Sorry, I haven't seen it (the story of my life since the twins were born:-) so I can't comment directly. However, I did do some searching and found some pages (here and here) that praised it for not having any foul language at all but I did find one that said it had two "profanities" in it but that it was "an excellent pick for families". Sounds like the G-rating is working.
I know the rating system isn't perfect but I believe that since Disney's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" the MPAA has been pretty strict about G ratings.
The Disney DVDs I've been watching lately (4-year-old twins) let me hit the menu button to not watch the ads. Even my children know how to not watch the ads (not meant as an insult). Maybe there are Disney DVDs where I can't skip the ads but I/we haven't seen them.
But if I buy a book I can rip out whatever pages I want. I can even sell the book again, as long as I do not misrepresent what I'm selling or commit other fraud. No matter what the licensing of the book says.
Scale. Would it be legal to buy 1,000 copies of a book, rip the pages out, and then resell them? I don't know the answer but my guess is "no".
Ah, "common sense". Common sense tells me that Dubya is a maniac. I'm sure others would disagree. Don't assume something is common sense outside your household:-).
Perhaps you don't want your children to see the naked people in Schindler's list (though I personally think it's a bit silly), but you want to educate them about the Holocaust. I don't see a problem with doing this in the privacy of your home.
I would argue that a responsible parent should watch the movie first. Then when it came time to watch it with the kids, mom or dad would already know what to fast-forward through. Problem solved without any copyright violations. Any parent who doesn't do this has no right to whine about naughty language in R-rated movies.
Hollywood is not stopping anybody from fast-forwarding through their DVD. They object to companies editing movies and, as you put it, "copy it and sell it/distribute it".
If I buy a page of comic book art or a limited-edition lithgraph, I can do almost anything I want to with it. However, I do not get the publishing rights to that art. The copyright holder still has rights to what I have purchased. The copyright holder of a DVD most certainly have the right to tell you what you can do with that DVD. You may not like it but they do.
they aren't actually providing edited content, they're allowing you to edit your content
I must disagree. ClearPlay is de facto providing edited content. As I understand it, ClearPlay is providing your machine with an edit list and the movie is presented edited without you having to do anything. The mechanism may be different but the end result is the same as CleanFlix.
I agree that artistic integrity is a smokescreen up to a point. However, if ClearPlay is renting you "Titanic directed by James Cameron" and they're really renting you "Titanic directed by James Cameron and further edited by some hack in Utah (or wherever)", then it matters. However, the real issue, as I see it, is the rights of the copyright holder. Movies aren't open sourced.
Let's try this extreme analogy: let's say I don't think there's enough sex and violence in the movies. Should I be allowed to rent out copies of "Titanic" with hardcore porn liberally distributed throughout ("I'm king of the world! Do me.")?
No, your analogy sucks. When you buy a hamburger, you're actually buying a hamburger. When you buy a DVD, you're actually buying a license to use the DVD in certain ways. I can take my copy of The Phantom Menace and make an edited version of it showing Jar Jar humping Amidala (that would take quite of bit of work, I'll grant you). I even have a right to do that. I get in trouble when I try to distribute it and/or make money off of that. That is where, IMHNLO, CleanFlicks and ClearPlay are getting into trouble. They are making derivative works from copyrighted material (ClearPlay in a de facto sense) and making money off of it. ClearPlay is not merely providing you with a sheet of paper that tells you when to fast-forward.
Gang, Blockbuster does (or used to, at least) rent cleaned up versions of movies because they worked with the studios to get permission to do it (strong-armed them is more like it but that's beside the point). If these companies want to make G-rated movies out of R-rated movies AND make money off of them, they need to work with the studios. If there is enough of a market, the studios will go for it.
Re:XML makes Perl less important
on
XML and Perl
·
· Score: 1
That might be true in a perfect world where everything is XML. In the world in which I live I have to transform some goofy mainframe-generated files ("I don't care how wide you make field 154, just tell me how wide it and I will process the file.") into XML. That makes perl very important.
Re:Let's reinvent the wheel again
on
XML and Perl
·
· Score: 1
Although I agree that Perl/XML sounds like a powerful and flexible way to serve dynamic content...
