the CleanFlicks conundrum

All of the Utah Bloggers out there have been going to town lately on the whole CleanFlicks/CleanFilms issue because Judge Richard P. Matsch recently ruled that editing Hollywood movies and then renting/selling them was against the law. I’m weighing in because there is a public relations element as to why “Hollywood” (those named as the plaintiffs don’t represent all of Hollywood) wanted this to happen. (By the way, I am a happy CleanFlicks customer).

Here are a few thoughts:
1) Richard Miller - “On the recent ruling against Cleanflicks”
2) Jordan Gunderson - “Hollywood Hates you”
3) Chris Knudsen - “Finally weighing in on Cleanflicks”
4) Josh Steimle - “CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms - Court Rules Against Three Utah Companies”

I consider all of these guys friends, but in some instances, you can see bias right off the bat.
For example, post titles could say, “On the recent ruling in favor of Hollywood,” or “Court rules in favor of Hollywood.” It kind of changes things off the bat doesn’t it. Anyway . . .

I read a few suggestions out there like “why doesn’t Hollywood just edit the movies themselves,” or “To say that this is a violation of copyright is to side with all the large media companies,” or to say “any other industry would offer its customers what they want.” While these suggestions have merit, they don’t mean Hollywood should be forced or have to do anything other than what they have done. Hollywood has the right to do with its work what it wants to do. It’s the foundation of this country “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which the founding fathers clearly identify often as the right to property.

And to say this is a violation of copyright is not siding with large media, it is siding with the DMCA, which is the law. Hollywood ought not and “shouldn’t” do anything that Hollywood doesn’t want to do. No matter how these companies go about doing what they do, they are within their rights (which are the same rights we have) to enjoy their pursuit of happiness or property as they want to.

No argument of sex, smut, DRM or “give the customers what they want” holds any water because in this country, we don’t force people or companies to do things that would violate their “life, liberty or their pursuit of happiness.”

So, back to the PR/media aspect of it. Companies and organzations fight tooth and nail to protect their works because if they don’t, they loose the right to the “pursuit of happiness” or property. Making an example out of ClearPlay, CleanFlicks and CleanFilms is not only a protection of their right to the pursuit of happiness but it also sets an example for others that Hollywood will come after you if you try to interfere with their property. And because it is a sensitive legal issue, the press will cover it.

In essence, I have issues when suggestions are made that we should force Hollywood to do something that is against its legal rights, which are also my legal rights. Do I like smut and filth? No! But the battle needs to be fought another way. Hollywood provides EXACTLY what its customers want and they do it within their capitalistic legal rights. Hollywood makes what we want them to make. Renting from these places only encourages them to make filth because they still get the profit from making the filth even if it is removed. (I guess I better cancel my membership).

p.s. If you haven’t done it already, join the More Good Foundation.