No More Smut Editors?
A federal judge has ruled that it's illegal for companies to "sanitize" videos by editing objectionable content. And in principle, I tend to agree.
By Mark Moring | posted 7/11/2006
 1 of 3
Late last week, a federal judge in Colorado ruled that "sanitizing" movies on DVD or VHS is a violation of federal copyright laws, and companies that engage in that practice must turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios.
The decision, which came last Thursday, affects such businesses as CleanFlicks, CleanFilms, and Play It Clean Video. Such companies are known for offering "family-friendly" versions of popular movies—including R-rated films—by editing out objectionable content such as sex, nudity, profanity, and graphic violence.
In a 16-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch called the practice of sanitizing videos "illegitimate," and ordered those companies to stop "producing, manufacturing, creating" and renting edited movies.
I think the judge made the right call, at least in principle. Copyright law is far too complicated for me to determine whether sanitizing videos is technically legal—the companies argue that it is legal, citing "fair use" guidelines for copyrighted material—but my concern is about whether it's right.
And I don't think it is.
Movies—even bad ones—are works of art, created by artists with a certain vision of what they want to communicate—and how they want to communicate it. And as works of art, films should remain in their original forms, untouched, unedited, unsanitized. If a particular film's content is too objectionable to certain viewers, those viewers shouldn't watch that film. Simple as that.
There are a number of movies I'd like my sons to see … some day. But for now (they're 15 and 13 years old), they're just not ready for those movies. A few that come to mind include The Passion of The Christ, Saving Private Ryan, and Schindler's List. Great movies, but my boys aren't yet mature enough for them.
I'd never consider showing my sons "sanitized" versions of these films. If you remove the violence and bloodiness of The Passion, what's the point of watching it? The scourging and crucifixion were the very definition of "graphic violence," so why pretend it was anything less? (Mel Gibson apparently agreed, and sued CleanFlicks for cutting three minutes from his film.)
If you excise the violence and bad language from Private Ryan, you lose the reality of the "war is hell" scenario so vividly depicted in that film. If you sanitize Schindler, you don't fully appreciate the horrors of those historic events—or see the total brutality and heinous nature of the Nazi regime.
OK, those are extreme, R-rated examples. Some might object by saying, "Yes, but what about all the PG and PG-13 movies that are 'ruined' by just one or two objectionable scenes? Cut those out, and you don't really lose anything from the movie, so it's not that big a deal."
I hear that objection loud and clear, especially as a parent. My wife and I have seen many movies where we've thought, "Rats, if only they hadn't included that, we'd love to show this to our boys."
I've got two solutions for that scenario. One is simple enough: We wait for our sons to get a little older and more mature, and then consider showing them the movie.
Browse More Movies
CT Movies Home Page | Now Showing | New on Video | All Reviews
Coming Soon | Discussion Guides | Interviews | Commentary
News & Misc. | Special Sections | About Us
Your Feedback | About Us | CT Mag Home Page
| |
|
Printer view
