Bush Signs Bill to Let Parents Strip Offensive Scenes From Films

[maxrandb]

Looking for a good link. The only new thing about this is that it is now law. This bill passed the Senate a while back.

I want to protect me kids just like anyone else, but who decides what is offensive and what is not? I wish I had a device that would beep everytime Faux News lies. How about a device that blocks me from ever seeing poor ol' Tom Delay crying about being persecuted. How about a device that would short out my radio everytime I hear that fat drug addicted pig Limbaugh, or that whiny chickenhawk Hanity. Talk about things that could be useful.

More pandering to the fundies. Here's a clue. If you don't want your kids to watch sex scenes, then DON'T RENT THE EFFING MOVIES!

Fundie: "Wow that Godfather was a great movie. All 17 minutes of it."

From the story

"WASHINGTON - President Bush on Wednesday signed legislation aimed at helping parents keep their children from seeing sex scenes, violence and foul language in movie DVDs.

The bill gives legal protections to the fledgling filtering technology that helps parents automatically skip or mute sections of commercial movie DVDs. Bush signed it privately and without comment, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said

Critics of the bill have argued it was aimed at helping one company, Utah-based ClearPlay Inc., whose technology is used in some DVD players. ClearPlay sells filters for hundreds of movies that can be added to such DVD players for $4.95 each month. Hollywood executives maintain that ClearPlay should pay them licensing fees for altering their creative efforts."

Hmmmm...that 3rd paragraph, why do I see Orin Hatch's hand in this?

[Sandpiper]

1. I'm sensing a legal challenge in the near future

Since this law seems to be at odds with copyright law.

[BattyDem]

8. I don't see how this is legal.

How can a company alter the product of another company without getting permission and/or paying a licensing fee? Apply that same rule to any other product or business and it's ridiculous!

[Sandpiper]

10. I don't either

But one can never truly predict whether right wing of SCOTUS will let their fascism overrule their jurisprudence.

[petronius]

22. I don't see why it would be illegal

It doesn't alter the product at all - it's just a tool for processing the video as it goes through the player, and after the consumer has purchased the DVD. Really, it's no different from using the remote to mute, fast forward, or rewind various parts of the movie - this just automates the process...

You can argue that the filtering software profits from someone else's work, but you'd have to make the same argument about magazines or guidebooks or anything else that describes the content of a movie.

[aquart]

38. Of course it alters the product!

Jesus H. Christ, it eliminates whole plotlines, themes, crucial scenes! It turns a cohesive whole into a flabby mess.

[DerBeppo]

44. so any other button

besides "play" should be deemed illegal? they do the exact same thing.

[Occulus]

50. We're talking removal of content

Personally, I think you should be able to set up a chapter playlist for DVDs. That way, the 'offensive' scenes could be marked beforehand, and you, the user, would set it up to skip or present an alternate scene in place of the original.

This is really very, very simple: enable the device to play specified chapters as well as the original film. For 'offensive' scenes, either aloow a scene to be skipped, or allow scene 1a as opposed to scene 1 in its place on the user defines playlist.

Sheesh!!!! Why is this even an issue!??!?

[Arkansas Granny]

45. This sounds like the same principle as the V-chip on TV.

I would think that if this just allows to you skip the parts that you don't want to watch (or have your children see) without actually altering the video it should be the choice of the consumer.

[BattyDem]

65. Actually, the V-Chip is different because ...

it's simply an "on/off" switch. It's a filter that allows the consumer to block out ENTIRE PROGRAMS based upon their rating - and the ratings were determined by the television industry - the creators of the programming. The V-Chip allows a person to either view the program or not view the program - the content isn't edited.

What ClearSafe is doing is very different. Their machine doesn't automatically block content based on rating, nor is it a programmable filter that allows the consumer to determine what will and will not be blocked. The company creates individual filters which edit the content of SPECIFIC films and then sells them. So ClearSafe edits a film any way they want to and then dump the edits into a filter which will alter the content of the DVD when it's viewed - and that's how they make a profit.

To allow ClearSafe to do this without obtaining permission and/or paying licensing fees is just plain wrong. When musicians began to edit songs recorded by other artists and used those edits to create something new (sampling), they were forced to pay the original artist - so why is this any different? ClearSafe is using filters to edit someone else's work and they're selling those filters - which means they're making a profit on the EDITED version of someone else's work!

