Interested in "Family Friendly" edits of DVDs? You have GOT to see this! (1 Viewer)

[Marty Christion]

Even if you're not interested, this is the most hilarious demo I've ever seen. I think the product, MovieMask, has been discussed here before. Basically, it allows you download custom graphic overlays to cover up the "naughty bits" in films.
Everyone knows how they feel about this, so let's not turn this into a discussion of "edited" films. Let's just sit back, relax, and enjoy Kate Winslet as the Little Mermaid
http://moviemask.com/demo01.wmv

 

[Patrick McCart]

I hope this company gets a nice big fat lawsuit from the likes of James Cameron, Woody Allen, Rob Reiner, and others.
This is the worst bastardization I've seen ever done to movies! If you object to something like The Princess Bride (which is suitible for all ages, IMO!), don't show the fuc*ing movie!
Besides, if they really wanted to show off their FilmF*cker, they should have used a clip from Eyes Wide Shut.
I've never seen something so offensive in my life as much as this...

 

[Jean-Michel]

I hope this company gets a nice big fat lawsuit from the likes of James Cameron, Woody Allen, Rob Reiner, and others.

I'm no expert, but I doubt they're doing anything illegal.

 

[Julian Lalor]

I'm no expert, but I doubt they're doing anything illegal.

Until moral rights legislation is passed in the US, I fear not. I'm not altogether supportive of moral rights (working as I do for a production company) but it's stuff like this that makes me see the need for it. Yes, it is funny, but really.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Lawsuits not because of legal reasons, but defamation of movies.

If any of these filmmakers knew this was being done, they'd probably arrange something to keep them from tampering with their films.

 

[HenrikTull]

This is the most offensive thing I've ever seen!

Only in America...

 

[Michael Boyd]

Larry King supports this?!?!?! Oh Larry! Why? Why?

 

[Adam Tyner]

That is absolutely hysterical.

I'd guess that this is some sort of elaborate April Fool's joke, but I seem to remember hearing about this product on the HTF before...

 

[John_Berger]

How can this possibly be legal? It doesn't matter that they're not modifying the DVD itself. They are interfering with the proper delivery of the movie on that DVD and are therefore making unauthorized edits to the movie.
This is about as stupid as the idiots in the newsgroups some time ago who thought that DVD manufacturers should make a DVD player with a joystick so that J6P can reframe a movie on the fly.

 

[John_Berger]

By the way, if this is an elaborate April Fool's joke, then it's been in the planning stage for a long time. This domain name was registered back in 1999.
WHOIS results
Domain Name: MOVIEMASK.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Stagg, Ronald (RSL591) [email protected]
Trilogy Studios
45 West 10000 South
Suite 101
Sandy, UT 84070
801-304-9333 (FAX) 801-304-7007
Billing Contact:
Clayton, David (DC22955) [email protected]
Nova Group, Inc.
1905 West 4700 South
PMB 204
Salt Lake City , UT 84118
801-963-5432
Record last updated on 31-Jan-2002.
Record expires on 16-Oct-2003.
Record created on 16-Oct-1999.
Database last updated on 31-Mar-2002 22:21:00 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.ALETIA.COM216.118.67.98
NS2.ALETIA.COM216.118.67.99

 

[Rich Stone]

If they're not modifying the DVD/Film itself, I don't see how it would be illegal. Guess I'm not sure why everyone is up in arms - I thought it was kinda funny (although lame in some cases). Again in the same vain as the TVGuardian, as long as it's optional, doesn't alter the original media, and gives parents more options then I guess you can call me a supporter. Just my opinion.....last I checked we were free to voice them
Regards,
Rich

 

[derek]

Unfortunately though the technology and capabilities appear excellent the only medium for deliver at present is the PC DVD system. Which I estimate is definitely less than 5% of the targeted audience. However there is mention of Xbox, MAC and '16 million next generation DVD players.' Which...I'm guessing refers to the Playstation 2 (why it isn't clearly spelled out I have no idea.) Moviemask is a big step closer to easy user controlled entertainment. If the 'Home Director' software is powerful and flexible enough I'd buy it in a second (along with a higher end PC.) Again though the majority of consumers desiring this product have no solution given use of dvd standalone players (which tvguardian.com is about the only parital solution I know of and only mutes audio.)

