Fair Use for editing DVD content.

[Doobie]

Doom9 against Fair Use? From the news "Congress has decided to lend support to DVD censorship. The US Senate has attached a decency proposal to its annual defense bill, which would enable filters to remove offensive material (nudity, violence, profanity, etc.). I wonder how well that flies with freedom of speech..."

There's a market for cleaned up DVDs. A company buys a DVD, edits out objectionable material, burns it to DVD-R, and sells or rents the DVD in the original packaging. Even though the movie studios get their money, they still are suing these clean up services for copyright infringement.

There are also a variety of products designed to clean up DVDs. One product reads the captions and then when a banned word appears, the audio is muted. Another product, which works impressively well, perfectly cuts scenes and words on the fly, according to user-chosen filters, using downloaded time indexes.

Boohoo, the movie studios cry. Editing messes up their artistic intent, they declare. I don't know that many movies I would call artistic, especially when it comes to pandering with gratuitous vulgarities.

The movie studios should be happy as this increases DVD sales to people who wouldn't normally buy the DVDs. The movie studios should offer this service themselves. DVDs have room for an alternative audio track and some alternative scenes. The movie studios are in a good position of protecting artistic intent by replacing audio and scene content rather than just deleting them. For example, drawing a bikini top onto a topless sunbather or replacing the word "b!tch" with "nag."

How is it that someone can champion Fair Use and decry heavy-handed copyright law while at the same time objecting to someone being allowed to edit a movie to protect their children?

Freedom of Speech means you say what you want to say. It doesn't mean I have to listen.

[Neo Neko]

Doobie calm down. It was more than likely a cultural misunderstanding. I am quite sure doom9 read it for face value and missed how exactly it could play into free speach. Quite frankly one outside could mistake this as the government enforcing speech that it sees fit and censoring that which it does not. Frankly if parents want to edit profanity then let them have at it. But they only have themselves to blame when their kids hear their friends use it and it becomes the next best thing to sliced bread for them. Because it is forbidden.

I agree with you that this will actually help free speech by allowing individuals to individualy censor that which they do not want on the fly. And keep the rest of us safer from blanket censorship to protect the over sensitive few as opposed to the largely desensitized masses. But it was a bit over sensitive and a bit naieve on your part to assume that this could have been anything but a mistake or oversight on doom9's part. I know for a fact that anything that gives consumers more individual rights without taking any away he would be for. And this is how I know it was a mistake. If I have learned anything from my dealings with foriegn languages it is that without a strong basis in those languages one can miss quite alot of meaning and nuance. Or even get the wrong idea entirely. And there are many many users and mods on this board for whom english is not a primary language. So chiiiiiiil. We have all been on edge recently. Sit back relax and try to let the understanding flow. ;)

[Joe Fenton]

I think Doom9 was more concerned about this becoming the new V-chip. Suppose that they start MANDATING that people MUST use this censoring technology. Now suppose it starts looking for political messages as well as what someone else thinks is "improper." Get the idea? This has the potential for misuse that is staggering. It's not that it should be banned, it just needs VERY close monitoring against misuse. Laws should be made NOW that say laws cannot be enacting in the future FORCING the use of this technology.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Joe Fenton
I think Doom9 was more concerned about this becoming the new V-chip.

What was wrong with the old V-chip? I remember all the controversy it stirred. Look where it is today. Many people have it and don't even know it. They sit happily inactive in most new TVs. And I have to tell you for as many problems they solve they create more. It is true comedy in it's purest form. The V-chip blocks by rating going on a scale from the low end G all the way up to that nasty late night unrated stuff. The comedy comes in that most parents let PBS babysit their children. And PBS does not make wide use of ratings embedded in the signal. So most PBS stuff gets blocked by the V-chip as unrated. Bye bye barney bye bye telletubbies. In order to let their children watch that they have to turn the V-chip off which makes them vulnerable to reality. It is funny.

Originally posted by Joe Fenton
Suppose that they start MANDATING that people MUST use this censoring technology. Now suppose it starts looking for political messages as well as what someone else thinks is "improper." Get the idea?

