Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood Says No to Filtering DVD Player
haplo21112 writes "There is a posting over at ZDNet about how Hollywood continues to trample on the American consumer's free use rights. They want to prevent the sale of a special DVD player which can be used to edit out offensive material from a DVD in realtime. While I don't agree with censorship in general, I do believe its everyone's right to do what they wish with their own media."
I also think that everyone should be forced to watch these movies. If we're going to rob people of their rights. Let's not half-ass it.
This technology would allow for parents to show otherwise questionable movies to their kids. That would lead to a higher number of movies bought or rentals per family, because some movies are no longer out of the question.
Not that I am agreeing with the censorship, I just don't see the logic in trying to ban this.
"You sir, have just crossed my happy line..."
This isn't so bad. Perhaps they'll make parents actually think about what DVDs they let their children watch instead of thinking technology can parent for them. (yeah, fat chance, I know) (also, Double standards: I can have them, you can't)
How would people feel if someone wrote some magical piece of software that prevented users from having to view annoying copyright- and authorship- nag banners and notices that appear while running software ?
I can't wait for someone to start making filters for these that skip over everything but the "objectionable" content...
my stereo should be illegal, it adds distortion to music in real time
-- OMFG = Oh My Floatse Goatse
Wait for someone to invent a really useful device that would sell more of the media company's product, sue them out of existance, then release their own copy of said invention. They can't just appreciate that someone is helping them get to a larger audience.....
Why do i suddenly have this image of the Ned Flanders and the boys trying to watch a cleaned-up version of Pulp Fiction?
I'm guessing that the studios aren't so much interested in forcing people to watch "offensive scenes" as they are in ensuring that they are going to be the sole avenue for producing "Family" or "Edited" versions. A Studio might, for example, decide to release a PG-13 version of James Cameron's Aliens. There would probably be a market for that unless, of course, ClearPlay, CleanFlicks or some other company is already providing families with the ability to edit their R-rated Aliens DVD on the fly.
The author of the article would have a stronger argument if he wasn't distorting the true intentions of the studios like that.
GMD
watch this
A DVD player that won't let you watch DVDs the way you want to watch them? How long before we see TVs without 'mute' buttons. Can't you just do this kind of thing now anyway with a decent VCR and a little time? When will the anti-digital madness end?
No one is telling anyone they are not allowed to watch what they want, which would be an abridgement of free speech against the person who was trying to allow others to watch what that individual wanted, but rather not allow someone not to watch only the parts they want. How is this really any different from allowing scene selection? ("Let's see... I want to watch Moria, then Weathertop, and then I want to watch the Amon Sul. After that, Matrix lobby scene, followed by Agent defeat.") I don't see any difference between watching scenes in a particular order, through using scene selection or, heaven forbid, PowerDVD's bookamark system, and a DVD player that skips particular scenes entirely.
This position is similar to a position that says "You are required to watch our films." It's not censorship, since it doesn't forbid some things from being shown, but it is absurd and outrageous.
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
I find those warnings offensive.
I'm not a criminal, I bought the DVD and I just want to see the damn movie. I want to remove those warnings
Kilroy was here!
Folks,
We need to be very careful about throwing around the word "censorship" in a context like this. IMO, it is not censorship or anything like it for a parent to fast-forward through a questionable scene in a movie. It's not censorship for a commercial organization to decide it doesn't want to carry/show/broadcast certain material.
Censorship is state-sponsored, implicitly-at-gunpoint, restrictions on free speech, freedom of the press, etc. It's prohibited by the Bill of Rights .
No JarJar! Imagine the possibilities!
There are certain movies that are great, but not quite acceptable for my family to watch.
With a technology like this, you could tell the DVD player what's appropriate for the audience.
It would be a really great solution to show certain movies in schools too.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
A device that does that puts the power to choose what to see and what not to see in the hands of the consumer, where it belongs.
Does anyone else feel a parallel to when the Catholic Church went along "censoring" all the great works of art which contained nudity by drawing or painting over them, and adding leaves, etc? Personally, I feel art should be left alone. The greatest and most heralded art was made by singular geniuses; no good art was ever created by a committee of politicians...
This is the same principle as those folks who rent out edited DVD's so junior never lays his eyes on a female breast.
