Family Entertainment and Copyright Act

[adam]

AlecWest I think you have misinterpreted the law. No it does not apply to any editing at all. It specifically says that it only applies to "moral" issues like nudity, violence, etc... It also does not allow anyone the right to edit anything. It merely authorizes the right to use devices which alter playback while leaving the source intact.

The Phantom Edit films are clearly a violation of copyright and this legislation does not speak to this issue at all.

[AlecWest]

AlecWest I think you have misinterpreted the law.

No, I just think of it as a "slippery slope" (as you put it).

Slippery slope arguments only make sense when the law is ambiguous or broad, or makes a substantial change to the law...

...or if the law comes during an administration attempting to stroke the ruffled feathers of fundamentalists and evangelicals who helped put him over the top, vote wise, in the swing states (and are still ticked at him for not doing more in the Terri Schiavo matter). But, further discussions along those lines would invoke the two forbidden fruits (religious/political discussion).

[offline]

...and what juicy fruit they are. I just look at the current
climate then see this law and I think

okkkkkaayy...

[guns1inger]

Define 'moral' issue. For some it is a barely covered butt on a beach, for others it is anyone not covered from ankle to the tip of their head.

[adam]

Read the statute. It spells out what these devices can and cannot flag. As for accounting for the different degrees that people accept, again these devices allow you to set the aggressiveness ala pg 13, R, etc... ratings. If you read ClearPlay's documentatin they state that they more or less follow the same basic criteria that the parental guidance standards use (ie: pg, R, etc...) so there's no reason that the average DVD purchaser wouldn't more or less understand what they'd be skipping if they blocked all R rated nudity, for example.

[AlecWest]

Define 'moral' issue. For some it is a barely covered butt on a beach, for others it is anyone not covered from ankle to the tip of their head.

That is a question for which there is no answer. A lot depends on the person. And even then, a lot depends upon the context. My high school music teacher was a Quaker. Swear in his class and you'd get a quick escort to the Principal. And yet, one of the songs he taught us included the lyrics:

Well, I don't give a damn about a greenback dollar,
Spend it fast as I can,
Cause a whaling song and a good guitar,
Are the only things that I understand.

He explained to us that it was "OK" to use swear words if they were lyrical or cultural (whatever that meant ... sounded like a cop-out to me).

Similarly, when right-wing talk-show host Rush Limbaugh discusses gays in the military, it's considered confrontational ... but when Monty Python discusses it in their own unique way, it's OK:

http://novelhost.net/gaymil.wmv

[SilverBlade]

Read the statute. It spells out what these devices can and cannot flag. As for accounting for the different degrees that people accept, again these devices allow you to set the aggressiveness ala pg 13, R, etc... ratings. If you read ClearPlay's documentatin they state that they more or less follow the same basic criteria that the parental guidance standards use (ie: pg, R, etc...) so there's no reason that the average DVD purchaser wouldn't more or less understand what they'd be skipping if they blocked all R rated nudity, for example.

Here's the problem, not all movies are rated equally. I've seen some PG movies that have had a scene with a topless women in it. Movie ratings also are adjusted throughout time or when it reaches a certain country. Matrix Reloded is Rated R in the U.S but PG13 in Canada.

[adam]

Its not a problem, its life. The inconsistencies are no different than what we have with our existing rating system for movies as a whole, only in this case you might miss out on a scene rather than a whole movie if you decide to skip the R rated stuff. ClearPlay is even less of a "problem" because you still have full control. If PG13 in Canada feels more like the US's R, then you can just adjust your equipment accordingly.

They use the most objective criteria to flag their scenes as they can, and they appropriately label the collection of flags for each movie as filters. You apply them with conditional settings and hope you get the desired effect. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't, and most often you can't tell any difference anyway. That's just what a filter is. The device does not need to be perfect to be legal.

[ViRaL1]

I can't wait to see the complaints and lawsuits when the filter doesn't fit someone's vision of what should be filtered out, after they've already let the children see it. What will be even funnier, is when parents find their children viewing movies that aren't on the filter list and thus not filtered at all.

