VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 140
Thread
  1. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    That sounds like a pretty unreasonable stretch to me. And alot of the subjects you mention are attributable to social groups which are afforded special protection by the Constitution unlike general subjects like sex and violence.

    No one has to approve of this legislation, but any cries of censorship are greatly undermined by the fact that its still the parents choosing what their children can watch (The technology lets you choose what gets skipped, you can manually set the various options) and this is something that parents have always done.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Well, its official

    Bush signs DVD filtering measure
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/27/bush.movies.ap/index.html
    drink up....the world's about to end
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member AlecWest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Vader, WA, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Hey, it may not be over yet. This technology may censor out dirty words ... but it doesn't censor out lip movement. Expect litigation by hearing-impaired lip-readers saying that the new law doesn't protect THEIR right to watch filth-free films. They are a powerful lobby, you know. That's why we (in the U.S.) all have televisions equipped to display "closed captioning" ... even if no one in our household is hearing impaired.

    P.S. A little movie trivia. Rent the 1926 silent film, "What Price, Glory," and watch it. The "F" word (and other colorful words) are used in that gem ... and only the lip-readers knew for sure.
    Quote Quote  
  4. EvilWizardGlick
    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.
    again ain't got no kids... but really how many school fight (below 12) have you been to which has ended up in a coma?? (bar any gun/knifes this is a different issues & the violenc i consider ok is slapstick (martial arts!))

    as i said before the records been set at kids having kids at 11, so when do you actually teach kids about safe sex ???? 7/8/9 ???

    all i wanted was a bike!!!!!!

    i know i just can blame tv for societys ills but you can blame the parents too, a parent cant be with a kid 24/7 and you must admit tv does shape the environment much more than what parents do!!!!

    any way i'm off!!
    COOKIEEE!!!
    Quote Quote  
  5. would someone hit the reset button on this planet tonight! WTF is going on? Little Billy can now watch showgirls and other such movies as the parents go do other things instead of being involved with their children. Can't wait until someone puts pants on the David statue.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by offline
    MJ, I think you misunderstand the concept behind
    threads.
    Offline, don't insult my intelligence about what a thread is. Let me clarify my meaning: I am amazed at the turn in tone in how quickly posters began crying "government censorship" which just isn't the case at all.

    Originally Posted by offline
    BTW to "self censor" is perhaps the
    most prevalent form of censorship today and arguably
    the one most often abused.
    Please explain your basis of reasoning on this. How did you come to this conclusion? Parents censor stuff all the time for their children (or should) and I don't see how that is abusing censorship. One poster used the example that Basic Instinct should not be viewed at all by children, which I definitely agree with, but my point is that an adult doesn't need to watch that either. Just because one is an adult and CAN watch adult material doesn't mean that one SHOULD. It's about personal responsibility.

    MJ
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I'd like a little clarification regarding the argument that this is censorship. For those suggesting this, is the problem that the parents are censoring their children, or that the manufacturers of these devices are doing the censoring by deciding which scenes to flag for the hardware to skip (even though the user can change this themselves later).

    It sounds like it is the first argument and I just can't understand this. If a parent was going to censor their child from that content they either wouldn't let them see the movie at all, or they would manually censor it (ff through naughty bits.) I don't see how the device changes anything here, it just makes the second option more practical. And if the parent isn't the type to censor what their children watch, then they won't have these devices in the first place!

    The only thing this legislation does is allow these manufacturers to stay in business, and it is specifically written and targeted for just that. Either way the censoring is either going to happen or not depending on whether you are one of their customers or not. I do not see this as Government censoring at all, or even Government sponsorship of another's censoring.

    They are simply giving parents another option to excersize a choice that they have ALWAYS had.
    Quote Quote  
  8. @Adam:

    EXACTLY!

    MJ
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Based on the tone of many in this thread, I'm concerned that they would be in favor of a device that forces me to keep my eyes open throughout the course of a movie so I have to see every bit of artistic expression the director wanted me to see. If artistic expression is so sacred the pause, fast-forward, and mute buttons must be blasphemous to these people. God forbid that someone may want to skip over a violent or sex scene or even pause a movie so they can take a piss.

