Slashdot Mirror
EFF Supporting Home DVD Editing
cheesedog writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a brief in federal court in support of companies that offer software to edit violence or sex from a user's DVD. The full story can be found in this article from the Salt Lake Tribune."
As long as I can still view all the sex and violence I want, then I'm fine with it. Personal censorship is a right.
They would have my support if they supported tools to add sex or violence though.
Every time I read something about this STUPID argument, it makes me thing of the movie Clockwork Orange.
YOU WILL WATCH IT! Here are the toothpicks.
, so what's the problem?
"Consumers are being empowered to use technology to customize the way they view something in the privacy of their own home, and this makes Hollywood nervous," said Jason Schultz, the EFF attorney
I don't see why empowering the customer in this way would be bad for Hollywood. The customer wins, but I don't see the flipside loss.
Is it that Hollywood would want to sell their own software to do this? Is it lost opportunity cost?
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
I thought the EFF had more important battles to win than this.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
From the article:
I have no problem with the violence or sex. What I want to edit out are the mandatory previews, FBI warnings, "The comments made are those of the individual and not the studio", kinds of things. Those bother me far more than the content of the video. Any word on if that's a possibility?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
Because it lets people self-censor, rather than a giant company doing it for all of us. This lets people who don't mind (or even enjoy) violence and sex to see more of it, and those who do mind can watch the same stuff, sans sex and violence. Anything to increase the granularity of censorship is great in my book.
..as to what my opinion is. SLASHDOT HELP ME! Am I supposed to be happy the EFF is supporting my rights of usage, or upset that is it's supporting a sort of censorship.
To me this is like muting the TV when the commercials come on. The notion that "editing" content being wrong or illegal? Come on. What are they going to do next, tell you you can't cover your eyes during a scary part of the movie?
It's hard to tell the cool to chill, my favorite hotel room has a view to an ill.
Ratings are put on a movie for a reason. Most of the time if a movie contains sex and violence, it either adds to the movie, or is the only redeeming value of the movie. Can you imagine a movie like Boogie Nights with the sex removed? How about The Matrix with no violence?
There's selling pre-edited movies. I'd say that should be protected under Doctrine of First Sale, as long as it's clearly labeled, but that argument doesn't appear to hold much water in cases so far.
Then there's selling companion data which DVD players could use on-the-fly to edit out portions of movies. Since the companion data wouldn't even quote the original media, it's quite likely it would hold up to any sensible interpretation of the law.
[
But where is the software to *add* sex and violence to my movies where I don't feel there's enough?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
The EFF is fighting for a way for us not to be forcefed the crap that the movie studios are forcing on us. We win the rights to edit out the sex and violence, and we also win the right to actually control the media we purchase.
I do wish the EFF had more (some) power sometimes though...
--D
I wonder if something like Purist Edit of TTT would eventually be made legal. After all, there can be no legal objective definition of "filth" - it's also in the eye of the beholder. And if the court would say "A" in this case, they have to say "B" next...
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Once I buy the DVD (insert any other media here), it's mine. I can watch it any way I want, and as long as I don't re-distribute, I'm free to add or delete whatever I want (if I'm technologically competent enough to do it).
Personally, I think films are meant to be watched in their intended format, but if someone wants to watch all 2 minutes of Faces of Death without violence, let 'em.
"Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
What would 1984 be without the violence and sex? A Clockwork Orange? Two excellent movies about the controls upon society which depend so much upon their own violent content. Why even watch the movie without that content?
Do not watch it, do not let your kids watch it, and stay out of other peoples business. Abstaining from the content as a whole is the ultimate form of censoring material from yourself AND your children. Just like they should not be playing GTA3, they should not be watching Pulp Fiction.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
When dvd's where just out, I remember hearing That you could watch a the movie with a lower ratting. But now since they failed on their promise (or claim) third party company's are filling the niche. Then the Movie studio's get angry.. Wait didn't they say that dvd's could filter stuff for me.. And then never put that filtering feature in. Seems to me that some directors are just high and mighty and need some humbling.
see this as a trojan horse kind of move ...
...
*if* EFF wins this then the RIAA and studio arguments against *fair* use od DVD and other electronic material will fall down *very* quickly
Extra thought as I hit 'submit': the media companies would probably attack such companion data products with trademark issues. It's hard to sell a product which edits "Terminator 3" without somehow mentioning the owned trademark.
[
This makes sense to me. This is not forced censorship in anyway. This is self censorship for those who wish to have it. While I would never use this product I can see where families wanting to not have to explain sex and violence because the kid is in shock, but rather when it seems the time is right. Let kids stay kids, and quit always thinking they need to be exposed to things to "learn". A good parent will teach a child a base for everything they need to learn. Be honest with your kids, but you be the parent, not the MPAA.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
More elaborate functions like splicing multiple sources, and separation of video and audio tracks would allow some fantastic fan-created mutations of films, without any sort of copyright issues whatsoever, because absolutely no content from the movie is redistributed.
  Sure! We're always happy to help. Start with an 'N' shape of rope, with penty of extra rope off the bottom of the 'N' (nevermind the direction of the 'N'). Keep wrapping tight coils spiraling up the outside until you're satisfied and tuck the end of the rope through the top eye. Pull down the bottom eye to form the loop and trap the tucked end of the rope. Good luck!
