|Part of a series on|
Banned books · Banned
Re-edited film · Internet · Music
Press · Radio · Thought
Speech and expression
|Book burning · Bleeping
Broadcast delay · Chilling effect
Conspiracy of silence
Euphemism · Expurgation
Gag order · Heckling · Memory hole
Pixelization · Postal
Prior restraint · Revisionism
Self-censorship · Speech code
Whitewashing · Verbal offence
|Corporate · Political · Religious
Ideological · Criminal speech
Hate speech · Media bias
Suppression of dissent
|Censorship · Freedom of speech|
A re-edited film is a film that has been edited from the original theatrical release.
Films edited for format, length, and content.
There are two main techniques for re-editing films:
Purchased film content is downloaded onto an editing work station hard drive and third-party editors manually re-edit the video and audio tracks, removing objectionable content. The re-edited version is then copied onto media (VHS or DVD) and made available for rental or purchase provided an original version has been purchased in correlation with the re-edited copy. Some manual re-edits are done by fans (see The Phantom Edit) to cut a film to their own -or their peers- specifications.
Although the recent court ruling prohibits business from manually re-editing commercial movies, the law still allows for individuals to self censor and edit their own movies for personal use.
Programmed re-editing occurs when software (such as that employed in a DVD player) is used to skip portions of the video and/or audio content on-the-fly according to pre-programmed instruction sets which are knowingly used by the consumer.
In response to consumer demand, families began to re-edit purchased VHS tapes literally by making cuts and splices to the tape. A hotbed for this activity has been Utah with its conservative yet entrepreneurial population. When Titanic was released on VHS, a video store owner in Utah began offering to re-edit purchased copies of the movie for a $5 service fee. The service became very popular. Before long, several video rental businesses purchased VHS tapes and had them re-edited for their rental club/co-op members to watch.
When DVD technology emerged, the re-editing industry began offering for sale or rental a disabled DVD accompanied by a re-edited version of the film on a coupled DVD-R. Several companies attempted this business. First, some tried to do it via physical brick and mortar stores, the most successful being the deal model and proprietary stores owned by CleanFlicks, Inc. of Utah. CleanFilms later became the largest and most successful company in the business by employing an online rental model (similar to Netflix) and avoiding any physical stores. CleanFlicks and CleanFilms were sued with several others and a federal judge in Colorado ruled that the companies were violating copyright. Those named in the lawsuit ceased renting and selling edited movies. The legal argument was that the editing resulted in a derivation on a fixed media. At all times, for instance, CleanFilms sold edited movies with a legitimately purchased original copy. Furthermore, every rented unit in edited format had a corresponding original copy that was purchased at retail. The judge ruled that the fixed media caused the violation. ClearPlay was not affected by this ruling.
The lawsuit started because a CleanFlicks franchisee in Colorado pre-emptively sued major directors. The franchisee feared the directors were going to sue because the DGA's website said as much. The Directors Guild of America and the Motion Picture Association of America counter-sued and also included several edited movie companies for copyright infringement and claims regarding derivative works. In 2006, Judge Richard P. Matsch of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado ruled that it was a copyright violation to distribute re-edited movies without the consent from the movie studios (key was the fixed media aspect of the businesses).
ClearPlay was sued by the DGA and MPAA, but the case was rendered moot by the The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, which clarified that ClearPlay's filtering approach was legal and did not violate copyright law. As a result, ClearPlay has been able to offer its products to consumers in the U.S. while others have discontinued for legal reasons.
Another aspect of re-editing comes with consumer made edits, which are called fan edits (or fanedits). It is when consumers load the movies into their computers and use video editing software to produce mostly a version with changed content for their own entertainment. Fan edits are becoming more popular since they are spread over the internet.
It is unclear where this industry is headed. There is demand for the product. An ABC News poll of 1,002 adults from across the nation found that almost 40% of Americans said they might rent re-edited films, while 51% of respondents said that re-editing should not be allowed (with a 3-point error margin).