    This legislation has nothing to do with censorship. Read my earlier post where I copied the entire section of the law. The legislation simply allows viewers the choice to use technology to mute or skip certain scenes that they choose not to watch.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The bottom of the planet
    Search Comp PM
    Exactly why can't the parent just look at the content themselves first, then decide if their child can see/not see the film in toto? That's the way it was done when I was a boy, and it worked a crapload better than some clumsy edits.
    "It's getting to the point now when I'm with you, I no longer want to have something stuck in my eye..."
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member ViRaL1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Making the Rounds
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Nilfennasion
    Exactly why can't the parent just look at the content themselves first, then decide if their child can see/not see the film in toto? That's the way it was done when I was a boy, and it worked a crapload better than some clumsy edits.
    That's called parenting, we don't do that here!

    It's everyone ELSE'S responsibility to make sure what our children watch is safe and clean.

    DUH!
    Nothing can stop me now, 'cause I don't care anymore.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member NamPla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Whoop Whoop
    Search Comp PM
    Fucken breeders must die!
    Quote Quote  
  13. This thread is disturbing in many ways. There is an intolerance here that becomes unbearable. It seems that no one is allowed to have his own opinion regarding parenting, or anything else for that matter, that differs from their's.

    This is not a case of the government making decisions for others. The law is actually giving the individual a choice. Is this what is so threatening to so many of you?

    Why are so many non-parents insisting that they know the only RIGHT way to raise children? Again, isn't that an individual choice? Are you that much smarter than I am that you can tell me how I should raise them?

    Hollywood too often ups the rating of films by inserting adult scenes that have no relevance to the story. This is not necessarily the director's personal vision, but a marketing ploy to make it more interesting to the huge 15-25 moviegoing population. There have been many films that I thought would have been intellectually stimulating or (inclusive or) entertaining for my kids except for a few age inappropriate sex scenes. Many say "just don't let them watch it," which is what I've done, but I would have liked for them to have seen it. Why would my having an edited version available be such an affront to others?

    AlecWest summed it up early in this thread:

    as long as I can rent and buy films as the filmmaker intended them to be seen, it's OK by me.
    As long as it's available to you uncut, why do you care what others view?
    fREBieware- you get what you pay for.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by ViRaL1
    Originally Posted by Nilfennasion
    Exactly why can't the parent just look at the content themselves first, then decide if their child can see/not see the film in toto? That's the way it was done when I was a boy, and it worked a crapload better than some clumsy edits.
    That's called parenting, we don't do that here!

    It's everyone ELSE'S responsibility to make sure what our children watch is safe and clean.

    DUH!
    I just don't see how this is making it someone else's responsibility to protect our children. I, as a parent, don't want to scan an entire film and subject myself to offensive content either just so I can determine whether it's ok for my kids to watch at all or if it's just a few scenes. Some films should not be viewed by children at all and other films would be fine except for a couple of scenes which could easily be skipped or cut out. I would rather actually interact with my children than spend my time scanning films for child appropriateness.

    MJ
    Quote Quote  
  15. Living in th UK I've been buying region 1 discs for years as this has been done for ages over here, the BBFC (British board of film classifcation) cuts stuff from PG films that have been left in the PG13 US version, also we get the odd bits cut fro 15 or 18 classified films.
    In the UK classification goes like this:-

    U (Universal, suitable for all)
    PG (Parental guidance recomended)
    12 (For persons aged 12 years and over)
    15 (For persons aged 15 years and over)
    18 (For persons aged 18 years and over)

    If this happens mabee more people will be buying imported films from other countries!
    I could dance with you till the cows came home..... on second thoughts i'd rather dance with the cows till you came home.

    Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx)
    Quote Quote  
  16. 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 )
    In that case book your flight LOL. They certainly do show full nudity on the five main British channels. The 'rimming' scene in the original UK Queer As Folk (1999) was one of the most controversial scenes of recent times. Though an erection is still beyond the pale

    There was even a scene with two male bare asses in Brideshead Revisited back in 1981 and a female nipple.
    Quote Quote  
  17. british tv is great,regarding censorship,and content.
    but there censoring of videos,dvds,etc is absolute crap.
    weve got the worst cuts of movies ever,the censors office is mad.
    i mean,they cut loads out of movies,for example roughly 4 minutes missing from team america,not to mention scene trimming from other recent movies.
    most of my dvds are region 1,hardly any from region 2.
    and xxx material is still a grey area regarding where and what to purchase.
    LifeStudies 1.01 - The Angle Of The Dangle Is Indirectly Proportionate To The Heat Of The Beat,Provided The Mass Of The Ass Is Constant.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member ViRaL1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Making the Rounds
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by mjliteman
    Originally Posted by ViRaL1
    Originally Posted by Nilfennasion
    Exactly why can't the parent just look at the content themselves first, then decide if their child can see/not see the film in toto? That's the way it was done when I was a boy, and it worked a crapload better than some clumsy edits.
    That's called parenting, we don't do that here!

