"In my estimation, if they're doing essentially what the CleanFlicks people were doing — the fair-use defense, I don't think gets you very far," said attorney David N. Schachter. "Even though there may be a quasi-educational purpose, the way the courts look at that is, you're selling something, not doing it just to educate people. Unless they dramatically change the way they're doing it, they stand the same likelihood of getting shut down."

Flix Club has operated for almost two months now, and although Thompson is leery of potential legal ramifications, he said he's happy to again meet the demand for squeaky-clean entertainment.

"I really appreciate not having to watch things that I don't want to see," said customer Blain Wilkey. "Is (the editing) changing what somebody intended it to be? Probably, but I appreciate having that option."

Yet that option is still illegal, according to the judge's ruling.

"The accused parties ... have submitted many communications from viewers expressing their appreciation for the opportunity to view movies in the setting of the family home without concern for any harmful effects on their children," Matsch wrote. "This argument is inconsequential to copyright law and is addressed in the wrong forum. This Court is not free to determine the social value of copyrighted works. What is protected are the creator's rights to protect its creation in the form in which it was created."

In 2005, Congress ruled that DVD players that temporarily filter questionable content are legal, allowing Salt Lake City's ClearPlay Inc. to stay alive.

Those machines don't violate copyright laws because the edits are temporary cover-ups and the customer has already purchased Hollywood's version of the film — not a second-party sanitized version, Schachter said.

But the device and any form of movie editing is still frowned upon by the Directors Guild of America.

"As creators of films, we oppose giving anyone the ability to alter in any way they choose, for any purpose, and for profit, the content of a film that we have made, often after many years of work," Guild President Michael Apted said in a statement. "Directors put their skill, craft and often years of hard work into the creation of a film. So we have great passion about protecting our work ... against unauthorized editing."

But with such a demand for edited films, why doesn't Hollywood step up and edit those movie themselves? asked Georgia K. Harper, an expert on copyright law at the University of Texas.

"There's clearly a need (for edited videos)," Harper said. "Copyright owners see the question (as), 'who gets to fill that need? Us or somebody else?' By saying it's not legal to (edit), it leaves them as the only option. They have a conflict though, because they don't want to edit it — they've already made their shot at what they think is right."

---

E-mail: sisraelsen@desnews.com