Bush Signs DVD Filtering Measure

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.designtechnica.com/article7246.html' target='_blank'>http://news.designtechnica.com/article7246.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"President Bush on Wednesday signed legislation aimed at helping parents keep their children from seeing sex scenes, violence and foul language in movie DVDs. The legislation came about because Hollywood studios and directors had sued to stop the manufacture and distribution of such electronic devices for DVD players. The movies' creators had argued that changing the content -- even when it is considered offensive -- would violate their copyrights."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/NaturalBornKillers.jpg" /> <br /><br />You'd think parents would pay more attention to what their kids read/watch/listen to, but I guess that just doesn't happen here in the United States. The typical reaction as always is legislate. I'm not too much of an artist, but I would think I would be outraged to think that someone could alter my vision in their DVD player from what I intended. I guess <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo's_David">David</a> (a warning to those who might click on that link, you might be offended) wouldn't stand a chance these days, huh?

[Toddard]

Think V-Chip for televisions a few years back. Don't all TV's get them now? Yet how many folks actually use it or know it exists?

[sojourner753]

I think this is outrageous from the perspective of artists.
The V-Chip is a good solution.

Unfortunately this cleansing mechanism is not about keeping content away from people's children. Its about parents not being able to tell their children no.

I remember when Jurassic Park first came out. It was surrounded by a lot of children's dinosaur media. Including the likes of Barney and Dino.

Some reporters and parents had the audacity to ask Stephen Spielberg and company if they would consider releasing a more child-friendly version. Of course the answer was a polite smile and a simple no.

Parents want to be able to let their children watch anything without telling them no. Not wanting to be the bad guy.

[stevehiner]

You guys don't get it. Do you have kids of your own?

This isn't an example of parents not paying attention, it's quite the opposite. This is what happens when parents don't just sit their kids down in front of the lastest DVD to let it babysit them.

Proactive parents are willing to take the time to preview movies. Sometimes the movie is great and clean and the kids can watch it. Sometimes it's trash and the kids can't watch it. Then there are those times where it's 99% great but the writer/director/producer put something into it that the parent feels is inappropriate.

Take the little known film Shrek. Great movie. I absolutely love it. My kids would love it. Unfortunately they use some language in it that I'd rather not add into my kid's vocabulary. Lest you think "Shrek was totally clean" the word "damn" occurs at least 5 times in the background music as well as a smattering of other less offensive words. I know because I'm the guy that added the masking to that part of Shrek.

Why do you think I'm shirking my parental responsibility by having my kids watch it using Movie Mask instead of telling them they can't watch it at all. Do you really think that's evidence of being a poor parent? I recognize that there's something my kids would enjoy so I provide a way for them to enjoy it in a way that is acceptable to me. I let them watch TV but not EVERYTHING on TV, I even use the v-chip to help monitor it - is that bad parenting or is it just being proactive?

If I want to take my copy of SpiderMan and create a mask for it in MovieMask Designer why is that a problem? How can that possibly violate the copyright of the original movie makers? Would you honestly argue that I was violating copyright when I used the DVD remote to let my kids watch certain parts of SpiderMan? Was it a violation for me to hit mute when I knew someone was going to cuss? Should remote controls be outlawed because they allow us to experience media in a way other than the original form?

Next time you're channel surfing I suggest you don't. If you see part of a show and decide you don't want to watch it then change channels you must have just violated the copyright of the first show - that director intended you to watch the whole stuipd show, how dare you edit out the entire end of the show!

You can't really argue that using the remote control is any different than MovieMask. No one that uses masking software does so without knowing that's what they're doing. MovieMask makes it very clear that you're watching an edited version. If you don't like it you can turn off editing and watch the full version of the movie. Automating my remote control seems like a non-violating use of technology.

You seem to be surprised that the government had to get involved. What other choice was there? The director's guild was trying to shut down the companies that make the software. Should they just roll over and close down? They did what any company does in a case like this - they sought protection from the government and the governement did the right thing by declaring it legal to edit movies on the fly. Note: they specifically did not make it legal to edit movies and sell them.