    It's everyone ELSE'S responsibility to make sure what our children watch is safe and clean.

    DUH!
    I just don't see how this is making it someone else's responsibility to protect our children. I, as a parent, don't want to scan an entire film and subject myself to offensive content either just so I can determine whether it's ok for my kids to watch at all or if it's just a few scenes. Some films should not be viewed by children at all and other films would be fine except for a couple of scenes which could easily be skipped or cut out. I would rather actually interact with my children than spend my time scanning films for child appropriateness.

    MJ
    This is why there are ratings and (usually) descriptions of why the rating is given (i.e. - nudity, language, violence, animated violence, etc).

    How do you treat this situation now (if you don't have ClearPlay) or how did you treat it before?
    Nothing can stop me now, 'cause I don't care anymore.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The bottom of the planet
    Search Comp PM
    The gist of the explanation of this technology seems to be that it makes it easier for parents to be lazy about regulating what their children watch. The less aware you are, the less control you have.
    "It's getting to the point now when I'm with you, I no longer want to have something stuck in my eye..."
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member AlecWest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Vader, WA, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by rebarlow
    AlecWest summed it up early in this thread:
    as long as I can rent and buy films as the filmmaker intended them to be seen, it's OK by me.
    As long as it's available to you uncut, why do you care what others view?
    I doubt if any censoring will upset the applecart of those who prefer buying uncensored films. If anything, it will create a multitude of other upset applecarts of persons with specific tastes for censorship. There are some people who have no problem letting their kids watch a benign series of films in the Harry Potter series. Others think the very mention of witchcraft in a movie is evil and that the whole series should be banned. I can see situations in the future when one censorship group lets the word "shit" be said in a movie because they don't think the word is that awful ... and another censorship group cuts out the entire scene because they consider references to human waste products obscene. Just look at all the parent and family groups out there ... all with their own peculiar agendas and moral limitations.

    I just hope they settle on one code ... say the letter O for "original" ... to place on a DVD box. That way, people can differentiate them from the American Family Association version, the PTO of America version, the Southern Baptist Conference version, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. And that way, I can have the movie I want ... and others can start their own "my group's edits are better than your group's edits" offline flame wars, hehe.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    AlecWest, this legislation does not change existing rating standards. The DVDs will continue to be released according to the same PG, R, etc... ratings. You will always be buying the original version of the DVD, and if this is all you want then you have no need for ClearPlay's equipment and this legislation has no effect on your viewing or buying habits whatsoever.

    If you are concerned about how Clearplay places the skip points in any given movie, you can look them up on their website. They don't go through them point for point, but they list the general subject matters that you'd be missing and of course you can always add scenes back in manually. The machines allow quite a bit of customization so you can just choose to skip nudity, or just violence, or anything that would have bumped it up from PG-13 to R, etc...
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member AlecWest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Vader, WA, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by adam
    AlecWest, this legislation does not change existing rating standards.
    True. As the law stands now, it only allows use of ClearPlay devices. I'm thinking of the future ... that sooner or later, the law will have to address scenarios of CleanFilms, Family Flix, and a whole group of other companies who do what they do (or want to do what they do). And, they will need to address the issue. On its face, it seems like the CleanFilms crowd is violating copyright law. And yet, all they're doing is the same thing being done by broadcast television networks and airlines that show in-flight movies ... adopting their own censorship norms and sanitizing what viewers will see based on those norms ... norms that can change from one viewing to the next because not all censors are equally offended by the same things.

    The current law, however, "opens the door" for those things to be discussed.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Well its being addressed as we speak in litigation and I fully expect those companies to be shut down.

    The difference between what they are doing and what airlines do is that the airlines + their editing people are doing it with permission from the copyright holder so there is nothing wrong with that.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member AlecWest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Vader, WA, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by adam
    Well its being addressed as we speak in litigation and I fully expect those companies to be shut down.

    The difference between what they are doing and what airlines do is that the airlines + their editing people are doing it with permission from the copyright holder so there is nothing wrong with that.
    Well, if "permission" is the issue, those companies might not be shut down at all. Movie companies want to sell movies ... and if a niche of customers want to hear "aw, shucks" instead of "damn it to Hell," it would be in their interest to let them do it ... just as it's in their interests to let TV networks and airlines do it. I think it's more likely a "deal" will be done.