It just occurred to me that my 8th grade oral instructional report, "How to make a noose." would probably get me in detention these days. While I'm at it, I have to give kudos to Mr. Congdon's "How to make an oragami deer" for eating up the rest of the period. ;)
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
This isn't about sex and violence, but about the DVD owner's rights to fair use. As well as other things, fair use is supposed to guarentee us the right to edit and view DVD's we own however we want. As most of you are aware, the MPAA doesn't like this and is trying to prevent it. That is what the EFF is standing up against.
This story, which I've heard of before (maybe on /.) and had mixed feeling about
1) If consumers purchase the product, they should be able to do with it what they want. This would be akin to backing up a cd, but leaving out a song or two that suck.
2) Since the artist/director released a version they see as fit. By altering it, you are taking part of the artistic integrity from the work. This would be like going to a museum and taking crayola's to a Rembrandt.
1)Joe Born Again watches a movie with the censor feature on.
2)The movie loses some of its meaning.
3)Joe tells everybody he knows that the movie sucks.
4)Joe decides to not rent anything else by that director.
If there are enough Joe Born Agains then this can become a problem. If the director on the other hand voluntarily edits the films, as they do already for television, then it has a better shot of not losing its quality.
Now I am not saying that I agree but this is one of the arguments against the censorship model.
Perhaps this is because they'd rather force feed our brains with crap some of us don't like viewing with small children in the room, or even just because some of us (??) find it objectional
Drastically changed and sold in mass... THAT would be illegal. It's no different if I bought a DVD and wanted some of the violence or sex "skipped" by a third party. This is all Trilogy Studios in Sandy, ClearPlay in Salt Lake City and CleanFlicks of Salt Lake City are doing.
I don't see much wrong, if anything at all if I wanted to skip or edit something I owned - so if I can buy this product from a third party where certian items are "skipped" then I'm more inclined to purchace there.
I'm glad the EFF is still around to care about issuses like these, beacuse I just don't anymore.
All these corporate entities are taking away our rights, and we (the community) come up with new and innovative ways to circumvent or go around them. When we do get a victory, then the damn suits just change the rules. (for example, HP doesn't sell me ink cartridges anymore, they license them to me)
This will be an undending circular pattern for the forseeable future. The only bright hope is that eventually, there will be another revolution, and the corporate bastards will be left hanging from the trees. Of course, the technology will be useless, but them we'll probably have another 200 years or so of freedom to rebuild before the cycle repeats again.
OK...
I can do this. I am, after all,
a superhero!
I don't mind if they have these tools available, as long as you can still buy the unedited version.
To edit violence or sex from a user's DVD Please collect all sex and violence that you editted out and mail it email it to me, chunkylover53@aol.com
People make something, it ought to be presented to the public the way it was envisioned, and not the way people would like to pretend it was. Imagine if classics from Huckleberry Finn to the Bible had this happen in the name of political correctness. Oh wait they already have. If it's wrong to censor books or newspapers, than it's equally wrong to censor out the parts of movies we don't like. In short this boils down to revisionist history, something that I find abhorrant and morally destitute.
Now waiting for icebergs in hell.
are they going to let parents sit in front of the machine for 2 or 3 times the movie length just to go over some scenes and debate which part their children shouldn't be watching?
from the article it looks like the program will skip filth automatically, but what's automated and who sets the rules? parents or the programmer? do you have a drop down menu for 0/1/2 tits etc?
Personally, I am wholly supportive of an action such as this as it has the end result of empowering the end user to do whatever they wish with their content - and in many ways this is great for companies as well because their content is unaltered.
The BS I am reading in this thread already about this being a form of censorship is nonsense. If someone doesn't want to watch sex/violence - why should they? Granted, they could just not watch the movie but there are some films that hold great value that have objectionable material (Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, etc.). The scenes that would be deleted to add to the depth of the message but in no way is the message of the film based entirely in the questionable scenes.
In short, anything that empowers me as an end user I am in favor of. I honestly wish Hollywood would put a copy of their "airplane" version of the movie on the same DVD so I could watch it with my kids and not worry about the language/sexuality/violence etc... but in the meantime software like this or companies that provide a similar service are "a good thing"
While I do believe using someones else artwork, and changing it should be illegal, just as taking someones song and editing out parts you don't like and re-selling it.
But I also believe the consumer should have the choice to skip over any part. If they want to pay someone to do that for them, then its ok. Just as you buy black lists for email or websites.
Tough call, but I think I side with the Artists on this one if its a simple edit. If its a normal option to view both uncut/cut, then I would agree with the CleanFlicks.
...are DVDs with built-in parental control via the disc's menus. In order to watch the unedited movie you have to enter a code from the DVD packaging, otherwise you get a sanitized version, free of any "offending content" via seamless branching.
This will nip the "What about the CHILDREN!?!?!" and religious fundamentalist justifications for editing/manipulating content, since parents can just toss/hide the adults-only code for the DVD so that junior is stuck with the G version.
It will also serve to get the right-wing Republicans backing their activist constitutents doing the editing to stop being interested in fair use issues and back with the rest of the Republicans in legislatively enshrining MPAA corporate objectives.
They'll still offer the non-code-based DVDs to the rest of us, so that filmies and others won't whine to loudly about this inconvenience.
"Everybody" wins -- Mormon kiddies don't see titties, filmies get "normal" DVDs, the MPAA gets Orrin Hatch off his back AND can get back to kicking home editors in the ass.
who cares?
I still don't understand why people don't put this kind of stuff in their story submissions. Here's the EFF's press release.]
