More Freedom for DVD Players?

weopenlatest writes "According to this Wired article, the House just passed a bill allowing DVD players to skip through programming. While the article stressed using this ability for parental controls, it would seem like it would also apply to annoying previews and ads that load automatically. Could this be a step in the right direction towards uncrippled DVD players?"

Comments

Makes sense

[Coopjust]

I can understand the FBI warning, but I don't pay $20 for a DVD to watch ads for movies that are crappy/have no interest in

Re:Makes sense

[zakezuke]

I can understand the FBI warning, but I don't pay $20 for a DVD to watch ads for movies that are crappy/have no interest in

I could live with previews once. I like previews for the most part esp thoughtful ones that might be similar to or catch the interest of someone who bought a given DVD. But if I rewatch a DVD I bought I don't want to wait no 5min to play the bloody flick.

Re:Makes sense

[Guspaz]

This could be solved by flash memory in DVD players. Simply store the DVD's unique ID, and if the previews have already been watched. The cost would be insignificant; 4MB of flash memory could store the information for a nearly a quarter million DVDs. I doubt there are even that many DVDs on the market.
Heck, 1MB would probably be enough. How much does 1MB of flash memory cost these days? Probably not enough to significantly raise the cost of the DVD player.

Personally I'd go a more flexible route; use 4MB of flash memory, and a rudimentary file system. Then allow a flexible amount of information to be stored per record. This could be used in new and very interesting ways. You can store a LOT of settings in half a dozen bytes.

Re:Makes sense

[Zemran]

I can understand the FBI warning,

Then it is likely that you live in the US, but most of us in the rest of the world cannot understand why we have to wait for an irrelevant piece of foreign infomation to finish. Even worse though is when they do the international bit and force us to watch 8 irrelevant bits of information and maybe get the right one for our country included. It is all rubbish, we know it, we have read it before and having to sit through it each time we watch a DVD does not make us know any more about it.

Re:Makes sense

[Creedo]

Bull. It is a product. The moment they release that product, I can view it however I like. I can turn my TV upside down, I can watch it through a blue lens, I can fast forward through all of the boring bits.
Are you really suggesting that some author has the "moral right" to force me to not use the fast forward button?

Now imagine that some web browser was programmed to leave out certain words in your site, changing the message you are delivering.
I can do that now with a printout and a Sharpie. The fact is, if someone is going to filter your content, there is nothing you can do about it, short of not putting it out there.

Re:Makes sense

[cpt kangarooski]

Unfortunately for your selfish demands, content authors *do* have a moral right to control how their work is displayed or performed.

No they do not. Such a position is utterly irreconcilable with the right of free speech, which has a more solid foundation. Moral rights are bullshit.

Imagine you had a political website. Now imagine that some web browser was programmed to leave out certain words in your site, changing the message you are delivering. Would you be happy with that situation? I don't think so. But suddenly it is okay if it's someone *else's* expression that is being misrepresented, just because it's more convenient for you?

Both are okay. Someone reading only every other word in something I say doesn't harm me. And since I may wish to do the same, I'm stuck having to let others do so too. It's kind of like how someone who truly believes in free speech will defend the right of others to say what they like, no matter how much they disagree with it. The people who only want non-objectionable things to be said are tyrants.

Plus, why do you think there is misrepresentation here? Generally, if you're looking at an edited version of something, it's not just obvious, but you've likely sought it out.

I for one can't wait for people to release EDLs that remove Jar-Jar from the Star Wars movies, or that skip the boring parts of action flicks so that they're all chase scenes, gunfights, and explosions.

Government.

[EverStoned]

WHY is the government involved in this? I honestly can't think of a single reason why government intervention is better than letting the market sort all this out.

Re:Government.

[Mark_MF-WN]

Because the market is incapable of sorting out monopolies/oligopolies, cartels, and the other techniques used by immoral businesses to gouge customers.

Re:Government.

[arodland]

Government, on the other hand, excels at creating and supporting them! :)

Re:Government.

[fimbulvetr]

Why does he get a -1 for being a Libertarian?
It seems to me that if this guys ideals were any kind of compass, the DCMA wouldn't have MADE ANYTHING ILLEGAL, because the government would stay the hell out of it.
Unless, of course, it was influenced by special interest groups...whoa!

