http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/27/ ... index.html

Although there are scenes in movies that should not be viwed by all, this makes me sick.

Bush signs DVD filtering measure
Wednesday, April 27, 2005 Posted: 12:15 PM EDT (1615 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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 bill gives legal protections to the fledgling filtering technology that helps parents automatically skip or mute sections of commercial movie DVDs. Bush signed it privately and without comment, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

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.

The legislation, called the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, creates an exemption in copyright laws to make sure companies selling filtering technology won't get sued out of existence.

Critics of the bill have argued it was aimed at helping one company, Utah-based ClearPlay Inc., whose technology is used in some DVD players. ClearPlay sells filters for hundreds of movies that can be added to such DVD players for $4.95 each month. Hollywood executives maintain that ClearPlay should pay them licensing fees for altering their creative efforts.

Unlike ClearPlay, some other companies produce edited DVD copies of popular movies and sell them directly to consumers.

In a nod to the studios, the legislation contains crackdowns on copyright infringement by explicitly providing no legal protections for those companies that sell copies of the edited movies, creating new penalties for criminals who use small videocameras to record copies of first-run films in movie theaters, and setting tough penalties for anyone caught distributing a movie or song prior to its commercial release.

The legislation also reauthorizes a Library of Congress program dedicated to saving rare, culturally significant works, such as home movies, silent-era films and other works that are unlikely to be protected by the big studios.

Can I use this technology to edit all the God crap out of this movie?

I dont know how i feel about this honestly. I mean, it gives parents another option to let kids view films without worrying about subjecting them to graphic sexual content or bad language.. while still allowing movie studios to make whatever films they like, but on the flip side, they are allowing people to profit by changing peoples "art".


Is it censorship if artist isnt being censored, and are still being allowed to express themself and entertain in the way they choose, just by allowing another option?


ive really gone back and forth on this.

Whatever ... fucking read your kids a Bible story, you lazy fuckers.

I agree , B. Fucking lazy parents.

This shouldn't be right. No one should have any right to alter anyone else's movie, music, anything without their consent. This more than infringes on Free Speech. It's disgusting.

There's already a way to tell if a movie is not suitable for your child. It's called "rated R". Watch a movie first, if you don't want your kid to see it, then don't let them - but do it your goddamed self.

Just because we seem to have two parallel threads about two different aspects of this new legislation, I figured I'd provide this link so they don't become redundant.

http://www.theskyiscrape.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14801

If the movie is bad, DON'T WATCH IT. bah.

Should AdBlockers in web browsers be illegal? Honestly I don't see a problem with this. They aren't censoring the actual films, just giving viewers a way to enjoy the product in a way that they may prefer.

Once you purchase a product, whether it's a DVD or a piece of music, you have the right to edit it and enjoy it in any way you choose as long as you aren't distributing it to others.

Should the government be responsible for this, though? If the film company wants to add that feature, then by all means, go ahead. In fact, it might be a good way to get more people to buy your film. The government should have nothing to do with it, though.

Its not like the government is doing it, they are just saying its okay for third party companies to do it.

This kind of legislation compromises the artistic integrity of the films. If every part of a movie that is violent or contains swear words is simply removed this changes its overall effect. This is a job for the parents not the state.

but its not the state.. its individual companies...

yes the parents should do it- but the governments only role is making a law that protects the practice

When I was a kid my parents would make me cover my eyes or leave the room or fast-forward through parts of movies that they felt were innapropriate for me. This is just a high-tech way of allowing parents to control what their children are watching.

All the state is saying is that it isn't illegal to sell these devices, in response to the movie studios lawsuits.

Would it be illegal for a company to sell a filter that turned everything on your TV purple? Of course it wouldn't.. if someone wants to watch a film that way, they have every right to.

Well, they are giving legal protection to companies that don't have to get permission from the producer. That is essentially the government doing it, and contracting the job out to a private company. Either way, it's forced.

and the government allows cars, so they are responsible for every accident. the government allows kitchen knives, so they are responsible for stabbings. the government allows men, so they are responsible for sex.... thats a big stretch- because the goverment doesnt make something illegal, they are the ones doing it?

How is that a valid comparison? Altering someone's art is entirely different from allowing cars. These companies are taking someone else's product, altering it, and making a profit. What part of that doesn't reek of copyright violation? That's far worse than anything the record companies are complaining about!

And besides, what ever happened to the good ole' method of ASKING PERMISSION???

Alright, let's take this back a step. It's not just a matter of "the government let's them do it so they might as well do it." We have a specific action here, "selling altered copyrighted work without the owner's permission," which is generally considered a crime. The government has exempted this company from being liable for this crime. It's not a question of responsibility ... it's just a bad decision.

This doesn't bother me. Swear words are censored out of songs on the radio, movies are edited for content when they are shown on television, etc. When I was a kid, if I watched a rated R movie with my mom or something, and there were inappropriate parts, I'd get the old "Close your eyes" routine and she'd fast forward through it. Of course, and the key part for me as a parent, is that she had seen the movie herself before letting me watch it, so she knew whether or not the film was appropriate at all. I mean, I watched Collateral the other night, and even if you took out the violence and swearing, it's subject matter that I wouldn't let my kids watch.

And for the record, I don't believe this involves altering the content that is on the DVD, there are just triggers that tell the player to skip over the scene.