OK, I'll calm down now. I know I went into issues that weren't really raised in the forum. I get a bit offended when someone thinks pro-active parenting is bad.

[egads]

I watch/screen every thing my two kids watch. There are some movies that are 99% clean, but for some reason the director/writer throws 2 foul works in and a sex scene that does not need to be there. I think most of the time it's to get a PG-13 instead of a PG rating. I would gladly use a device that just bleeps out the bad words and sex scenes.

This makes me a bad parent???
If not I'd like to see how your point of view changes when you do.

sojourner753 do you have kids?
I just hate to not let them see a movie because of several bad words that don't need to be there in the first place...

[[email protected]]

"(a warning to those who might click on that link, you might be offended)"

I for one was quite offended by that link. Not only did it take me to a picture of a penis (or maybe pee-pee in this crowd) but the p-word had a STATUE attached to it! ;)

[James Fee]

You guys don't get it. Do you have kids of your own?I've got a kid of my own (http://www.tonkinese.net/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core:ShowItem&amp;g2_itemId=2003) thank you and he isn't old enough to watch something like Shrek or Spiderman. When he is, he can watch it as was intended.

I've got no problem with having two versions, just not one that doesn't have permission of the original rights holder. I don't like the idea that someone could take a work of mine and then twist it in a way that I didn't intend. That is what this legislation is about. If parents really thought about what they were letting their kids watch, they wouldn't be worried about how many "adult situations" Shrek gets into.

[James Fee]

I watch/screen every thing my two kids watch. There are some movies that are 99% clean, but for some reason the director/writer throws 2 foul works in and a sex scene that does not need to be there. I think most of the time it's to get a PG-13 instead of a PG rating. I would gladly use a device that just bleeps out the bad words and sex scenes.

This makes me a bad parent???
If not I'd like to see how your point of view changes when you do.
So mute it, don't screw with it. I watch very little in front of my son because I'm worried about what he see's and how it will affect him. The fact that The Simpsons is animated doesn't mean that kids should watch it. It is an adult show aimed at adults. Same with movies, Shrek isn't a Disney type movie, nor was it marketed as one.
sojourner753 do you have kids?
I just hate to not let them see a movie because of several bad words that don't need to be there in the first place...How do you determine that? If the rights holder felt it was important then it should be left in. What the government is trying to do is take away your right to express yourself. It starts with removing a bad word from a movie, then it moves onto the other ways including TV. This isn't like OTA radio or TV. These movies have to be paid for to watch so they should be allowed to do what they want and if they don't want a G rated version, then they shouldn't have to provide one, nor should they have to let someone else produce it.

[Felix Torres]

Question: setting aside the morality issues, which these days tends to push certain reflexive instincts, isn't the heart of the matter one of making derivative works for personal use?

With sampling tech and colorization and all the ongoing battles over fair use, isn't this just another case of technology enabling new uses for old content?

The license on DVDs states they are sold for private non-commercial use.
Now, a fairly common rule of thumb these days is that what educated/informed/consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home that doesn't spill out of it, is nobody's business but their own, isn't it?
(The republicans get routinely ripped because they often act as if they are mortally afraid that somehow, somewhere, somebody is having fun. Well, this time they're acting out of character and promoting fun...)

Creating a derivative work for personal, non-commercial use has long been considered fair; compilating tapes and cds mixing content from multiple albums creates derivative works; so does stripping audio for karaoke. These uses are deemed legal for personal non-commercial use.

Recording a tv broadcast and editing it also creates a new work.
The Betamax decision allowed it.

There is even a special exemption that allows scanning+ocr'ing books and documents so they can be fed to braille readers and text-to-speech. Graphics and charts are routinely lost in this automated process, so authorial intent is violated. Yet this is allowed.

These are all derivative works legaly allowed to be created because they serve a social purpose.

What this new law says is that creating derivative works of movies for personal, private, non-commercial viewing serves a social purpose and is thus deemed an allowable exemption.

