Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hollywood Says No to Filtering DVD Player

CowboyNeal posted more than 11 years ago | from the raw-and-uncut dept.

Censorship 648

haplo21112 writes "There is a posting over at ZDNet about how Hollywood continues to trample on the American consumer's free use rights. They want to prevent the sale of a special DVD player which can be used to edit out offensive material from a DVD in realtime. While I don't agree with censorship in general, I do believe its everyone's right to do what they wish with their own media."

cancel ×

648 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Warm and fresh from the tummy, (-1)

I VOMIT ON TODDLERS! (642865) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192075)

all over your toddler! They'll thank you for it!

Re:Warm and fresh from the tummy, (-1)

PedoPeteTownshend (641098) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192103)

Can I ejaculate over them afterwards? Only small children can get my 57 year old dick up anymore.

Hello! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192123)

II / \/ \ /__\
II \ / I I
II \ / I II
II \ / I II
II \/ / \
II \__/_/

Important Stuff:

Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

second post (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192085)

perhaps. too busy watching dvds

I agree with them (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192087)

I also think that everyone should be forced to watch these movies. If we're going to rob people of their rights. Let's not half-ass it.

Re:what amazes me most... (4, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192317)

... is that survey shows that 18% of people think. No, I have not right do do anything AT HOME with MY DVD that might interfere with copyright as the corporations understand it. Hopefully those are people on Hollywood payroll. But if not, that is a serious problem.

God damned... (0, Flamebait)

SilkBD (533537) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192088)

Money Grabbing Fattiefats.

I would think Hollywood would profit from this. (5, Insightful)

electrick (579755) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192091)

This technology would allow for parents to show otherwise questionable movies to their kids. That would lead to a higher number of movies bought or rentals per family, because some movies are no longer out of the question.
Not that I am agreeing with the censorship, I just don't see the logic in trying to ban this.

Re:I would think Hollywood would profit from this. (5, Insightful)

martyn s (444964) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192125)

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

Re:I would think Hollywood would profit from this. (-1)

infojack (25600) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192131)

If pepsi paid $500 million to have a product placement during a sex scene, and then disney cuts that out, then pepsi doesn't get the adveritising spot they paid for. It would be the same thing as someone re-broadcasting Cable tv, and taking out the comercials because they didn't like them.

Re:I would think Hollywood would profit from this. (1)

SweetAndSourJesus (555410) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192175)

But they edit movies for tv all the time.

Re:I would think Hollywood would profit from this. (1)

cara (118378) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192136)

Maybe Hollywood wants to put out their own edited version that people have to buy from them, rather than letting people use a gismo from a third party which in effect allows one to have both an edited and non-edited version of the movie.

Re:I would think Hollywood would profit from this. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192203)

Well, about 20 years of history shows that Hollywood doesn't want to do that. It 'damages' there Art...

Funny, they don't mind this same Art being butchered for TV and airplanes....

Re:I would think Hollywood would profit from this. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192278)

Yeah, right. I can think of a half dozen movies off hand where the theatre version and the video release have differed. Return of the Jedi (original, not special edition) and Apollo 13 for starters. Both had scenes removed that I KNOW were there because my friends remember them too. And what about director's cuts and the like? No, they really do just want more money by selling different versions...

BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192141)

"There is a posting over at ZDNet about how Hollywood continues to trample on the American consumer's free use rights. They want to prevent the sale of a special DVD player which can be used to edit out offensive material from a DVD in realtime. While I don't agree with censorship in general, I do believe its everyone's right to do what they wish with their own media."

That is pure HogWash. Smoke this in your pipe and Shove it...

It's Not Censorship (5, Insightful)

Poeir (637508) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192151)

No one is telling anyone they are not allowed to watch what they want, which would be an abridgement of free speech against the person who was trying to allow others to watch what that individual wanted, but rather not allow someone not to watch only the parts they want. How is this really any different from allowing scene selection? ("Let's see... I want to watch Moria, then Weathertop, and then I want to watch the Amon Sul. After that, Matrix lobby scene, followed by Agent defeat.") I don't see any difference between watching scenes in a particular order, through using scene selection or, heaven forbid, PowerDVD's bookamark system, and a DVD player that skips particular scenes entirely.

