quote:The booking documents state Thompson told the 14-year-olds that his film sanitizing business was a cover for a pornography studio. He asked the girls if they would participate in making a porn movie, but they refused, the documents state. Police found a "large quantity" of pornographic movies inside the business, along with a keg of beer, painkillers and two cameras hooked up to a television. Thompson told police he didn't know the teenagers were under 18 or that they were paid for sex. He said pornography found at the business was for "personal use," according to the documents.
Does everyone who publicly speaks out against immorality have a hidden, hypocritical side? Or only when it's suitably ironic?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
In other news, Larry Flint was recently discovered to have been sneaking off to church on Sundays.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that only the hypocrites make the news.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I can't decide whether it makes me a bad person to be really happy about this.
I do love the comeuppance, though.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Does everyone who publicly speaks out against immorality have a hidden, hypocritical side?
I can say from my personal experience that OCD manifesting compulsive sexual thoughts correlated with extremely judgemental behavior. I don't know if that's what went on with this guy.
You have to consider as well that in order to clean up the movies, he had to go through them and pick out the bad parts. So he probably saw more smut than the average bear.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I was under the impression he was only a distributor of cleaned films; he was not the originator or facilitator of the idea. He was the middleman.
I really don't understand your reaction, JT. Can you explain why you're happy about this situation?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
This isn't joyful news. It's ugly news. Those poor girls. And possibly other kids. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Presumably because many of the people who seek to lecture of so-called extreme sexual morality engage in practices that go beyond even liberal societal norms of sexual allowances. It undermines the position held by these people and reveals it for what it often is.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I'm happy because it seems like poetic justice to me. I can't speak for JT though.
quote:Those poor girls. And possibly other kids
I'd feel worse for the girls if they didn't enter into it willingly.
From the Article:
quote:Orem police say the teenagers wanted to earn money to move out of their homes and offered sexual favors to men.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Did he speak out again smut and depravity, or just for the right of consumers to purchase films that don't contain it? If the former then, yeah, hypocrite. Otherwise, he was just providing a product/service that he himself probably wasn't a consumer of.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I feel bad for the victims.
I also feel a kind of sadness for the alleged perpetrator. I know how it is to really loathe what you believe you've become and try to find ways to "atone" for it.
But if there was no such thing as an actual sheep, how would the wolves know how to dress? There really are good, wholesome people out there.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I really don't understand your reaction, JT. Can you explain why you're happy about this situation?
What Teshi said. And Epictetus. And what I said in my original post about enjoying the comeuppance.
Also, it's a beautiful manifestation of, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
To be clear, I'm not at all happy that he's been sexually assaulting underage girls -- I'm just glad he's been exposed for the monumental hypocrite he is.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:many of the people who seek to lecture of so-called extreme sexual morality engage in practices that go beyond even liberal societal norms of sexual allowances. It undermines the position held by these people and reveals it for what it often is.
What position do you think he held? What do you think is revealed about that position because of his hypocrisy?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Does everyone who publicly speaks out against immorality have a hidden, hypocritical side? Or only when it's suitably ironic?
I think that the saddest aspect of this story is that people will use it to conclude that since this man was hypocrite, so is the rest of his community.
I personally many good, sincere, faithful people who speak out against immorality. I believe many of the people here in this forum fit that description. To assume that all of us are probably making porn in our basement and buying sex from adolescent solely because this one guy was is not only logically fallacious, it's hurtful.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It's still not clear that he was speaking out against immorality. I thought his schtick was that consumers should be allowed to remove content they object to from their films. That doesn't say anything about his personal opinions about what constituted offensive or immoral content.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: I'd feel worse for the girls if they didn't enter into it willingly.
I still feel bad, because a couple of years ago I used to teach 14 year old kids.
Willingly making a mistake doesn't make me think much less of the person doing it. That's how many mistake are made. Willingly. If they are anything like the girls I taught, then I still feel sad and worried for them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'd feel worse for the girls if they didn't enter into it willingly.
Yes-- rape or seduction would have been more traumatic.
BUT, I still feel awful for the girls. I'm sorry for the life circumstances which led them to make the decision they made.