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
14,874 movie goers are being sued for covering their eyes at movies this week.
A representative for the movie studios had this to say: "They paid for the movie, and damnit we're gonna make sure they watch it!"
As the DVD plays in a home computer, the program skips violent or sexual scenes.
so what about those who can't afford a computer/software? is this another plot for digital divide? people with computer are 'cleaner', those without are 'filthier'?
They would have my support if they supported tools to add sex or violence though.
Or, given that the technology exists to cut out the sex and violence, why not make a drive that skips everything _except_ the sex and violence?
It would certainly make Van Damme's movies watchable.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
How is this different from some of the modified DVD players which allow you to skip/fast-forward through the annoying intros that take half an hour? If I paid for the DVD, I reserve the right to watch it in any order and at any speed I choose!
"I know that most DVDs have chapter stops. It is my opinion that a film is not like a book - it should not be broken up. It is a continuum and should be seen as such. Thank you for understanding" - David Lynch on why his DVDs have no chapter stops.
I think I would agree with this philosophy. If you dont like parts of a movie, try to live with it.
Don't Panic
That the Hollywood Studios are represented by people that think that they should only protect Hollywood's interests. This translates in over-protection which unfortunately treads on the
:(
If I am a concerned parent who whishes his children to enjoy a good piece of art like a movie, but as a concerned parent don't want some "bad memes" (ideas, images and feelings) to taint my offspring so early, why shouldn't I be free to choose a software that helps me in my role as educator?
The reason is this: Hollywood has already drawn their cards: they will want to sell me again special dvd players which will play specially crafted dvds which have the memes that the Hollywood makers allow me to screen off to my children (so that I can jump the gunfight, but not the scene were the female co-protagonist drinks soft drink "X").
All this is a shame because:
a) Hollywood will not satisfy all the public
b) real competition in "volouteer censoring software/hardware" will not ensue, bringing along worse hardware or software with all the flaws (maybe not being children proof like the 99% of the technology today preposed to it...)
c) again Hollywood stomps on the common sense.
It was a bad day when technology compaines began investing in movie companies.
Thanks to it more movies were produced, and more money was invested for a little time, but on the long run if one of the two sides has a crises, the other half can't say it's party time
"I am slashbot, hear me roar!"
Is an option in the menu of a DVD that will allow a user to choose their rating. Choose the PG version to watch with the squeamish girlfriend, The G version to watch with the kids, the unrated version to watch with other people who live sex and violence.
At least then, future SLC residents will have the *choice* to watch whatever version they want...and the studios don't need to worry about juggling inventory levels for dual-release movies.
I mean, or course it is from Utah. Where else do people want to edit their movies like this... PK
Engineers arn't boring people, we just get excited about boring things.
Yeah, it would be about time that DVD caught up with German TV.
Burn Hollywood Burn
On previews:
Being as those Hollywood types want you to believe that "not watching a commercial is stealing a tv program", I find hard to believe they'd let you get away with not watching the previews...after all, those previews paid for... wait no, it was my goddamn money!
On the FBI warning:
That screen is your contract not to pirate the movie or use it in non-personal ways. If you could skip that screen you could claim you never "signed" the contract and are not bound to it... that's why dvd players won't (shouldn't) let you skip it.
no comment
I can also edit out the coming attractions, Pepsi commercials, stupid music videos and other forms of 'coordinated marketing'...
...and therein lies the rub.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
Utah, and Utah County (the location of Clean Flicks) have a majority LDS community. The LDS faith has been instructed by it's leadership to avoid seeing rated "R" films. This is a moral decision made by the LDS leadership as a guideline for it's followers.
The down-side to this is that there are a number of good films that should not be viewed by LDS followers. "Schindler's List" is a great example of this. It was rated "R" for violence and mature themes. However, it is a powerfull film made to tell an important story. BYU, the LDS church owned university in Utah County, could not show this film to it's history students, due to it's graphical nature and it's violation of the honor code that the BYU students agree to. Given the import of that particular film, I would love to hear that an edited version could be made available for those who want to see it, without violating the guidelines their faith lays out for them. Given the particular moral outlook of the prominent faith in Utah, I think it is great that a good film can be made to conform to the expectations of the largest demographic in the community.
I live in Utah, but am not a follower of the LDS faith. Many of my friends are, and they will either not go to any "R" rated movie, or they tend to get a guilty feeling if they do. A few have made the decision to judge which films they will see (i.e. avoid films with the "R" rating for sexual scenes or foul language, but not for violence). The ability to make a decision that will not violate their beliefes is a good one. I support Clean Flicks, even though I would not use their service.
The MPAA and the film industry need to come to the realization that their current view on the "Ownership" of the film medium needs to be changed. Then Clean Flicks and other companies might not need to face stupid lawsuits or worse, legislation.
it is better to light a flame thrower than curse the darkness. -Terry Pratchett Men at Arms
Despite what the hippie public school teachers might say, censorship as a social issue isn't about the absence of illicit sex in media; it's about a centralized authority controlling content. In this case, the same social issue is at stake, but the centralized authority wishes to force content instead of withhold it. Censorship in the spooky 1984 sense isn't involved, except possibly for paranoid "slippery slope" theorists.
soon we can buy discounted movies
(prices are only raised to a fraction of the production costs) for the small annoyance
of adverts at a few times. Just like on TV.
Is it ok if I scribble out the swear words and remove the sex paragraphs of a book after I purchased it? It's amazing that something like this could even go to trial.
