The Hollywood Reporter weighs in on the CleanFlicks case and, remarkably, focuses on the distinction between the different technologies being used (Final cut: DGA battles third-party editors):
What is far less clear, however, is why these companies are all lumped together. First Amendment and other questions of law aside, these third-party editors fall into two completely separate categories: One group permanently changes the original purchased product, while the other alters only the playback.
Read more:
This is a crucial point that too many commentators, especially those siding with the Directors Guild of America, seem to skip over. There are significant differences between taping over a commercial video with an edited version and changing the playback of a DVD. ClearPlay CEO Bill Aho is right when he says that banning his type of DVD playback technology "is like trying to ban the fast-forward or mute buttons on your remote control."
Breck Rice of Trilogy Studios, designers of MovieMask, points out that directors are free to use his companies software as well. Instead of having to convince the studios to release a "Director's Cut" DVD, directors could bypass the studios and deliver a "Director's Filter" straight to the consumer. If a studio refuses to include the director's commentary on a "special edition" DVD (which is permissible under current DGA contracts), the director could use this software to make his commentary available directly to the public. Directors should be applauding this technology.
We also have one of Hollywood's leading industry trade magazines fearing that the DGA's position would result in the following:
Readers could be prohibited from skipping a chapter in a book. Music fans would have to listen to every song on a CD, in order, every time they put the disc in a player.
If the DGA can't convince the Hollywood Reporter of their righteousness, perhaps they should reconsider their position.