About that poetic justice thing...I don't know. I think it's ironic, but I'm still having a hard time finding any smiles in this story. Try as I might, I'm just not feeling the urge to pump my arm up and down, make hooting noises, or bark laughter. Not even in this guy's face:
"Boo-yah, hypocrite! In yo' face! Welcome to my HIZZ-OUSE!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Presumably because many of the people who seek to lecture of so-called extreme sexual morality engage in practices that go beyond even liberal societal norms of sexual allowances. It undermines the position held by these people and reveals it for what it often is.
You're illustrating your own bias here as much as anything else, Teshi.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think a big part of the glee some people might get from this is just simple schadenfreude. It's not just that, but it's a part of it, in the same way that some social conservatives love reading about 'limosine liberals' or jet-setting environmentalists.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: It's still not clear that he was speaking out against immorality. I thought his schtick was that consumers should be allowed to remove content they object to from their films. That doesn't say anything about his personal opinions about what constituted offensive or immoral content.
From their website :
quote: Cleanflicks movies are Movies You Can Trust. Our movies are no longer edited, but every movie in our library has been carefully selected to meet our values.
I think its inherently difficult to judge what content is offensive or immoral for others without bringing your own views into the picture. But in this case, I don't think they were going for an impartial approach.
Edit to add: Ignore this. This may be wrong, I just noticed that Clean Flicks is probably different from Clean Flix (closed?) although both seem to be based in Utah.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I too fail to find anything in this development that creats glee within me. I myself never much bothered with Clean Flix, but I believed that people were justified in wanting their entertainment clean and wholesome, much like some people prefer tofu dogs to the real thing.
It hurts me that this simply reenforces the idea for some that living with vice is inevitable, as those who try to fight against it simply end up exposed as hypocrits. It reminds me of the words of Alma a Christian missionary whose own son, who was with him proselyting committed fornication with a prostitute. Alma wrote, "But when they saw your conduct they would not belief my words." Those may be the saddest words in the book.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think for some people, sexuality isn't vice and you can be very wholesome (whatever that word means. It sounds like bread to me, not people.) and still be okay with nudity and sex in films. To me, at least, sex/nudity in a film doesn't make it "unwholesome".
Lots of people do not engage in casual sex but are okay with it being depicted as part of a story and a character or characters, whether it is done discreetly or not.
And I certainly don't think any one believes that everyone opposed to so-called sexuality immorality (which can be applied to a very wide spectrum) is secretly paying teenagers for sex. Only that some are, and they are often the most condemning of the widest variety of sexuality.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Clean Flix with an X closed after the courts upheld the rights of the studios to forbid editing the movies. But the intent of the editing had been to make the movies like airline and broadcast versions -- a practice that continues, as far as I'm aware.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: About that poetic justice thing...I don't know. I think it's ironic, but I'm still having a hard time finding any smiles in this story. Try as I might, I'm just not feeling the urge to pump my arm up and down, make hooting noises, or bark laughter.
That doesn't surprise me in the least.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: About that poetic justice thing...I don't know. I think it's ironic, but I'm still having a hard time finding any smiles in this story. Try as I might, I'm just not feeling the urge to pump my arm up and down, make hooting noises, or bark laughter.
That doesn't surprise me in the least.
Could you elucidate what you mean by that? That comment has an implication spectrum a mile wide.
Teshi: Whether it's a good idea to portray sex, violence, etc or not in movies is not something I care to debate. I just agree that if people enjoy their movies that way, and are willing to pay for it, that should be legally available to them.
[ January 30, 2008, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But the intent of the editing had been to make the movies like airline and broadcast versions -- a practice that continues, as far as I'm aware.
A practice that continues with the consent and participation of the director/showrunner. The problem here was not that edited versions were being shown, but that an unauthorized version was being created, bringing up copyrighted issues. Similar to me making a recording of myself reading a book, leaving bits out, and then selling it with the excuse that the publishers made an audio book so what's the big deal.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
BB -- you're misusing 'elucidate'.
And no.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Teshi: Whether it's a good idea to portray sex, violence, etc or not in movies is not something I care to debate. I just agree that if people enjoy their movies that way, and are willing to pay for it, that should be legally available to them.
That's not really what I think makes people happy on reading this news, though. The actual editing is almost irrelevant.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: BB -- you're misusing 'elucidate'.