The DVD is mine. You might own the copyrights, but I own the DVD, and what I do with it is my business (DMCA not withstanding, but then it's probably not Constitutional, either.) If I want to run over it with my truck, or scratch it with my pen, or use a program that has the same effect as erasing portions of it, or insert myself as a main character in my own personal version, that's my business. Just as if I wanted to stick several of my own pages into a Steven King novel that I purchased, or rip some pages out.
That should not be a problem unless I'm selling my edited versions. Even if I tell someone else what pages to rip out, that's not copyright infringement anymore than making any other reference.
Cover up the statue of Michelangelo's David too, to cover up his naughty bits.
Put big black marks over Botticelli's Birth of Venus painting where you can (gasp) see a nipple!
How about just burn down the Sistine Chapel ceiling because there are tons of naked people running around, even though the Church tried several times over the ages to paint over certain naughty parts, let's just wipe the whole thing clean and just have pretty flowers on it. That way people won't get offended.
Never mind that this is the original visions of the original artists. If you don't want to see it in this day and age...instead of just not viewing it or not looking at it, you must change it to suit your wants.
How about DVD editing software that not only takes out the violence and nudity in a movie but also puts in different dialog? So instead of the script that the nasty nasty writers and directors put in the original movie, we can have them just recite bible quotes!
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
It's easy, just reffer to the ISBN number. Those are not copyrightable. You could do all kinds of things in this fassion: alternate soundtracks, subtitles, etc. These could be combined with the DVD data at the player level.
t'nera semordnilap
How is the altering of these dvds any different than the edit versions of cd at kmart and walmart etc.
Or what about movies that deal with controversial topics, like abortion, racism, politics, and society (as few movies like that as there are....)? Something like this can't be limited to simple 'sex' and 'violence' you know....
-------------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Wasn't their a program released a long time ago that would allow people to...
1. put in subtitles
2. put in their own alternate sound track
All without editing the disk. Something like that for the video content and how could their be a complaint. Oh that's right you paid for one version and not the other...
It was posted on slashdot but I can't find it. If anyone can recall it I'd appreciate a posting on it.
What difference is there between using software to edit a dvd in real time for play at home and the networks doing the editing before showing a flick on broadcast tv? Oh, because the film is being underwrited by commericals it's ok to edit it for show on tv but someone who buys the film on dvd can't?
Ya know, the technology exists for putting 'tags' in the dvd itself so with extra firmware the dvd player could be configured to show a film that is rated R as PG or even G by skipping the tagged portions of the film. (Hey maybe I should patent that Idea! You are all my witnesses, I though of it first!).
Ridiculous! One of the MAIN reasons it was a no-no aside from the R-rating, was the NUDITY! As if concentration camp nudity without ANY sexual connotation at all would somehow pollute the minds of LDS members and give them "impure thoughts". They also covered Rodens "The Kiss" statue when it was displayed at BYU because it (shocking!) showed a man and a woman in a REAL kiss and not some chaste peck(er) on the cheek, boring, no good kiss.
They are a twisted bunch out there. Michael Angelo's David and the artwork on the Cistine Chapel (nudity, you know) is also considered pornographic by LDSers and those controlling it.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
This technology is really just the tip of the iceberg.
d iots filtering. Oh, and backlinks, using a partial XLink implementation.
;-)
This is a limited form of annotation and augmentation. For my final year project at uni, I created a web annotation project using a modified KHTML, KIO, and Konqueror.
The idea was that any entity could publish annotations of any uri addressable resource, and any portion of that resource via content specific identifiers - eg XPath for xml, substring matches for text, svg shapes for images, etc etc.
These annotations, which could also carry an rdf payload, were signed, and a web of trust created. The annotations were shared via a p2p network modeled on fast track, implemented in python.
Then whenever a location was visited, your client would perform a search for that uri, evaluate the trustworthyness of the annotations, and then display the ones it thought were useful. Moderation, in the slashdot sense was just a special form of annotation.
These annotations would be passed to the active component, and then, if it knew how, rendered appropriately. It also allowed eg. collaborative porn/ad/change-your-useragent-to-msie-for-these-i
It was a fairly neat project, and I got good marks for it, but I've never got round to polishing it up and releasing it - not sure if the KHTML would like all my changes anyway!
I had created a limited form of the Semantic Web, and when I do release it, I want to model the whole system just using rdf.
The other area I wanted to expand it to was collaborative tv ad filtering. Labeling TV show broadcasts with a unique urn, eg
urn:/BBC/Black Adder/03x04/Broadcast/UKGold/2003-04-14T2200 , and then use the same trust model to cut out ads, and add subtitles, commentarys, even hyperlinks and backlinks. Also geographic urns annotation presents some very exciting possibilty such as collaborative mapping and reviews, eg restaurants.
Well , now thats off my chest I just need to win the lottery, pay off my student loans, quit this mind numbing banking job and implement it...
Okay, Hatch is a loud advocate of the DMCA and stupid ideas like his Hack the trader idea.
But Hatch is from Utah. And Hatch is mormon.
I would imagine that the best way to convince hatch of the stupidity of his ideas is for his mormon constuants to know that his laws are making it illegal for DVDs to be edited to remove sex.
Wonder how fast the chairman of the judiciary committee would change his mind. Anyone in Utah?
