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."

Comments

I agree with them

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I would think Hollywood would profit from this.

[electrick]

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.

Re:I would think Hollywood would profit from this.

[martyn s]

It's a bad precedent. It gives us (geeks) an example that we can use to explain to normal people what "fair use" means. If such a DVD player were common people might understand what fair use is exactly.

Re:I would think Hollywood would profit from this.

[frodo from middle ea]

I think they are thinking about starting to show advertisements on DVDs preety soon. And if you can filter out selectivecontents , you will be able to filter out ADs too..

And that would be stealing content.Now we don't want to steal content and deny the HW of its millions (or should i say billions) do we .... ?

Re:I would think Hollywood would profit from this.

[grammar fascist]

You've hit the nail on the head, though a bit circumspectly. It's not about profits, it's about control.

Go Hollywood!

[Joystickit]

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)

Wait, strike that, reverse it, thank you.

[pergamon]

I can't wait for someone to start making filters for these that skip over everything but the "objectionable" content...

Re:Wait, strike that, reverse it, thank you.

[nelsonal]

I remember an interview with Elizabeth Berkley in which she mentioned that she was riding an airplane shortly after Showgirls came out, with the in arm television screens. Her seat mate did not recognise her and picked Showgirls, she was shocked to look over and see that he was fast forwarding through all the non nude scenes. I got a pretty good laugh out of the fact that she was surprised by this.

illegal

[LinuxCumShot]

my stereo should be illegal, it adds distortion to music in real time

It's Not Censorship

[Poeir]

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.

FBI warnings too?

[kilroy_hau]

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

Definition of "censorship"

[Anonymous Coward]

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 .

The Phantom Edit!

[Jammer@CMH]

No JarJar! Imagine the possibilities!

Re:what amazes me most...

[87C751]

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

Too late...