How can there be a law about "interfering with the proper delivery of the movie" on DVD in my own home? I don't have the rights to watch a program any way I so choose? So that means big brother would need to take away my mute button, fast forward button, chapter skip button, audio selection button, caption selection button etc etc?

 

[John_Berger]

my opinion.....last I checked we were free to voice them

Gettin' a wee bit defensive, aren't we, laddie?

 

[Joshua Clinard]

Hey, those Domain Name Servers look familliar! Hey, that's MY webhost. I'm ashamed that Widescreen Advocate is on the host as Movie Mask! Aletia should kick them off. I wonder which machine they are on...

This is my 500th post!

 

[John_Berger]

So that means big brother would need to take away my mute button, fast forward button, chapter skip button, audio selection button, caption selection button etc etc?

You're talking apples and oranges here and you very well know it.
The chapter skip can be disabled (as certain companies have done to force you to watch their @$&%!$@# trailers); the studio could easily force you to a single audio format; the studio could easily force or deny captioning. All of these are privileges that are granted by the studio and the filmmakers. Studios are under no obligation to provide you with chapter skipping, different audio options, and captions. THEY gave you the ability to have those options.
The software, however, attempts to supercede what the film makers have done without their authorization by performing editing that is not necessarily subject to fair use laws.
Yes, when you purchase a DVD, you are then covered under fair use laws to play with it as you want as long as you don't modify the original content AND you don't sell, distribute, or attempt to make some kind of profit from the modified version. If you want to remake a DVD that you bought for your own use to suit your own tastes, fine - you're covered under "fair use" laws as far as I know.
I question whether or not this company has any legal rights to do what they're doing because THEY -- not YOU -- are modifying the movie in a way other than the filmmakers intened. Your use of their software might fall under "fair use", but I would think that their offering of this software is walking a very fine line between fair use and copyright infringement.
It still comes down to the fact that this is somewhat moot in the U.S. because there are no droit morale (sp?) clauses. I strongly doubt that this software will be legal outside of the U.S. in those countries that actually do respect film makers' rights.

 

[Damin J Toell]

The software, however, attempts to supercede what the film makers have done without their authorization by performing editing that is not necessarily subject to fair use laws.

it would likely withstand a lawsuit as well as the Game Genie did when Nintendo sued them years ago (Galoob v. Nintendo, 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992)). Game Genie was found to be a non-infringement, as well.

in order to infringe a U.S. copyright, one would have to infringe one of the exclusive rights granted by 17 U.S.C. 106: reproduction, preparation of a derivative work, distribution, public performance, display, and digitally transmit (this last one applies to sound recordings only). so what would this technology infringe? it seems to me that it's very hard to argue that technology that works on-the-fly at a user's discretion creates an infringing derivative work, especially since that work isn't necessarily fixed and only exists in a tangible form on the user's screen. ruling against them would set a bad precedent, especially against technology that, say, modifies a DVD's presentation for those with poor vision or hearing.

on the derivative work issue, some pertintent quotes from Galoob v. Nintendo: "The altered displays do not incorporate a portion of a copyrighted work in some concrete or permanent form. Nintendo argues that the Game Genie's displays are as fixed in the hardware and software used to create them as Nintendo's original displays. Nintendo's argument ignores the fact that the Game Genie cannot produce an audiovisual display; the underlying display must be produced by a Nintendo Entertainment System and game cartridge."

"In holding that the audiovisual displays created by the Game Genie are not derivative works, we recognize that technology often advances by improvement rather than replacement."

on the fair use issue, more from Galoob: "The district court concluded that "a family's use of a Game Genie for private home enjoyment must be characterized as a non-commercial, nonprofit activity.""

