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

[Jonathan Burk]

Wal Mart is already selling Sanyo DVD players that have "TV Guardian" technology. The players detect profanity in the subtitle stream, and bleep out the sound for a few seconds.

It's the Sanyo DWM-380

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...A62055%3A95987

 

[Jeff Kleist]

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.

Aha! Maybe this'll be the ammo needd to shut them down good

 

[RandyArch]

I dont have a problem with this. I think , personally, that if the Studios had not balked on the earlier design plans for DVD, with things such as Aspect Ratio change on the fly, multiple ratings for the same movie, they would not even have to worry about this at all. Maybe ClearPlay should show the judge some of the early informecials , and explain holywood had intentions of doing this but could not figure it out.
I admit this is not for me. But i can see and understand the use.
Give us the option

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I'm still laughing at that guy.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

The studios have not balked, adn all of those features are in DVD

The PROBLEM is that they take up large amounts of disc space, or are implemented poorly on many players, making using them a tech support nightmare

 

[Brad Cook]

Jeff said:

"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 ."

(Okay, I'm lame and can't figure out how to quote people.)

I agree with what Jeff says here. Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:

If I buy Stephen King's latest book, I can read it backward, if I want. No one can force me to read it a certain way. Likewise, I can watch a DVD and skip over anything I don't want to see. Someone on this forum mentioned the other day that they skip over the scene with Newt and her family at the colony when they watch the Aliens SE. That's their choice.

However, if I buy King's latest book, edit it, and then print up new copies for sale, I'm clearly violating copyright law and will have my little operation shut down. Likewise, if I edited a movie and tried to sell it, I'd be in trouble too. If someone made their own version of the Aliens SE and tried to sell it, they'd get in trouble quickly.

That's the difference between ClearPlay and Clean Flicks, and Jeff is right that ClearPlay has that Nintendo vs. Galoob case on their side. I have no interest in using ClearPlay's product, but I don't see why Hollywood should interfere with what they're doing. It looks like a fair use issue to me.

With regard to Clean Flicks and their ilk, though, I'm amazed that they weren't shut down long ago. Why is it that the guy who made the Phantom Edit would be in deep doo-doo if he tried to sell his edited movie but Clean Flicks and their ilk can openly operate? Is it because Clean Flicks claims moral superiority?

Eric said:

"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?"

While I agree that Hollywood studios are always looking for ways to make money, they already provide edited versions of their films for TV and airlines. Maybe they'll sell those edited versions if they see a demand there, but I can't imagine they'll want to deal with the incredibly uptight conservative religious crowd. Many operations like Clean Flicks are run by Mormons, and they are very strict about profanity, pre-marital sex, etc. I can't imagine the studios wanting to deal with such a strict code for content. I'm sure Clean Flicks' films are much cleaner than anything you'll see on airlines or on TV. So how could the studios get the directors to go along with such strict sanitizing of their work?

- Brad

 

[Jeff Kleist]

That's the difference between ClearPlay and Clean Flicks, and Jeff is right that ClearPlay has that Nintendo vs. Galoob case on their side. I have no interest in using ClearPlay's product, but I don't see why Hollywood should interfere with what they're doing. It looks like a fair use issue to me

Mind you, I don't think that ClearPlay should be allowed to continue, unfortunately, the law is on their side.

Cleanflicks/clearplay don't want to pay the licensing and pressing fees to the studios, bottom line.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

John Kohn said in this closed thread:

You recognize that people have a right to do this, yet ClearPlay is just an extension of that so what's your problem with it?

Because it means that parents will take the ClearPlayed version of films that are clearly not suitable for children due to subject matter, etc. and subject them to it because there's no outright violence, sex, or language. I will agree that this is a purely moral argument and has no basis in legality. I will also agree that censorship in player is better than censorship in the product itself.

 

[Brian W.]

I think the whole idea of either is silly, personally -- I mean, just look at the rating on the back of the box and you won't need any editing, that's what movie ratings are for -- but I must admit I don't see how Clear Play is any different from, say, a friend telling you, "Oh, there's a song on this CD you'll absolutely hate. It's track number 4. Just thought I'd warn you, so you could skip it if you want." They're not actually altering or copying the software.

On the other hand, I don't understand how anyone could find language or sex or violence so offensive that they cannot even bring themselves to sit through it.