This is a new exemption but hardly the first.
So, while one might argue about the need for such a technology or the wisdom of the exemption, the granting of it is well within existing copyright law precedent.

Is it censorship?
You bet!
(But not by the government! It's worth noting that only government censorship is prohibited/limited by the US constitution. Personal/private censorship is constitutionally protected as a form of self-expression. It is legal to take take a dirty joke and clean it up. You just can't pass a law demanding it.)
Is it *necessary* censorship?
Dunno.
Apparently.
There seems to be a market for the product and a constituency for the law.
Me, I have no use for this particular technology, but I see no reason to forbid its availability to those that want it.

I see it as simply a technological enhancement of a capability we already have. (Mute button, fast forward, blacking out the screen, you name it; conceptually its all the same.)

Given that the creators of the movies in question are not being forced to produce "cleaned-up" versions of their product--the way they were in the 40's and 50's; anybody see THE AVIATOR?--and are allowed to distribute it as they see fit to create it, their rights of self-expression are being respected. There are other, more urgent, areas where the uber-moralizers of the right should be confronted that have more merit than this.

Sorry, but I think this is the wrong tree to be barking up.
--2 cents--

[Doug Johnson]

I think that having this technology available is great. There are scenes and/or language in some movies that I just don't want to see. Having the ability to watch it in a "cleaned up" form allows me to watch movies I would otherwise avoid. I don't want to sound like a prude, but I don't go to my friend's house to watch him/her have sex, so I don't particularly enjoy seeing it on my television.

For those that are opposed to it, remember, you don't have to use it. Keep in mind that for those that are willing to use it, they have a whole new world of movies opened up to them they would probably avoid otherwise.

Is it wrong for movies on broadcast television to be edited?

I recently read that 70% of movies are rated "R". This restricts the potential audience to those 17 or above. If a "toned down" version of a movie is available that allows a younger (or more conservative) audience to enjoy it (so long as they have the choice of which version to see), why not?

[egads]

I watch/screen every thing my two kids watch. There are some movies that are 99% clean, but for some reason the director/writer throws 2 foul works in and a sex scene that does not need to be there. I think most of the time it's to get a PG-13 instead of a PG rating. I would gladly use a device that just bleeps out the bad words and sex scenes.

This makes me a bad parent???
If not I'd like to see how your point of view changes when you do.
So mute it, don't screw with it. I watch very little in front of my son because I'm worried about what he see's and how it will affect him. The fact that The Simpsons is animated doesn't mean that kids should watch it. It is an adult show aimed at adults. Same with movies, Shrek isn't a Disney type movie, nor was it marketed as one.
sojourner753 do you have kids?
I just hate to not let them see a movie because of several bad words that don't need to be there in the first place...How do you determine that? If the rights holder felt it was important then it should be left in. What the government is trying to do is take away your right to express yourself. It starts with removing a bad word from a movie, then it moves onto the other ways including TV. This isn't like OTA radio or TV. These movies have to be paid for to watch so they should be allowed to do what they want and if they don't want a G rated version, then they shouldn't have to provide one, nor should they have to let someone else produce it.

I do mute, say hide your eyes here. Is this any different that havening it done automatically by some technology?

I also edit bad words out of audio CD's. Radio stations do this now and the artists put up with it because it gets them more sales.

All of this crud about "artist's vision" makes me laugh. 99% of these "artists" are making movies/songs to make MONEY not art. In the theatre I'm in the artist's hands, but in my home I want control.

[sundown]

My understanding is that it's purely optional anyway, right? So if I don't want to see/hear/smell (well, someday :D) a scene I can opt out of it and still see the movie. Those who want the full artists vision can see the un-edited version. The beauty is...IT's UP TO ME! It doesn't force the studio to do anything, does it?

I do have kids but I could see a use for me as well. Got to be honest with ya here. I love the Bad Boys series. Not great acting, blah blah blah, whatever. I just like them. But man was I disgusted to see explicit scenes with blood and cut up body parts in the Bad Boys 2. I just won't watch it again, though I liked the rest of the movie. I would LOVE to be able to cut out the gore so I can see it again.