This position is similar to a position that says "You are required to watch our films." It's not censorship, since it doesn't forbid some things from being shown, but it is absurd and outrageous.

Re:I would think Hollywood would profit from this. (5, Interesting)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192171)

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

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

Re:I would think Hollywood would profit from this. (2, Interesting)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192336)

I think they are thinking about starting to show advertisements on DVDs preety soon

They already do! Infrequently, and non-specific yet (I swear to return a DVD that would have an AOL commercial on it). But your point is well made... a filter can exist to skip the FBI warning and whatever other crap studios make unskippable...

Re:I would think Hollywood would profit from this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192212)

What about the rights of the actors/writers/directors of said movies? This is their work/art and most feel it should not be changed without their permission.

Nobody can change my work/art without my permission

Utards will be mad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192237)

It will also make all the Utards mad-they don't like Rated R movies in Utah.

Re:I would think Hollywood would profit from this. (4, Insightful)

ADRA (37398) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192312)

Reasons why I think Hollywood wants to stop this business from happening:

1. Their cut. I am sure these services that offer the filtering are not doing it for free (correct me if i am wrong), but if hollywood is loosing a potential revenue stream form this, I can see them being angry.

2. Directors. If I was a director, I would be pretty upset with 3rd party disruption of my vision of a movie even if it doesn't fit one's approriate maturity level. The "If you can't handle it don't watch it" rule applies here, which I can totally empithize with. Refer to the Simpsons episode on censoring museums.

3. Loss of control. With DVD's, the idea was to make a medium that could not have been tampered with. That obviously failed. With the reintegrated fight between content owners and content creators, we can see similar war in the horizon. This may just be a reinforcing leagl position to assist future problems.

EG. If I set my DVD player to 'NO_ADS' mode, effectively removeing the crap at the beginning of DVD's which I don't want to see, do I have the right to time shift through it if I deam that I don't want to look at it?

Personally, I think if i bought the DVD, and it does not effect anything outside the scope of what I purchased, I should be able to time shift and 'manipulate' the output of the movie any way like as long as it is legal to do so (no redistribution, etc...).

If I watch the movie from a projector steatching out the picture to look funky, and changing the sound channels, back to front and front to back, I should have the right to as long I am not infringing on the rights of the creators, which I wouldn't be, even though I am viewing a movie in a way not intended by the authors.

hmmm, life is nice... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192092)

Nice. Real Nice. The answer is 42 you fool....
a














b









Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 11.6).



Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 2.4).



c

Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.3).

s




Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 4.2).
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 5.1).
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 6.1).
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 7.0).
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 7.9).
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 8.9).
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 9.8).
d
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 10.7).
And Marco Polo is Dead.

Re:hmmm, life is nice... MOD PARENT UP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192186)

M0D PARENT UP

Important Stuff:
  • Please try to keep posts on topic.
  • Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
  • Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
  • Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
  • Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Here here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192345)

Mod that Parent... um, my grandparent, ... up! Cheerio.

Free use? (1)

niom (638987) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192093)

[...] about how Hollywood continues to trample on the American consumer's free use rights.

Wouldn't that would be fair use?

first post (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192096)

first post!!!!!!!!!!!1

Close to home (1)

use_compress (627082) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192098)

a special DVD player which can be used to edit out offensive material from a DVD in realtime

Isn't that what slashdot tries to do?

they are going to force you to watch their smut! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192101)

What a bunch of Control_Freaks!

Money (5, Insightful)

wjames (579137) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192104)

This is all because I could deam the ads offensive to my filter and it would kill them.

Re:Money (1)

YU Nicks NE Way (129084) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192130)

My thoughts exactly. The DVD format is very valuable, becuase of the forced adverisements at the beginning of the movie. Making it possible to distribute a tick list that skipped over the ads would diminish the value of the movie considerably.

More than that, a natural extension of this would diminish the value of product placement: PepsiCo could distribute a set of mods which turned each coke can or sign ito a pepsi can or sign. Thnk about what that would do to the value of branding entries in a movie.

Re:Money (4, Interesting)

The_K4 (627653) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192190)

I'm not sure that this player could do that. If id does then it is CLEARLY in violation of the licence for the CCS, which says it can not skip, or allow a user to skip, these items. If it does skip those items, it's going to lose it's case without question.