But I don't think that is the real idea here. The idea as I have it is to mandate it be implemented for those that want it. And then allow people to use it on an individual basis. This would actually save us from the possibility of blanket censorship. As long as this is not imposed on consumers. Impose it on manufacturers sure. But not the consumer. So this is really not that bad. Freedom of speech does not mean people have to listen to you. :P It is as much about what you don't want to hear or say as what you do. The problem arises when you force what you don't want to hear on others. But for this computers and technology are a godsend! Imagine never having to worry about picking up a censored album on accident ever again if that is a big thing for you. It would also save record companies in the long run. They would not have to press and ship two different versions of the same album. Just the one. And the playback device can be instructed by the consumer on what they don't want. Of any censorship that is the best of all worlds. But in order for this to get done on a reasonable time frame and for everyone to play nice and not come out with proprietary standard A, B, and C. Someone is going to have to get involved and say how it is to be done and when it is to be done. Enter governmental boddies.

Originally posted by Joe Fenton
This has the potential for misuse that is staggering. It's not that it should be banned, it just needs VERY close monitoring against misuse. Laws should be made NOW that say laws cannot be enacting in the future FORCING the use of this technology.

Forcing the use of the technology is not the problem. Forcing "how" it is used is. But with the technology in place there should be less need to enforce "how" it is used. As this would allow for fine control over that down to basically the individual level. So this would stand to make people more free on many levels and not less.

Yes I can see the orwellian overtones for future possibilities. And yes alot of people are plotting abuses of technology. But technology is not going away. We are going to have to embrace it at some point. And this has some real possibility for good use.

[Doobie]

Looking at the The Inquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16776) article, it's vague and misleading. The law doesn't require any censorship. The law doesn't even mandate something like the v-chip to facilitate censorship by the consumer (and causes TVs to cost a little more for people who have no interest in the v-chip).

The purpose of the law:To provide that making limited portions of audio or video
content of motion pictures imperceptible by or for the
owner or other lawful possessor of an authorized copy
of that motion picture for private home viewing, and
the use of technology therefor, is not an infringement
of copyright or of any right under the Trademark Act
of 1946.

Fair Use. The only thing bad about this law is that it doesn't go far enough in limiting copyright law.

[Doom9]

Here's my background: In Germany, there are very strict censorship laws. Movies rated 18 (that's equivalent to NC17 in the US) must not be advertised, cannot put put into a sales rack and may only be sold under the table. Additionally, you cannot mention such movies in an online shop, period. Furthermore, there's an organization called "Bundesamt für Jugendgefährdende Schriften" (basically a government commision for censhorship), that watch movies and play games and can decide to remove them from circulation. Thats right, you cannot get Doom anywhere in Germany. As a publication, you're not even allowed to mention the name or your publication has to be removed from circulation (obviuosly only the issue where you mentioned the forbidden name).

As a result, in the entire German market, you often get movies that are cut to make a 16 rating. Similarly, games are edited, sometimes to make them ridiculous (and other times despite the editing they will be banned.. UT and Counterstrike went that way (CS might have been unbanned again later on).

Now imagine that system together with your censorship chip. Imagine the smallest screwup somewhere and all you ever get to see is a mutilated movie rated 16. It gets as bad that some movies are cut beyond making sense. And that doesn't only apply to Germany, it has happened in the US as well, where for instance the 3rd Austin Powers was cut down (for cable I presume) and 22 minutes were removed. Remove 22 minutes from a 90 minute movie and it obviously doesn't make sense anymore. When I started watching movies, I not always could get access to the uncut original version and had to suffer through many cut down movies. Having then seen the original and having realized how cutting changes the movie to become a lesser piece of art, I cannot help but object to this practice in the strongest possible terms.

Freedom of speech means the director and actor gets to say what they want. It doesn't mean you get to mutilate a movie.. that has nothing to do with free speech, that's censorship, something which I very much despise. If you're a concerned parent, you ought not to give your 10 year old kid a copy of Die Hard to watch. Just removing the most bloody scenes doesn't change the fact that this movie is violent. There are tons of movies where violence and profanity are non issues. A responsable parent would be better off giving their offspring only access to material that is made for their age group, not give them access to everything minus a few scenes.. this is the wrong approach to the problem.

Also, you might have noted, I did not mention copyright infringement with a single word. I don't consider such editing copyright infringement, but it's censorship. And censorship I just can't stand, especially if it can easily be avoided. A responsable parent doesn't need a censhorship chip, he/she needs to watch over their kids and only allow them access to proper materials Not being around, not having time to do that is a sad excuse and shows a lack of responsability.

Last but not least: Fair Use does not apply to reselling of a product, especially not an edited one. For that you need a special license from the copyright holder.