I welcome this decision.

[Phoenix]

Question: setting aside the morality issues, which these days...

I think that was informative and well put.

*******************

On another note, I will say that I don't think it's quite accurate to compare some of the filth in movies that we try to filter for the sake of our children, with the statue of David. Not the same thing. I won't bother to expound on that - either that's understood or it's not.

Society has always possessed a never-ending, single-directed momentum in regard to redefining values - what it finds acceptable and what it doesn't - with liberality dominating. We live in a Jerry Springer, "keepin' it real", low or no discretion era where letting everything hang out is OK and expected, and this mentality is used to justify whatever someone wants to do (whether meant as a single act or for posterity), all in the name of "art", with Hollywood leading the way. This is being reflected more and more in movies and media.

What I do know, is that not everything is relative, opinion, subjective, and virtual. There is absoluteness, fact, objectivity, and reality, but Hollywood more and more refuses to acknowledge this because it loves the idea of no bounderies and chooses not to be limited to anything less than its uber-liberal values, which are guided by nothing more than the wind.

This means that as time goes on, unless you plan to move yourself and your loved ones into cave and never watch another movie again, more and more movies are going to contain material that a person would rather not expose their children or themselves to.

I don't make effort to shove my values down anyone's throat, but I will absolutely defend my values in my own home and in my life and the lives of my loved ones, because in my home and as the head of my household, is it my right (not Hollywood's) to determine what values will exist there for me and my family. Hollywood can and will make whatever movies it chooses to, but it does not have my permission nor the authority to set values in my home in the name of "artistic integrity" - that doesn't give them much of a platform to stand on - and to think otherwise is foolishness. Hollywood neither has the right nor the authority to set values in my home, period. Keeping in mind that as children age and as G-rated movies eventually cease to be the only options, along with what I mentioned earlier about being exposed to movies and media unless you move into a cave, acts of censorship in the home become necessary. This means that if I see fit to utilize a technology at my discretion to help tone down an otherwise good movie until I find it suitable for my children or us adults to watch, then it is my right to do so, and I will.

We all have eyes and ears and we're all going to watch movies. And there are a lot of movies with great storylines and entertainment value, but that have content that is unsuitable for children and even adults. That's life. So parents (and anyone for that matter) must have tools at their disposal to help them maintain the balance between the unevitable act of watching movies and the values they set in their homes.

[Felix Torres]

Society has always possessed a never-ending, single-directed momentum in regard to redefining values - what it finds acceptable and what it doesn't - with liberality dominating.

...recently...

Liberality dominating is *not* a law of nature nor does it always dominate.
In fact, the recent period of liberalization is a reaction to the last period of de-liberalization and the civic society that prevailed in the previous generation.

Human lifespans being as they are, we tend to lose sight of the big, multi-generational, picture.
In america there have been *other* liberalizing periods in history and they have always been followed by:
a) hard times.
b) a redefinition of acceptable behavior
c) an era of social limits
d) a new cycle of liberalization.

We are in the middle of a transition between these eras, due in great measure to (got to stay within sight of the topic) digital technology. The democratization of media distribution is triggering a redfinition of what is and isn't acceptable social behavior as people get exposed to more ideas from many more sources and start to realize they are not alone in their views. Call it blogging, call it podcasting, call it personal video broadcasting (its coming!) its all publishing and the barrier to entry is now gone. And the assumptions and rules of what is acceptable are going to change. And not necessarily towards more liberal attitudes.
If anything, demographics argue against it.

The Jerry Springer culture you mention is a direct off-shoot of the 60's "if it feels good, do it" mentality. But, if you take a look, boomers are starting to move back of the spotlight. And the 60's was a long time ago.
The america of the near future is going to be shaped and run more by the "seen that-done that" gen-x'ers and the less self-indulgent gen-y'ers.

Odds are we are phasing into a new civic-minded era because only by redefining just what our roles are in society can we get past the mess of red/blue politics of rage.

Which is to say that on *some* issues, you should expect a more restrained outlook from the younger generation and more focus on the effects on others than was typical of the me-generation boomers.