I don't see any justifiable arguement against people doing this. If I want to buy an expensive painting and draw on it or use it for TP, that's my business I own it. If I want to rip a DVD, edit out swearing, heck add my own scenes, in my home for my own use, then that's my *right* if I bought and paid for the DVD. I own it. I'm not one to go on about rights all the time, but this seems pretty damned cut and dry to me. Obviously distributing the modified DVD or copying is against the law and reasonable, other than that TS for the MPAA.
And I would've thought for DVD that it would be a great move for movie companies to include an edited track and cut of the movie on a DVD anyways - they're going to have to do it for TV, so why not get that out of the way, plus increase the sales of the DVD?
Of course the MPAA doesn't want people looking at their movies with an editor's eye. To edit something means to think about it. If people start thinking, they might realize that the MPAA's movies are all crap.
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
I think Lucas is already supporting this technology, albeit in VHS format, with his politically correct remodelling.
...)
(Solo shot first
I'll support this technology on one (1) condition:
/me goes off to sulk
My unit has to automatically shorten a certain ~15 minute long scene in a certain (Matrix Reloaded) movie down to a ~2 minute piece of the film. What were they thinking? Just a cheap way to show boobs is all it was...
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That offer software to edit violence or sex from a user's DVD
To me, editing implies adding and removing! If I want to add Jar Jar right in the middle of "Sense and Sensability" with a few choice scenes from "Hedwig and the Angry Itch" then I think I should be able to do so, and destroy the result right after to protect humanity.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The movie companies want to remove fast-forward from all viewing devices? I read the EFF's press release, but I'm not quite sure I understand.
I'm keeping all my legacy VHS and DVD players if they win this one. Fuck manufacturers and their new features. No fast-forward, me no purchase
I wonder how the /. community would have reacted on a story saying "there's this company that
wants to make software that can be used to censor DVD content".
Or better yet- "M$ will put a feature in their next MediaPlayer release that will give the ability to auto-detect certain DVD titles and skip certain scenes".
I just wonder how many of us would be on the side of Microsoft if it came to that...
Just because the Good Guys are pursuing this one, I feel that many here are swayed in favor. I for one feel that censoring a (possibly artistic) work amounts to intellectual rape, in extreme cases, which for me outweighs the right of a buyer to mutilate his property.
On the other hand I do applaud the EFF for taking this stand, regardless of the eyebrows it will raise.
It's sad that the entertainment industry is so out of touch that they take a case like this to court, and the EFF has to waste resources submitting friend of the court documents because the legal system is so screwed up that some judge might actually agree with them.
Of course consumers have the right to view DVDs and skip any part of it for any reason, too much sex, not enough sex, too boring, Jar Jar Binks, etc.
Next they'll tell us we aren't allowed to skip commercials or go to the kitchen while they're on, oh wait, didn't they attack TIVO on those grounds?
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One thing to keep in mind is that LDS followers are not forbidden to view "R" rated films, they are discouraged to do so.
While I forgot that there was some nudity in Schindler's List, it is also true that *any* film with the "R" rating is to be avoided. It was a Suggestion from the First Presidency of the LDS faith. It was not a commandment.
it is better to light a flame thrower than curse the darkness. -Terry Pratchett Men at Arms
The original DVD content is not altered, and you could foreseeably choose your own level of censorship.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Remember that pesky 'region code' crap on your DVD player? According to the industry, you don't own it. You have a limited license to view it. And only how and where they dictate.
Next year they'll add limits on when and how many times you can view it.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
I couldn't help but notice that the thrust of this argument seems to hang on the fact that the word censorship can be used.
Consider another form of censorship (technologically enabled, even): the stop button. You decide you don't like the movie, so you stop it. That's wrong because it's censorship, right?--but not just wrong, illegal. That's the issue between the EFF and the studios; can people legally engage in such "censorship"?
With this all-or-nothing vision, it follows that if anyone ever submits to observing any portion of any package of content (movie, music, dance, speech, &c.), he is legally obligated to observe it all until the presenting party has finished. Otherwise, it might undermine the artistic integrity of the presenter.
Go ahead, make edited copies. But don't all these DVD's have copy protection on them? Therefore they would be breaking the DMCA, making them as criminal as the busiest P2P downloaders. I smell a double standard coming on.
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
I live in Utah and detest Orrin Hatch for his lack of balance or understanding on fair use issues.
I bet this is one issue (the only one I am aware of) that he is actually on the correct side of, due to his Mormon constituency. Too bad he cannot see the more general desirability for this sort of fair use denied by DMCA and his other nonsense.
I am going to court to sue for my right to jerk off on my lifesize Britney picture. What's the difference?
It think you meant "its", not "it's" all through that post. Get a clue!
I want this technology so that I can remove the offensive talking scenes and dick shots from my porno.
Yay boobies!
In what way is what CleanFlicks does different than when a network TV station airs a version of Saving Private Ryan that's been "edited for content"?
Coming soon: NSLC 2 Supreme (formerly called NSLC 1.1). $9.95 from the usual places.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Is this the same crowd that believes that once they buy a music CD they can do whatever they want with it? Are these the same people who believe they should be able to tweak someone else's software so it fits theirs needs?
I cannot understand why any of you give a rat's arse what someone else does with their purchased copy of a movie. This has nothing at all to do with offending the artists and everything to do with freedom. It is truely amazing seeing all the hypocrites whine.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
Im torm between my hate of the man, and my dislike of censorship. I have no ideas as to who should win.
Recipients, not participants.
Monolog, not dialog.