[FredThompson]

"free speech" has nothing to do with this at all. That's where doom9 got confused.
All that "suppose" stuff from a few posts ago is ridiculous. The counterargument is "suppose that doesn't happen" and the whole thing is cancelled out.

The history behind this is movie and music producers getting annoyed that airlines and other common carriers for people edit their products as well as some private companies who produce "clean" versions for private purchase. The later always include a verbatim original copy. Note, when these censored versions are shown or sold, the creators of the original content are PAID.

The creators of the films/music/etc claim their freedom of speech is being violated when their products are censored. Ultimately, they will lose their case and/or profits because they'll reduce their audience.

[wmansir]

The inquirer article is poorly written, extremely biased, and just plain wrong IMO. Here (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0241/rojas.php) is a much better article on the issue, and it's relevance to censorship, fair use, and creative freedom vs creative protections. It doesn't mention the amendment (because it is almost 2 years old), but discusses the case which prompted this legislation.

The fact is, this amendment doesn't restrict or censor anyone. It allows a person to have a legally purchased audio/video recording censored, for their private use. I think a person should be able to do whatever they want with a recording once they purchase it. This amendment gives them that freedom.

Heck, I do stuff like this all the time, although not for graphic content. Should it be illegal (as it may be now) for me to remove unskipable trailers from my DVD backups? Should it be illegal to remove PUOPs from DVDs?

Also, the amendment doesn't mandate v-chip type inclusion in all DVD players, it just explicitly states that such technology is legal. That should be obvious, but the MPAA is also suing a company that makes such a device.

For anyone on the fence, this should tip you off:Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch told the LA Times that a fast and easier way to resolve the situation would be through some sort of compromise. Yes, that Orrin Hatch (R-Disney) is against the legislation. And the EFF filed a friend of the court brief supporting CleanFlicks (a 'sanitized' DVD sales/rental company like Doobie mentioned above) in a lawsuit with the MPAA on this issue.

[Doom9]

It really depends on the wording of such a legistlation (does anyone have the text) whether it has any effect on private copying. At first glance I'd say it has nothing to do with it. This isn't about you being allowed to do whatever you want with a product you've bought. It's about the right to re-sell edited versions, without the copyright holder's consent.

Take software as an example: You buy game X in a store. Then you crack it to remove the copy protection. So far so good, there's no problem in my eyes (but the BSA is already screaming bloody murder). But now you resell that cracked version, making a profit with it. Your license clearly does not permit this kind of activity.

Going back to movies, I see two problems with that: first copyright law (guys, you really need to study this before you start bashing me) does not allow derivative works to be sold or distributed without the copyright holders consent. There are some exceptions when only parts of a work are used, poradies, etc., but taking a movie and cutting out a few minutes or dubbing the audio is not included. If you do this in your own 4 walls, you'll not get into any trouble, but if your business is based on creating derivative works without the appropriate licenses to do so, that is simply against the law.

Second, if you give the derivative work away, you'd probably be required to send out the original media as well. Is that being done?

So basically, an amendment to the copyright act would be required to make this legal, because as it is, Cleanflicks violates US copyright law. It's only fair use if you do it in private circles, if you go around selling stuff, it's no longer protected by the law.


The reason why the EFF is behind this I think is because it 1) takes away rights from the MPAA (nobody likes them), 2) if formulated broadly enough could open up some possibilities for private use as well. Yet, even if it's okay to privately edit (we all think it is, and the copyright act does not forbid this), that still conflicts with the DMCA that prevents copying and thus editing. So it really takes something like the DMCRA to stamp the fair use excemption into the DMCA, making once and for all clear that it's okay to circumvent for private copies. This whole editing thing is just an attempt to sneak some of this in via the backdoor, but it won't work. Do you honestly think congress would go ahead and pass a "sanitation" legislation that would state "HR.xyz (DMCA) Chapter 12 does not apply to ... blah blah blah". Come on.. give the MPAA's lobbyists a bit more credit.

So, if any legislation comes to pass, it might legalize what Cleanflicks does if the source doesn't have copy protection. If it does, we still have the DMCA. And that makes me wonder why MPAA and DVD CCA haven't sued anyone for DMCA violation yet.. it's the most obvious angle of attack. I'm afraid I don't see any of this making an impact on our fair use rights.. I very much doubt congress would loosen the DMCA to permit this. They might say it's okay to sell edited versions of movies without the copyright holders consent, but they'll never go ahead and change the DMCA to make it possible.