[adam]

Man you guys are so pessimistic. Don't like it, don't buy it I say.

BTW: Viral1, parents would have only themselves to blame if they left a film unfiltered because you have to manually download the filters for each individual film from their website.

[kennyg]

What is next book burning?

[adam]

Ok I officially give up. Yes kennyg, book burning is next on their to-do list. So you might want to stock up now while you still can. I suggest reading some books on laissez-faire economic legislation.

(I'm guessing that no one here will have a clue what I'm babbling about, but trust me that was a very clever jab )

Seriously though I am done. Anymore political discussion on my part and I'll have to card myself.

[kennyg]

I have read a couple of books. May I suggest that you read some on corporatism. Also may I suggest one on the black shirts in Italy 1920-1945.

[adam]

I have read a couple of books. May I suggest that you read some on corporatism.

You have got to be kidding. The bill is an absolutely blatant attack against corporatism, that is the whole point! Corporatism is the organizing of industries into unions who make decisions on behalf of those in the profession. Its also a classic example of fascism. The MPAA is one of the biggest unions in the history of the United States and they represent some of the most powerful corporations in the history of the United States. The entire point of this bill is to prevent UNIONS like the MPAA from being able to sue small company hardware manufacturers into bankruptcy. How is limiting the MPAA's power corporatism?

In case you didn't pick up on the mention of laissez-faire economic legislation, here it is in a nutshell. Sometimes when the government passes law, it actually does so to LIMIT its own power. This law DEREGULATES by keeping the justice system out of the hands of the hands of the one organization that has the power to abuse it in regards to this particular area of their industry. That is the exact opposite of fascism.

This is a consumer friendly law folks. It LIMITS the power of government and LIMITS the power of big business and PROTECTS the consumers' right to choose how they view their movies. This is nuts. If the MPAA uses the government to shut someone down everyone cries fascism. If the government tells the MPAA it can't do that people still cry fascism? I think some people just think that any law is a bad law.

[Gurm]

I think the problem is that it's a law that encourages censoring. Self-censoring, to be sure.

However, on the flip-side, it ALSO slaps the movie studios around a bit.

So I'm very divided on it.

[gadgetguy]

Adam - I would say give it up. Too many people aren't willing to read the actual text of the law, but instead are relying on the spin by the media to make their arguments. This law is a threat to no-one, and has no relationship to government censorship.

[Nilfennasion]

I think the essential problem with how the current system of censoring works is that the people who run it have built up an idea of how the market thinks, and censor according to that. They don't seem to realise that what say... a single mother who lives out in Richmond and has three tykes to worry about wants, and what a twenty-something from Parramatta who just bought a DVD player wants, are always going to be at odds. Yes, it is a good idea to create a market of films that are safe for children (although some confuse this with making mind-rot crap). But it is also good to make a market of films like Basic Instinct or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, where the director is going to extremes to get a rise out of his audience. The problem, as I see it, is when people attempt to force one to be the other. And in all fairness, I can only see technology like this encouraging that. If I had any say in a film I made being flagged to use this kind of technology, well, let's just say there'd be no flags on my DVDs.

Adam, no matter how innocuous this law may be on the surface, some consider the above and feel very threatened. Of course there's nothing in the law that says we have to have these censored versions. But if the right kind of pressure is applied by the wrong people, it could have the same effect. It should be noted that laissez-faire economics have resulted in the manipulation of markets so that one monolithic company controls everything. The PC market is a stunning example of one group forcing all others to fall into a very narrowing and not necessarily wanted line because the market was "freed" at the wrong time in the wrong way. Or perhaps my understanding of laissez-faire capitalism is a bit flawed. You'll have to pardon me because this is only the second forum I have heard the expression used in.

[ViRaL1]

Man you guys are so pessimistic. Don't like it, don't buy it I say.

BTW: Viral1, parents would have only themselves to blame if they left a film unfiltered because you have to manually download the filters for each individual film from their website.