And no.
I don't think he is, unless you didn't think he just wanted you to clarify or explain your response.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Main Entry: eluˇciˇdate Pronunciation: \i-ˈlü-sə-ˌdāt\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): eluˇciˇdatˇed; eluˇciˇdatˇing Etymology: Late Latin elucidatus, past participle of elucidare, from Latin e- + lucidus lucid Date: circa 1568 transitive verb : to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis <elucidate a text> intransitive verb : to give a clarifying explanation
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I didn't say he chose the wrong word -- I said he was misusing it. That is, not using it correctly.
This is an example of correct usage: Would you mind elucidating on that statement?
This is an example of incorrect usage: Could you elucidate by what you mean by that?
See?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Looks like a typo to me - like he started typing the last phrase before sticking the middle part of the sentence in.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote:Yes-- rape or seduction would have been more traumatic.
BUT, I still feel awful for the girls. I'm sorry for the life circumstances which led them to make the decision they made.
About that poetic justice thing...I don't know. I think it's ironic, but I'm still having a hard time finding any smiles in this story. Try as I might, I'm just not feeling the urge to pump my arm up and down, make hooting noises, or bark laughter. Not even in this guy's face:
I understand your point about the girls, but I still find it hard to find to sympathize with them without knowing more about their situation. The article said they were trying to make money to move out of their parent's house. Were they just angry with their parents? Seems the most likely to me, in which case, I find no sympathy for them; When I was that age and was angry with my parents, I wanted to move out too, but it's tough luck. Now, if they wanted out because of an abusive parent, I can understand that, but there are other, better methods to address things like that. I do feel bad that they made an immature choice that will likely haunt them for some time.
My happiness at this story stems from the fact that I never liked the premise of Clean Flicks. I don't like it because, IMO, it exploits people's desire to taste the forbidden fruit, so to speak. So the owners of this store have been pegged with a crime that will possibly make people wary of giving Clean Flicks their business, and as such, I feel happy.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
'...elucidate what you mean by that' is still an awkward construction to my eye.
*shrug*
Anyway, sorry for the tangent. I shouldn't have jumped on BB just because he irritates me. Especially given how easily irritated I am this week.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You don't like it because it exploits desire to taste forbidden fruit?
That's awfully cynical. You don't believe the obvious explanation: people would like to watch movies without seeing the actors without their clothes on or without seeing graphic violence?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:. The article said they were trying to make money to move out of their parent's house. Were they just angry with their parents? Seems the most likely to me.
I guess that scenarios seems pretty unlikely to me. While an awful lot of teenagers would like to move out of their parents house at one point or another, very few are desperate enough to run way or enter prostitution to get away from their parents. Those who are generally have problems far worse than the average teen. My first thought when I hear a story like this is about what conditions in the home would drive a young girl to these extremes and not to assume these were just really bad girls.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: This is an example of correct usage: Would you mind elucidating on that statement
That sounds weird to me with the "on" in there.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You don't like it because it exploits desire to taste forbidden fruit?
That's awfully cynical. You don't believe the obvious explanation: people would like to watch movies without seeing the actors without their clothes on or without seeing graphic violence?
For many people I know (particularly the older set), one nude scene, a few F bombs or one scene with graphic violence ruins a movie experience. It has nothing to do with forbidden fruits. They find those things so offensive and often so embarrassing that it makes it difficult to enjoy any other part of the movie. I can think of many movies these people might enjoy if one scene and/or a few words are edited.
Take for example the movie "Shakespeare in Love". I loved the movie. My husband and I watched it twice through in one sitting. I think my mother would love the movie, except for that one scene and that might ruin the whole thing for her. Because of that one scene, I haven't recommended it to her.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I should add that I first saw Shakespeare in Love on an airplane where the one sexually explicit scene was edited to remove the most offensive parts. Its a pity that version isn't available except to airlines. I know a number of people who would enjoy the show more that way.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I have to say, that scene in Juno where they are watching "The Wizard of Gore" is stuck in my brain.
I actually bought one of those "Clearplay" DVD things that uses a program to skip scenes based on certain parameters and "Shakespeare in Love" is one of the first movies I wanted to watch with it. I just haven't gotten around to it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I saw the cleanflix version of Shakespear in Love. I enjoyed it. I would not have chosen to watch the unedited version.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I understand your point about the girls, but I still find it hard to find to sympathize with them without knowing more about their situation.