[cap]

47. copyright law...

restricts the use and alteration of original material.

It wont hold up in court.... just a bone for the Right Wing.

[petronius]

48. But it's not altering original material

it's just choosing not to watch certain parts of that material. Not significantly different from hitting fast forward (the difference is only that the software automates the process, removing the need to push FF and/or mute). The only valid objection, in my opinion, would be if people were using the filtering software to show the movie to a third party, and representing the filtered viewing as the complete original. Otherwise, the consumer should have the right to view the material however they see fit...

[LiviaOlivia]

53. It is censorship.

By jmowreader
DU
June 23,2004

"We have to protect the children, so we're going to allow parents to use this technology to remove offensive materials from their DVDs, but only if they buy a special $200 DVD player."

leads to

"Why can't I have the same protections the rich people with their fancy $200 DVD players get on my $29.95 DVD player? This is clearly discrimination against the poor."

leads to

"As the CEO of Wal-Mart, we will no longer carry DVDs that contain sex or vulgar language, but violence is okay because Mel Gibson is a religious man and we wouldn't want to upset him by censoring his works."

leads to

"We, the CEOs of Target, Circuit City and Best Buy, certify that our DVD selection comply with the same high family-friendly standards DVDs from Wal-Mart meet."

leads to

"The Home Video Software Association of America's members attest that it is too expensive to maintain two SKUs for every DVD, one for the four largest sellers of DVDs and one for everyone else, so we will no longer make non-Family Friendly(TM) DVDs. We promise that DVDs will no longer contain sex, vulgar language, smoking, drinking, drug use, fast driving, eating of unhealthy foods, playing of unsafe sports or any other activity that may damage the psyche or adversely influence American children under the age of 21."

leads to

"We at the Motion Picture Association of America are responding to complaints from American consumers who are upset that the movies they see in theatres have sex, vulgar language and drug use in them, so we have decided to stop making movies that do not conform to Family Friendly(TM) standards."

which leads to

"Psst! Hey Joe! C'mere! Wanna good DVD? I got lots of 'em. My secret little film studio makes 'em. I've got this one here 'Smokin!' that's got nothing but people sitting around smoking and telling dirty jokes. Cigars, cigarettes, pipes. There's even a guy smoking a hookah! And check this one out. 'Drinking!' It's just two men and a woman sitting on a couch, drinking a case of Budweiser and telling telling dirty jokes. We got one called 'Fast Driving!' where two guys screw a video camera to the dashboard of a Camaro and just drive the shit out of it, but there's no dirty jokes in that one. Only $19.95 apiece and guaranteed great. Whaddaya say?"

which inevitably leads to...

"In CNBC Business News...three guys who are fed up by what they see as 'wimpy movies with no redeeming social features whatsoever' have gotten rich by making their own movies under the banner of 'Reprehensible Films' and selling them out of the trunks of cars on street corners. The surprise hit 'Smokin!,' which critic Roger Ebert describes as 'the first movie whose stars are a sofa, a carton of Marlboros and a big hookah,' has sold over 10 million DVDs in its first week on the market. We watched the film 'French Kissing,' which is a close-up shot of the faces of two people French kissing to loud music, and were left with the urge to drive home and suck our wives' lips right off their faces. We got a copy of 'Smokin!' and showed it to ten non-smoking editors; by the end of the movie six of them had managed to wrestle a production assistant to the ground and relieve her of her pack of Virginia Slims. Reprehensible Films' works are irreverent and a lot of fun. See one today."


jmowreader
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=640336&mesg_id=640706

[petronius]

55. I don't get your argument

First of all, using this software is not censorship in any way whatsoever - the film makers get to produce exactly the film they want, and the consumers get to view whichever parts of the DVD that they desire. It's no different than manually fast forwarding through parts of a movie that I don't want to see (or skipping the whaling chapter in Moby Dick or picking the onions off my frozen pizza...) The consumer, once a product is purchased, has a right to use that product as they see fit (with limits of course, but this product doesn't approach those limits).