(That goes for the political system as well... (as if they were two separate entities).)
I think a lot of the artists main objection is that it is being repackaged (resold) back to the original party as the same movie. If I produced a movie with all sorts of sex and guns and sex and more sex, and called it "My movie of sex guns and sex", I would want future generations to think of me whenever they heard that name. However, if they saw the CleanFlicks version of that movie (only 2 minutes long after all the parts edited out) they would assossiate that edited version with my title. Doubtful they would recommend it to any of their peers.
Now if CleanFlicks completely repackaged and renamed the movie before selling it back to consumers with a small caption at the bottom reading "adapted from original movie 'sex guns and sex' by xxx" I would be fine with that.
It has been done before by Mormon censors with a sense of humor.
The same group has also pressed for the removal of the Fast Forward, rewind, and chapter features on DVDs, pressing for only the Play and Stop buttons.
Photos.
just a reminder, the folks over at eff.org can always use your support. TMH
Now, where can I get an edited compilation of nothing but Kate Winslet nude scense?
I think I'll sue Slashdot for providing software to censor user's posts. This threshold is censorship!!!! I want everyone to see my lame postings.
I have a patent on suing people for copyright infringement
But do you think there are any fundamentalists wishing they could get a copy of Blue Velvet without "the disturbing parts?" What about editing out all the "disturbing" parts of Eraserhead?
A) Not everybody egrees with the ratings boars. Some of us actually think for our selves.
B)WHat about movies that may only have 1 scene that is 'offensive' and is pretty much gratuitous?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I really like how this is an EFF case where they are on the knee jerk conservative side of things. They're not supporting some drug crazed anarchists here, but ultra wholesome Mormons. That can only help.
Last I checked, the **AA and the book publishers' organizations hated public libraries, used book stores, and used CDs. They've argued that libraries should pay royalties, that selling used books and CDs should be illegal, etc. So don't be surprised at this stance.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
That's why I use a region-free DVD player. As long as there are those of us who can circumvent stupid methods like region codes, then it will still be mine.
"Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
If you admit that it is OK for the owner of the content to censor it before others view it, it's a slippery slope toward saying it is OK for the government to do it - so you don't have to. This action won't cause the other, but it certainly will contribute.
I'm not sure what the issue is here. Nobody's being forced to use such software; the distributors aren't being required to support it.
Network TV routinely takes movies and chops out sex, "foul" language, and even the occasional violence. What's wrong with letting parents do the same?
Not that I'd do it...Hell, if you take out the violence, sex, and language, what have you got? A "romantic comedy." Or one of those obnoxious "period pieces" about rich 18th-century English people.
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
Everyone is saying that you have the right to do what you want with the material in your own home. I totally agree, however, no one seems to be pointing out that this company Clean Flicks is *reselling* and *making a profit* off of edited films. Thats not home editing, thats profitable repurposing. If you're going to make a profit off of it, you should have to pay the studio an additional fee or otherwise reach a licensing agreement. Thats how it works if I want to use a song sample in a music track, or stock footage. Sure I can buy the CD or DVD and enjoy it for home use, but if I am going to reuse parts of it in my own project and resell it then I need to license it. If the director/studio *agree* to have their content edited and resold, fine. Only individual end-users, not institutions or companies, should be allowed to edit and redistribute content without permission.
Personally, I think its idiotic to be editing it anyway, but I think it also depends on the content. Certain films are meant to be seen as 'art' and are created by the directors as an integral piece and would be destroyed by editing. Other films are clearly nothing more than giant marketing campaigns in which case, who really cares what gets chopped up. The studios themselves probably couldn't decide which cut would put more asses in the theater. If anything you'd think studios would gladly release scores of different edited versions to try and sell to every demographic they can.
If you feel that this is a just and good thing, then please don't yell at studios and directors for cutting new versions of classic films.
While it may be quite unreasonable (as Lucas has done, and as Turner did before him) to remove a film from distribution entirely after you have made a change, and only distributing the new version, I can't say that anyone has the right to tell such a studio or director to NOT be unreasonable. Certianly as fans, we can voice an opinion, but I've heard some people try to claim that there's some "right" that we have to old movies in the form in which they were released... that's just silly.
I might mourn that I can't get the old version of a film, but I have no right to expect Hollywood to BE the collectables market or an archive for such....
As for companies that do this sort of modification, I respect them. They provide a service that people want, and while I do not think that people should rely on such a service to shelter themselves or their children, I can see the point of letting your kids see The Matrix: Reloaded while not keeping the "She wasn't kissing your face, love" sceene.
directors alter their "vision" ALL THE TIME! after all show me a director that's not going to chop up his "vision" to avoid an NC-17 or *gasp* an X rating. This is the whole reason for the "directors cut" in the first place (barring tech advances, right Mr. StarWars).
:-P
i don't care for the self rightous fire and brimstone religious nut jobs any more than anyone else, but hey hollywood choke on my nob.
oh, and utah, save the world, impload. (and that's for starters)
have a nice day
What is funny about that posting? Have the esteemed moderators watched Clockwork Orange?
Congratulations to the EFF and the majority of Slashdot viewers for sticking to your principles. It seems too often lately that I hear people argue a particular point with some moral justification, only to later hear them abandon the moral justification when it supports some other point that the arguer is against.
:).
To spell it out: the moral is that "You've bought it, you can do what you want with it." (Within reason, of course.)