Re:Money == porn (5, Funny)

RealAlaskan (576404) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192250)

... PepsiCo could distribute a set of mods which turned each coke can or sign ito a pepsi can or sign.

That has some really neat implications. If it were possible to replace one image with another on-the-fly, then it would be possible to do it for other things than Coke cans. For example, bodies.

I doubt that you could induce most folks to apply a mod which would change Pepsi to Coke, but I bet a lot of folks would apply mods which would replace clothed actors with unclothed. Or John Wayne instead of Vin Diesel. Or an unclothed John Wayne instead of Linda Lovelace. The possibilities are endlessly disgusting.

Just to get back on-topic, that's NOT what the article is describing! What IS being described is a way to automatically skip certain sections of a movie:(from the article [zdnet.com] )

Think you should have the right to view the movies you own (or rent) the way you--and not the content's creators--wish?

IN EITHER CASE, you should know about a company that hopes to market a special DVD player that will automatically skip over violent and sexually explicit scenes and mute the bad language that is so prevalent in Hollywood blockbusters.

That's a lot simpler than your pipedream, though not half so nifty.

What is money ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192157)

All I know about is death beams and anti-matter bombs--why should I need money?

Re:Money (4, Funny)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192332)

> This is all because I could deam the ads offensive to my filter and it would kill them.

You *already* can do this. When I watch a DVD, and it has ads at the beginning, I leave the room to get snacks & drinks. What's next -- getting sued because I'm skipping the ads?!

Should be interesting (4, Funny)

Tri0de (182282) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192107)

To watch the pro-censorship right wingers fight it out with the Senator from Disney and his Copyrights-are-forever-and-immutable industry lapdog cronies.

Go Hollywood! (5, Insightful)

Joystickit (529613) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192115)

This isn't so bad. Perhaps they'll make parents actually think about what DVDs they let their children watch instead of thinking technology can parent for them. (yeah, fat chance, I know) (also, Double standards: I can have them, you can't)

Re:Go Hollywood! (4, Interesting)

Teancom (13486) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192240)

1) Why do you think that this will be used (soley?) to let children watch "bad" movies? Specifically, I prefer to watch PG-13 (and less) movies, but would like to see some R-rated movies, minus gratuitous sex scenes*, or gory violence (I don't enjoy gore, and if I want sex, then I romance my wife).

2) What double standards? You didn't elaborate, so I have to guess that you are critical of parents telling their children that they are unable to watch movies that the parents *do* watch. If that is your position, then it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If I was into gore/horror films, I certainly wouldn't let my 5 year old watch them. Neither would I want him to watch a Kevin Smith film, as there is no need for him to hear the F-word 5 times a minute. How is that a double-standard? I also wouldn't let him drink, vote, or drive.

*Off-topic note about this, I was listening to an archived interview of Chris Rock and Kevin Smith on the Howard Stern show, from just before Dogma's release. One of the most interesting parts of the interview is how everyone on the show agreed that if they could eliminate one thing from their life, it would be porn. It creates such false, twisted, "high" expectations, that no real person could live up to them, and you end up spending your whole time wanking off rather than having real sex with your partner. And none of those people are exactly what you would call "right-wing" :-)

Bad, Bad, Very Bad... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192119)

...no more boobies....

To play devil's advocate, (4, Insightful)

tmark (230091) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192120)

How would people feel if someone wrote some magical piece of software that prevented users from having to view annoying copyright- and authorship- nag banners and notices that appear while running software ?

Re:To play devil's advocate, (4, Funny)

rusty0101 (565565) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192158)

somehow I think that they would probably complain that it was shareware....

Wait, strike that, reverse it, thank you. (5, Funny)

pergamon (4359) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192121)

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

Re:Wait, strike that, reverse it, thank you. (5, Funny)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192169)

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

Re:Wait, strike that, reverse it, thank you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192170)

The funny thing is, Boogie Nights would still be 152 minutes long.

Re:Wait, strike that, reverse it, thank you. (1)

extra88 (1003) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192323)

That reminds me of a so-so Jessica Lange movie called Men Don't Leave [imdb.com] . Some kids start stealing TVs and selling them to a creepy guy who edits out all the "talking parts" in porn movies. The creepy guy was played by a great character actor, Kevin Corrigan, who plays Uncle Eddie on the TV series "Grounded for Life."