[wmansir]

I agree the original amendment text needs to be read before we can definitively say what this proposed law does and does not allow. I don't have time to search for it now, but this article (http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jun/06182004/business/176509.asp) states that the amendment is solely aimed at declaring censoring technologies legal (not mandating them, just allowing them). If that is the case, I was incorrect above. Perhaps I was too optimistic in my reading of doobies quote from the bill.

It also negates the entire copyright/derivative works argument because no derivative work is being made, the playback is being censored in real time, with the original copy unaltered. Since no work is being sold, there is no copyright violation. Although it may just be a technicality because while an altered work isn't being sold, an altered viewing experience is. Still, it's enough of a distinction to make it legal (even without this legislation).

The article states Marybeth Peters, register of copyrights at the U.S. Copyright Office, said it appears the new legislation is unnecessary. She said people in their own homes can watch or not watch whatever part of a movie they want once it has been bought or rented, and the technology appears legal as long as it doesn't make a permanent copy of the edited movie.

But regarding the sale of altered works. Even if this amendment doesn't adress the issue I recommend you read the Village Voice article I linked in my last post. Although this issue is currently being fought over censorship, legalizing the practice could be a boon to artistic expression and freedom. Also, a good read is this article (http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/publicdomain/Loren2-7-00.html) on the purpose of copyright.

ps. I'm over tired right now so I apologize for any mistakes in this post I didn't catch or if I'm not expressing myself as clearly as I should.

[Doom9]

But regarding the sale of altered works. Even if this amendment doesn't adress the issue I recommend you read the Village Voice article I linked in my last post. Although this issue is currently being fought over censorship, legalizing the practice could be a boon to artistic expression and freedom. Also, a good read is this article on the purpose of copyright.I have not only read it once, but many times.. in fact I think I linked to that article before when the issue was first brought up ;)

Though I cannot agree that what CleanFlicks does has anything to do with artistic expression.. it's censorship. And Die Hard without blood and swearwords is still not a movie suited for children. We didn't have TV since I was 6 (and just got satellite TV last Christmas), yet that didn't stop me from learning to swear as soon as I got into school (I might even have picked up certain things well before). I believe it is irresponsible for any parent to rely on censorship technology.. first they never cover anything, and I keep repeating myself again that movies made for adults can't be altered to make them suitable for children.

[Doobie]

When the government tells you what information you cannot have, that's censorship. When you choose what information you want, that's freedom. These are absolute opposites, not the same. The same thing as censorship is the government forcing you to take information you do not want.

When you edit out objectionable content (or have someone do it for you), that's Fair Use. When you remove CD checks from software for resale, that is facilitation of piracy.

If something you do yourself is Fair Use then so should it be Fair Use to pay someone to do that same thing for you. If I can quote a short passage from a book for a book review under Fair Use, then I can also pay you to provide a book review with a short passage from a book.

This legislation puts something like ClearPlay (censors on the fly) on solid legal ground. CleanFlicks (makes edited copies) still has the issue with bypassing DVD protection, but I can't find any evidence that anyone cares about that aspect. They're in the courts for editing (trademark violations, copyright violations, false advertising, nose picking, etc., but not DMCA violations)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doom9
It gets as bad that some movies are cut beyond making sense. And that doesn't only apply to Germany, it has happened in the US as well, where for instance the 3rd Austin Powers was cut down (for cable I presume) and 22 minutes were removed. Remove 22 minutes from a 90 minute movie and it obviously doesn't make sense anymore.

Actually that has less to do with content and more often more to do with time constraints. When movies air on western TV even G rated movies will get cut down as much. I don't like it either. But it is a small thing. I can always get my own copy and watch it all as much as I want when I want. On western TV Advertising and some of the shows pay for station operations. So as a result a Movie is only used on rare occasions like slow days. Saturday and sunday after noon for instance. To fill in less popular time slots with content that might draw viewers. But it will always play second bananna to made for TV content. So even if it is "The Land Before Time" it will be editied for time and aspect ratio and yes on some movies even content.

I don't watch movies on broadcast TV for many reasons. Stupid editing, horrible selection, and just bad times over all. Not that it happens much since most people now have movie channels that air movies unedited etc. So as long as I can rent a full version or buy it I am ok. I do however miss the old late night interstitial B movie broadcasts. Ah the good ole days.

Originally posted by Doom9
When I started watching movies, I not always could get access to the uncut original version and had to suffer through many cut down movies. Having then seen the original and having realized how cutting changes the movie to become a lesser piece of art, I cannot help but object to this practice in the strongest possible terms.