It's a bit unsettling that the conclusion you jump to when you hear about two 14 year old girls having sex for money is that they're essentially having a tantrum and wantt o move out of the house.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
kat, I would argue that a large portion of the movies with rampant sex in them are either a) not worth seeing anyway, or b) artistically done nude scenes, in which case where's the conflict of morals? Most graphically violent films I've seen fit under the former category.
I suppose it's better to say that from my perspective Clean Flicks was founded to exploit a particular belief in LDS doctrine, and I've always been annoyed by people who make money off of religious beliefs. I suppose that's pretty cynical of me, but that's how I feel.
quote:My first thought when I hear a story like this is about what conditions in the home would drive a young girl to these extremes and not to assume these were just really bad girls.
I wasn't trying to say that they were just bad girls, I'm saying I don't know what they're going through, but from what I do know, I don't feel sorry for them. I'm reserving judgment until I know more. When I think about what conditions at home could have driven them to this choice, I simply wonder if it was really their only option. Were their school-teachers ignoring their problems? Was the school counselor on a lunch break? Or were they simply unaware that they could, or uncomfortable with talking about their home life with a teacher or counselor? What action did they try to take before resorting to sexual favors?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is a list as long as my arm of movies that are excellent and worthwhile that I wish didn't have certain scenes, language, or violence because they are too private for my eyes or make me very uncomfortable and they distract me away from the movie.
I'm sorry you haven't heard of those movies. They do exist.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Rakeesh, I was saying that from what I knew about the situation, it seemed the most likely to me...Probably because I saw three of my co-workers do the same thing in the past month.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't subscribe to the "not worth seeing anyway" assumption. I have gone with the "I'll put avoiding such things ahead of my entertainment agenda" idea.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I suppose it's better to say that from my perspective Clean Flicks was founded to exploit a particular belief in LDS doctrine, and I've always been annoyed by people who make money off of religious beliefs. I suppose that's pretty cynical of me, but that's how I feel.
And now it turns out, CleanFlix was started as a front for a porno operation. So it looks like your cynicism was justified, at least this time around.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Even if your assumption was totally correct-that these girls were just angry at their parents and decided to try prostitution as a means to afford moving out-I would still pity them more than revile them.
Your assumption does not really hold up to much scrutiny, even from what we know already. What, they thought they'd just get some money and move out to live on their own?
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Kat, I didn't mean that as a personal attack. I'm sorry if it came across that way.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Rakeesh, I was saying that from what I knew about the situation, it seemed the most likely to me...Probably because I saw three of my co-workers do the same thing in the past month.
Three of your co-workers are 14 year old girls who are exchanging sexual favors for money so that they can move out of their parents homes?
Where in the world do you work?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: There is a list as long as my arm of movies that are excellent and worthwhile that I wish didn't have certain scenes, language, or violence because they are too private for my eyes or make me very uncomfortable and they distract me away from the movie.
I'm sorry you haven't heard of those movies. They do exist.
I can totally get behind this idea except that in my case it's not "language or violence" it's just wishing movies didn't have certain scenes, or characters. It'd be great if you could buy a version of the Star Wars without Jar Jar, or Transformers without any of the scenes which don't feature giant robots.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Rakeesh, I didn't say that I reviled them, nor did I say that you had to agree with me.
Three of my co-workers were 16-17 year olds who decided to move out of their parents house for disagreements that I found relatively minor. One had a fight with her father about how late she could stay out and the other two where caught drinking. These seemed like problems that could be easily reconciled.
Up until last week, I was working for Starbucks.
Edited for clarity.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It'd be great if you could buy a version of the Star Wars without Jar Jar, or Transformers without any of the scenes which don't feature giant robots.
This would be awesome.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It'd be great if you could buy a version of the Star Wars without Jar Jar
While you can't buy it, somebody did a re-edit of episode 1 called "The Phantom Edit" which does that. Check it out.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Wikipedia says that is was illicitly available on DVD, so you could probably buy a copy if you tried.