I personally may not edit movies, but I fully support the rights of others to do so, once they've bought it. Besides, we all know how some movies get a sex scene "tacked on" just to titillate the dating audience. In these cases, the people editing movies are probably improving the movie by doing so.
Anyway, I am even more appreciative of the EFF (although not really surprised, they're good guys) and more impressed with Slashdotters in general (what is the world coming to?
IMHO, censorship is wrong, but there's nothing wrong with self-censorship.
Now, onto the real quesiton: How does it work?
I know they have filtering software for nudes that detects certain amount of flesh, so this can be applied to a moving picture. Then what would it do: skip past or blur?
But what about sexual sounds? Would it match against know grunts, growns, and screams? Would it get a false positive for Meg Ryan's scene in "When Harry Met Sally"?
Now violence is much more tricky. Would it go by sound mostly? It'd be some fancy software that could detect a violent scene visually.
However, you could go the predefined route where a censor creates a small file with timeframe information for each movie that would skip at certain points in time for a certain amount of time. The DVD player would have to download the small file from the Internet for each new movie.
-=- Many seek good nights and lose good days.
not watching a commercial is stealing a tv program
That sir, or madame, is poetry, well said!
Maybe we can combine this with Hatch's new idea and make a tv that sends electro-shocks if you try to channel surf, blows itself up if you watch public access, and blows you up if you watch a pirated or edited dvd.
Is a movie edited when you close your eyes or ears?
Cutting pieces form the movie is similar.
Oh well, what the hell...
Much like Catholics can choose not to do what the Pope suggests. ;)
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What about my rights as a Storyteller? My rights as an artist? Is it fair to take David on tour and put pants on him so he doesn't offend anyone? Or perhaps we should give the Venus de Milo a bra? I take offense to people who say they shouldn't be forced to watch scenes of graphic violence or foul language with kids in the room. SEND THEM TO BED! DON'T WATCH THE MOVIE! No one is forcing you to watch these movies with kids in the room. Isn't this why we have our rating system? I'll admit it doesn't speak well to the maturity and intelligence of mankind, but neither does this software that tells us what to watch and what not to watch.
I don't always agree with the MPAA and their decisions regaring copyright, but I respect the desire of a storyteller as an aspiring storyteller myself (read: filmmaker) to tell his tale in it's truest form. If the artist is worth his salt, trust the story to be best in his own words. And if you don't think your children can handle it, don't let them watch. YOU be the parent! YOU take control! YOU take the power back in to your own hands and don't support the already brainless and candy-coated Hollywood in power.
We can have substance in our cinema, but we need to show Hollywood we're mature enough and smart enough and WILLING enough to support it.
I'm done.
True! The Hollywood movie machine is not about artistic visions, it's about successful marketing. I practically stopped watching Hollywood films, but on the rare occasions I do see one, it is inevitably the case. The predictability, the simple narrative, the happy end resolution -- it is good marketing. The general audience wants that, conflicts resolved, police department triumphant, the main characters surviving, the bad ones punished.
Sir, you mention Spielberg. He is NOT an example of artistic integrity. Recently I borrowed the three Indiana Jones films on video and I was surprised how much propaganda they contain. Sure, they are cute and funny, but propaganda nevertheless. Have you seen the soap opera Jurassic Crap? Yes? Do you recall how the T-Rex ate the bad, greedy guy with mean look first? The guy was intended to be hated by the audience, he betrayed the children, and thus everyone was relieved to see him torn to pieces. That's BS, not art.
Woody Allen is another matter. I don't like all his films, but he is an artist, not a marketer.
One of my favourite films, All That Jazz, is about an unbending artist. Too bad nowadays almost no one knows about it...
Which they then go on to remove :)
Huntsman v Soderbergh. The amicus brief and documents leading up to it.
-- Are you an EFF member yet?
Why are so many people defending the 'auteur' image of directors? It ignores the input of the scriptwriter, actors, editors, cinematographers, etc, etc, etc. Show me a mainstream movie where the director did all of that. Yes, the director has a very heavy hand, but he is not the end all, be all.
Perhaps most of all, it ignores the audience. Trust me, as funny as 'Friday' was, nothing beat seeing it in a theatre where my brother and I were the only white guys in attendance. Would scary movies be as scary without a bunch of other people jumping at the scary bits?
I remember when the format was first released. One of the things touted was the ability to show different versions on the same disc. All you were supposed to have to do was tell it to play 'clean', and the violent and sex bits would automatically be skipped.
The question isn't why are the MPAA and the DGA fighting this. The question is: why are they leaving this market untapped? How far could Cameron get without $100 million + in studio backing? Screw him. And after Godfather III, I could care less what Coppola (or his daughter:) have to say on the subject.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I totally agree.
I have an 18-year-old daughter and trying to protect her from the cuss-words on TV, video and DVD is a neverending nightmare!
How can film-makers be so irresponsible as to include words like d*mn, a** and b*tt in their movies?
Luckily I discovered a solution, and I hope it helps other slashdot readers too.
At www.perspexkids.com you will find a really friendly, home-run company who can encase your children in perspex, thus not only preventing them from picking up cuss-words from TV, but also protecting them against persecution on the basis of religion and injury by mean-minded little kids with plastic cutlery.
From their faq:
Q: If I encase my kid in perspex, won't he/she die?
A: Probably. But wouldn't you rather your child was with Baby Jesus in Heaven than exposed to all the negative influences of today's society?
graspee
Jude Kate Winslet full frontal nudity.