This is the same principle as those folks who would "colorize" a classic Black & White film to make it more appealing the general massses.
A artist should have a right to have his creation be experienced unaltered. Unless of course, the artist himself has made the alterations.
This is a simple case of artistic integrity. It is the directors name that scrolls on the screen at the end of the movie.
If you don't want to watch something, do what our president said to do "Turn off the on button"!
Of course, this is Slashdot, where people find a million and one reasons and rationalizations to cut, copy and paste the creative hard work of others.
I love the part in the article linked to where the ClearPlay CEO talks about watching movies with his kids and being uncomfortable with the language. Excuse me? You're watching R-rated movies with your kids and you all are uncomfortable with the language? Here's a tip: watch G-rated movies. That's what the rating system is for. Here's another tip: don't let your kids watch anything but G-rated movies if you don't want them hearing bad language. It works in my household.
Then there's the part in the ZDNet article about "Hollywood shouldn't force its paying customers to watch those scenes." Excuse me? Last time I checked, Hollywood has not forced me to watch anything. If you don't like nudity and violence in your movies, don't watch R-rated movies. It's simple.
To the real issue, though, it seems that there is no difference between CleanFlix and ClearPlay. Both want to profit by creating derivative works of copyrighted material. ClearPlay isn't some magical filter that automatically detects bad language and lots of flesh. It is a subscription service that will filter out movies that they have "edited". Same thing, different approach. Expect Hollywood to smack them down.
Use the rating system folks. It's your friend.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
...when you do it to yourself. It's called freedom of choice. It's only censorship when you prevent someone else from seeing it.
/. settings to filter out Jon Katz stories, that's my choice -- not censorship.
If I set my
If I fast forward through commercials on a taped broadcast, that my choice -- not censorship.
If I want to use a DVD player that imports an edit list that filters out the naughty bits, that' my choice -- not censorship.
Ideology is for ideots.
Didn't you know? Hollywood producers/directors are doing everyone a great big favor by educating the planet with their well-balanced world-view. If someone filters or otherwise make any changes the movie, how will their propaga^H^H^H^H^H^H enlightenment work correctly?
We're trying create a brave new world here people, get with the program...
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
I do believe its everyone's right to do what they wish with their own media
It's not 'your own media' dude.
When you download Linux, you DO NOT OWN IT. Copyrights are ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. You only have rights to it, as granted by the owner of the material, and this is how it should be.
I'll give you a wonderful example. Brigham Young University decided to show Schindler's List to the students. Except, they wanted to show their own version, with all the "offensive content" removed. Speilberg said "no way", and he was fully within his rights to do so.
If copyright owners are not allowed to control what happens to their work, we could not enfoce the GPL. Free software would die.
Does this mean that I will be able to get Japanese porn that doesn't pixelize the genitals?
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
I think when a director releases a film, it's their 'work of art' (whether or not it's a good film) and should be left in tact. They choose the scenes, the camera shots, and yes maybe the gratitious sex, violence, etc. - but their intention is for you to see it the way they, and the studio choose to. And if they choose to do a "Director's Cut" later and add/edit content - that's their choice, as it was their project, they own the rights, NOT the consumers.
If you don't like 'x' content, then your freedom of choice is to NOT watch the bloody nothing, not to edit or create your own version. You don't like what's out there, then go to film school and learn to make your own movies, but leave another artist's work alone.
Go ahead, flame away, but I think everybody likes to scream and rant about 'my rights', 'me me me!" and forget others have rights and protections as well.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
"They want to prevent the sale of a special DVD player which can be used to edit out offensive material from a DVD in realtime."
But they want to require the sale of special DVD players which edit out foreign material from a DVD (ie. region lock-outs).
I knew the MPAA and the DVD Consortium were two-faced, but this is just ridiculous. About the only common trait between these two positions is the elimination of options from the consumer marketplace.
I could see that Hollywood is taking this approach to get a foot in the door for when the more interesting filters start appearing. For example, given the direction that modern advertisements are going I can forsee a future where they become an integrated part movies (they sometimes allready are). It would be in Hollywoods favor to have a case on it's side that helps the ban of 'advertisement-filters'.
If you do a Google search for news on this device, you'll find out that the movie studios have nothing against it. In fact, they'd like to sell movies to parents that wouldn't buy before because of mature content.