I wonder why studios don't consider buying the rights to this sort of thing and putting them on an special edition DVD set with the real thing. I'm sure they'd sell enough to make a decent profit.
I know they will claim its a matter of artistic integrity, but studios are more than happy to permit changes for TV licenses or airline contracts. I suspect that they just don't think the market is big enough to make it profitable.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
14 is very different from 16, according to federal and state labor laws.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Three of my co-workers were 16-17 year olds who decided to move out of their parents house for disagreements that I found relatively minor. One had a fight with her father about how late she could stay out and the other two where caught drinking. These seemed like problems that could be easily reconciled.
There is big big difference between working at Starbucks to make enough money to move out of your parents house when you are 16 or 17 and going into prostitution when your 14 so that you can move out of your parents house.
I would not assume that the motive typical of those in the first case were likely to be the same as the motives for those in the second case.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Pooka, I'll concede that it may not be very likely, but it was the most likely scenario to me based on my recent experiences.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:...but it was the most likely scenario to me based on my recent experiences.
Have you considered the possibility that you might not actually understand the motives of other people, and that having certain experiences doesn't necessarily give you deep insight into other people's lives?
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Since when has experience been a bad place to draw conclusions from?
I shared my experiences in hopes of further explaining why I think the way I do. Based on other's responses to my posts, I felt I wasn't communicating clearly, so I felt I should try to explain why I assumed what I did. I didn't mean to give the impression that anything I've said was anything more than my opinion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: 14 is very different from 16, according to federal and state labor laws.
Not to mention physical and emotional maturity.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Since when has experience been a bad place to draw conclusions from?
Any time you assume that a very limited set of experiences is representative of the universal case.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: 14 is very different from 16, according to federal and state labor laws.
Not to mention physical and emotional maturity.
Yes. Very much so.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
To play Devil's Advocate, I should note that there are movies in which scenes of violence or sexuality are not, strictly speaking, gratuitous. Rather, they were placed with great thought and care by the director, writer, and editor, intending to elicit a specific reaction from the audience. That reaction may be to shock, or horrify, or titilate, or to make the audience do a double-take and consider why they have that particular reaction; to examine their own perceptions and preconceptions, or their own role as spectators, evaluators, and members of society.
For some movies, to see them in a form other than what was released in the theaters is to miss out on being a genuine part of a common experience. And to be unable to fully understand and discuss its impact and ramifications.
As far as what has happened to Clean Flix founder, perhaps it need not be a tragedy to those who might be unfairly associated with his actions. Perhaps it will encourage them to be all the more active in living lives they view as moral, and recognizing the need for that life to be more than a public image.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: '...elucidate what you mean by that' is still an awkward construction to my eye.
*shrug*
Anyway, sorry for the tangent. I shouldn't have jumped on BB just because he irritates me. Especially given how easily irritated I am this week.
That first, "by" was a rogue one who sneaked into my post. I don't feel jumped on, but I do feel you have avoided the issue.
While I am sorry that I irritate you, I still think you should explain your comment regarding Scott R.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
I agree with everything Katharina has said. There are plenty of great movies out there, with just one or two scenes in there that ruin it for me. They aren't crucial to the plot, they don't deepen or develope the characters. I see no point to depicting that.
For a fairly tame example, take one of my favorite movies: The Princess Bride. The whole movie goes by with nothing distasteful happenning at all, then at the end, Inigo kills Count Drugen saying "I want my father back you son of a..." Everytime that happens I just kind of groan and wish they'd changed that one line.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I'm actually more troubled by the grandson's profanity in the middle of the movie than by Inigo's crudity.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Regarding Princess Bride: In my opinion, if there was ever a good place to put a curse word in a movie, that was it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: For some movies, to see them in a form other than what was released in the theaters is to miss out on being a genuine part of a common experience.
Are these movies ever shown edited on airplanes and/or network TV?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Doing a bit of research, it seems like this is one of the rare cases where the legal system has actually worked out a good compromise.
Something about reselling edited movies directly (if the copyright holder is against it) just strikes me as being both wrong and against the law as I understand it and sure enough both Clean Flicks and Clean Flix seem to be legally prevented from doing that.