I am using Perl, XML, and Apache but it has nothing to do with serving up content for the web (or humans, for that matter). Don't think of XML as a better HTML for web pages. It's a lot more.
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.
Yet KHTML and KJS are under the LGPL, so they had to do that anyway as a legal obligation. Why are people surprised by this?
It's not that they're giving back the source, which they, obviously, had to do anyway. It's that now that the project is out they are determined to work with the KHTML community instead of just forking and going off on their own merry way. Apple doesn't have to be a good citizen but they know that it is to their advantage to do so. Good for them.
Translation: we realised that we had no chance of building our own layout engine or javascript engine, so we had to choose between Gecko/Spidermonkey and KHTML/KJS.
Why not use existing tools if they are good enough?
The Mozilla technologies were better, but we could understand the KDE ones.
Who wants to work with software you can't understand? 140,000 lines of code vs. bigger? I'd take 140,000 if I could, too.
In particular, Mozilla is full of cross platform code that makes it harder to adapt and integrate into our OS, and it relies upon its own portable runtime and rendering layers.
Who's fault is that? Certainly not Apple's.
When we started this project, Chimera didn't exist.
Who cares? Safari rocks. A big, bad commercial softwarre developer uses an open-source project and gives back to that community and there are still people who whine. It boggles the mind.
./ in IE on OS X doesn't bring the machine to its knees but IE is unusable for a while. The spinning beach ball of death can stay there for quite a while. Safari is not similarly afflicted.
What's the best way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Condoms or Abstinence? Maybe there was a leftist bias on those pages to begin with and they really do refect more acurately scientific evidence?
What's the best way to eliminate crime? Kill everyone. Problem is it is a very impractical solution--much like teaching only abstinence.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I haven't seen it (the story of my life since the twins were born :-) so I can't comment directly. However, I did do some searching and found some pages (here and here) that praised it for not having any foul language at all but I did find one that said it had two "profanities" in it but that it was "an excellent pick for families". Sounds like the G-rating is working.
I know the rating system isn't perfect but I believe that since Disney's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" the MPAA has been pretty strict about G ratings.
The Disney DVDs I've been watching lately (4-year-old twins) let me hit the menu button to not watch the ads. Even my children know how to not watch the ads (not meant as an insult). Maybe there are Disney DVDs where I can't skip the ads but I/we haven't seen them.
Name the movie.
But if I buy a book I can rip out whatever pages I want. I can even sell the book again, as long as I do not misrepresent what I'm selling or commit other fraud. No matter what the licensing of the book says.
Scale. Would it be legal to buy 1,000 copies of a book, rip the pages out, and then resell them? I don't know the answer but my guess is "no".
It is the republishing right that, I would argue, services like this infringe.
Mere words. Prove it.
Ah, "common sense". Common sense tells me that Dubya is a maniac. I'm sure others would disagree. Don't assume something is common sense outside your household :-).
Perhaps you don't want your children to see the naked people in Schindler's list (though I personally think it's a bit silly), but you want to educate them about the Holocaust. I don't see a problem with doing this in the privacy of your home.
I would argue that a responsible parent should watch the movie first. Then when it came time to watch it with the kids, mom or dad would already know what to fast-forward through. Problem solved without any copyright violations. Any parent who doesn't do this has no right to whine about naughty language in R-rated movies.
Hollywood is not stopping anybody from fast-forwarding through their DVD. They object to companies editing movies and, as you put it, "copy it and sell it/distribute it".
If I buy a page of comic book art or a limited-edition lithgraph, I can do almost anything I want to with it. However, I do not get the publishing rights to that art. The copyright holder still has rights to what I have purchased. The copyright holder of a DVD most certainly have the right to tell you what you can do with that DVD. You may not like it but they do.
they aren't actually providing edited content, they're allowing you to edit your content
I must disagree. ClearPlay is de facto providing edited content. As I understand it, ClearPlay is providing your machine with an edit list and the movie is presented edited without you having to do anything. The mechanism may be different but the end result is the same as CleanFlix.
I agree that artistic integrity is a smokescreen up to a point. However, if ClearPlay is renting you "Titanic directed by James Cameron" and they're really renting you "Titanic directed by James Cameron and further edited by some hack in Utah (or wherever)", then it matters. However, the real issue, as I see it, is the rights of the copyright holder. Movies aren't open sourced.