    *EDIT* - On second thought, it might be better in their interests to shut down these companies ... but, to placate the niche, hire one single entity (eg, The American Family Association), to edit things at the "studio" level ... releasing two versions, an original version and an AFA version. That keeps things in the "film studio family" and, at the same time, puts companies like ClearPlay out of business. No need for the technology if you have a sanitized original.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Always Watching guns1inger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miskatonic U
    Search Comp PM
    I have a couple of issues with this type of tampering, and hope to god it doesn't come over here (although with little johnnie still holding hands with uncle george, whose to say).

    The first issue I have it that it is making it law that a third party (who ever it is that decides exactly what it edits) can now determine what the director should have done in their eyes. It is an afront to artistic integrity. Even though that concept may appear to be lacking in hollywood (note Xx2 people), often the most important films are confronting and designed that way for a reason. To put this in the control of others, even for a subset of the community, is wrong.

    Using this type of device is putting this control into the hands of third parties and again abdicating the role of parent. In most cases, a film that contains language unsuitable for children also contains themes unsuitable for children, and blanking some language does not in any way make the film suitable for children. As a parent I find myself contunally adding to my list of films I want to show my kids when they get older. There is no way I would show them a butchered version now, simply because I can. I would rather let them enjoy the movie the way I did, when it is appropriate.

    Finally, I have a problem with this because it is the thin edge of the wedge. It gives validity to a minority that would, if they thought they had the power or support, burn books and censor film. Maybe not now, but in a few years time when we are comfortable with the concept that a little bit is OK. With very few exceptions (animals, kiddie porn) the only person who should decide what is appropriate for my kids is me. I trust me as a responsible parent. I do however have sympathy for those who don't trust others as suitable parents, I don't trust them either. But their freedom is my freedom, and to control them it to take away my control. And that is not the right way to go.
    Read my blog here.
    Quote Quote  
  26. @ Adam

    Like guns1inger, I'm a little uncomfortable.

    If this legislation is, as you say "simply giving
    parents another option to exersize a choice that
    they have ALWAYS had" then why have it enabled?

    Although I don't love the idea of parents "sanitizing"
    media for their own children, I support the right for
    parents to do so. But as a purist I'd much prefer the
    whole film to be shown or not at all.

    So looking at the legislation in a literal
    sense it seems I should have no issue with it.
    Companies such as CleanPlay can now mass produce
    their special templates.

    My concern is when (not so much if) this seemingly
    innocuous legislation is used to make these "films"
    mandatory viewing in some way, or used to embolden the
    christian religious right that has become prominent in US
    and Australian politics these days. The defacing and
    altering of art and culture is the dream of many
    fundamentalist movements.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Like I said, it was passed because now it gives them ANOTHER option to do what they were doing before, but this option is actually practical. They will no longer have to prescreen the movies to see which scenes to skip and no longer have to try to FF through it on the spot, and most importantly they don't have to make due with an "all or nothing" solution because despite the fact that some people prefer this option, I can assure you that there are people who do not and these are the people that CleanPlay is for. I honestly don't understand why anyone would care about this legislation if they had no use for it. Its like complaining because someone legally uses marijuana medicinally. What does it hurt? For the most part it just legalizes and makes easier what these people would have been doing anyway, in an environment where anyone but them would have no knowledge that it was occurring anyway.

    And once again, CleanPlay does not give out its choice of an edited cut. It flags scenes according to content. The parent still has a substantial amount of control. They can skip all violence and keep all nudity, or they can set the aggressiveness of it to only skip the most mature content. And of course you can disable the features entirely or you can choose to just not purchase the damn thing at all.

    The latest argument I'm seeing is this slippery slope one that this will be precedence for more overt censorship in the future. Besides the fact that this can be used to question every piece of legislation ever written, I personally find this silly in regards to this law. Looking at the strenth of our US copyright law and our extensive protection of free speech, this simply is never going to happen. If anything, we are going in the complete opposite direction. Hell look at what else this bill does in addition to making CleanPlay legal. It imposes substantial criminal penalties against copyright infringers. How's that for a trade? I really don't think we need to worry about copyright holder's losing their creative rights.

    This legislation does not let a 3rd party do anything to the copyrighted work whatsoever. The DVDs are the same, the viewer just has the option to view it selectively, as they could do anyway. Think about it, parental locks are already in the DVD standard they are just cumbersome to author. There are already DVDs on the market that let you do EXACTLY what CleanPlay does just using your regular DVD player. CleanPlay just expands this feature to all DVDs, in addition to giving the viewer more control over just how much is skipped. Its an ideal solution for those individuals who want it, and one that has no effect whatsoever on those that don't. So what's the problem?
    Quote Quote  
  28. @ Adam.