Freedom of speech means the director and actor gets to say what they want. It doesn't mean you get to mutilate a movie.. that has nothing to do with free speech, that's censorship, something which I very much despise.

It's not freedom if it does not go both ways. If someone want's to watch something without dealing with foul language that is their right as well. It is only when their rights abuse the rights of others that things cause problems. The director and the studio have no right to say if you are going to watch my movie you must watch it unedited. But if one person lobbies the government to have a movie edited to their tastes for everyone that is indeed wrong. But that is not what is going on here. This is about mom and pop opperations oddly enough often in mormon towns of Utah that have customers who have bought unedited movies come in asking for them to be edited. The studio should have no right to say no. Or lets put it in a way that more of us could relate to. You just purchased a DVD. It has 12+ minutes of foul garbage at the very first that has to be watched each time the DVD is put in the player and can't be skipped. Studio spin affectionatly calls this garbage "previews". If I bought said DVD the studios should have no say over whether I can copy and edit it to cud out their dammage. In reality no one is hurt. But in their own minds for the studio it is a travesty. Not for the integrity of the so called pieces of art. But that some how some way they know there is a way they could have made money off that.

Originally posted by Doom9
If you're a concerned parent, you ought not to give your 10 year old kid a copy of Die Hard to watch. Just removing the most bloody scenes doesn't change the fact that this movie is violent. There are tons of movies where violence and profanity are non issues. A responsable parent would be better off giving their offspring only access to material that is made for their age group, not give them access to everything minus a few scenes.. this is the wrong approach to the problem.

Unfortunatly having freedom means they are free to raise their children in this manner. And it is their right to have the movies edited if they wish. As long as it is not directly hurting society there is nothing wrong with it. Other than our individual beliefs as free people that it is wrong.

Originally posted by Doom9
Also, you might have noted, I did not mention copyright infringement with a single word. I don't consider such editing copyright infringement, but it's censorship. And censorship I just can't stand, especially if it can easily be avoided.

There is nothing wrong with censorship in and of itself. Our society and every other is censored in ways every day that we approve of. The problem with censorship is when it is done in a blanket fashion against the wishes of those effected by it. When censorship is used as a tool of opression. If everyone were given the ability to censor everything to their personal tastes that would actually lead to reduced censorship and increased freedom barring any outside radical factions.

Originally posted by Doom9
A responsable parent doesn't need a censhorship chip, he/she needs to watch over their kids and only allow them access to proper materials Not being around, not having time to do that is a sad excuse and shows a lack of responsability.

To you or I that may be a truth. But we are not some majority. It is a fact that in industrialized worlds TV is rasing children everywhere today. And pretty soon the internet. And as our technology has increased so have our freedoms. Our controlls however are sorely lacking. Ask any Windows user.

Originally posted by Doom9
Last but not least: Fair Use does not apply to reselling of a product, especially not an edited one. For that you need a special license from the copyright holder.

So you or I are not allowed to copy and edit contents for our own consumption in any way? And why shouldn't companies be allowed to produce edited coppies of contents purchased by their customers for their customers? They should closely doccument material and service costs. But it is a service which has value to some. And the studios have shown no desire to satisfy this service. So someone else has created a service to do so as foolish as the service may be. You or I may not agree. But this is just another example of how media companies already have to much control and are using it to stifle technology and innovation. Because this in no way violates any rights reserved by the media companies. For that to be true it should be equally illegal for people to work on their own cars or have a non-ford auto shop do custom work on their ford vehicle. But that sounds to absurd. And that is exactly my point. ;)

[Doom9]

So you or I are not allowed to copy and edit contents for our own consumption in any way?No, we should be. But current law does not permit us to sell those edited works. It's in copyright law.. US as well as my countries. It may or may not be a good thing, but that's the current state of the law, and frankly, I don't mind that passage. I don't see my rights diminished or reduced by that passage. As long as they don't touch my freedom to consume their product in ways that I deem suitable, I have nothing to complain about.