As for the lengthy 'slippery slope' description, there's a bit of faulty logic in there (particularly the assumption that not having something you can't afford is discrimination), but it still sounds like it works right back to the starting point, with the demand for unfiltered movies being met - more of a slippery loop than a slope...

[LiviaOlivia]

67. Disagree. The target is strictly bulling business to achieve censorship.

I see the RW taking up the 'cause' of the poor against the rich in this scenario; to complete their circle of censorship. God forbid they champion decent living/family wages. Your arguments are completely anti-1st Amendment. Why should an artist have to alter or have altered his or her work? Who are these companies (Clearplay) pushing for censorship? Is there really a market for it outside of Provo, Utah and Colorado Springs, Colo? I doubt it. It's censorship. Censorship means money for some in the short term and a political/cultural win for others. The GOP continually tries to bully artists and companies into submission. Free speech and the 1st Amendment loses.

Look at what has been done to history concerning Native Americans and African Americans in the past.

The truth will set you free. Whether you like it or not.

[petronius]

71. Are we talking about different products?

Nobody is pushing for censorship, and no artists are being pressured to alter their work. The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with it. You're probably right that there is a very small market for this - a few people want a tool to make it easier to fast forward through parts of movies. And why shouldn't they have it? Someone who's bought a DVD should be able to watch it any way they want. Allowing the end user to decide how to use a product isn't censorship. Free speech isn't threatened here - movie makers are free to make what they want, people who want to watch truncated movies will be able to do so, and the rest of us will continue to watch movies in their entirety, and the RW will continue to not champion living wages...

I hope you're right about the RW, though - it would be vastly entertaining if they spent all their energy trying to get high-end DVD players...

[Inland]

64. So? Do you think the holder of the copyright is going to get in the way?

No different than any other cut. If it sells, it sells and he gets a cut. There's probably a handful of artists that care enough to forbid any alteration even if more people buy the product.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

66. And in Huck Finn, Nigger Jim shall only be refered to as Jim...

Where the fuck is this clown (bush) taking this country?

[w13rd0]

2. Funny, so Bush only supports intellectual property...

...he agrees with. Sorry, but if these films aren't being distributed under a "free to alter" license, then they (ClearPlay) needs to pay the licensing fees for alteration. How is this any different than a musician sampling entire chunks of a movie or song? Hell, it's even worse than simple sampling.

[realFedUp]

3. Is this from theonion.com? link?

[maxrandb]

12. Only Link I Could Find was AP

and required registration. I'm still looking.

[madrchsod]

4. ahhhh the big bad movie boys

are going after the people down loading movies but they are doing nothing much but cry about their buddy georgie screwing them. boo hoo......

[calimary]

5. When there are films out about bushie, or American history films that

include glowing crap about him, that means I can now edit all that obscene material OUT! Cool. Don't mind if I do.

[ixion]

6. soooo... copyright law is null and void if it's a fundy xian company?

whatever. :eyes:

[Occulus]

51. nono, this is on the user end.

We should actually get behind this. The end user is the ultimate arbitor of decency.

If they don't want to watch it, shoot, tag the scenes as such and give VCR/DVD owners the option to turn the "decency filter" on or off. Veeeerrrrry simple.

[Oreo]

7. Medved is on ClearPlay's advisory board

http://www.clearplay.com/Advisors.aspx?and=1
Michael Medved
Michael Medved is a film critic, best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host. His daily three-hour program, emphasizing the intersection of politics and pop culture, reaches more than 1.8 million listeners in 140 markets, coast to coast. Mr. Medved has been a frequent guest on all the major TV talk shows, including Larry King Live, Nightline, Oprah, David Letterman, Good Morning America and countless others. His columns on media and society appear regularly in USA Today, where he serves as a member of the Board of Contributors. The Medveds live in the Seattle area with their three children.


A reader comment:
My wife and I love your player. For religious reasons, we don't watch rated R movies, and your player has allowed us to see many movies we wouldn't ordinarily get to. I think this is a great idea!
- David

Wasn't The Passion an R-rated movie? Guess what... there's no filter for it!

[LifeDuringWartime]

28. lol

"A reader comment:
My wife and I love your player. For religious reasons, we don't watch rated R movies, and your player has allowed us to see many movies we wouldn't ordinarily get to. I think this is a great idea!
- David"


im sorry but thats hilarious. maybe im just insensitive today

[hunter]

36. Me too.

That one had me ROTFL.

