Family Entertainment and Copyright Act

[MOVIEGEEK]

Evil...you have some issues.
I'm no prude by any stretch of the imagination but letting young(<12) children watch nudity,gorry violence and hear profanity is a no-no in my household.I have to agree with bugster,I think the morals of society have gone down.Again this is my opinion and what you show and do in your house is your business.
If you read the bill it allows you the consumer to censor the DVD at your home(similar to the V-Chip),Congress isn't censoring anything.

[BJ_M]

but its ok to watch all the violence ?


there is nothing wrong with nudity and the is a big diff. between nudity and porno .. i'm glad my kids dont have these hang-ups ..

[Scarpad]

Excerpt: "It will soon become legal to alter a motion picture so long as all the sex, profanity, and violence have been edited out, thanks to a bill called the Family Movie Act, an attachment to the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act approved Tuesday by the House. The Senate has already passed its own version, and the President is expected to sign it."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/20/congress_censors_dvd_content/

Once Bush signs this bill tonight, places like Walmart and the like can demand only "pure" movies be accepted for sales. We are heading into dangerous territory of copyright infringement and censorship.

Sorry, but this family viewing crap has gone way overboard.

And this surprises you how exactly ? I love Movies but Quite frankly of all the things that are being changed this I Worry about the Least.

[Nilfennasion]

I think it says something about the market for censored films when certain films with adult content just won't be shown on television at all because nobody wants to watch the television version. Last I checked, the only time such content was broadcast in this country was during times when the channels could afford to lose the ratings battle (which has never meant that much here, anyway).

[the * dude]

i should have gave an example.... swearign is ok not going beyond the basta** word, & mind violence (slapstick!!! rem tom & jerry!!!!), & when i mean family i don't mean little kids (below 12)

i should give a list like... films like martial arts films &small films like..... under seige (who could forget), bruce lee films, my minds blank now but belive me theres tons....

what really get me though is what they get away with in the ads these days... i could be having my tea watching the news (6:00pm) as soon as the break happens i get bombarded ads with a sex angle!!!!!!! now i'm forced to change the channels every time the ads happen..... it looks like i'm against sex but its the only thing that ain't sensored here in the UK, unless you don't see for your self you won't understand....

thats wot really mess up society!!!

[EvilWizardGlick]

Evil...you have some issues.
I'm no prude by any stretch of the imagination but letting young(<12) children watch nudity,gorry violence and hear profanity is a no-no in my household.I have to agree with bugster,I think the morals of society have gone down.Again this is my opinion and what you show and do in your house is your business.
If you read the bill it allows you the consumer to censor the DVD at your home(similar to the V-Chip),Congress isn't censoring anything.

You are utterly ridiculous in your claims about modern morality.
Most people have NO conception about what the world was like twenty five, fifty or one hundred years ago. How many kids maimed another after watching Bugs Bunny or the Three Stooges? Or while Ozzie and Harriet were on TV Blacks were being lynched down south and lived in horrid squalid conditions? Or that Jack the Ripper never had television to watch while he did his heinous deeds. Just what is to be blamed for violence and sexual activity before film and television?
While you are at it check out how the Constitution defines Blacks. Or that the first child abuse case had to be prosecuted under Animal abuse laws. Or how women have faired in the world since the beginning of time.
There is a documentary I think it is called Comic Book Confidential where the exact same arguments about violence were used against Comic Books as are used today. Totally silly stuff just like in the Reefer Madness film. But people still fall for it.
During the eighties my ex inlaws did not allow their two boys 12 and 14 to watch Miami Vice. But when they were at friends they watched the show. Their parents had NO idea they were doing that. Much like most parents have no clue that their kids drink, use drugs and screw.
Who would you rather have your kids watch an r-rated movie with you the parent or some drunken horny teens? Which do you think is better to offer advice? Do you want your daughter to learn about sex at home or in the hands of some doped up fumbling groping teenage boy who may or may not have a condom on hand?
I also recall a quote from either an Ancient Greek or Roman wall bemoaning the fact that morality was in decline! That was 2000 years ago.
Same goofiness, different times.
If more kids watched sex on tv, with parental guidance, just maybe they wouldn't be abused, get "tricked" into sexual acts.
As far as violence, sports are far more violent than most films. The commentary actually PRAISES violence.
The Bible is one of the most violent books ever written.
Yes I am far happier knowing EXACTLY what my children watch. I am very happy that I can COMMUNICATE with them as REASONING beings.
And I'm fairly certain this will keep them STABLE, SAFE, and allow them to share many of the problems that MOST children do not.
That strikes me as a fair trade off.