Unfortunatly having freedom means they are free to raise their children in this manner. And it is their right to have the movies edited if they wish. As long as it is not directly hurting society there is nothing wrong with it. Other than our individual beliefs as free people that it is wrong.I don't know if this is a majority belief, but I was raised to think such behavior is morally wrong. You either allow your kids to watch a movie or you say no. My parents dared to say no, in fact we didn't even have a TV until list Christmas (well, we got a small and crappy one to play on my SNES, and we had video tapes and later DVDs but no TV broadcasts until last Christmas.. when I was 25 years old). And I think it worked just fine for me not having a TV, in fact I'd probably never have turned to the Internet and started running this place if we had a TV and I spent my entire free time in front of it, but that's beside the point. I believe that parents are irrisponsable if they don't supervise their children, and I will not accept any excuse for this. If you have children, you have your responsability. IF you chose not to deal with them, fine, but that makes you bad parents.

And from the kids point of view, it's not even your parents that censor you, it's some obscure organization that gets to decide what you get to see. So, as a kid, you're being censored, hands down. Deciding not to watch a part of a movie is one thing, but if ClearPlay or any other such travesty is activated, you no longer get to decide, the decision is taken out of your hands. Of course I objected when my parents told me I couldn't watch a certain movie, but I would've raised hell if they let me watch a mutilated movie and the next day I'd find out from a mate at school that I missed the best parts of it (hey, I'm a guy, I like action, the more the better). It hasn't been too long since I've been in a situation where I would have to deal with CleanPlay's output, and remembering those days, I'd very much prefer to be forbidden to watch a movie than get a cut down version (obviously I'd try to find a friend who has access to the movie, but that's another thing entirely, kids are very enterprising when it comes to circumvent their parents "protective measures").

CleanFlicks (makes edited copies) still has the issue with bypassing DVD protection, but I can't find any evidence that anyone cares about that aspect. They're in the courts for editing (trademark violations, copyright violations, false advertising, nose picking, etc., but not DMCA violations)Actually, I'd like them to get a free pass for ripping DVDs which would be good for us, but I despise the very idea of what they do with those movies.

There is nothing wrong with censorship in and of itself. Our society and every other is censored in ways every day that we approve of. I have to disagree. This community gets censored, by my very own hand. Yet, I despise myself every time I have to do that. The only thing that gets me beyond my shame is that I had to make a decision between two evils, and that I'm convinced I chose the lesser of two evils. But being necessary doesn't make it a good thing. In an ideal society there would be no need for censorship because nobody would step way out of line and required to be censored. Call me an blind idealist, but it's my right to believe that, and thus from my point of view, any censorship is bad. It becomes especially evil if it can be prevented (which is all but impossible when it comes to violent movies). Be a man and tell your kid he has to be 16 to watch Die Hard, or watch it together when he's 14. Having parts of the movie cut away because you're afraid is the way of a parent scared of his own responsability.

Actually that has less to do with content and more often more to do with time constraints. Austin Powers is one of the shortest movies I can readily remember, plus this is an example where the editing was specifically about the content. We're not talking about LOTR SE.

If something you do yourself is Fair Use then so should it be Fair Use to pay someone to do that same thing for you.Fair use specifically rules out payment. Payment implies a commercial operation which is something that is forbidden by copyright law, even in the absence of any DMCA.

And by the way, there's a huge difference between removing PUOPs and cutting parts of a movie. The former is about skipping annoying stuff. Anybody understands that you don't want to see the same commercials twice. Cutting away parts of a movie is censorship. You're censoring a work of art. It's like putting a black bar on top of a painting that shows breasts or the genital areas of a human being. You might find such paintings, sculptures or whatnot to be morally offensive and it's your right to feel that way, but there's an easy solution to this: look the other way. You don't like that a director shows sex scenes, violent scenes, found langauge in a movie. Fine, don't watch the frigging movie. Don't go preaching about morals to others, who'll find that kind of preaching offensive. And many movies already get edited for regular TV in the US (and some other countries).. perhaps you just shouldn't give your kids access to cable, satellite TV and DVDs rated R.

[FredThompson]

I don't know if this is a majority belief, but I was raised to think such behavior is morally wrong. You either allow your kids to watch a movie or you say no.

You're censoring a work of art.

Don't go preaching about morals to others, who'll find that kind of preaching offensive.Monstrously irresponsible and hypocritical.

By your (lack of) logic parent should either never discuss sex, drugs, theft, or any other form of socially irresponsible dehavior or they should expose their children to every aspect of debauchery which exists in human life.

You, obviously, don't have children.