 

[Stephen_Ri]

How 'bout this: "If you don't want to use ClearPlay, don't buy it." That works as well as "if you don't want to see the movie, don't watch it", doesn't it? C'mon, what you pay for to watch in your own home is your business. Why should I have to listen to the extreme amount of profanity that hollywood pours into its films if I don't want to? How many successful people do you know that use the "F" word every other sentence? I just don't want to hear it sometimes. Do I need to "grow up", just because I am annoyed by the dialog of Raging Bull or Shaft? I realize that profanity is often good for some parts of movies, but don't you think it gets ridiculous sometimes? I won't bore you with examples of sex and violence. Its just that there is an excess of all these things in movies today, and I don't blame someone for making a product that edits some of it.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

How 'bout this: "If you don't want to use ClearPlay, don't buy it." That works as well as "if you don't want to see the movie, don't watch it", doesn't it? C'mon, what you pay for to watch in your own home is your business. Why should I have to listen to the extreme amount of profanity that hollywood pours into its films if I don't want to?

You can excersise that right by not watching it

Do we cut the wiener off of Michaelangelo's David because someone feels he should have some pants on? No, we tell people who don't like it to suck a lemon and not look

 

[Stephen_Ri]

or by using clearplay. Cutting David's member off would be alot more like censorship. I am not in favor of censorship, I'm in favor of people watching exactly what they want to watch. Watch whatever you want, no matter what I think of it; your the viewer, not me. To show an edited version of a movie in a theater is one thing, and permission from the studio is required, in your home is another. If I was a collector and bought David, I'd have the right to put that lemon rhind over his member if I didn't want to see it. Its amazing how some people will go on about how its someone's "right" to watch movies that border on pornography (i.e. "Kids"), but will throw a fit if those people exersise their "right" to willfully watch an edited movie. Backwards and perverse thinking.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Because it's not their piece of art, that's why

And "putting a lemon rind over his member" is exactly why you CAN'T buy pieces of art of such signifigance

Bottom line; People want to not seem abnormal when they meet at the water cooler because they haven't seen "big movie X". If they have that kind of conviction, speak it proudly. But if you see it censored, you haven't seen it, and you shouldn't see it, self censored or no

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Why should I have to listen to the extreme amount of profanity that hollywood pours into its films if I don't want to?

Because you obviously want to watch the product that the profanity is included in.

 

[Darren Haycock]

"Maybe they'll sell those edited versions if they see a demand there, but I can't imagine they'll want to deal with the incredibly uptight conservative religious crowd. Many operations like Clean Flicks are run by Mormons, and they are very strict about profanity..."

I guess I'm not a very good one then...
Seriously though dude, just cause someone has a certain religion doesn't mean they're all the same. I for example will never step foot into Clean Flicks...

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Yes, while the Mormon Church was offered a stake in the compnay, they wisely refused it.

Adam couldn't have said it better

 

[Stephen_Ri]

Jeff, yes, it IS their peice of art, because the artist sold it to them. David was just an example, how great a piece of art is does not matter. Say I went to a local gallery and spent several hundred dollars on a painting from a relatively unknown painter. I decided I wanted to mount it sideways in my house becuse I thought it would look better, after all, it is art, and you can look at it however you want. For some reason the artist comes to my house one day and notices his painting is sideways. He tells me that I've got it mounted wrong, and that I should change it. I then reply that I like it just the way it is and will not change it. He can complain all he wants, but he cannot change it, becuse he sold it to me, to do whatever I see fit with it, and whether or not he expected me to turn it sideways does not matter.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Yes Adam, thats true, but what I'm saying is I do have another option, clearplay, if I want to use it. If I choose to use it, thats my option, and its not hollywood's place to say no.

Since it's they created the content, I frankly feel that it is their place to say no. There are a number of films which feature content that I am not comfortable with. I choose to avoid those films and let those who wish to watch them properly do so.

If it were a choice between in player censorship or content-level censorship, I'll support the in player censorship. But when it's a choice between censorship and no censorship, I'm going to stick with no censorship everytime. I know if it were my film that were being muted, chopped, and blurred I'd be unhappy.

 

[Sean*O]

Big deal..

Some people want to narrow their horizons and live comfortably inside their ideals.. no skin off my back.

I'll watch the original films that the film makers intended.

Let everyone else do what they want, as long as I am free to do the same.

No one seems to freak out over radio edits of music, why is this any different.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Because, the artist performs the radio edits, it's done with their full cooperation

Clearplay is performing their own edits without the involvement of ANYONE.