I also find this quite ironic in a discussion of censorship.

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. please watch the language and also NO Religion --
/ Moderator BJ_M

This serves to highlight the silliness of censorship.

[Nilfennasion]

thats wot really mess up society!!!

No, what really messes up society is parents trying to cover up their children's eyes and telling them not to watch that filth, it's soooooooo dirty, etc etc.

Instead of discussing these materials and explaining why they should not be watching these things, we have people pulling the "do as I say, not as I do" routine. There is not a single entity in the world as curious or difficult to satisfy as the mind of a child. When they are told they are not to watch something, they want to know why. When they are told "it's a bit old for you", they feel insulted. They are not little machines to be programmed. They are human beings. The number of parents who forget this is truly disheartening.

As for the ban on religious or political discussion on this board, it makes sense in light of what the board is about. This is meant to be a discussion of video and related things. Those two topics almost always erupt in intimated violence and insult trading.

[bugster]

what really get me though is what they get away with in the ads these days... i could be having my tea watching the news (6:00pm) as soon as the break happens i get bombarded ads with a sex angle!!!!!!! now i'm forced to change the channels every time the ads happen..... it looks like i'm against sex but its the only thing that ain't sensored here in the UK, unless you don't see for your self you won't understand....

thats wot really mess up society!!!

sex not censored in the UK! Are you kidding!! Ads on UK TV do not and are not allowed to show nudity. A quick glimpse of a naked pair of buttocks in a slightly comical contex is fine, but no naked breasts of full frontal nudity.

As for sex censorship in TV shows/movies, you try finding anything hardcore on british TV. It is not allowed under any circumstances. When it comes to sex censorship, the UK is probably the most censored coutry in europe. Topless women appear regulary in french and german Ads. Euro cable and satelite subscription channels carry all sorts of hard core material, some of which is considered too strong for the USA where 'free speech' allows most things. But none of this can be found on UK services due to censorship.

Stopping your kids watching tame, non explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies (where both/all parties end the scene happy) but happily allowing them to watch kung-fu movies where people are seriously injured or killed is an uneven approach IMHO.

[dodonoghue]

the european dvd of robocop has both a directers cut(which is very violent) and a normal cut on the same dvd all you do is pick your cut why don't they just do that.

I saw Cursed 2 nights ago which was clearly a watered down film I hope this isn't the future of horror because it was about as scary as jumanji

is MONEY ATTAINMENT the only responsibilty that the Corparaions in charge have these days

[tumbar]

We live in 2005. We experience our current reality daily.

Films are an escape from the "real world" today as they always have been.

Films are entertainment.

No insult to the artists intended.

I can see all the "reality" I choose on the 10 oclock news.

[EvilWizardGlick]

thats wot really mess up society!!!

No, what really messes up society is parents trying to cover up their children's eyes and telling them not to watch that filth, it's soooooooo dirty, etc etc.

Instead of discussing these materials and explaining why they should not be watching these things, we have people pulling the "do as I say, not as I do" routine. There is not a single entity in the world as curious or difficult to satisfy as the mind of a child. When they are told they are not to watch something, they want to know why. When they are told "it's a bit old for you", they feel insulted. They are not little machines to be programmed. They are human beings. The number of parents who forget this is truly disheartening.

As for the ban on religious or political discussion on this board, it makes sense in light of what the board is about. This is meant to be a discussion of video and related things. Those two topics almost always erupt in intimated violence and insult trading.

When children are questioned about where they learn violence nearly all claim in the home. They realize that fictional violence is bad. Some studies even go as far as saying that violent video games are actually cathartic and allow children to release the anger safely.
Children tend to push the boundaries further. If they see the parent run a red light, they will tend to run red lights as adults.
The problem isn't with sex and violence in film it is more with IMAGE.
http://www.local10.com/health/4415906/detail.html
Research: Girls Use Steroids To Get 'Toned' Look

An alarming number of American girls, some as young as 9, are using bodybuilding steroids -- not necessarily to get an edge on the playing field, but to get the toned, sculpted look of models and movie stars, experts say.

