I kinda have to side with Hollywood on this one... (1 Viewer)

[Jon Mercer]

http://msn.zdnet.com/zdfeeds/msncobr...909517,00.html
Sorry it's not hypertexted ,not sure how to do that.
The way I see it, if you are concerned about content, dont rent/buy/watch it.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

There have been other threads discussing this topic when the lawsuits first started.

I have a mixed view on this. In one corner I think it is wrong to edit a movie then sell it like what Cleanflicks was doing. In the other, I don't think I should be told that I can't edit it myself (not that I ever would but I would like the freedom to do it). I bought it, I gave you my money, now it is out of your hands. It is like buying a poster of the Mona Lisa and drawing a mustache on her. It isn't

Aho admits that there are some movies (such as Saving Private Ryan) that ClearPlay hasn't filtered because doing so would ruin the film.

That quote just blows my mind. So now they are saying that they know which films should and shouldn't be edited?

I will have to agree with you that if you are concerned about the content then don't watch it. It obviously wasn't intended for you.

 

[Joe Acevedo]

I don't want to start a debate, but...

I think it is funny that Hollywood was willing to make a stand here to protect the integrity of the creator's original film when the original film is altered every time a non-OAR DVD is released.

Personally, I am happy as long as I am always able to easily purchase a movie with its creator's intended content and presentation. I just think it is strange that Hollywood objects to these sort of alterations as opposed the films OAR.

 

[Brian Cal]

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

This sentence really irks me. How is Hollywood FORCING anyone to do anything? Nobody held a gun to their heads and told them to buy a particular DVD. You don't like it, don't watch it.

 

[Joel C]

I agree the argument is weak, but I don't really see why the technology is a violation of copyright law as long as it doesn't permanently change the film (like selling edited tapes).

If the service is shut off, the movie is that same, right? All ClearPlay does is basically what my dad did when we watched movies as a family when I was younger--fast-foward through the naughty bits.

The fact that he was fast-fowarding through the sex scene in Terminator, when I was about 10, is another matter. But I can why some people would want to use it, but only when the movies are obviously of a G or PG classification, but they are pumped up to PG-13 with swearing.

 

[JarrodK]

I think it is funny that Hollywood was willing to make a stand here to protect the integrity of the creator's original film when the original film is altered every time a non-OAR DVD is released.

Not to mention every time a studio creates a "TV broadcast version," an "In-Flight Airline" version and a special "Blockbuster Video" version.

The studios have been acting like CleanFlicks and ClearPlay for decades. They just never bothered to sell it to the general public.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

The TV/Blockbuster versions are created with the director's full cooperation, and unless they waive that right, that's how it is period.

Cleanflicks etc does not use anything except for their own "judgement"

 

[Jeff Kohn]

I think Hollywood has a case against CleanFlicks, because they're obviously selling derivative works. But the case for CleanPlay is different, because there are no copyright issues involved, and that's what should be at issue here. Based on the description of how CleanPlay works, I really don't see how you can argue any copyright infringement. If this device just mutes and fast forwards, then as another poster mentioned all it does is automate what parents have been doing for decades, albeit more efficiently and more accurately.

Those of you siding with Hollywood on this issue seem to be overlooking the fact that this case could set a very dangerous precedent with regard to fair use if the MPAA wins. As I mentioned this case isn't about copyrights, it's about control; the MPAA wants to be able to dictate how you watch their product. Right now you might think it's OK because they're attacking something you have no interest in, but I can think of plenty other fair use issues that they could attack using the exact same logic:

1) Zooming content to full screen
2) User-recorded DVD commentaries
3) Bookmark support in PC-based DVD players
4) 30-second skip functionality in PVR's
5) Compilation recordings (ie putting together a sequence of demo segments from several movies that you own)

Hell, if you want to take their logic to its extreme conclusion, it could be used to outlaw ff/rw and chapter navigation altogether. You think it's annoying having to hit the chapter-forward key to get past those Disney commercials now, wait until you can't even do that. So don't think this is just an issue that affects intolerant prudes; it could easily set a precedent to give the MPAA complete control over your viewing experience and the ability to pretty much destroy fair use.

And don't give me that "artistic integrity" BS, that's just a red herring. First, it has no basis in law. It's pretty easy (and very common) for people on this forum to look down their nose and accuse anybody who might want to use this technology as being neanderthals or worse, but that's just your opinion. And you know what, other people are entitled to their opinions too. If somebody wants to watch with the cuss words muted, or with the picture zoomed to fill their screen, or listening to the English dub of a foreign film, that's their right. And frankly, why do you care? It's not hurting you, nobody's forcing you to watch it, and it's not like the original isn't available for you to purchase and watch. You can think these people are ignorant or intolerant or whatever, but that's their right. Seems to me that it's not the concerned parents who are being intolerant here...

Personally, I would never have any interest in using a CleanPlay device, but I can understand why some people might, and I respect their right to do so. It doesn't hurt me in any way, and you know what, it doesn't hurt Hollywood either.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Although I am no fan of censored films, I have to side against Hollywood on this.

1. As Jeff points out, the vendor is not committing any copyright violation.

2. If some customers infringed copyright with the aid of the device (e.g., recording and then selling the output), that wouldn't provide grounds for outlawing it. (See the Betamax decision.)