"Close your eyes now dear, I'm taking off my pants!"

[rebecca_herman]

68. eek

the number of comments from parents using this on their teen (some even say older teen) kids to prevent them watching anything other than PG is scary.

[Zynx]

9. (Lots of) Court challenge pending.

[Oreo]

11. Hey! ClearPlay doesn't have a filter for The Passion!!

http://www.clearplay.com/MovieList.aspx?and=2

[MountainLaurel]

32. Killing and torture is OK

But Gawd will strike you dead if you see a boobie.

[despairing optimist]

13. Edited scene from Blue Velvet: Phoo you, you phooin' phoo!

[Inland]

41. "I'm sorry, all we have is Pabst. Will that do?" nt

[Nailzberg]

60. LOL

[Sabriel]

63. Time for a thread: "CleanFlicks Revisionist Movies"

I'm going to order the 5-minute version of Michael Mann's "Thief." Should be interesting. Hey, movies won't be as good anymore, but this way you get to watch a whole bunch of them in one night....

[ChickMagic]

14. I don't think Bush has a clue about copyright laws

Maybe it's a setup to indict more "activist judges".

[Lori Price CLG]

15. I'm waiting for the bill to sign that strips Bush of his p-Residency n/t

[Tracer]

16. The problem isn't people deleting scenes from their own DVDs.

It's the "movie sanitizing" business - where businesses like ClearPlay "sanitize" movies Ñ and then RESELL them and keep the profits.

------------------------------------------

'Bleep!' focuses on DVD censorship

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2005/04/26/bleep_focuses_on_dvd_censorship/


Lines pioneered what is called the ''movie sanitizing" business, which now includes such outfits as Family Flix and ClearPlay. Today, he is the nation's biggest purveyor of recut ''family-friendly" DVDs, having reworked more than 800 of them. About 100 video stores around the country rent and sell Lines's altered versions, and many other people order them online from his CleanFlicks company.

[FloridaPat]

18. But isn't this what network TV stations have done for decades?

Taken out what they think might be offensive to anyone? Seems like the same thing but at least they're not bleeping my movie.

[Sandpiper]

21. The difference is the TV Station is paying for distribution rights

Including the right to distribute an edited version of the original that is in line with FCC standards.

[MN ChimpH8R]

20. WTF??

I can not _believe_ that this is not going to get challenged by the studios. Heard part of a report on NPR about this - Directors' Guild is steaming, but to think that these fundie whackjobs are bowdlerizing copyrighted works and then _reselling_ them at a profit is not flat out piracy is :crazy:. And I am no fan of the Big Media's crying wolf all the time.

Whatta revoltin' development this is.....

:wtf:

:puke:

[petronius]

27. It doesn't sound like they're selling edited versions

it sounds like they are selling software that will automatically not display certain segments of a movie as it goes through the player. Basically, it's just an automated mute button. It doesn't cut into the profits of the original movie maker at all - if anything, it would add to the profits, since people who might not have otherwise bought the DVD may change their minds...

[youspeakmylanguage]

31. petronius is right...

Check out http://www.clearplay.com/About.aspx

I don't quite understand the controversy. I can understand why the Director's Guild is angry on artistic grounds, but if I purchase a DVD I should be able to play it on any DVD player I choose, including ones that edit the content.

What if there was a law that stated once a book was purchased, the new owner had no right to rip out pages?

It seems to me the easiest way to handle this is to use the free market. The studios should start their own service and undercut this ClearPlay company, driving them out of business.

[hunter]

29. CLEANFLICKS

You bridge that little gap between the "L" and the "I" and it turns into CLEANFUCKS.

Coincidence or not?

[youspeakmylanguage]

33. It looks like this law is tailored to legalize what ClearPlay is doing...

...and not the fundie in Utah.

Selling a chipped DVD player should be legal. Selling edited copies of copyrighted movies at a profit should be illegal.

I think this law clarifies that.

[Occulus]

52. OK, *THAT* should be illegal.

Clearly copyright violation. No rights to modify, reproduce, and resell are in place.

Nail 'em to the wall. They're reselling the modified versions, and unlike filesharing, this is theft.