Girls are getting their hands on the same dangerous testosterone pills, shots and creams that have created a scandal in major league baseball and other sports. Often, these are the same girls who have eating disorders, according to some research.
"There's been a substantial increase for girls during the 1990s, and it's at an all-time high right now," said Charles Yesalis, a professor of health and human development at Pennsylvania State University.

Lloyd Johnston, a University of Michigan professor who heads an annual government-sponsored survey on risky behavior by young people, said: "Other than pedophilia, this is the most secret behavior I've ever encountered."

Overall, up to about 5 percent of high school girls and 7 percent of middle-school girls admit trying anabolic steroids at least once, with use of rising steadily since 1991, various government and university studies have shown.

This is part of my gripe with young adult oriented film ( or teeny bopper oriented film). They are not SMART enough to control their own lives and are manipulated by the imagery of what beauty is supposed to be.
When real life is totally different.
There are some great quotes from Beautiful Girls about women, but since someone will whine about language I'll just post the link.
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/1869/bgquotes.html
marketing is screwing kids up far more than sex and violence is.

As for religion, while yes there is no need to debate various philosophies and stances, using something like "praise Jesus" or mentioning the bible does not connote religious discussion.
Also what one finds vulgar another does not. is using " pissed off" vulgar?
Some nanny state software on public library computers would not allow the word "breast". That meant women could not search for "Breast cancer".
That in essence is why any type of censorship is stupid. It falls to the choice of a single individual, or limited group, to decide what falls into a very narrowly defined category. It also allows that individual or group to play favorites, allowing some phrases to slip by uncommented upon and others not.
If it is enforced then EVERY use should receive a warning. There should be CLEAR and EXPLICIT guidlines.
That is fairness.
Unfortunately that does not happen.
Which in the end turns selective enforcement into a joke along the lines of marijuana laws.
Isn't that the whole point of this thread to begin with? A thread that consists of political and religious discussion because of the very nature of the topic?
By existing guidlines this thread should be deleted due to it's political nature.
But, I doubt that will be the case.

From the rules
Other
No politic, religion or war discussions.
From the original post by an, gasp, ADMIN!
thanks to a bill called the Family Movie Act, an attachment to the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act approved Tuesday by the House. The Senate has already passed its own version, and the President is expected to sign it."

Obviously POLITICAL in nature. And the rule is violated by the admin.
Who watches the watchmen?

[EvilWizardGlick]

We live in 2005. We experience our current reality daily.

Films are an escape from the "real world" today as they always have been.

Films are entertainment.

No insult to the artists intended.

I can see all the "reality" I choose on the 10 oclock news.

That is not representational of reality anymore than Brazil is.
News is biased for sensationalism.
Michael Moore does that great thing in South Central LA in Bowling for Columbine.

[Tidy]

I find the title of the article misleading. With this bill, congress has not censored anything. Nothing in this bill forbids anyone from producing any type of film with any type of content that they want. It also does not prevent anyone from purchasing any type of film with any type of content that they want. It doesn't even force the producers to create a "clean" version of their film. I'm not for congress passing a law everytime someone has a complaint, but I don't see how this puts undue burden on anyone, and I don't understand why so many people are upset.

People are upset because third party companies should not have the right to alter a piece of art. Next they are going to pass a law saying they need to remove the penis from michelangelos david because it is offensive.

[Gurm]

It's ok for your kids to see violence, swearing, and adult situations.

But heaven forbid they ever see ... *gasp* A BREAST!

SEEING A BREAST WOULD **** THEM UP FOR LIFE! OH ******* NO!

[the * dude]

bugster

Stopping your kids watching tame, non explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies (where both/all parties end the scene happy) but happily allowing them to watch kung-fu movies where people are seriously injured or killed is an uneven approach IMHO.

yeah yeah, you tell that to the parents with daughters aged 11 who come home with a baby!!!!!!

i'd rather my kid (if i had any!!!!) come home with a black eye than a baby... geee i wounder which would effect society more??????????

any whoo off the point my comments were when watching tv with family, were all adults, i know sex sells, but save the embarasment please....


oh yeah about europe & their ads well i guess thats for paid TV, i doubt they show full nudity on free to view TV... (if so i'm going there for hols )

what does that say about society when people buy product in hope of getting laid???? its mind control, bunch of sad'os

im off!!!!!

Gurm

*gasp* A BREAST!

that isn't considered sex now is it??????

it the act bits ('i didn't inhale!!!!')