Oh shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192135)

The 2-disc LOTR set I own has been FILTERED out of the extended version of the movie. Should I surrender to the local authorities?

illegal (5, Funny)

LinuxCumShot (582742) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192137)

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

Aiieee (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192138)

How long is a clan version of Pulp Fiction anyway? 15 minutes?

Re:Aiieee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192229)

How long is a clan version of Pulp Fiction anyway? 15 minutes?

Is that supposed to be Clean? Cause if you really mean Clan, I didn't know the KKK had anything against Pulp Fiction, except for perhaps The Prestigious Samuel L. Jackson's leading role...
Actually, you're right either way, it would be about 15 minutes long.

Another way for the media compaies to get money (2)

The_K4 (627653) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192140)

Wait for someone to invent a really useful device that would sell more of the media company's product, sue them out of existance, then release their own copy of said invention. They can't just appreciate that someone is helping them get to a larger audience.....


Why do i suddenly have this image of the Ned Flanders and the boys trying to watch a cleaned-up version of Pulp Fiction?

Money Grabbing Hollywood (1)

cjackson0 (645769) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192145)

It's just another example of Hollywood trying to F*ck the consumer while making more money. Now the studios have this great idea that now they can release censored versions of your favorite movies so that these timeless masterpieces can be shown to your kids. While I agree that this isn't a perfect plan, I think it would be cool to show my kids Animal House, with a few scenes removed (they don't need to be seeing Tits on-screen...yet). Instead of buying this DVD player, Hollywood wants to make those parents buy the standard version and the censored version to double their profits off of these consumers.

Yeah, Animal House is great for kids... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192292)

Take out the tits and you have a wonderful collection of drinking, food fights, horse murder, shoplifting, beatings, sexual predators, ROTC, segragation, reckless driving, marching bands being led into walls, pirates and future senators.

Let the kids see the titties.

Author is missing the point (4, Insightful)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192146)

I CAN OFFER only three words to Hollywood: Get over it. Or maybe: Turn it around. If people find certain scenes in certain movies offensive, maybe Hollywood shouldn't force its paying customers to watch those scenes.

I'm guessing that the studios aren't so much interested in forcing people to watch "offensive scenes" as they are in ensuring that they are going to be the sole avenue for producing "Family" or "Edited" versions. A Studio might, for example, decide to release a PG-13 version of James Cameron's Aliens. There would probably be a market for that unless, of course, ClearPlay, CleanFlicks or some other company is already providing families with the ability to edit their R-rated Aliens DVD on the fly.

The author of the article would have a stronger argument if he wasn't distorting the true intentions of the studios like that.

GMD

Re:Author is missing the point (1)

ricochet_ca (646047) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192208)

Maybe Hollywood shouldn't force its paying customers to watch commercials on DVDs.

Re:Author is missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192340)

Meh, I see them as much as I see them on vhs.

A dvdrom and dvdgenie are your friends.

How long? (3, Interesting)

no_demons (602587) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192147)

A DVD player that won't let you watch DVDs the way you want to watch them? How long before we see TVs without 'mute' buttons. Can't you just do this kind of thing now anyway with a decent VCR and a little time? When will the anti-digital madness end?

FBI warnings too? (5, Funny)

kilroy_hau (187226) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192153)

I find those warnings offensive.

I'm not a criminal, I bought the DVD and I just want to see the damn movie. I want to remove those warnings

Re:FBI warnings too? (3, Interesting)

Manax (41161) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192319)

I have actually seen DVDs that force me to watch both the FBI warning AND the studio's intro. It really is a legitimate issue that I have with DVD players.

What I'd like to see is some open source "PROMs" that contain all the code to parse the DVD... to tell the damn machine to ignore any commands that would make it ignore MY commands...

Basically, it irks me that the machine is no longer behaving like a VCR or a CD player... that it won't LET me do certain things that the author decides I shouldn't do...

Or perhaps I should replace my Panasonic DVD player with one that does ignore those commands, if such a thing exists...

I guess fundementally, this is the exact same issue as the one in the article. "Who can control how you use copyrighted material you own?"