On technology issues, we're already seeing an effort to clearly define "fair use", authorial intent, self-expression, and yes, censorship. These are all ways of establishing boundaries and limits. Expect *more* of these.

Self-expression does not necessarily trump all anymore.

The society of the near future will be talking a lot more about what we are expected to do for the country and a lot less about what we are "entitled" to receive from it.

For anybody wanting more detail on *one* view of this ongoing transition, and why the future will *not* be like the 60's, google up these two terms:
- The fourth Turning
- The Shield of Achilles

Or not.

They're not tech books although tech is a big part of the picture in both. Especially the internet and modern communications.

[Phoenix]

...recently...

Liberality...

I hear you and understand what you're saying. You're clearly a very educated person and diplomatic in how you present your ideas. Thank you for that.

I also can see the truth behind certain facts that you presented, especially in regard to cycles.

As I was speaking not so much from a position of absolutes, but rather from the viewpoint of what I believe takes place more often than not, I will say that I agree that liberality does indeed not always dominate, but I would disagree that liberality is not a law of nature among society. And so I would see this more along the lines of an analogy engaging the concept of winning battles but losing the war - or vice versa depending on a person's viewpoints.

Because it is man's nature to explore, experiment, and to most often avoid accountability unless mandated by outside pressures of his circumstances or finally his inner-conscience, I believe that man has a natural propensity to take things too far often times, resulting in what I believe are an unhealthy lack of boundaries. And I believe this nature has been with man from the beginning and so my views are in fact quite multi-generational. I believe that although each generation can be marked by unique properties, over time mankind has nevertheless continued to grow its sense of entitlement while decreasing its accountability factor to anything other than itself. In this way, I believe moral and spiritual liberality is in fact dominating, and will continue to do so. As fantastic as technology is, as much as it has positively contributed to society, and as much as I love so many things about it, it has absolutely contributed and amplified those things I speak of. The boundaries of entry, as you say, can then also be understood and accepted from more than just a technological viewpoint.

It would be interesting to debate this more deeply, but without taking it to those levels, I will say that although I understand what you are sharing, I fear that the society that you speak of won't quite unfold as you suggest. Suffice it to say, that in this respect, we would then naturally agree to disagree.

[Felix Torres]

...recently...

Liberality...

I hear you and understand what you're saying. You're clearly a very educated person and diplomatic in how you present your ideas. Thank you for that.



Lol!
First time anybody called me diplomatic.
Obnoxious and overbearing is the way I usually hear it.

As for how things will unfold, I really wish I am wrong.
But the way things are unfolding there are certain lessons of the 20th century that will have to be learned all over again.
Many will die in the learning.
It will not be fun.

Peace.

[stevehiner]

Felix Torres and James Beatty made such good rebuttals that I'm left with little more to say. I did want to comment on a few things though.

You said:
So mute it, don't screw with it.

Interestingly enough, that's exactly what MovieMask does for you. When creating a mask I have the option of creating a skip event or a MUTE event. There's no difference between me pushing a button and having software that remembers to push it for me, is there?

What do you know? We agree. You think modifying content with MovieMask is a good thing!

If the rights holder felt it was important then it should be left in.

I was going to make the point about creating compilation discs or listening to a single song off a disc but the other guys beat me to it.

What the government is trying to do is take away your right to express yourself.

The government isn't trying to do ANYTHING. They're protecting our rights to do something. Fair use laws say that I can create a casette tape from my CDs - that doesn't mean the government is telling me I MUST make tapes, just that I CAN if I want to. Same thing with ripping CDs or editing movies.

Of all the movie masks I have, wanna guess how many were made by the government? That's right - ZERO!

So I'm guessing that you'd also take offence with TV Guardian right? (http://tvguardian.com/) It watches the closed captioning stream on live TV and mutes cursing then puts up an edited version of the closed caption text. My boss has one and he says it works beautifully.

Does these same priciples apply to internet filtering? Is an internet filter a sign of good or bad parenting?