[Doom9]

By your (lack of) logic parent should either never discuss sex, drugs, theft, or any other form of socially irresponsible dehavior or they should expose their children to every aspect of debauchery which exists in human lifeThat's where you misunderstand me. They should discuss it with their children (mine did), they should watch Die Hard with their children and talk with them about it, such that kids don't draw the wrong conclusions from a film that contains socially unacceptable behavior. Having those parts cut out from the movie and never mentioning them, that would be problematic. CleanPlay won't prevent that your kids will get in touch with any of the subjects you mentioned before. Thus, why not confront your kids with those realities when they're able to cope with them? I don't see preventing a 10 year old kid from watching Die hard as irresponsible and hypocritical (you really ought to watch your tone, this isn't the first time you've become personally offensive and I'd not be surprised if this earns you a r4 strike), for me letting the kid watch that movie but cut out a couple of parts, that's trying to deny a reality that this movie is not suited for a 10 year old. People have to have a certain age to drink in most countries.. now by your Playflicks analogy, you should cut out any drinking scene from any movie, and you should never have any alcohol around and just generally try to ensure your kids never know what alcohol is. That task is futile. Rather tell your kids alcohol is something for the grownups and they can participate once they have a certain age. You can never protect your children from dangerous influence, so I think it's best to confront such influence together, so that you can guide them through it and raise them to become responsible adults. Bleeping out stuff you don't think they should see isn't going to make that.

[FredThompson]

No, I read what you typed. If what you typed isn't what you meant to state, that's a different matter and you should recognize the dichotomy and correct it.

You know what a straw man is, don't you? I never said don't expose children, nor is that what Doobie is stating. He's saying control of what and when children are exposed is absolutely the right and obligation of parents.

You are the one who said they must accept a complete film or not watch it at all. That's the root of the whole issue. People who create content want the freedom to create as they wish (within reason, no person in their right mind would propose snuff films are moral.) The flip side of that is people are free to censor (choose) what goes into their eyes and ears.

Let's use your example of Die Hard. When I was 25 (your age) I liked the movie a lot. Now that I'm 37, I realize all the language is excessive and crass.

Let's look at another example: Saving Private Ryan. The opening scene is designed to portray the sensory overload of the Normany beach assault from a first person perspective. Depending on their age and maturity level, it may be too much for children to handle while hte rest of the movie is acceptable for them. OK, cut out that very beginning portion.

The movie Baby Boom has a scene where the mother comes home and finds the babysitter having sex with her boyfriend. Are you seriously proposing parents do not have the right to remove that scene and show the rest of the movie to their children?

Your comment that parents should watch with their children and discuss sounds plausible in an academic sense but does not take into account the finite temporal resources available. You'll understand when you have children and your time is more limited. At 25 and recently out of school, you don't understand this yet because you haven't had enough experience. Does that statement "offend" you? Perhaps. Would that make it invalid? No. Is it an insult? No.

You took the discussion into the realm of personal attack by stating, "Don't go preaching about morals to others, who'll find that kind of preaching offensive." That sentence uses "morals" to mean values with which you don't agree and uses "preaching" in a manner which is slanderous of Doobie.

There's a wonderful quote about free speech. It's probably available by searching at Bartleby.com but I'll paraphrase: I disagree with what you are saying but I'll give my life to defend your ability to say it.

Freedom of speech includes speech with which you don't agree. It does not mean freedom from being offended, freedom from responsibility from the results of that speech, nor freedom to dictate what other people choose to allow into their ears and eyes or those of people to whom they have supervisory responsibilities.

Freedom from offense is the direct antithesis of freedom of speech.

In the past few days, you've expoused views and opinions with which I disagree. Just as you are able to express your opinions, so am I.

-edit-

Here's the email you've sent me. Show me, exactly, how I attacked anyone or attacked their parents. I did neither. I pointed out hypocrisy and showed, by example, how your statement is irresponsible.

We have discovered that you have violated forum rule #4 in one of your posts (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?action=showpost&postid=516511). If you violate the forum rules 1 more times you will be suspended for 30 days.

Attacking somebody like that is low.. attacking someone's parents is even lower.

[Doom9]

Let's use your example of Die Hard. When I was 25 (your age) I liked the movie a lot. Now that I'm 37, I realize all the language is excessive and crass.I think I was 15 and it only took me watching it once to realize that it was violent and there was a lot of foul language. But since I was thought not to use foul language and that violenence was no solution, that never really was a problem.
Let's look at another example: Saving Private Ryan. The opening scene is designed to portray the sensory overload of the Normany beach assault from a first person perspective. Depending on their age and maturity level, it may be too much for children to handle while hte rest of the movie is acceptable for them. OK, cut out that very beginning portion.There are other rather violent scenes in that movie. Cut them all out, then suddenly the 2nd world war comes off looking as something peaceful and idyllic. Is that the message you want to send to your kids? War is something horrible and we should all strive to never get into any war.