I was speaking of children (or teenagers) themselves getting hold of a film that either doesn't already have a filter downloaded or isn't on the list. Something tells me we'll see parents fuming because they actually have to go through the trouble of downloading the filters, or because the filtrs don't work just how they want them to. If you want to get TECHNICAL, I'd think in any case the parents only have themselves to blame, ClearPlay or no ClearPlay. Would you agree?

[adam]

Don't get me wrong, laissez-faire economics is partially responsible for leading the US into the Great Depression, and almost wholly responsible for keeping us there longer than necessary. Its not a good thing in excess, but almost nothing is. The point is again just that it is possible create law in an effort to limit government control over an industry, and this cannot be called fascism as a number of people have suggested.

As for this law fostering censorship... first of all I think many are confused about what censorship actually is. The only kind of censorship that is in violation of anything is that done by the government, which violates free speech. There is nothing to prevent you from censoring your own content, and there is nothing preventing you from contracting to have someone else censor your own content, so long as you are not violating any other law, ie: selling edited copies.

Suggesting that this is like burning books is ridiculous. Its more like you hiring someone to burn your books. You can do that. You can black out the N word from your copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin too. No matter how misguided or sick your censoring of yourself is, you have that right.

I don't see how in the world just letting this product be sold fosters censorship. That's like blaming McDonalds for making you fat because they sell a food product that has no nutritional value. The consumer always has to be charged with making their own decisions.

[adam]

If you want to get TECHNICAL, I'd think in any case the parents only have themselves to blame, ClearPlay or no ClearPlay. Would you agree?

Absolutely. That is my entire argument in defense of this legislation. I also don't think its a technical argument at all. It is explicit in the working of these devices that the parent must still make the same decisions regarding what their children see as they always have.

[ViRaL1]

My biggest problem is that I get tired of people wanting everyone else to protect them (and their children) when they don't take the time and the effort to do it themselves. I don't really see this affecting me in any way. If anything it will hurt the studios because they missed out on their chance to release more 'family friendly' versions of their movies and sell them for just as much if not more than the originals.

[offline]

@ gadgetguy

And some are not reading the replies in this thread!

I, for one, never EVER suggested a direct link between government censorship and this law. I have not read the bill (you got me!) and I have relied on others (such as Adam) to inform me - Big deal. No one has the time and expertise to follow everything to the source.

My argument was never against the literal interpretation of the law. I think I made a valid point as did some others. I can't help being cynical in the current climate. Unfortunately we can't delve as deeply as we would like due to the AUP against discussing politics.

@ kennyg

Fahrenheit 451 ?

[Nelson37]

So many misconceptions here I've lost track.

The bill clearly states, at least twice, that no permanent copy shall be made, also that the changes made are at the users discretion. This is not censorship. Censorship is when I come to your house and say "you may not watch this". Censorship is NOT when I sit in MY house and say "this shall not be watched here". What choices I make, in MY house, and using what methods is nobody elses business or concern. I can cover or remove the pecker on the "David" in my house, but not in yours, nor in one on publicly owned grounds, without majority consent. Even with majority consent, your personal "David"'s pecker is safe.

Watch the film as the director intended? What, we all have to read minds now? Numerous examples of original release, or any release, not being what the director intended. Talk to the Star Wars purists.

Now let's take the population demographic. Going from the fastest-GROWING group to the second-fastest growing group does NOT mean the numbers are getting smaller. It means that they are, in fact, getting larger, just not so rapidly. OP must be concerned about budget cuts.

Somebody mentioned "obvious" no-no's. Kiddie porn? Ever hear of NAMBLA? Sexual violence? Most common female fantasy is to be tied up and raped (gently). Animal sex? Get a farm boy drunk sometime, you'll hear some stories. The point here is "obvious" unacceptable content differs by individual and culture.

Ask other people to help parent my children? Guess you don't use teachers, policemen, alarm companies, doctors, etc. There are obviously enough people who want this to make the company economically viable.

For those concerned about Fascism, it is truly awesome what a poor education can produce. To use the Italian Black Shirts as an example of almost anything organized and functional is pretty laughable. To compare the current bill to a Fascist action, well at least it is comedically consistent.

