said he had come to know Lifferth because "he was a boyfriend of my ex-wife's sister and he needed a job." Thompson said he hired Lifferth, who soon thereafter "began living vicariously through me. He told people he owned my cars and my company."

When he closed the company, Thompson said he left Lifferth in charge "to finish last minute business. He turned my office into his own personal private party pad."

When police searched the business, they found drugs and porn in Lifferth's desk, Thompson said. A keg of beer accompanied by a receipt for the beer in Lifferth's name was also found.

"I had no idea, but because I owned the place, it was automatically mine," Thompson said.

A search of Thompson's own house netted nothing, he said.

"I have become a recluse and my life was on hold until today," Thompson said. "People have asked me if I will bounce back from this. It will be difficult but I will try. Contrary to every news report, I genuinely love people and I have gotten a ton of support. It just happens to be from people who are not as boisterous."

Asked several times why he had become involved in the oral sex, Thompson said he would like to know himself.

"If I could answer that I would," he said. "It was a bad judgment call, not a deliberate act of malice. I found myself in a situation that within one minute I became uncomfortable with and left, and less than a minute destroys my life. ... Everyone makes mistakes. The only difference is that mine are published."

In July, Thompson pleaded no contest to reduced charges stemming from the oral sex incident. Thompson pleaded no contest to two counts of sexual battery, a class A misdemeanor. The charges were reduced from unlawful sexual activity with a minor, a third-degree felony. Prosecutors also agreed to drop a misdemeanor charge of patronizing a prostitute as part of the plea deal.

On Friday, Mortensen agreed there was no evidence that Thompson knew that the girls had been paid.

In June, Thompson's co-defendant, Lifferth, was sentenced after pleading guilty to two counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor, one count of patronizing a prostitute and one count of possession of a controlled substance. Mortensen sentenced Lifferth to 270 days in jail and 36 months of probation.

Thompson and Lifferth were arrested in January after a 14-year-old girl told her mother that an older man paid her and a friend $20 for oral sex. According to Orem police, the two girls asked a friend if she knew anyone who would be willing to pay for sex, and the friend put them in contact with Lifferth, who paid them each for oral sex and later took them to the Flix Club store in Orem and paid them another $20 to perform oral sex on Thompson. Thompson told police that he asked the girls if they were 18, and they said yes.

When police searched the store, they also found dozens of pornographic movies, and the girls told police that Thompson told them that Flix Club was a front for producing pornography.

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.