[BJ_M]

also included in this bill:

It won't win an Oscar, but it may be Hollywood's favorite title of the year: The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act.

The bill, passed on Tuesday by the House, proposes up to 3 years in prison for anyone who electronically distributes a movie that hasn't been released on video or DVD, or songs or software that haven't been released to the public.

Experts said the bill focuses on expanding the types of activities covered under copyright law rather than increasing the penalties. Current law provides for up to 5 years and up to $250,000 in fines for copyright infringement.

The bill, which awaits the president's signature, also calls for up to 3 years' imprisonment for anyone who illegally distributes a copyrighted work for profit, distributes pirated material worth more than $1,000 or videotapes movies in theaters. Subsequent offenses carry up to 10 years in prison for copyright infringement of pre-release movies for financial gain.

That means someone who has a movie on his or her computer that can be shared via a file-sharing software could face up to 3 years in prison, said Fred von Lohmann, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based organization supporting civil rights online. "It seems to me that that's not likely to be the first priority, but it is theoretically possible," he said.

Scott Christie, a former federal prosecutor who handled copyright cases, said criminalizing the videotaping of movies is necessary as the quality of camcorders improves the quality of such movies. "Nowadays, people who engage in that conduct can produce a fairly good quality copy which they can then upload to the Internet and allow thousands or hundreds of thousands of people to download," he said.

"I'm very troubled by that because I'm concerned about the abuses it could lead to," said Jonathan Ezor, a professor at Touro Law Center in Huntington Station, noting that untrained movie theater employees could detain people.

Current law provides for up to 5 years and up to $250,000 in fines for copyright infringement.

The Motion Picture Association of America claims the law is necessary to reduce the $3.5 billion a year in piracy by traditional means - illegal copying and distributing videotapes and DVDs - and the undetermined losses of piracy online.

John Feehery, spokesman for the association, said 90 percent of piracy originates from camcorders. He said the penalties proposed in the bill are appropriate. "Many of these people who do this type of activity are involved in criminal gangs. This is the new crack. They get a bigger profit margin - some of these gangs - from distributing stolen DVDs than they would from drugs. A lot of these gangs are diversifying into this business."

Bob Barnes, 52, a Fresno, Calif., bus driver whose name and address were subpoenaed two years ago by the Recording Industry Association of America during one of its crackdowns against users of Kazaa, said he agreed that the industry needs to end piracy, but said it could be going to far.

"We're talking about theft, and we're talking about theft of new material," he said, but he added, "The penalties are steep."

[EvilWizardGlick]

Why is all this political stuff being posted. It is against the rules. The rules are very EXPLICIT. NO POLITICS!
This thread should be locked for violating that rule consistently.

[EvilWizardGlick]

bugster

Stopping your kids watching tame, non explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies (where both/all parties end the scene happy) but happily allowing them to watch kung-fu movies where people are seriously injured or killed is an uneven approach IMHO.

yeah yeah, you tell that to the parents with daughters aged 11 who come home with a baby!!!!!!

i'd rather my kid (if i had any!!!!) come home with a black eye than a baby... geee i wounder which would effect society more??????????

any whoo off the point my comments were when watching tv with family, were all adults, i know sex sells, but save the embarasment please....


oh yeah about europe & their ads well i guess thats for paid TV, i doubt they show full nudity on free to view TV... (if so i'm going there for hols )

what does that say about society when people buy product in hope of getting laid???? its mind control, bunch of sad'os

im off!!!!!

Gurm

*gasp* A BREAST!

that isn't considered sex now is it??????

it the act bits ('i didn't inhale!!!!')

What if your kid winds up in a coma?
Would you rather have a knocked up kid or a dead kid?
Also if you took the time to educate your kids on the perils of unprotected sex, they probably would NOT get knocked up.
Either way it isn't the violence and sex on tv in film or video games that anyone has to worry about, it is the acts at HOME that cause all the trouble. Most serial killers are made not born. Most criminals are made not born. They are created through abusive home environments.
If you need a liscense to drive a car you should have one to breed as well.

[EvilWizardGlick]

also included in this bill:

It won't win an Oscar, but it may be Hollywood's favorite title of the year: The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act.

The bill, passed on Tuesday by the House, proposes up to 3 years in prison for anyone who electronically distributes a movie that hasn't been released on video or DVD, or songs or software that haven't been released to the public.

