Slashdot Mirror

It is only legal to descamble DVD content for playback if the player has been properly licensed (whether it is hardware or software). Where does one purchase legally licensed computer controlled DVD hardware that can recognize DVDS? Nowhere. Than it must be done with commodity hardware and software in some kludgy and quasi-legal fashion. Perhaps by using an already licensed and scriptable software application? I dont really know as the site for MovieMask (The product in question) has already been (indirectly) slashdotted, but any way you look at it, the disk is getting descarmbled somehow, and the MPAA is probably getting cut out.

Some may remember the Slashdot story about CleanFlicks getting sued by the the Director's Guild of America. It turns out that they are suing 15 other companies in addition to CleanFlicks, including MovieMask, ClearPlay, and Family Shield Technologies, which all offer real-time editing of DVD content during playback.

What happens when Open Source projects start offering this kind of functionality? Will the lead maintainers or distributors of these projects be sued also? If commercial entities are getting sued for offering certain (seemingly benign) features in their systems, will that discourage Open Source developers from contributing to projects for fear of legal retaliation? Some companies may have the legal firepower to defend themselves, but some kid in college certainly won't have the resources to protect himself from a malicious lawsuit along these lines.

Yes. This is true, but there is a big difference between showing an edited version of a movie to the public, and having software that edits the offensive content in your own home privately. When you purchase a movie for your own private use, you can do what you want with it. Of course you don't own the rights to the movie, but yes you do OWN your personal copy of it, and are free to do with it what you like. I think this whole lawsuit is the stupidest thing Hollywood has come up with yet, and I hope they eat it big time.

Personally I own a similar product called Movie Mask which I really like. It allows me to see movies that I like without the language and other content I find offensive. It makes watching a movie much more enjoyable to me.

Here's an example I found on the Web. In the original version of this scene from Titanic (shown on the left...her naked chest is blurred, which rather detracts from the point), Kate Winslet is lying nude on the couch while Leo draws her. In the 'revised' version from MovieMask, she's chastely wearing a blouse.

Now Titanic ain't exactly Citizen Kane, but this is wrong on so many levels. It's called artistic vision, folks, and it's not to be taried with. Artists have very few rights in our culture, but presenting their art the way they intended is one of them.

Because I believe that any unauthorized change to a work of art is unforgivable, I'm reticent to address specific cases, but I can't resist. In this case, this is a critical scene in the film's romantic sub-plot. When Winslet's character, Rose, exposes herself hear to Jack, it is a statement of the changes in her that he has engendered. It is Rose's pronouncement of independence. Now it'sjust a scene about the heroine getting drawn.Furthermore, the historical details of costume and scenography received exacting detail in this film. Which historian picked out Winslet's digital ensemble? Dave, the video editing guy?

MovieMask ('You're gonna love it!' says product endorser Marie Osmond) and its brethren offer sanitized versions of, among others, Fight Club, Saving Private Ryan, Schlinder's List and Training Day. In all of these films, the violence is crucial to the artwork's theme. Not just plot or setting,but theme--the films' central messages. The idea of violence as therapy is at the centre of Fight Club. The first twenty-six minutes of Saving Private Ryan represent one of the most moving and powerful depictions of war in cinematic history. To cleanse them of violence is to strip them of their power. To edit Schlinder's List, deeply disrepects the trials of the Jewish people. Without drugs, violence and foul language, Training Day is Turner & Hooch with goatees.

Much of the market for this product comes from Christians in the United States. Why do I say this? It's espoused on Christian sites like this, CleanFlicks is based in Utah and the Moral Majority has a rich history of censorship. Why do these people want to see these films in the first place, if they're morally dubious? So they can chat about Matt Damon around the water cooler? Tough luck. You either opt in to our culture of violence and sex or you opt out.

But that's not true...if you're only opposed to violence, go see My Big Fat Greek Wedding. If you're opposed to sex and foul lanugage, you're pretty safe watching The Bourne Identity or Panic Room. If you're opposed to both, try The Man Who Wasn't There or Star Wars or Shrek. Unless you're particularly conservative, you've got lots of options. Exercise discretion. I do it, my mother does it and so can you. Alternately, you can suffer alone on your moral high-ground.

But that's not true, either. There's a massive multi-million dollar industry in Christian music, films and books. You can consume art for a lifetime and not hear a secular note, view a Hollywood frame or read an aetheist page. In fact, from what I can tell, the per-capita expenditure on Christian art among Christians is way above the secular average. All the more power to them.

Ultimately, this type of censorship is worse than banning art outright. This way, people have the impression that they've seen a film (why stop there? Shall we cover up Michaelangelo's David's naughty bits?) when they've seen a toothless abberation, a mere shadow of the actual artwork. To the users of MovieMask's and CleanFlicks's and a dozen others' services, do everybody a favour: either watch original films that you're comfortable with or, better yet, just throw out your TV.

Be careful what you do with your final product. According to their FAQ they have patented this process.

However, since they don't list the patent number, I'm wondering if it's merely patent pending. What would it be under "Patent for automated mute button"? I'm surprised that this hasn't been brought up by someone already.

Of course, before you go and rail on MovieMask for frivolous patents, consider that they are planning to release this program for "any Linux based system" (from the same FAQ). I'm also surprise no one has mentioned that! Now, do the two things cancel each other out?

Regarding the idea itself...I would like to see a third option beside mute and fast-forward: zoom. This is what a lot of TV releases do to allow a scene with important content but hide objectionable content. If the woman talking is topless, zoom in to cut off everything below the neck. If I guy is going to be shot to a bloody stump, zoom to focus on the look of horror and not the blood gushing from the squibs. Many, many objectionable scenes can be fixed in this manner.

- JoeShmoe

Well, that seemed an OK idea, but I was thinking "Why can't you already do this within the current DVD framework?" I mean, the editing bit is really simple. If you can stick different camera angles and stuff on DVD's, why not this?

Anyway, it says on their website FAQ that this will be included in "Next Generation" DVD players. What is a NG player? Apparently "A next generation DVD player is a DVD player that has a hard drive and internet capability. They are 25 companies currently that plan to release these type of players within the next 12 months."

Ah joy. I love the thought of needing a DVD player that can store stuff and dialup companies for me. Maybe I will be able to get streaming advertising or something when I press the pause button.

Why oh why do we need a new generation of DVD players?