Definition of "censorship" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192162)

Folks,

We need to be very careful about throwing around the word "censorship" in a context like this. IMO, it is not censorship or anything like it for a parent to fast-forward through a questionable scene in a movie. It's not censorship for a commercial organization to decide it doesn't want to carry/show/broadcast certain material.

Censorship is state-sponsored, implicitly-at-gunpoint, restrictions on free speech, freedom of the press, etc. It's prohibited by the Bill of Rights .

The Phantom Edit! (5, Funny)

Jammer@CMH (117977) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192163)

No JarJar! Imagine the possibilities!

I would love to use this tech. (4, Insightful)

Mustang Matt (133426) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192167)

There are certain movies that are great, but not quite acceptable for my family to watch.

With a technology like this, you could tell the DVD player what's appropriate for the audience.

It would be a really great solution to show certain movies in schools too.

Re:I would love to use this tech. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192304)

exactly what part of this comment was "insightful"??

Fucking morons.

Re:I would love to use this tech. (1)

SB5 (165464) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192308)

There are certain movies that are great, but not quite acceptable for my family to watch.


With a technology like this, you could tell the DVD player what's appropriate for the audience.

It would be a really great solution to show certain movies in schools too.


Now you know George Lucas wouldn't like that, he would be royally urked with millions of people turned on the Remove Jar Jar feature, or banned the playing of the first three movies.

Consider the alternative (3, Funny)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192172)

This is far better than those wankers over at CleanFlicks [cleanflicks.com] who not only have an agenda, but also infringe on the copyright of directors and producers (in fact they've been sued already for that very same reason).

A device that does that puts the power to choose what to see and what not to see in the hands of the consumer, where it belongs.

From the article on zdnet: (1)

jointm1k (591234) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192173)

If people find certain scenes in certain movies offensive, maybe Hollywood shouldn't force its paying customers to watch those scenes.

Anyone else bothered by being chained to a chair by with his/hers eyeslids ducktaped open? Really, Hollywood should stop doing that to their customers

--

Art or free media? (3, Interesting)

Spytap (143526) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192174)

Does anyone else feel a parallel to when the Catholic Church went along "censoring" all the great works of art which contained nudity by drawing or painting over them, and adding leaves, etc? Personally, I feel art should be left alone. The greatest and most heralded art was made by singular geniuses; no good art was ever created by a committee of politicians...

FOR SALE (1)

AnalogDiehard (199128) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192178)

(1) combo DVD/VHS player. Less than four hours of use. Plays CD-audio, mp3 CDs, plus more. SVIDEO output, stereo audio outputs, front panel video input. Region 1 player, no known key combination for region-free coding found yet. Inquire by email. 27" console stereo TV included free of charge.

Hollywood just lost me for good. Much of their product offends me and they want to force it down my throat. Well you know what they are a depensible luxury, I don't depend on them like I do food and water so out the door they go. I have been enjoying life without cable TV for two years and now I'm chucking the player. And the TV.

Good-bye. And please stay away.

So where's the harm.. (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192180)

...in having your content altered to suit your audience if they're willingly choosing it?

This reminds me of that rental store that had movies with swear words etc edited from them. They got sued for that.

I'm an artist. I don't like changes to my work. But if somebody says "I'd like it this way, several other people would too, so I'm going to make the changes myself and save you the trouble..." then my attitude is "Cool! My audience expanded!"

Artistic Freedom or Copyright? (1)

digitalgimpus (468277) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192185)

I can see to motives behind this:

Some directors have "final say" in the contract for a movie, so that they can refuse to let a movie be published, edited... most big directors require that in a contract. This has been the source of many disputes, and why many great movies never made it to network television (which has to censor content).

That's one motive.

The second is simply being stupid, and wanting control. Considering this technology could be made so that it doesn't allow for easy copying of content, what's the harm?

Re:Artistic Freedom or Copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192210)

Important Stuff:

Please try to keep posts on topic.

Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.

Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.

Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.

Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Unix weanies are as bad at this as anyone. -- Larry Wall in (199702111730.JAA28598@wall.org)

Re:Artistic Freedom or Copyright? (2, Insightful)

sdmartin101 (601186) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192316)

The first motive might be part of their thinking, but it would have some pretty bizarre upshots in other applications. Neal Stevenson worked long and hard on Crytonomicon, but suppose someone only wants to read the WWII stuff. Is it a violation of his "artistic freedom" for them to just skip over certain chapters? If publishers somehow could audit which chapters people are reading, could they then sue someone who doesn't read the whole book?