The suit is being pursued by several directors who insist they have "moral rights" on their films. Now, from their perspective, the device is akin to someone covering the Venus of Milo's breast, or putting duct tape over Goya's Naked Maja. They claim the movie is art.
So, save the kneejerk reactions and start posting nice.
For the record, I disagree with the suit, and I think all the device does is automate what I can do myself anyway. I can fast forward boring/sexual/violent parts anyway and they can't do a damn thing about it, so I can't see the problem in making the process more efficient.
OK,
So what do you have to say about Network Television editing movies for Broadcast Television. Why hasn't there been such a huge outcry?
Ted
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
The analogy here to what ClearPlay is doing, I guess, would be someone who puts up a website that says "Chapters a,b,c are about WWII, chapters x,y,z are about the data haven." It's absurd to think that the publisher could force such a website to be taken down.
... is that survey shows that 18% of people think. No, I have not right do do anything AT HOME with MY DVD that might interfere with copyright as the corporations understand it. Hopefully those are people on Hollywood payroll. But if not, that is a serious problem.
Check out this legislation - an amendment to the DMCA that will allow exactly this sort of fair use under the law. I hope it passes.
hrm. then again. maybe not.
I have a partner who has combat-related PTSD. Artillery, automatic weapons fire and PBR's in a movie will trigger nightmares.
It would be nice to be able to pre-mute the soundtrack, at least. It's often hard to dance on the mute button to get the dialog and avoid the rat-a-tat-tat.
This was a particular issue with the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy." Mostly a charming tale, and the war scenes did have artistic merit, but we would have enjoyed the non-war parts of the movie much more if we could have squelched the guerilla warfare sound effects.
My point being, it's not all about porn. There are more diverse motivations out here.
We need to add a simple scene scripting language to open source players.
The players would have to identify the movie inserted, and select a script based on it. The script would, at first, simply be commands like:
At frame 5,342 mute
At frame 5,370 unmute
At frame 8,330 goto frame 9,010
At frame 10,377 place a black square(x1,y1,x2,y2) with ID 1
At frame 10,402 move and resize square ID 1 to (x1, y1, x2, y2)
At frame 10,700 remove square ID 1
There could be other options such as only viewing a section of the window, zooming it, pixellizing instead of blacking out, etc.
Such a simple script language could be represented in an XML file and database. You could attach ratings to each particular script action, such that the end user could say, "I don't mind profanity or violence, but cut out the hardcore sex."
Not only would such an open system allow 'clean' editing (which could be added to a centralized database, much like FreeDB does for CD listings) but you could offer your own move edits - shift scenes around, cut out jar jar, etc.
-Adam
The orignal is not hurt by putting in code which would skip certain parts. This isn't censorship becuase it allows the orignal to still be viewed. Ted
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
I would make a distinction between the individual's right to modify in any way works they have purchased, without redistributing them, and the right of a corporation to make big bucks selling a machine that has its sole utility in hacking apart other people's art. I have no problem with a machine that edits and replaces parts of the film with the consent and instruction of the artists, but selling unauthorized modifications to someone else's work is clearly not fair use: this is no different from a third party selling DVDs of modified scenes from the original work, it just includes a handy machine to also hack those scenes into the original DVD for you.
Of course, these objections are pure hypocrisy coming from the same media giants that speed up movies and squish the credits down to a quater of your screen, if they show them at all, but that's a separate issue.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
Product placement is at stake here; Hollywood's fallback position to losing whole screen advertizing is advertizing on part of the screen or sound.
Computers make it easy to add color or Coke. Or to delete color or Coke.
Make no mistake about it, Hollywood only cares about Money (thus it cares about ads whole or part screen), not bare breasts.
Somebody compared it to censoring the Venus de Milo. Good enough comparison. If I got a cheap poster of the painting, hung it on my wall, and covered the "obscene" parts with construction paper, would you (1) Send the FBI after me, (2) Send the FBI after the manufacturer of the construction paper, or (3)Call me a prude and get on with your life? If you said (1) or (2), then you'll get along just fine with these directors. If not, then maybe you ought to rethink your position.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Then Hollywood will sue all the networks for inserting commercials when they broadcast movies.