Good-bye zion orgy! Helloooo fight scenes!
Fight or flight its all the same
Live to die another day
--Ryan
to edit violence or sex from a user's DVD
do you mean that there is something else on DVDs ?? wow... [/sarcasm]
On serious note -- just turned TV on to watch something with my son, found some movie rated PG, guess what? The scene that we happend to jump on was waaay too adult -- some heavy breath and kissing in "most common position" for sex. Now, how this system suppose to be perfect (and less then perfect is not acceptable, right?) if they cannot rate whole movie properly, less some scenes off it...
This is great because it pits the money of the Hollywood media syndicate against the money of the Religious Right, which is big into editing 'filth' out of movies. Someone needs to eventually put this legal battle on DVD and serve me a bowl of popcorn!
The KISS DP 500 DVD player could do it, in theory.
:-)
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cammy/dp500.html
It has an ethernet connection that could be used to connect to a PC where you have your edit-list.
Oh, and it plays DivX, Xvid and SVCD over this connection too, so you don't have to be a mormon to buy it.
Of course, I doubt that the current firmware allows you to use edit-lists. But, if enough people suggests this feature to the mfr, they just might add it...
Any new firmware revisions are downloadable from the manufacturers home page, so current owners would not be left out.
If I normalize the time dialation in the slow motion/bullet time scenes, maybe I can make it a 2 hour movie!
I think we agree in that the DVD-home-editing thing is fine; after all, I bought it, I should be able to do what I want with it. (Clean Flicks is another story; they were editing and then reselling copies of the movies without permission, which pretty clearly violates copyright law. Whether it should violate copyright law is yet another story.) But I did want to point out that there is a quite important difference between Joe Home User editing it before he watches it (or even while he's watching it), and a major network rebroadcasting an edited version.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Playing devil's advocate here, I think the MPAA believes you just have a *license* to view the movie, and the DVD is just the medium to get it to you. You own the physical DVD itself, but not the movie. And, I'm sure the directors/writers/producers would take great offense at you skipping over important parts of their movie. I could understand that. Indeed, many movies wouldn't make sense without the sex/violence parts.
But, creator's and MPAA's arguments/reasoning aside, this is another completely asinine thing to try to legislate. Suppose they succeed in this. Will it then be illegal if I mute the volume or turn my head during the sex scenes???
I can finally edit out jar-jar!
anybody know where I can find "The Phantom Edit" in the form of seamless branching instruction?
Give me a fucking break. The companies involved in the lawsuit aren't even selling modified DVDs. They are selling software that lets a user modify the playback of the DVD to avoid the undesirable portions.
The MPAA is basically arguing that my movie-watching sequence should be like the "therapy" in "A Clockwork Orange" -- I must see it exactly as the director intended, so I must have my eyelids forcibly held open so I can't possibly miss a single second.
And they think this will actually help their bottom line? The lunacy!
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
That's the issue we're discussing here. Not whether it makes for a better movie.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
is the same problem that Spielberg, Scorsese, and other directors have: it's selling (or renting) movies purported to be theirs without them being their movies. If I sculpted a bathrobe onto David, then sold it as a Michelangelo that was edited for content, it's not a Michelangelo. It's a bastard copy that subverts the creator's intent. I don't have a problem if you want to rip the DVD to your computer, edit out scenes, burn it onto a CD-R and show it to your kids; but for a company to do this, I think, is bad news.
I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
Uh, dude, this is exactly what the folks at ClearPlay are doing. Granted there wasn't a convenient link for you to follow, but do a little research before declaring you're the first with an idea.
Beware of geeks bearing formulas.
Let the Amish edit their DVDs!!!
I know I'm too late to the discussion, but:
1) If I turn around and sell the sex and violence parts ONLY do I have to pay for the original twice or just once?
1(b) I wonder if CleanFlicks will make me a deal for all those unused bits they edited out. Imagine the compilation CDs!...
2) Does this set an upper limit for the cost of original works when making derivative works. For example, if I make a great version of Star Wars by re-editing and even adding scenes, and it sells like hotcakes, does this say that the *most* I have to pay Lucas is the cost of the original DVD (per DVD I sell obviously). (And obviously this would probably be more than I would pay if I could go to Lucas and say "hey this thing is great, let's make a deal", etc etc etc - like I said - it's an upper bound.)
---
I type this every time.
If somebody buys the rights to own a full film and cuts out all the sex and violence for the copy they make - can they legally sell me the outtakes? This would provide me a much more enjoyable 10 minute version of Basic Instinct.
With the sex and violence edited out, I managed to watch my complete pr0n collection in under 5 minutes last night...
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work, provided that you accompany it with a verbatim copy of the orignal Program."
Could this require you to provide every version in the history? Similarly films with a succession of different edits (including those before original release)?
If this is such an issue, why don't the various movie companies offer PG/PG-13 versions of their movies? They strip out the stuff themselves and sell different versions that are clearly marked. They, or someone else does it when it's released on TV, so why shouldn't they offer it. They'd make more $$ and the issue would then be of blatently copying the movie.
when that company removed the bare breasted scenes of Kate Winslett from Titanic?
If I remember correctly, as a joke many people called their edited version "anic".
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
should be another way around: the scenes of sex and vilence should be able for being activated, as add-ons. Otherwise, a muslim will buy a movie and watch all offensive scenes anyway in order to cut them out. So, **AA must sale pre-edited copies, when someone may decide to switch such scenes on.
Less is more !