The analogy here to what ClearPlay is doing, I guess, would be someone who puts up a website that says "Chapters a,b,c are about WWII, chapters x,y,z are about the data haven." It's absurd to think that the publisher could force such a website to be taken down.

Things I wish I could unsee (1)

TedTschopp (244839) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192194)

Perhaps Hollywood and the directors should look at making a PG, PG-13, and an R rated verison of their films. These different versions would as simple as hireing someone to edit and ADR the movie.

Oh, wait Network Television (Most owned by the same movie companies) already does this and they don't complain. Never mind. Again a double standard. But wouldn't it be nice if I could do that with the push of a button and the production quality wasn't as bad? I remember seeing a version of the Thomas Crown Affair which was missing much of the nudity. I bring this up becuase a PG/PG-13 version of that film was what I saw on Network TV and it didn't suffer all that much as far as the story goes. I definitly think there is a market for this. I could probably count my parents as two people who would have seen the PG-13 version of this movie?

Ted Tschopp

Why Hollywood is Right (3, Interesting)

VividU (175339) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192197)

This is the same principle as those folks who rent out edited DVD's so junior never lays his eyes on a female breast.

This is the same principle as those folks who would "colorize" a classic Black & White film to make it more appealing the general massses.

A artist should have a right to have his creation be experienced unaltered. Unless of course, the artist himself has made the alterations.

This is a simple case of artistic integrity. It is the directors name that scrolls on the screen at the end of the movie.

If you don't want to watch something, do what our president said to do "Turn off the on button"!

Of course, this is Slashdot, where people find a million and one reasons and rationalizations to cut, copy and paste the creative hard work of others.

Re:Why Hollywood is Right (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192274)

This is not the same at all. The product--the art--the DVD--whatever--is unchanged. This isn't like selling an edited version of some famous book with all the naught bits edited out. This is analogous to selling special reading glasses that people can choose to wear when reading the same unaltered book as everyone else.

The DVD is not harmed in the process. The art is not altered one iota.

How is this different from a machine that closes people's eyes during bad scenes or mutes the volume automatically for bad words? Take the disc to a friend's house and it's pristine!

Ummm.... (2, Insightful)

TedTschopp (244839) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192293)

OK,

So what do you have to say about Network Television editing movies for Broadcast Television. Why hasn't there been such a huge outcry?

Ted

What? No censorship anymore? (1)

cptgrudge (177113) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192199)

You mean to tell me that parents will no longer be able to "speed through the bad parts" on a movie that they are watching with their kids?

The nerve of Hollywood to take away my fast forward button! That's a crucial part of my DVD player!

I suppose that in the end, all we'll have left is the eject button to slide the tray in and out. Missed a part? Start it over. Got to pee really bad? Start it over. How dare we, the consumer, get in the way of the director's pristine vision of the movie. We must be savages.

Freedom not censorship (1)

Schlaegel (28073) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192211)

This is not about the government censoring what any content producer has to say.

This is about whether YOU have the right to watch something the way you want to watch it.

This is about limiting your freedom. Pay attention as slowly all of our freedoms disappear.

PS.
There is a vote on the ZD page. Go vote.

Right and wrong (1)

forand (530402) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192221)

It seems to me that Hollywood recognizes that this is not far from letting people re-encode the content of the DVD into say DiVx. At very least they are being consistent. Also, while I think that they have no leg to stand on for stoping ClearPlay since it doesn't actually edit the data but only uses functions already usable by the owner(fastforward and mute), I don't see why they should have to let CleanFlicks SELL edited copies of their IP. If I write a book I don't want someone else changing a few words and then selling it without asking me, that would imply I condoned what they did which I might not.

Game Genie for Movies (5, Interesting)

Vegan Pagan (251984) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192223)

In 1990 Nintendo tried to prevent the sale of a cheating device for the NES called Game Genie. Nintendo claimed it violated copyrights by modifying game code. They lost the case because Galoob, GG's vendor, proved in court that it did not modify the games, but merely altered their operation while it was plugged in. This sounds like the same case, and perhaps the maker of this DVD player could refer to the Game Genie precedent.