Right?
and maybe we will be real happy without those usage nazis.
the first amendment enshrines the freedoms of speech and association. it does not force us to listen to any drooling lunatic on a soap box. and it does not force us to pay money to a bunch of humiliators who want us to squat and say thank you when they dump on us.
you don't suppose there might be market backlash underway already, people not paying full price for limited access to bad content? hollywood can just go down to the DIVX corner of Circuit City and see how their plans work.
if there is a floor worker at CC that still remembers DIVX.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
You've got to ask where this would stop. If I want to play pieces of my DVDs cut-up and in whatever sequence I want, that is my right as an owner of the media. My wife often doesn't want to watch anything with extremely violent scenes, and these scenes are rarely important to my enjoyment either (often I'd just as soon have them gone, but not so strongly that I wouldn't watch). There still might be a legal issue WRT the "skip data" because a court may decide this is derived from the original work, but this still shouldn't stop the individual from cutting a work in any way they please.
Also, if they appose "special" players that can do this, I suppose they want to outlaw any playback through a computer. Even with MS style DRM, computer playback will be likely to give you a lot more flexibility than with any purpose built player. This may, in fact, be the origin of the fact the MS is supporting the electronics industry against the content providers. Ultimately, Hollywood wants to prevent any playback flexibility, which is the whole point of having PC playback anyway.
Finally, does anyone really think these "special" devices would even work? You're going to have to have some security controls related to loading the "censor" data, and how old do you think the kids have to get before their hacking skills out-distance their parents ability to control these devices. I'm sure that some with some devices all it will take is a power cycle, and you'll be able to play the raw disks again.
yet they keep all the lying, cheating and violence in.
It's really ironic that the beautiful things need hiding and the distressing things are left in plain view.
It's bad enough they end up seeing shite like Shallow Hal.
What films would be on offer anyway?
Alien
-----
5 people go into space, one by one they go missing then Ripley says "it's alright now, they've gone".
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
-----------------------
Gang of teenagers go into the woods. One comes out.
Deep Throat
-----------
Woman goes to the doctors. The End.
Pulp Fiction
------------
Two guys talk about fast food. Man & woman do a funny dance. Two guys drink coffee.
Jaws
----
Some people go swimming and don't come back. Man goes to find a shark.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Dollars to Donuts, the MPAA has a bot that is just flooding the polling server, and accounts for that 18% of the survey. Which just attests to the fact that everyone has responded so resoundingly against the MPAA, that concerned humans (and slashdotters too) are outflooding them.
I mean really are they next going to tell us that to use the fast forward, pause, and rewind buttons are a violation of the copyright, and if we want to get up and go to the bathroom, or make popcorn, we have to miss the movie just like they intended us to do in the movie theater.
Well it is quite obvious that all of the Executives have Au Pairs to watch their kids for them while they are off busy at fancy Hollywood parties. They handle the copyright violations by having a person fastforward through the bad bits for their kids.
Sig Nazi- "No Sig for you, come back 1 year."
If Hollywood wins this, we might have to view all posts at -1.
ugh.
This is weird. I distinctly remember that when the very first DVD players were introduced to the market, the studios advertised this exact feature - the ability to see the same movie "as intended for grown-ups", then for example "as intended for 16-years-old" and the for a small child. The whole page in the Sony DVD brochure was dedicated to nice colorful schematics of scenes/parts of soundtrack being edited out "on the fly" at different points of the movie based on the selected "maturity level"... I thought this sounded rather interesting (from the technical standpoint) and also had a potential to be a lot of fun, and I was sad that none of the released DVDs actually supported this.
--- Frantisek Fuka (Yes, that's my real name and you have no idea how it's pronounced)
I could almost agree with this, if only these bastard hypoccrites would stick to this principle when the same movie is shown on TV. There they are quite satisfied to let the networks chop the movie to hell, removing not only critical to the story parts, but also things a lot more tame than things that were shown on "Three's Company" decades ago. (I still remember with disgust that CBS cut two Teri Garr lines from Young Frankenstien - "Thank You" and "Here?, Now?" . The studios let them and likely outright helped them.) If a movie can be censored based on some network idiot's whim and then broadcast to others, then you certainly should have the right to censor your own copy in the privacy of your own home.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
"The major studios and the Directors Guild of America are essentially saying that, when you buy a DVD, you must watch it exactly the way it was created--or not watch it at all."