[Oreo]

17. It gets worse... look at the filter descriptions

Here's what they block from:
The Parent Trap
Thematic Elements and Related Content in Movie:
Alcohol Consumption Smoking
Divorce Topic

Pee Wee's Big Adventure
Thematic Elements and Related Content in Movie:
Criminal/Gangster/Mob Themes Alcohol Consumption
Smoking Bar/Club Environment
they cut out the Tequila bar scene... NOOO!!

E.T.
Thematic Elements and Related Content in Movie:
Intense Action/Adventure Intense Life/Death Situations
Fantasy/Sci-Fi Action Scary Moments
Non-Graphic Injury/Wound Alcohol Consumption
Smoking Divorce Topic


Footloose
Dancing (JUST KIDDING!)

Thematic Elements and Related Content in Movie:
Implied Premarital Sex Teen Partying
Alcohol Consumption Bar/Club Environment
Intense Thematic Elements

And finally.... the best one of all

Fahrenheit 9/11
Talking badly about der fuhrer (kidding)
Thematic Elements and Related Content in Movie:
Threatening Dialogue Intense Life/Death Situations
War Themes Intense Battle Sequences
Alcohol Consumption Smoking
Mature Thematic Elements Intense Thematic Elements
Murder Topic

[Lorien]

25. Cutting out divorce as a topic?

with 57% of all marriages ending in divorce, I don't see how not mentioning the subject will "help" kids-especially when more than half come from "broken homes" to begin with.

[XemaSab]

37. How on EARTH

can you cut out the divorce theme from "the parent trap" and have it make any sense as a film?

So these two kids are twins, but they were raised apart from each other....WHY?

Also, the bar scene in PeeWee's big adventure is one of the great moments in cinematic history.

Did they also cut out the scene in F-911 where the members of Peace Fresno are eating cookies? How about the scene where the dude is being interviewed and it's obviously Oakland in the background? Are the censors aware that Oakland is predominantly black, and that they elected Jerry Brown as mayor? How can they show such a scene of vice in a family film?

If I was going to censor any one thing from F-911 on ground of being truly disturbing, it would be the scene with the spit and the comb. Disgusting.

What I want is a video player that fast forwards to the sex scenes. The film "Mulholland Drive" is a sterling example of a film that would have been a good movie, except there was just too much talking.

Another good thing to have would be a video player that cuts out any scene with Jar Jar from the new star wars movies. And Hayden Christensen.

[ticapnews]

46. E.T.?

E.T.
Thematic Elements and Related Content in Movie:
Intense Action/Adventure Intense Life/Death Situations
Fantasy/Sci-Fi Action Scary Moments

Without the life/death situations, what are the penultimate scenes about? Without showing the link between E.T. and Eliot what's the point?

I watched part of the "Bleep" documentary on AMC and was amazed that they could somehow put together a "clean" version of Saving Private Ryan which the owner seemed especially pleased with... Do they just edit out the first 25 minutes? Do they have the scenes where the soldiers are preparing to fight and then just cut to Capt. Miller telling Pvt. Ryan to "Earn this" without showing the combat and the fatalities? What the hell is he earning if those soldiers didn't die to save him?

Will they do a version of Schindler's List where all the Jews just move to Israel and Auschwitz is a pleasant vacation spot? Someone mentioned The Godfather which I imagine is now a charming story of a tight-knit Italian family that runs a legitimate business importing olive oil.

The point isn't that they are merely editing a few scenes, they are changing the stories and their meaning. If we're going to do this with movies, why not books? Edit out the 'objectionable' material in "Catcher in the Rye" or "Huck Finn" and then everyone can read it. Of course, it won't have nearly the same meaning...

While we're at it, how about we edit the Bible, too? We can start by cutting Leviticus, Deuterotomy and Timothy. :)

[athenap]

58. Done it already

The Victorians sanitized fairy tales and Shakespeare and many classics.

What I want to know, is will there be a chipped DVD player that will let you skip the &(*^&%ing "coming attractions" and previews and go straight to the DVD menu? Paramount has blocked the "straight to menu" button for a lot of kids' movies so they can force you to sit through the previews. How is that protecting the kids? Oh, I forgot...it's only things like sex and drinking the kids need to be saved from. Advertising is perfectly harmless...