Seems to me that this specific situation has no "Republican", "Democrat" or "Libertarian" fix. Forgive me for the gross use of those labels. I find it repulisive that people would so much as consider that the opinions of 300 Million people could be similtaneosly aggregated in to 2 or even 3 kinds of thought.

Re:Government.

[Combuchan]

(-1 Circular logic)

He's lambasting the fact that Government has gotten into arenas in which he believes it has no absolutely no business in--originally the DMCA and now this.

If you noted the spirit of the grandparent, market forces and corporate innovation should make both Acts completely unncessary.

Parent Is A Verb Too

[Horrortaxi]

Maybe parents could go the low tech way and just monitor their children and use the word "no" once in a while? No, god forbid they have to spend time with the little bastards.

Re:Parent Is A Verb Too

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should a parent be limited to either ON or OFF? It seems to me that one of the themes here on /. is that people should have choices about what to do with the content they purchase. I see no reason why this should not be applied to parenting as well.

Re:Parent Is A Verb Too

[Lisandro]

It's sad the parent poster was modded overrated. His point can't be stressed enough - if people beleive kids will be better because you can choose if they can see or not 10 minutes of tits in a movie, we're in bad shape. Never mind watching titties might actually be good to them; can't you simply watch over their actions a bit?

No matter what, you just can't shield your kids in a bubble and think that's all there is to it. Teaching them right and wrong and (god forbid!) paying atention to their actions is what parenting's all about.

Re:Parent Is A Verb Too

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. And maybe voters could just monitor their politicians and vote "no" once in a while, too. Oh damn, these same parents vote also? Now we're in trouble.

Re:Parent Is A Verb Too

[Queer Boy]

Why should a parent be limited to either ON or OFF? It seems to me that one of the themes here on /. is that people should have choices about what to do with the content they purchase.

If we were talking about a household cleaning item that kids liked to drink and it poisoned them, I doubt you'd have the same lame attitude. Right now parents too often have the choice of making everyone else raise their kid. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there would be a lot better parenting in this country if parents were held liable for laws their kids broke.

Re:Parent Is A Verb Too

[Lisandro]

No, you said that. In fact, that's the very reason that movie ratings are there in the first place - so you, as a parent, have a parameter to decide what to show or not your kids. There's no need for "software enabling parents to skip over the sex and violence in Hollywood DVDs."

Re:Parent Is A Verb Too

[ivano]

actually if we sold alcohol to minors we might not have the problems we have now. Kids should learn to drink alcohol around the dinner table not at someones' weekend-when-the-parents-are-away party or hey-I-just-got-my-drivers-license-let's-paaaarty. The US law of 21 is such a puritan hangover that's it's laughable. Nearly all countries that are more relaxed about alcohol (eg Italy, France, well any non Anglo-American country) has far less teenage drink problems than the US or UK.

We seem to live in a society that we try and do the utmost worse at solving a problem: solve teen pregnancy by not talking about condoms; solve teen drinking and drug taking by putting people in jail. Either we're very stupid or we are downright being lead by purely evil people who want the worse for us at all times.

ciao

Re:Parent Is A Verb Too

[hawk]

Given the frequency with which the "naughty" is just plain gratuitious: yes, I do.

hawk

Re:Parent Is A Verb Too

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost funny that this post has been rated "insightful". Someone save us from the childless parenting experts.

"I've said it before and I'll say it again, there would be a lot better parenting in this country if parents were held liable for laws their kids broke."

You can stop saying it. Parents are legally responsible for the actions of their children.

technology

[Arctic Dragon]

"People should be allowed to use technology to watch movies "their way" in their own home, he said."

It would be nice if they would apply a similar that would apply to music. Keep DRM and other restrictions out of movies and music!

Re:Not intended like you suggest

[swschrad]

the only way this congress is going to give you the ability to watch the way you want (not the way they want, or the movie companies want) is if you pony up and outbid them for the congresscritters' attention.

this is truly the best government that money can buy.