I wonder what their attitude would be if one of the words of that quote were changed:
"The major studios and the Directors Guild of America are essentially saying that, when you buy a DVD, you must watch it exactly the way it was created--or not buy it at all."
If I were a stockholder in that company, I'd demand to know why they're drawing a line like that for their customers to cross. I mean, if the attitude is "It's our way or the highway", then there's really no reason to think they have customer satisfaction in mind, right? Who'd want to buy a DVD if they're unwilling to listen to people? "Nar, we don't want to put any extras on the DVD. That costs more."
Filtering out "-1 Troll" posts violates the DMCA?
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Too late...
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Sure, that is how you would WANT it. Just like copyright holders want to collect royalties from secondary sales, but don't have the right to do so.
Skipping certain scenes or muting certain words of a movie is just like ripping pages out of a book or blackening over selected words with a magic marker. No copies are being made or distributed, so copyright law does not prevent the purchasers of the books or movies from deleting any content as they desire. Doesn't matter what you want. Copyright law does not grant infinite control.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
This is exactly the manner in which Blockbuster forced Full-Screen movies on the average consumer.
If you notice, movies made after Blockbuster became a huge mega conglomerate, are made in very close shots so the transfer to Full Screen Videos and DVD's would not be a pan and scan nightmare. Hollywood's standards are to shoot movies in this manner because of Blockbuster's influence. The same thing will happen if this DVD maker gets his way. Hollywood will further censor and place more stingent policies that will take away a screenplay/Director's vison than they already do.
Movies made before Blockbuster are cenematically better and more creative than movies made now a days. (Independent movies aside)
If this tool is to be allowed into peoples homes, it will put a permanent, negative, and irreversable mark into the creativity of movie making.
If you don't want you or your kids watch potentially offensive material...DONT FRIGGN WATCH IT!!!!
Censorship in TV and the movies are bad enough as it is. Check out the Problems Jimmy Kimmel has with his show. This is but an example of what happens when stupidity and Political Correctness goes unchecked.
We don't need another homoginization or censorship of creativity.
Dolemite
Save the World! Use a Quote!
By fighting a device that cleans up movies, Hollywood may go a long way towards convincing some of the more pro-business members of Congress to support consumer fair use legislation. Those guys are generally all for big business rights over the consumer, UNLESS that business is forcing decent people to watch smut.
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night; set him on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Ok, here's my opinion on it.
If I own a DVD, it's well within my rights if I don't want to see it all the way through, mute some parts, hear some parts in a provided alternate language track, watch it backwards, or skip over parts I don't want to see. Consider: if I feel that the best way to experience looking at a painting I own is to look at it standing on my head, no one has any right to criticize. You may think me silly, but you can't say I can't do that, even if you painted it.
Censorship implies that there is a third party (such as the government) interceding and preventing the original art from being shown. In the case of the Brigham Young University viewing of Schindler's List, it is censorship because it wasn't a private viewing by a home video owner, but a public showing, and BYU wanted to censor what it considered offensive. That is a case where the artist has a right to prevent a showing.
On-the-fly editing is not censorship. If I choose to see the film in such a manner as I see fit, the director has no right to say I can't, because I'm not imposing my view onto others, like BYU was by wanting to show a film deviating from the artist's vision.
By extension, I think ClearPlay is perfectly legal. ClearPlay is not distributing any version of the film, it is providing a method of playing studio-made DVDs while editing on the fly. The viewer and owner of the disc needs to agree that she wants to see the film in the way proscribed by ClearPlay (by paying the service fee ClearPlay charges), and therefore I consider it legitimate.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't pay a monthly fee for access to editing filters I can't save or edit myself. I WOULD buy a player or playing software that would allow me to impose my own filter.
"What's so random about flipping a coin? Ever heard of the I Ching?"
What is supposed to be the legal basis for the prohibition? Is it that the CSS license prohibits the DVD player manufacturer from including this functionality, so this manufacturer is violating the contract, or is it that they haven't licensed CSS decryption and are using some derivative of decss that might violate the DMCA, or is it just that showing snipped versions is illegal?