Bah!

[hunter]

19. Flip one bit and only the offensive parts will be shown.

Ooooooooh.... this is really, really funny. ClearPlay could play both sides of this field and make a fortune!

[youspeakmylanguage]

35. No market...

Why would anyone want to watch 7 minutes of softcore sex from an R-rated movie? Isn't that what Cinemax is for?

[hunter]

39. Well, I watch Howard Stern on E! and try to imagine the blurry parts.

Sorry, I can't stop. This is too funny.

[youspeakmylanguage]

40. Not as sad as picturing them while listening to the radio!

...while driving to work in the morning!

:freak:

[Racenut20]

23. Does this mean censure for teenage Christy Canyon movies?

[hector459]

24. If ClearPlay sells edited copies that should be copywrite infringement.

People in this country should be marching in the streets. If parents want to delete, block, or filter their own bought copies of anything at home they can already do that. But there should never be a LAW on this. Another use of government to protect the coporate Republicans. How can people just close their eyes to this? Parental "rights?" What about parental "responsibilities?" This is really fucked up!

[youspeakmylanguage]

34. They aren't...

They sell chipped DVD players that use software filters on regular DVDs. No problem there, IMO.

[maxrandb]

26. Man! They are keeping this quiet

I can't find a link anywhere that says it was signed today, other than the story I got e-mailed stating that "Bush signed it privately and without comment"

All kinds of links to what the bill is, that it passed the Senate and the House, all kinds of blogs, but no story that it was actually signed today.

If needed mods, move this to GD. I'm still looking.

[daleo]

30. Knowing who owns Clearplay will shed some light on this.

Although, in the privacy of peoples' homes it shouldn't matter.

[hunter]

42. Wading through the kiddy pools of ethical discourse...

Okay, suppose I believe that watching the naughty parts of an "R" rated movie buys me a ticket to hell. If I rent that same movie anyways, and watch it using a device that filters out the naughty parts, am I still not supporting an industry that is sending people to hell?

That's it, I'm doomed, I know I am.

I'm gonna type "Tanya Roberts" into google images just to see what happens.

[Fire Walk With Me]

43. Bush has already done this to images of the returning dead US soldiers

and it works great! What you aren't aware of, might as well not exist.

Why not make it a law? :sarcasm:

[Crazy8s]

49. I saw a program on this subject last nite on AMC

There are several small garage companies editing films for content after buying a copy and then selling the edited version as well as the ClearPlay player. I think the player makes sense because it simply skims past objectionable material. The backyard editors are altering the movies without permission and reselling them, which seems more like a copy right violation to me.

IMO I don't think it will be long before the movie makers themselves will begin to release sanitized versions of their movies. They already create alternate versions for TV. They may moan about their creative visions being damaged, but they know that there is money to be made here, and they will hold their nose and pursue that dollar.

[hedgehog]

54. I would say that I would totally agree except what makes you

think they would be holding their noses? This is the same industry that alters plot lines to show case product placements! If someone is doctoring bootleg copies, that's against copyright law. If they're paying the owners in order to distribute an altered version, that's between the owners and them. Turn it around. Why haven't we heard wails and gnashing of teeth when the studios distribute a re-cut unrated version DVD?

[antonialee839]

56. The Walmarting of America

[NashVegas]

57. If Hollywood Hated This Bill THAT Much

They could have put a moratorium on video releases six months ago and gotten the Blockbusters of the world to lobby against it.

[Nailzberg]

61. Trust me, the studios hate it.

The problem is, this provision was packaged into an anti-piracy bill that the studios obviously wanted. Assume that there will be legal challenges to the undesirable alteration portion of this law.

[bleedingheart]

59. Why not just eliminate TV from their life?

I recall a fundie kid from High School..his parents didn't even have a TV...so when he came to our house he acted like a complete and utter social misfit because he couldn't take his eyes off ours...I recall my mom telling me later that she thought his parents hadn't done him any favors forbidding him something like TV.

[Nailzberg]

62. Still need a good link???

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000900812

[Flammable Materials]

69. Take the idea and reverse it ...

... create a DVD player that only plays the violent and sexy parts. Then phone your congressman.

[NVMojo]

70. Anarchy ....seeds being planted daily by the Bush regime ...