This is a really BAAAAAD idea

[Dante333]

When's the last time that Congress passed a good law regarding tech? CAN-SPAM...DMCA...Telcom Deregulation. Every major law congress passes regarding technology seems to make things worse, or do the exact opposite of what we thought it would do. And everyone hurts...THE CONSUMER.

Re:You mean like

[Lehk228]

AC troll is right about region coding not being the law, just hollywood being greedy, though I doubt that it has anything to do with ethnicity.

Re:Classfication flags

[mr_zorg]

Will we be seeing movies with built-in flags, so that parents only need to configure the player to skip [sex(base 1/2/3/4)], [violance(blood 1/2/3/4)] etc, it'll be similar to the rating/parental card on cable TVs except with better, more specific control over the content.

DVDs already have parental controls including the ability to seamlessly branch content. If the studios were so inclined, they could provide movies now that seamlessly scale down from an R rating to PG-13, etc.. But they don't. So, in short, no, I doubt they'll be doing what you suggest.

It is a sad day....

[EmbeddedJanitor]

... that the state in a "free country" is debating what order you may watch video material and whether or not you may skip watching stuff.

Re:Classfication flags

[MindStalker]

The movie industry is fighting this tooth and nail. Something about destroying the directors vision or some junk. Don't expect DVDs to come with this standard.

Geez

[ScrewMaster]

You know, it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly.

Re:The ethics of ads-skipping

[pete6677]

That's bullshit, a DVD is something you pay for so that you don't have to watch ads. The price is set according to how much people are willing to pay, not how much the company can make on ads. What if HBO started interrupting movies with ads and said it was in place of a rate increase? I doubt that would go over very well since the main appeal of HBO is the lack of ads. When an ad is shown anyplace, there is never a guarantee that it will be watched attentively by every potential viewer, only that it will be put in a place where people CAN see it, so ad blocking is not unethical by any means.

This SPECIFICALLY has to do with ClearPlay...

[barfy]

And has NOTHING to do with not being able to skip through the ads.

ClearPlay has nothing to with DVD Consortium edicts, and has to do with the wishes of the creators of the copywritten material.

The no skip feature of the pre-menu stuff is a feature that makes a DVD player a DVD player. You cannot implement without it and have license from the DVD Consortium.

These are two entirely different things, and the law only deals with one of them.

Day late and a dollar short!

[pair-a-noyd]

I recently bought a DVD that had what seemed like 10 minutes of trailers on it BEFORE the movie.
I was very unhappy because I took great offense to some of the subject matter of the trailers.
It was offensive, annoying and forced upon me.
I was unable to skip the previews.

So, guess what I did? Yep...
I ripped the disc, stripped the BS out, including all the evil warnings and useless trailers and reburned it to a new DVD..

Now I have the movie the way *I* want to see it.
What's next, are they going to arrest people for showing up late, skipping the preview/trailers in the theater now?

Won't work that way

[John Seminal]

I can understand the FBI warning, but I don't pay $20 for a DVD to watch ads for movies that are crappy/have no interest in

I don't think this law is going to help you much

The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 (HR357) also would permit technologies that allow users to skip objectionable content in movies viewed at home.

I believe this act will be used by studios to make PG versions of their R rated movies. It will take out nudity and explicit language. They will do to movies what happened to music in the 90's. You will have a PG Eazy-E and an explicit one. I just wonder how many people will accidently buy the PG version, open it, realise what they did, try and take it back and be told they are stuck with the bad purchase.

I HATE the previews on DVD's that can not be skipped over. I preffer previews to be on a DVD in a "bonus" section. If the preview is forced on me, I get very frustrated, I have zero interest in what I am watching. If the preview is a bonus, then when I finish the movie, if I want to, I'll look at the trailers to see what else is out there. I find that a pleasurable experiance.

The worst offenders are Universal, that has a montage of thier past movies that can't be skipped over. I don't want to see 5 seconds of Jurastic park followed by 5 seconds of Nutty Professor, and so on, and so on, and so on. I hate that!