3. If you say that letting people fast-forward violates the DMCA, my response would be that this is yet another reason to repeal the DMCA. (One of the latest DMCA absurdities: a printer vendor is claiming that compatible third-party ink cartridges violate the DMCA by breaking the "technological protection" that a cartridge uses to gain access to the printer.)

4. There's no freedom of speech issue. To illustrate: Bush has the right to give a State of the Union address. You have the right to hear or read it all, but you also have the right to pay attention to just parts of it. His right to speak, and your right to hear what he has to say, does not give him a right to force you to listen. Likewise, directors and studios have no right to control how you experience purchased content in your own home. If you choose to skip the dirty words, or skip the inappropriate ads, they may not like it. They may be correct in calling you "artistically incorrect". But it's a free country.

5. If a director's contract with a studio calls for the studio to respect the director's artistic vision, the studio's responsibility begins and ends with the content of official releases. Directors shouldn't expect studios to offer them something (control over customers' lives) that the studios have no right to give.

6. This device is less threatening to the availability of the directors' preferred version of films than studio-supplied clean versions would be. (Especially if the studios did clean-version-only releases, the way they do MAR-only releases.)

7. TV sets with a 4:3 aspect ratio are KNOWN to be a major contributing factor to the release of MARred discs. The studios have not asked the courts to outlaw sales of 4:3 TVs. Yet ()

 

[Damin J Toell]

3. If you say that letting people fast-forward violates the DMCA

Who said that?

DJ

 

[Thomas Newton]

Who said that?

Nobody yet, but I half-expect someone to come forward with that claim, given the other stunts that people have pulled (like the printer and garage door opener ones).

I can even think of a test case: A DVD that contains dirty words and naughty scenes in one of those "forced trailers".

If the device plays the dirty words and naughty scenes, it cannot fully do its job. If it does its job, then it must ignore the "forced playback" flags. And since those are a technological means of controlling access (even though the access control has nothing to do with "piracy"), you get a situation where someone could claim that the "clean flick" player is a "circumvention" device.

Whether the claim would hold up ... well, I think the only *sure* winners in court would be the lawyers.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Nobody yet, but I half-expect someone to come forward with that claim, given the other stunts that people have pulled (like the printer and garage door opener ones).

So it's purely a straw man argument. Got it.

DJ

 

[Thomas Newton]

So it's purely a straw man argument.

No, it's not a straw man argument, for the reasons that I just explained and that you chose to ignore.

 

[Damin J Toell]

No, it's not a straw man argument, for the reasons that I just explained and that you chose to ignore.

Unless I'm not reading something correctly, the "reasons" you explained were further facts invented by you and not something that has actually happened, a position that anyone has actually taken, or a claim that anyone has actually made. It's still a straw man argument, no matter how detailed you choose to make it.

DJ

 

[Dan Rudolph]

As ClearPlay is essentially a program that fast-forwards and mutes for you (also does masking), if you are claiming the product is illegal, you are either claiming fast-forwarding and muting are illegal or automating the process is illegal. Both arguments seem ludicrous.

 

[Damin J Toell]

As ClearPlay is essentially a program that fast-forwards and mutes for you (also does masking), if you are claiming the product is illegal, you are either claiming fast-forwarding and muting are illegal or automating the process is illegal. Both arguments seem ludicrous.

I'd be inclined to think that the preset automated nature of the process is what is being claimed as illegal. And I, too, believe that the argument is a losing one.

DJ

 

[Eric Meske]

You guys are ignoring the bottom line: Money. The studios are upset because people are making money off of their movies. The studios are paid handsomely for Airline/TV edited versions.

Don't believe for a second that the studios give a crap about "artist's rights" and "director's integrity." In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the major studios are working on their own "CleanFlicks" type service right now. There's obviously a market for these edited films, no matter how wrong I may think it is, and when have the studios ever turned down a chance to make another buck?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

ClearPlay will be found legal under Nintendo vs Galoob, unfortunately. So long as the original disc is used, and its content remains unaltered, they will not succeed in stomping them

Cleanflicks because they pirate the movies to create their versions, will die horribly.

Personally I think these people should be made to watch these movies whole, the way they're meant to be seen or not at all. If their wittle fewings are hurt by naughty words and a little blood, then they should go back to kindergarten
and grow up

 

[David Rogers]

Editing discs, wrong.

Selling a special player that uses a seperately loaded "script" to dynamically skip/fast forward a commerical DVD for a specific viewing purpose, I'm okay with that.

Would never effin' do it, but am okay with those who want too.

Actually, I would effin' do it. I have some movies that are really only partly fun to watch, so I could get a script that would auto play only the fights from Blade I or only the action/effects from Episode I. Etc...

 

[Damin J Toell]

It may be the case, however, that manufacturing a DVD player with a built-in ClearPlay filter is a violation of the DVD technology license agreement needed to manufacture players. I've read that a requirement of the license agreement is that the output not be modified by the player. I'd love to see what a standardized license agreement looks like in order to see if this is true (and to what extent - presumably the downmixing of a DD 5.1 track to 2.0 isn't an unallowed modification). Anyway, if it is true, the Icebox DVD Player may violate the license agreement and ClearPlay and/or ICE Systems could face a contract violation suit.

DJ