Experts said the bill focuses on expanding the types of activities covered under copyright law rather than increasing the penalties. Current law provides for up to 5 years and up to $250,000 in fines for copyright infringement.

The bill, which awaits the president's signature, also calls for up to 3 years' imprisonment for anyone who illegally distributes a copyrighted work for profit, distributes pirated material worth more than $1,000 or videotapes movies in theaters. Subsequent offenses carry up to 10 years in prison for copyright infringement of pre-release movies for financial gain.

That means someone who has a movie on his or her computer that can be shared via a file-sharing software could face up to 3 years in prison, said Fred von Lohmann, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based organization supporting civil rights online. "It seems to me that that's not likely to be the first priority, but it is theoretically possible," he said.

Scott Christie, a former federal prosecutor who handled copyright cases, said criminalizing the videotaping of movies is necessary as the quality of camcorders improves the quality of such movies. "Nowadays, people who engage in that conduct can produce a fairly good quality copy which they can then upload to the Internet and allow thousands or hundreds of thousands of people to download," he said.

"I'm very troubled by that because I'm concerned about the abuses it could lead to," said Jonathan Ezor, a professor at Touro Law Center in Huntington Station, noting that untrained movie theater employees could detain people.

Current law provides for up to 5 years and up to $250,000 in fines for copyright infringement.

The Motion Picture Association of America claims the law is necessary to reduce the $3.5 billion a year in piracy by traditional means - illegal copying and distributing videotapes and DVDs - and the undetermined losses of piracy online.

John Feehery, spokesman for the association, said 90 percent of piracy originates from camcorders. He said the penalties proposed in the bill are appropriate. "Many of these people who do this type of activity are involved in criminal gangs. This is the new crack. They get a bigger profit margin - some of these gangs - from distributing stolen DVDs than they would from drugs. A lot of these gangs are diversifying into this business."

Bob Barnes, 52, a Fresno, Calif., bus driver whose name and address were subpoenaed two years ago by the Recording Industry Association of America during one of its crackdowns against users of Kazaa, said he agreed that the industry needs to end piracy, but said it could be going to far.

"We're talking about theft, and we're talking about theft of new material," he said, but he added, "The penalties are steep."

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. NO POLITICS!

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning.
/ Moderator BJ_M --->repeated shit disturbing and the bible un-thumping comment above

[adam]

This law has been brought up before and I really don't see what the problem is. It does not censor the work generally. Nothing about the DVDs themselves will change. This simply legalizes devices that allow you to skip predefined content of a mature nature. This is no different then the parental settings that some DVDs already contain, this just allows you to have a similar function generally on all DVDs, or at least all those that these services have gotten to (I think you download the preset modification cues as they are created for each new movie.) Its really just like mom recognizing that a sex scene is coming up and ff'ing through that part...this just makes it easier.

As for allowing services to actually edit the movies and redistribute them, I think that is clearly wrong and I am sure it will never be legal in the US. But that is another issue and not what this law is about.

Children of course have to be exposed to mature content at some age but parents have to be allowed some discretion in deciding when this is, at least while the child is in their home. I know that when my child is taught about life and death it will be through something benign like explaining a dead plant or gerbil, and this will happen very early on and in increasingly mature stages. This is much more appropriate for say a 3 or 4 year old than an episode of Real Death. And once she understands and is comfortable with the subject I'll have no problem letting her watch violent films with Dad. I'm hoping she'll be ready for Scarface by Kindergarten, but hell my wife can't even handle that yet.

[kisrum]

I have no problem with the technology, but if ABC or AMC has to pay licensing fees to a studio to show the studio's movie, cut or not, why shouldn't ClearPay have to pay licensing to filter the same movie while pocketing $4.95 per month?

The primary criticism of the bill, now, is that it currently only benefits one company by protecting it from being sued by the studios. Arguably the studios might benefit from additional customers who are now willng to bring home a particular movie to a particular age group, but its hard to put a number on it.

As for the censorship issue if Stanley Kubrick or Tom Cruise went to jail for the orgy scenes in Eyes Wide Shut, that's government censorship. If Qatar refuses to allow it to be shown, that's government censorship. If the studio, who ponied up the production dough, decides to digitally alter the movie before release, that's "bidness". Get over it. Kubrick could have always maxed out his credit cards like thousands of independent filmmakers if he hadn't wanted the security of the studio system.