The last would be absurd, even though that's what it sounds like from the article. The first would make sense: if the DVD manufacturer is violating a contract, then that's wrong. The second is more controversial. But as for the third, surely it would not be illegal for a person operating a VCR to have a sheet of paper with a bunch of time codes, and to fast forward appropriately according to the sheet. And if it would be OK for a person to do it, why would it be wrong for the person to deputize a machine to do it?)
Those of us in education feel quite free to show clips from rented videos. Our university counsel has no objection as far as I know (I queried about my own classroom practises). But the fast-forward thing just is the same kind of thing--just think of a bunch of clips.
(Next they'll want to prohibit me from turning my head away from a scene I don't want to watch!)
Movie viewers were sued by the MPAA for turning up 5 minutes late at the theater. Their tardiness caused them to miss the first 5 minutes of the movie, which wreaked irrepairable and irreversible damage to the directors in Hollywood, because unless every viewer sees 100% of every film, their artistic reputation will be destroyed.
At the same theater, other viewers were sued for going to the bathroom in the middle of the film or leaving early. The amount of compensation sought in the lawsuits was based on the length of time the viewers had missed from the film, so eventually they decided it was not worth it to sue a young lady who covered up her eyes for 2.3 seconds during the beheading scene.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Yes, filtering can be overdone. Hell, half the articles on Slashdot are about people going to the extreme. Copyrights, DMCA, DRM, its all whack-a-mole politics.
;)
But some things come down to, "Humm, Good Idea". And letting people filter, or modify the content they already paid for seems good to me. I do know some PG13 movies, might have a couple minutes that I dont want my 6yo to watch, so it could come in handy. But more likely, I will just watch movies after they goto bed. Biggest thing I want filtering for, is to get rid of the commericals on Disney movies. First 10 minutes are nothing but damn previews and soft drink commericals. At least 8x FF takes care of it quickly. (For now)
BTW, whats the minister daughters name?
Maybe somebody else remembers this, but back when DVD players were first coming into the consumer marketplace, one the selling points was that there would be a system in place to do exactly this! At the beginning of the movie you could decide if you wanted to watch a R, PG-13, or whatever version. I remember being quite excited at the time because then I would finally be able to convince my parents to let me watch all those big bad R-rated films. I never actually saw a DVD with this system, but I do dostinctly remember the makers touting it.
And as I recall, we're "stealing" from spammers when we filter spam out of our email, too.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Certainly the courts would not rule as illegal any of the following acts:
NONE of these acts are any different from programming a DVD player to skip offensive portions of a movie you've purchased!
Either these acts are all illegal or the aren't. It's as simple as that! DVD's don't deserve special treatment.
If the courts rule in favor of Hollywood on this one, it will set a dangerous precendent...
How far will we let them go?
"Oh bother," said Pooh, as he hid Piglet's mangled corpse. dbishop
Jesus, with a sig like that this guy is complaining about "gory violence" in movies!
nohup rm -rf ~/. >& zen &
Seems many "artists" these days forget this so it bears repeating here: The right to free speech does not give you the right to be heard.
You are free to produce and sell movies. That does not compel people to watch them as you intended. You may intend for a person to see your movie on a large screen with a DD 5.1 sound mix, watched start to finish with no interruptions. If you release it on DVD, people are perfectly free to buy that DVD, watch it on a shitty TV with 2-track sound, decide it sucsk, fastforward through it looking for nudiy, and then rip it out and skeet shoot it (throw it in the air and shoot it with a shotgun). This certianly is not what you want them to see, but it isn't your right to dictate that.
A person can stand in a park and preach all day long, but they can't force you to allow them into your home so they can preach to you all the time.
First they came for the DeCSS nerds, and I did not speak out - because I was not a nerd.
Then they came for the modchippers, and I did not speak out - because I was not a modchipper.
Then they came for the Tivo/Replay users, and I did not speak out - because I didn't have one.
Then they came for the people who skipped parts of movies, and I did not speak out because I didn't watch movies.
Then they came for those who didn't want to watch the movie at all.
And by that time there was no one left to speak out for me.
Censorship is forced it is not something you choose. If I choose to not see content that is a right, it is not the loss of rights as censorship implies. By not allowing you to choose what you do or do not wish to see, the disallowment of a device such as this to be released on the market is the true censorship.