But since when do entertainment studios care what customers think. I believe it will get MUCH, MUCH worse. I believe the studio's will add commercials to DVD's that can't be skipped, just like the commericals in movie theaters. If Ford offers a dime for evey DVD with their Pick-up Truck commercial, and a studio expects to sell 30 million DVD's, that is $3,000,000 the studio makes for that one commercial. How do we combat profit?

I hate to say it, but I feel like people will start buying DVD players from Hong Kong that are region free (and can be set to a region too), and movies from websites located outside of the USA. There will be a market.

I'll give one more example of how the USA is going to force people to buy elsewhere. I purchased a $2000 laptop with a DVD drive. I am studying a foriegn language, and purchased movies from amazon.fr to help learn listening to the language. If I set my DVD drive to region 2 to watch a French movie, then later back to region 1 to watch an USA movie, one I do that 5 times my DVD locks so I can't change the region on it. WHY? The movies I am buying from France are not even available in the USA.

Re:Won't work that way

[kenthorvath]

The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 (HR357) also would permit technologies that allow users to skip objectionable content in movies viewed at home.

I find the previews and commercials to be objectionable, actually. I usually put the disc in and leave the TV off for the first 10 mins or so while I make popcorn or some other food. By the time I get back to sit down, the menu is up.

Yes, I am that stubborn. No, really.

Re:Classfication flags

[mOdQuArK!]

As a potential customer, I don't give a damn about what the movie industry "wants" - except so far as get pissed off that they aren't selling me what *I* want, and seem to think that they have the "right" to control as much of my media flow as they can get their greed-stained hands on.

I strongly believe that it will be highly beneficial to society in the long-run if those industries who depend on the artificial monopoly of "intellectual property" to allow them to parasitically suck money out of the economy are destroyed, and the pieces are used to reconstruct alternatives that are more in tune with free markets & private property rights.

I've got a better solution:

[PotatoHead]

Build DVD players that do exactly what their user wants them to.

I've been using Ogle for a number of years now. It's very nice to just ask for the movie and get it. The family was spoiled by that player and still bitches often when one of the consumer players, we purchased for around the house, does not obey their just play the movie directives.

Re:Classfication flags

[Queer Boy]

they could provide movies now that seamlessly scale down from an R rating to PG-13, etc.. But they don't. So, in short, no, I doubt they'll be doing what you suggest.

Yeah, strangely that was a big selling point for DVDs from the manufacturers and the studios. Also, why the FUCK can't I watch a DVD that has deleted scenes in it in place where they were deleted, I mean, it's a computer function at that point. That was another big selling point for DVDs early on.

Oh, well. At least the sound and picture is better.

Re:Unskippable Trailers and Ads suck...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you start the DVD playing, turn off the TV, go make a coffee? Why does everything have to be *now*?

You know, I think what pisses me off the most is just the idea that the people I'm *paying* are treating me this way: Why in hell should the DVD player that I paid $XX for and the movie that cost me $Y to rent be conspiring against me and not letting me watch the goddamn movie when I want to.

Also, time is not a luxury for me. Sometimes I'll only have 45 minutes to an hour to kick back and let my mind unwind with a movie, and wasting 15 of those minutes on a Ben Stiller ad is just insulting (see Shrek II for this...). Especially when I just saw the ad fucking *yesterday* when I watched the first 45 minutes of the movie.

Maybe you have oodles of free time. Maybe you never have problems watching an entire movie in one sitting. Maybe you can always manage to keep in the back of your mind "Ok, I'm going to be watching a movie tonight at 9pm -- don't forget to go in and start it at 8:30"... That's great, but that's not me. And I'm insulted that the technology overlords have teamed up against me to prevent me from watching the movies I paid for at the times I choose to watch them.

Re:Classfication flags

[evilviper]

Why would that bother them? It would (potentially) mean they can make their vision happen the way they like, and the user can automatically water it down to their tastes.

I imagine their objection is because they want to slip in some nudity and violence here and there, in an otherwise PG movie, and make money off the teens convincing their parents to rent/buy it for them...

The argument they use is obviously complete BS anyhow... The movies we see aren't true to the director's vision, otherwise we wouldn't ever see "director's cuts" of films.

This is Congress we are talking about.

[msjacoby]

"Could this be a step in the right direction towards uncrippled DVD players?"

No.