If you decide not to buy the movie because of the alteration, that's 1) merciful, because the movie sucked anyway 2)"bidness" because the studio lost potential profits due to it's failure to market effectively to you, the consumer.

Did you practice censorship by not buying a particular movie or CD? Some Dixie Chicks fans might say yes, but that's for another discussion.

Ultimately this will lead to more egregious tit shots in movies because, now more than ever, parents can be told that they can always filter out the offending parts.

This forum seems to practice group double-think by always having it's collective bosom heaving over the rights of the artist and then snarking about the greedy studios. Folks, THEY'RE THE SAME PEOPLE. Dreamworks SKG is Speilberg and two other guys who've never even shot a home movie. They'll find a way to turn this to their advantage. Get over it or just read a book.

[gadgetguy]

People are upset because third party companies should not have the right to alter a piece of art.

Maybe I have to go back and read the text of the bill again. But, after I read it the first time, I didn't think that's what it said. As I recall, the bill allows for the technology to automatically skip past the objectional content at the discretion of the parent. This is no different than fast-forwarding through them on VHS (except that you have to do that manually). But as mentioned earlier, you can't do that effectively with DVD.

[offline]

EvilWizardGlick,

I agree with some of your sentiments but NOT how
you express them. Sure, there is a lot of hypocrisy
around these days, but being overtly political and
anti religious is just unnecessary, and will not be
tolerated here at videohelp.com

My personal view is that a film should be shown
in its entirety or not shown at all. I loath abridged
and censored material that is the fair of most TV
screenings. However I also feel that
it is the right of parents to choose what their children
view in the privacy of their own homes.

Apart from the obvious no no's like kiddy porn and
sexual violence, it should be left up to the individual imo.
Consenting adults should also be free to easily watch
what they want within these limits as well. No one
"group" should dictate viewing standards to another.

[Gurm]

I concur with offline.

If the film has too many naughty bits for your kids ... don't let the kids watch it. Pretty simple. We've cut WAY back on movie watching since our 3 year old started actually looking at the TV screen. We have to wait until he goes to bed to watch practically anything.

Because... wait for it... WE'RE GOOD PARENTS.

"Gee, I really want little Timmy to be able to watch Basic Instinct, but heaven forbid he sees boobs, so let's censor that part."

That's just flawed thinking. Little Timmy shouldn't be seeing that film AT ALL. The entirety of the movie is "adult content", in that it's inappropriate for kids of any age.

This is just another way for parents to get someone else to do their job. If you didn't want to raise them - DON'T HAVE THEM.

[thegig]

I don't really see this issue here. Free market. Don't like it don't buy it. People speak as though they are taking your rights away, this bill is ensuring your rights to edit if you feel the need to. Alot of past convos were how the MPAA/RIAA are dictatoral, this has limited their scope. I am happy, slap them a new one. It doesn't bother me at all, I won't use the service. But if I feel the need for my kids to watch some show, it's nice to know I can edit it or purchase something and be a parent. I may not parent like some, but that's freedom. Parent your way, but the way you feel. Just look at DIVX. Food for thought. Not looking for flames.

[SilverBlade]

I agree with Gurm on this one. Parents shouldn't rely on anyone (networks, hollywood, artists) to censor ANYTHING if THEY (the parents) can't be bothered to say 'no' or to prevent their child from watching/listening to objectional material. If their child ends up watching some nudity because their parents wern't around, who's fault? not the TV networks, not hollywood. Its the PARENTS fault for not being there. The television shouldn't be used as a babysitter.

If adults don't want to take the time and effort to raise the child properly, don't have them!. doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure THAT out.

I personally don't agree with software being made available to alter how much skin/blood is shown. There is a sticker right ON the case in PLAIN site what the rating is. THAT should be enough to say "little childlren shouldn't view this movie, we are not responsible if your child sees ANY part of this movie"

[mjliteman]

I am amazed at the turn this thread has taken and truly alarmed by many of the opinions stated.