    So those who suspect this law are silly and perhaps paranoid? Maybe. Maybe not.
    I have not bothered to read the bill in full as it does not affect me, but I'm sure
    you can not be certain as to its full effect over time.

    You have the right to assume expert knowledge but you forget the golden rule.
    Like all statutes, this is open to interpretation, modification and addition. Given
    the climate and sectional interests prevailing, who can claim all knowledge
    about how this law will play out in its entirety? Will you guarantee, for
    example, that this law cannot be used to assist mandatory viewing of
    certain edited media in certain situations?

    @ mjliteman

    I regret that you feel I have insulted your intellect but this claim serves to
    further illustrate the motive behind my reaction to your original post. There
    is no need to be so emotive about the opinions expressed in this thread.

    Self censorship is a point you first brought up, and I'm happy to discuss my
    views, but by PM as its scope lies outside the topic under discussion.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member AlecWest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Vader, WA, USA
    Search Comp PM
    BTW, this law not only affects morality watchdogs. It also affects "content" watchdogs. Yoda will surely chime in on this (grin).

    Remember "Star Wars Episode 1.1: The Phantom Edit?" Seems like a fan armed with a Mac and Final Cut Pro decided that the Jar Jar Binks character had no place in the film. So cleverly, he re-edited the film to cut out Binks and references to Binks. Not so strangely, some film critics actually said that they preferred the "edit" over the original version ... that it made the film seem more like serious SF by dumping the slapstick. And, the phantom editor is not through yet.

    Recently, "Star Wars Episode 2.1: The Phantom Edit," made its DVD debut. Here's the scoop on that:

    http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/Phantom_Edit_for_Attack_of_the_Clones_91635.asp

    Of course, the DVD will not be sold in stores (grin). But it's interesting that this new law may be something the phantom editor should take into consideration before his next edit. While morality issues brought this law to the forefront, it applies to any editing ... for whatever reason. This also means I'll have to keep my own edited movie hush hush, hehe.

    No, it's not a Star Wars edit. I've begun the laborious process of re-doing the text frames in Fritz Lang's silent film, "Metropolis," in such a way that it seems like the film is discussing my employer (grin). You'd be surprised how much Lang's references to automated work environments blends beautifully with my current workplace reality. Hopefully, I'll finish the project before I retire ... and, as I go out the door, will leave a few copies of it "lying around" for workers to take home. And if they figure out who did it, they won't be able to fire me (grin). But (ulp), they might turn me into the Feds, hehe.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Member adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    You have my guarantee offline.

    Seriously, this law is specifically directed at ClearPlay, and really only contemplates future ClearPlay devices. Face it, very few will ever read this statute or know of its existence. All they will see are these ClearPlay devices on the market, and they will decide whether they want it for their family or not and that will be the end of it. I could not imagine a law any more benign. The question is not whether this law is going to be a springboard for censorship, the question is whether these ClearPlay devices are really that threatening. Considering that syndicated television censors films to a much greater degree, gives the viewer no control over that censoring, and reaches a user base outnumbering ClearPlay buy the hundreds of thousands, I'd say ClearPlay is the least of your worries.

    Slippery slope arguments only make sense when the law is ambiguous or broad, or makes a substantial change to the law. Here we've got a clear cut law that is very narrow in scope, and merely legalizes a piece of hardware under existing interpretations of copyright law (ie: you can't copy it but you can view it however you want.) To fear that there is a possibility that the law could be amended to do X is no different than fearing that a new law could be created to do X. In either case, it is not a product of this existing law.

    You have to recognize what this law does. It merely makes an affirmative decision through a new law, regarding what could have easily been decided under existing copyright law. There was litigation in the works, and presumably ClearPlay would have been sued, and cleared of claims of contributory infringement or inducement of infringement. This thread easily could have been about how ClearPlay won their lawsuit, and I doubt anyone would have been as quick to cry censorship. ClearPlay just had the connections to lobby their cause through the Legislature rather than through the court system. This law is not a sponsorship of censorship, it is just a recognition that ClearPlay has a right under existing Copyright law to sell their product. From a legal standpoint, this fact could not be clearer. But it would have taken millions of dollars and years to have settled that issue through the courts because the MPAA is just such a powerful litigator.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!