"Game Genie users are engaged in a non-profit activity. Their use of the Game Genie to create derivative works therefore is presumptively fair."

"Sony [the so-called "Betmax Case" - DJT] recognizes that a party who distributes a copyrighted work cannot dictate how that work is to be enjoyed. Consumers may use a Betamax to view copyrighted works at a more convenient time. They similarly may use a Game Genie to enhance a Nintendo Game cartridge's audiovisual display in such a way as to make the experience more enjoyable."

your moral rights theory is admirable, but it just likely wouldn't be supported under U.S. Copyright law. while the 9th Circuit certainly isn't the Supreme Court, it's still a pretty darn good piece of analysis, and, indeed, it's binding law in a large portion of the United States.

DJ

 

[derek]

I see your point John whereby studios can allow or disallow certain features on DVD. I guess my point is I should be able to watch/view/read copyrighted material as I please in my home. If I chooose to FF a VCR tape...so be it. If I choose to hit the mute button durling offensive dialog...so be it. If I choose to skip a few pages in a book...so be it. I don't see Moviemask crossing the line but I think this company would be in trouble if the were acutally selling the edited versions. But, since they are only selling 'templates' and tools (not actual modified movies) that are only activated by the user to view material in the way he/she desires...it would seem to fall under fair use.

 

[Lance Nichols]

Good, god! I never, ever though they would make it this far, but this trailer/demo is hilarious!
I object strongly to the censorship they are trying to promote, and have always felt that the parent/superviosor should determine what ia aproprate for whom to view.
That being said, they sure picked some wierd stuff to modify. The Matrix, with fireworks exploding out of people's chests? Can't you see little johnny trying to make fireworks explode out of his friends chest? After all, the theory is they see all this violence/sex on TV then want to duplicate it themselves... Oh, and Alyssa Milano was the model for Ariel, not Kate Winslett.
Finally, I loved the sneak peak of AOTC they threw in. Wait, what do you mean those were not lightsabers? That wasn't Anikin and Dooku?

 

[David Brown Eyes]

You know what..... this is silly in the extreme... but it also sounds like alot of fun if you look at it correctly.
Was that Mask of Zorro where they replaced the swords with lightsabers ? Is it silly yea it is.
I am haveing a hard time believeing this is little more than a joke after watching the demo.... Now the poduct has been mentioned before but the demo..... I question

 

[John_Berger]

But, since they are only selling 'templates' and tools (not actual modified movies) that are only activated by the user to view material in the way he/she desires...it would seem to fall under fair use.

Sounds a lot like DeCCS to me - and that wasn't even sold.
Yes, yes, I know. DeCCS breaks copy protection and can allow unauthorized distribution, so you might consider that argument to be apples-and-oranges; however, that program can also be used for completely legal "fair use" purposes as well. The argument can be made that if I modify a movie to fit on a CD-R instead of a DVD that I legally own so that I can view the material in the way that I desire, it would also seem to fall under fair use. After all, the original contents of the DVD are not modified either. We know how well THAT argument worked!
Please ... no pro/anti-DeCCS discussions. That can become a really nasty thread, and that was not my intention.
Obviously, the Game Genie example lends credence to the notion that this software package might, sadly, be fully legal. This is all just another reason why film makers should have more control over their movies and how THEY want them to be shown.
My whole gripe with this program is thus:
(A) It once again empowers Joe Six Pack to modify (as it were) a body of work and will most likely empower him to feel that the ability to modify someone else's work should be a God-given right, much like they feel about pan-and-scan.
(B) It further diminishes the role of film makers in the creation of what they deem to be the proper vision of their works. For crying out loud, if you don't like a movie, then DON'T BUY IT or record it when it comes on network TV!
(C) It does nothing more than second-guess the film makers. Sorry, but when a film maker spends years of his life a to make a film while juggling pressures and logistics that I can only imagine, his preference for that movie should always take precedence. This program does nothing more than supercede the filmmakers' vision for the movie, which I personally find to be offensive.
I guess that I won't be buying it!