[MOVIEGEEK]

That's like blaming McDonalds for making you fat because they sell a food product that has no nutritional value. The consumer always has to be charged with making their own decisions.

An attorney with a conscience!?
BTW...I agree with you adam.

Speaking of fast food restaurants,today in California our senate struck down a proposal to limit obesity liability...chock another one up for the nanny's in Sacramento.

[offline]

In a modern sense censorship consists of any attempt to suppress information, points of view, or method of expression such as art, or profanity

I guess some don't understand how broad the term is. It can be done by individuals, families, community groups etc. It does not need to be permanent or government controlled. There are also plenty of examples of positive censorship.

If I decide to use Clear play to modify the viewing of a film for a child, I am employing censorship. What is debatable is whether this is good or bad depending on your point of view. One example I'd refer to as bad would be if a community center used clear play to show a film to some children, heavily modifying parts that might upset a minority of their parents with fundamentalist religious beliefs.

[offline]

Nelson37: Somebody mentioned "obvious" no-no's. Kiddie porn? Ever hear of NAMBLA?

Yes I have.

The point here is "obvious" unacceptable content differs by individual and culture.

Duh!
I feel safe in saying that the vast majority on
this planet today consider pedophilia "an obvious no no".

[guns1inger]

North American Marlon Brando Look-alike Association

[Nilfennasion]

Where the economics of this ruling do not add up is that the age and time for which the audience is subject to this kind of censorship is very limited. As children become adolescents and adolescents become adults, they decide, in the absence of conditioning otherwise, that they want to see more of the content they were denied in earlier days. In cases like myself, they even decide they want to see the kind of content they were told was revolting and inhuman when they were young. As the baby-boomer generation dies out, and the populist powerbase shifts back to the twenty-somethings, this is going to backlash against the studios real hard. Hence, some decide to leave well enough alone when it comes to kiddie-fying their films.

The problem as it now stands is that the kinds of families who use this technology do not stop in their own homes. They pressure theatres, congress, studios, even other parents at times, to impose their standards upon everyone else. This doesn't just apply to films, either.

[adam]

One example I'd refer to as bad would be if a community center used clear play to show a film to some children, heavily modifying parts that might upset a minority of their parents with fundamentalist religious beliefs.

This cannot legally happen under this act. The act only allows the use of these devices by a "member of a private household" for "private household viewing." If a community center did what you said they could be sued for copyright infringement by the copyright holder. In order to be playing any movie publicly they'd have to have permission by way of a license anyway, which would set the terms as to what they could or couldn't do with the playback of the content.

@ all:
The "censoring" under this act is really so very limited. Undoubtedly these devices will be used almost exclusively by parents to exercise some control over what degree of mature content their children will see. I just can't fathom why anyone would question this. Its not only perfectly healthy and natural but its something that is going to happen regardless of whether they own a ClearPlay device or not.

The most overexposure we're looking at would be limited to a few neighborhood kids watching tv over at their friends house through one of these devices. Forcing them to forego seeing certain scenes is no worse than not making them eat their vegetables. They can always just go home and get their fill if that's their parent's preference. Furthermore, since anything other than G rated content requires PARENTAL GUIDANCE anyway, strictly speaking that ClearPlay owning parent's hands are already tied as it is. Unless they actually got the permission of that kid's parents, they wouldn't be authorized to show any of the content that ClearPlay blocks anyway.

[bugster]

@ all:
The "censoring" under this act is really so very limited. Undoubtedly these devices will be used almost exclusively by parents to exercise some control over what degree of mature content their children will see.

One likley use for this type of device that appears to have escaped discussion is not parents using them to make movies 'suitable' for their children, but adults using them to enhance their enjoyment of a movie by removing bad language or other (visual) material they would otherwise find offensive or simply unpleasant. In this way, adults can happily view movies that they would otherwise not watch because of such content.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with such actions, simply pointing out that these devices (Clearplay et al) have uses beyond 'kiddyfying' movies.