Let's try this extreme analogy: let's say I don't think there's enough sex and violence in the movies. Should I be allowed to rent out copies of "Titanic" with hardcore porn liberally distributed throughout ("I'm king of the world! Do me.")?
Your logic sucks.
No, your analogy sucks. When you buy a hamburger, you're actually buying a hamburger. When you buy a DVD, you're actually buying a license to use the DVD in certain ways. I can take my copy of The Phantom Menace and make an edited version of it showing Jar Jar humping Amidala (that would take quite of bit of work, I'll grant you). I even have a right to do that. I get in trouble when I try to distribute it and/or make money off of that. That is where, IMHNLO, CleanFlicks and ClearPlay are getting into trouble. They are making derivative works from copyrighted material (ClearPlay in a de facto sense) and making money off of it. ClearPlay is not merely providing you with a sheet of paper that tells you when to fast-forward.
Gang, Blockbuster does (or used to, at least) rent cleaned up versions of movies because they worked with the studios to get permission to do it (strong-armed them is more like it but that's beside the point). If these companies want to make G-rated movies out of R-rated movies AND make money off of them, they need to work with the studios. If there is enough of a market, the studios will go for it.
That might be true in a perfect world where everything is XML. In the world in which I live I have to transform some goofy mainframe-generated files ("I don't care how wide you make field 154, just tell me how wide it and I will process the file.") into XML. That makes perl very important.
Although I agree that Perl/XML sounds like a powerful and flexible way to serve dynamic content...
I am using Perl, XML, and Apache but it has nothing to do with serving up content for the web (or humans, for that matter). Don't think of XML as a better HTML for web pages. It's a lot more.
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.
Now this is a "submersible sea plane"!
This is not flamebait, stoopid moderator. Somebody mod this guy up and the parent down (sorry, I don't have any points to play with today).
There's a moral here, but it escapes me.
I think it's Look before you leap. ;-)
At least you got to start reading it. It wouldn't even come up for me. On the bright side, I now know I don't need to read it...
Yet KHTML and KJS are under the LGPL, so they had to do that anyway as a legal obligation. Why are people surprised by this?
It's not that they're giving back the source, which they, obviously, had to do anyway. It's that now that the project is out they are determined to work with the KHTML community instead of just forking and going off on their own merry way. Apple doesn't have to be a good citizen but they know that it is to their advantage to do so. Good for them.
You bought Apple hardware 9 days before Jobs' keynote at Macworld? Methinks you're damning the wrong person ;-).
Long-term storage of programs recorded by Tivo onto somebody's Mac. A TV server that a family might have, like an MP3 server.
.mac to program your Tivo from anywhere on the web.
Use iCal and
Watch porn you've downloaded onto your Mac on the TV via Tivo.
Preview iMovie-created movies on your TV via Tivo.
Just some thoughts.
Translation: we realised that we had no chance of building our own layout engine or javascript engine, so we had to choose between Gecko/Spidermonkey and KHTML/KJS.
Why not use existing tools if they are good enough?
The Mozilla technologies were better, but we could understand the KDE ones.
Who wants to work with software you can't understand? 140,000 lines of code vs. bigger? I'd take 140,000 if I could, too.
In particular, Mozilla is full of cross platform code that makes it harder to adapt and integrate into our OS, and it relies upon its own portable runtime and rendering layers.
Who's fault is that? Certainly not Apple's.
When we started this project, Chimera didn't exist.
Who cares? Safari rocks. A big, bad commercial softwarre developer uses an open-source project and gives back to that community and there are still people who whine. It boggles the mind.
MSIE for OS X does not have these problems
./ in IE on OS X doesn't bring the machine to its knees but IE is unusable for a while. The spinning beach ball of death can stay there for quite a while. Safari is not similarly afflicted.
What's the best way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Condoms or Abstinence? Maybe there was a leftist bias on those pages to begin with and they really do refect more acurately scientific evidence?
What's the best way to eliminate crime? Kill everyone. Problem is it is a very impractical solution--much like teaching only abstinence.