Selling? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192232)

This looks more like licencing the use, in their own terms.

The next Hollywood slogan seems to be "All your movies belong to us" or something like that

Forcing you to what? (3, Insightful)

hondo77 (324058) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192235)

I love the part in the article linked to [usatoday.com] 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.

Eyes Wide Shut... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192239)

...special 15 minute edition.

does it remove comercials? (1)

forand (530402) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192242)

I hate comercials at the begining of my DVD and find them offensive(I already own the damn movie stop selling me Coke!)

It's not censorship... (4, Insightful)

Trickster Coyote (34740) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192249)

...when you do it to yourself. It's called freedom of choice. It's only censorship when you prevent someone else from seeing it.

If I set my /. settings to filter out Jon Katz stories, that's my choice -- not censorship.

If I fast forward through commercials on a taped broadcast, that my choice -- not censorship.

If I want to use a DVD player that imports an edit list that filters out the naughty bits, that' my choice -- not censorship.

Early odds... (1)

StevenMaurer (115071) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192257)

Given the US court system is (and always has been) a legal crap shoot - e.g. the judge you get is far more important than the law - no one can tell how this will turn out.

However, I believe the smart money is on the "censors" in this case, because they aren't actually modifying the media. Again, just like with Google's page rank system and "net nannies" sold to private parties, this is simply another form of "opinion" they're peddling. And in general, you can't sue people to change their opinion. (Or rather, you can, but it won't do any good.)

Speaking of oddities however, it's been quite a while since I've seen something as surreal as a Microsoft employee complaining about Google's "monopoly" against Search King [msn.com] . Dahlia Lithwick seems to think that court case is somehow much closer than it seems to me, which scares me because she has real legal training, so maybe the courts really are going to start forcing people to alter or not publicize their opinions.

Why of course not... (2, Funny)

boomgopher (627124) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192258)

Didn't you know? Hollywood producers/directors are doing everyone a great big favor by educating the planet with their well-balanced world-view. If someone filters or otherwise make any changes the movie, how will their propaga^H^H^H^H^H^H enlightenment work correctly?

We're trying create a brave new world here people, get with the program...

WHAT!? (4, Insightful)

utahjazz (177190) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192266)

I do believe its everyone's right to do what they wish with their own media

It's not 'your own media' dude.

When you download Linux, you DO NOT OWN IT. Copyrights are ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. You only have rights to it, as granted by the owner of the material, and this is how it should be.

I'll give you a wonderful example. Brigham Young University decided to show Schindler's List to the students. Except, they wanted to show their own version, with all the "offensive content" removed. Speilberg said "no way", and he was fully within his rights to do so.

If copyright owners are not allowed to control what happens to their work, we could not enfoce the GPL. Free software would die.

Does this mean? (3, Funny)

SB5 (165464) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192267)

Does this mean that I will be able to get Japanese porn that doesn't pixelize the genitals?

How about the artists rights - not just consumers? (2, Insightful)

Morpeth (577066) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192269)

Personally, this issue doesn't bother me nearly as much as a lot of other recent news.

I think when a director releases a film, it's their 'work of art' (whether or not it's a good film) and should be left in tact. They choose the scenes, the camera shots, and yes maybe the gratitious sex, violence, etc. - but their intention is for you to see it the way they, and the studio choose to. And if they choose to do a "Director's Cut" later and add/edit content - that's their choice, as it was their project, they own the rights, NOT the consumers.

If you don't like 'x' content, then your freedom of choice is to NOT watch the bloody nothing, not to edit or create your own version. You don't like what's out there, then go to film school and learn to make your own movies, but leave another artist's work alone.

Go ahead, flame away, but I think everybody likes to scream and rant about 'my rights', 'me me me!" and forget others have rights and protections as well.

I am on Hollywoods Side (0, Flamebait)

RedWolves2 (84305) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192270)

A movie is art. Offensive or not it is art and it is the vision of the director. Just like real art can not be sensored either should movies.

And yet... (4, Interesting)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192282)

"They want to prevent the sale of a special DVD player which can be used to edit out offensive material from a DVD in realtime."

But they want to require the sale of special DVD players which edit out foreign material from a DVD (ie. region lock-outs).