On the other hand, that company called Clearplay that Pooka referenced is essentially just selling an electronic list of scenes and times to skip as if you had a really knowledgeable and fast buddy that knew exactly when to skip. That seems to be legal and a good compromise.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Something about reselling edited movies directly (if the copyright holder is against it) just strikes me as being both wrong and against the law as I understand it.
I once bought a used copy of a George R R Martin book which had the f-bomb marked out with black pen.
Do you think that it was wrong for that person to mark out that word in the book they had bought?
Once it had been marked out, do you think that it was wrong for them to sell it to me?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think your situation is fine, but its not quite analogous to the situation at hand.
The analogous situation would be if a company started that bought books, photocopied them, edited the copies, and then started selling the photocopies despite not having permission to.
Somehow that just strikes me as wrong although I am not entirely sure how to articulate that. One quick objection is that the author (or filmmaker) has to rely just on the word of the company in question (without a contract) that they will never sell the originals that they made copies from and that they really did maintain a 1:1 relationship between originals and copies. There are other objections in the summaries of the legal rulings in the two cases.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The analogous situation would be if a company started that bought books, photocopied them, edited the copies, and then started selling the photocopies despite not having permission to.
It would be more analogous have people bring in their own books that they had previously bought, and then the company would make an altered photocopy, then give the original and the photocopy back to the customer.
And the only reason why they made a photocopy instead of marking out parts of the book is because the books were written on paper which is impossible to write on with mortal ink.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I get the impression that they were not taking DVDs that customers had and creating edited copies. As I read it, they directly bought DVDs and then sold the edited copies while keeping the originals.
quote: CleanFlicks and Family Flix USA are movie distributors that buy DVDs, edit them and burn the revamped version onto a blank disc. Those are then sold over the Internet to video stores such as CleanFilms and Play It Clean Video. They also are sold for use by airlines and network television.
If they adopted a system like what you were proposing where customers brought in discs that were copied and then both returned, then that would be better in the "right/wrong" sense for me. (Albeit still illegal since as I understand it, copies for commercial use are prohibited)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
When I dealt with one such company (admittedly several years ago), if you rented or bought an edited version, the original version came with it, riveted to the DVD case. The 1:1 ratio was obvious and transparent.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
There's some naming confusion here; are Clean Flicks and CleanFlix two different companies? Did one precede the other? Is one bigger than the other (of course, I imagine both are now defunct in light of the copyright infringement ruling)?
The only company I remember from my time in Utah was Clean Flicks (the ones claiming defamation).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Oh...that sucks for the real company. And makes the guy who got arrested sleazy ten times over.
It is nice that all the charges of hypocrisy are unfounded.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, I think the sleazeball who got arrested is still a hypocrite, but yeah, the charges of hypocrisy directed at CleanFlicks were unfounded.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Except for CleanFlick's hypocrisy in zealously suing to protect their IP rights after years of violating other's copyrights.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's a lot fuzzier and more up to interpretation than passing yourself as someone who makes PG-rated movies in order to gain access to young teenagers in order to make porn.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Mmmmm... 14 year olds.... <drools>
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Except for CleanFlick's hypocrisy in zealously suing to protect their IP rights after years of violating other's copyrights.
How are IP rights remotely like movie copyrights?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Umm, copyrights are a subset of IP rights.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Now that it's obvious that the guy arrested was not the founder of CleanFlicks, could the OP edit the title, please?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Well, I think the sleazeball who got arrested is still a hypocrite
I still haven't seen any good evidence of this. He sold a product to a market and now it's been shown that he's apparently not a member of that market. How is that hypocrisy? Is a male gynecologist also a hypocrite? A woman who works at a men's clothing store? A power company employee that owns a windmill?
Yeah, he's a sleaze, but words have meaning and I don't think hypocrite is being correctly used here.
I don't think CleanFlix is hypocritical either. Though CleanFlix may have been ruled to have violated copyright law, I don't think it is at all clear that they felt they were breaking the law when they offered their service. They altered a product, copied it to another media, then destroyed the original media. They never attempted to claim that the altered product was their original work and the product, as it was finally consumed by the customer, was practically indistinguishable from the DVD player/download service that automatically skips objectionable content while you are viewing it. CleanFlix had no less respect for IP than that company does - they just used a mechanism which was judged, from a purely technical standpoint, to be in violation of copyright law.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)