First of all this is not a censorship issue at all and some have stated that. The whole issue to make it allowable to "self-censor" content you own for you and your own family without fear of illegality. I am an adult who *gasp* doesn't need or want to view so much sex, violence, and language. I really don't think I'm such a small minority. There are many great films which contain unnecessary sex, violence, or language (IMO) that I would otherwise buy. To take the stance that the only way to watch a film is the way the director intended (i.e. completely uncut) or I won't watch it all is too simplistic. All or nothing solutions rarely work in real life. Compromise does. There are many great things in films one might never experience. What I especially don't understand is the unyielding stance of "artists" who think that the only possible way a piece of work should be distributed is the way it was originally done. Forget for a moment that films are often edited before they're even released theatrically as requested (or demanded) by the studios themselves or the MPAA for content (usually in order to receive a certain rating). Distributing "tamer" versions would likely increase profits as more families would buy the product. Instead the trend is to release DVDs as "Unrated" cuts - apparantly it's fine when adding material - but heaven forbid cutting anything out. I just don't understand why directors and producers are so hard-nosed about neglecting a legitimate consumer base and making more money. History proves that films with more family-friendly (i.e. lower-than-R) ratings make more money. And don't tell me it's not about the money. Out of the top 100 grossing films in US history, only 12 are rated R. http://movieweb.com/movies/box_office/alltime.php I think those are only theatrical numbers but movies that do well in theaters will generally do well on DVD if not better. There are plenty of articles on that aspect.

I am grateful that I am not the child of EvilWizardGlick and if he really takes that attitude of showing his kids anything and everything just because he's "supervising" is grossly irresponsible. Many of the negative trends I see in our society these days I believe are traced back to the home. The problem is that our children are not innocent long enough. Sure some say their children were supervised watching adult content with the parents while at home, but the parents aren't there to supervise at school, friends' houses, or anywhere else they go without parents. Movies and music don't "make" anyone act out the things portrayed, but it probably gives them ideas. And it's the parents' responsibility that their children don't get "ideas." :P Of course it's important that children are taught about serious issues, but there is a time and a way do it.

MJ

[offline]

MJ, I think you misunderstand the concept behind
threads.

Information and opinions are given, debated
and counter points are raised. There is no formal
requirement to strictly adhere to the topic or to
discuss the topic from a particular viewpoint.

You need not be alarmed. No ones opinion here
can hurt you. BTW to "self censor" is perhaps the
most prevalent form of censorship today and arguably
the one most often abused.

[Nilfennasion]

Australia's OFLC began adding specific advisories to their ratings in the mid-1990s. These were intended to give parents a better idea of why the film was rated the way it was, so they could make a decision about borderline films. A typical advisory was Terminator 2. Below the M15+ rating (recommended for audiences above 15, but not restricted), in smaller text, the advisory would say "High Level Violence, Medium Level Coarse Language". So there were less complaints about children getting to see films that the parents had no idea were inappropriate.

Unfortunately, these advisories have become diluted to the point where they are meaningless. When films that are rated PG, M15+, MA15+, and R18+ can all have the same advisory, it makes the whole concept useless. RoboCop 2 had "Assaultive Coarse Language and Very Frequent Violence" beneath its advisory. Leaving one in no doubt as to why the restrictive rating. Fight Club's advisory merely says "Adult Themes", the same thing you can see under the rating for many a PG film.

So while I am abhoring the parents who seem to think their VCR or DVD player is some kind of babysitter, I can understand why there is not a lot of trust regarding the content of films that are sight unseen. As much as I disagree with Gurm about most everything, he has hit the nail on the head here. Good parents don't expect other people to filter out content for their children.

[themichael]

The biggest thing you people are missing is if this passes you now have a basis for all sorts of things.....

I want to watch Shindler's List but I find Jews "offensive"... change ending
I want to see The Matrix, but I find blacks "offensive"... bleach the actors
Will and Grace with no "nasty gay stuff"
Law and Order:SVU with all mention of rape/sex/kiddie porn removed
Remove the different-sex sex scenes from any movie because I find "breeders" repulsive.....

Now lets expand this (remember Lexmark?) to include audio books. Can't forget to protect the illiterate and the blind.

Regular books? Lets clean up Tom Sawyer, romance novels (porn for women?), and the biggest selling book with pages and pages of sex, violence, murder, incest, human sacrifice....the Bible!

I remember an effort awhile back to remove male dominant speech from the American lexicon. Spouse not wife/husband. Sibling not brother/sister. Mail carrier not mailman. Sexual assult not rape. All people are equal not all men are equal. People not persons.

1984 - a manual for controlling a society. Newspeak.

Open the door and let the monster in......