I knew the MPAA and the DVD Consortium were two-faced, but this is just ridiculous. About the only common trait between these two positions is the elimination of options from the consumer marketplace.

Filtering advertisements could be next (3, Insightful)

Traa (158207) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192283)

I could see that Hollywood is taking this approach to get a foot in the door for when the more interesting filters start appearing. For example, given the direction that modern advertisements are going I can forsee a future where they become an integrated part movies (they sometimes allready are). It would be in Hollywoods favor to have a case on it's side that helps the ban of 'advertisement-filters'.

Re:Filtering advertisements could be next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192334)

You are such a moron. It's obvious that you have no idea about what you're talking about. Why don't spend a little time researching before you spout out such drivel?

It's people like you which make fear for the fate of humanity.

Who exactly is "Hollywood"? (4, Informative)

FurryFeet (562847) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192286)

If you do a Google search for news on this device, you'll find out that the movie studios have nothing against it. In fact, they'd like to sell movies to parents that wouldn't buy before because of mature content.
The suit is being pursued by several directors who insist they have "moral rights" on their films. Now, from their perspective, the device is akin to someone covering the Venus of Milo's breast, or putting duct tape over Goya's Naked Maja. They claim the movie is art.
So, save the kneejerk reactions and start posting nice.
For the record, I disagree with the suit, and I think all the device does is automate what I can do myself anyway. I can fast forward boring/sexual/violent parts anyway and they can't do a damn thing about it, so I can't see the problem in making the process more efficient.

When it comes to DVD's... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192287)

Attention Ladies!
Every 14th of February men get the chance to display their fondness for
their wife's or girlfriends by showering them with gifts, flowers,
dinner, shows and any other baubles that women find romantic.
Secret... guys feel left out. That's right... left out. There's no
special holiday for the ladies to show their appreciation for the men
in their lives. Men as a whole are either too proud or just too
embarrassed to admit it. Which is why a new holiday has been created.

March 20th is now officially "Steak and a Blow Job Day"

Simple, effective and self explanatory. This holiday has been created
so you ladies can have a day to show your man just how much you love
him. No cards, no flowers, no special nights on the town. The name of
the holiday explains it all... just a steak and a BJ. That's it. This
twin pairing of Valentine's Day and Steak and a Blow Job Day will usher
in a new age of love as men everywhere will try THAT much harder in
February to ensure a more memorable March! It's like a perpetual love
machine.

What's the problem here? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192306)

What if I tape the fast forward button? Would that be illegal?

Eberts opinion. (1, Informative)

arak (632721) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192324)

Scroll to the bottom of this [suntimes.com] article to read Roger Eberts opinion on this.

It must be nice to GET PAID to promote an agenda!! (1)

bigmattana (646048) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192325)

So it seems that hollywood and the MPAA is not content to have an entertainment monopoly. They also want to force their ideologies on you if you want the privilege of being entertained.

While many in the slashdot community may not mind constant sex, violence, murder, torture, communist propaganda etc. in thier movies, I personally get tired of seeing it. Most psychologists agree that what you see and hear has and effect on your behavior, even if it is only subconsiously.
If I do not want to use part of what I buy, I have that right. Hollywood should be happy they have the right to put this kind of stuff in their movies. Trying to take away other poeple's freedoms is not showing much appreciation for these rights.

Umm, you can do this anyway... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192330)

The DVD specification allows multiple paths through a movie. There were two intended uses for this, the first being the ability to put a 'Director's Cut' and a standard edit on the same disk, and the second to allow exactly this kind of filtering. A DVD can be released with two, different rated, tracks through the movie, one missing out some 'offeisive scenes' (like when the director decides to really overstate a point in case the single-figure IQ audience segment miss it) removed. Any DVD player which correctly implements the DVD specification will, if set to a parental lock mode, play the lower rated track. Why is this being reported as if it's some kind of new technology? Just because hollywood hasn't yet figured out what they can do with their technology...

Illegal now, hopefully legal soon (4, Informative)

adaknight (553954) | more than 11 years ago | (#5192337)

Check out this legislation [loc.gov] - an amendment to the DMCA that will allow exactly this sort of fair use under the law. I hope it passes.

Pulp Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5192341)

Wasn't that the cool short film set in a Diner?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>