I'm afraid I don't know "Baby boom" so I can't comment on it.

You'll understand when you have children and your time is more limited. At 25 and recently out of school, you don't understand this yet because you haven't had enough experience. I was raised to believe that patronizing people was something bad to do. I'll leave it at that.

You seem to think censorship is something good. I find that opinion horribly wrong and incredibly dangerous. I'd not trust anyone that has the power to censor if they did not think of it as a last resort and were very cautious about using the powers they hold. Where do you draw the line? Where does bad censorship start? You claim you want to protect your children from something. First you censor what they can watch on your DVDs. Then you call up the TV station and have them censor their broadcasts. Then you call them up again and have them censor the news and cos you don't like to hear certain opinions, let's censor them out as well. In fact, blank out everything you don't agree with, and I could go on and on.
It is a very thin line between censorship as a protective measure, and as a tool of oppression. Those not wary of the latter will inevitably step over the boundary. In fact, I could easily justify censoring what you're writing as a protective measure for this community. You won't find many communities where any criticism, and certainly not this amount of is tolerated. Think about that.

I'm a bit concerned that only few see the horribly potential for censorship as Joe Fenton pointed it out.

[FredThompson]

Originally posted by Doom9
[B]I think I was 15 and it only took me watching it once to realize that it was violent and there was a lot of foul language. But since I was thought not to use foul language and that violenence was no solution, that never really was a problem.
There are other rather violent scenes in that movie. Cut them all out, then suddenly the 2nd world war comes off looking as something peaceful and idyllic. Is that the message you want to send to your kids? War is something horrible and we should all strive to never get into any war.No, that's not what I'm communicating. I'm saying it's not all or nothing. There are stages of information which children can handle. Therefore, the interest of parents to control the level of information or explicitness of information is appropriate.

I was raised to believe that patronizing people was something bad to do. I'll leave it at that.That's not patronizing. Patronizing would be an insult. What I said is you don't have the insight of a parent yet.
You seem to think censorship is something good. I find that opinion horribly wrong and incredibly dangerous.That is not what I said at all. It's probably an unfortunate effect of the common misuse of the word censorship. I agree with most of what you said here. All freedoms come with responsibilities. Freedom of expression does not invalidate the freedom/rights of parents to control what they expose their children to. Freedom to express does not remove another person's freedom to chose what they are exposed to.

Where do you draw the line? Where does bad censorship start?Why stop there? Why have any laws? Why is it illegal to drink one day but you can on the birthday immediately after that? (Those are not serious questions, this is spinning a little too far into the metaphysical.)

You claim you want to protect your children from something. First you censor what they can watch on your DVDs. Then you call up the TV station and have them censor their broadcasts. Then you call them up again and have them censor the news and cos you don't like to hear certain opinions, let's censor them out as well. In fact, blank out everything you don't agree with, and I could go on and on.I don't have children. I never said I did. The discussion is about the realm of deciding what is appropriate within an individual's sphere of authority. At no point or time have I talked aobut other realms. Regardless, in an open society ALL people have a right to express their opinions and affect the communal standards, not just those which you, personally, want to be valid.

It is a very thin line between censorship as a protective measure, and as a tool of oppression. Those not wary of the latter will inevitably step over the boundary. In fact, I could easily justify censoring what you're writing as a protective measure for this community. You won't find many communities where any criticism, and certainly not this amount of is tolerated. Think about that.Pretty chilling words. Freedom of expression only for those who repeat what you state. You won't tolerate expression of a different opinion so you'll censor it.

[Doom9]

No, that's not what I'm communicating. I'm saying it's not all or nothing. But if you cut out the violent scenes of SPR, people could start thinking differently. I liked those violent scenes in SPR.. they clearly show you the horror of a war, and that I find a good message to convey. I'd expect a movie about war to make a point that wars are not good and pretty but bad and ugly. It does not have to be graphical, but that message should be there. Imho, SPR makes that point via graphical violence, so if you remove it, you remove an important message.

What I said is you don't have the insight of a parent yet.As you've later admitted you don't have any children either, so why should you know more about raising them than I do? I think most of us take our experience with our own parents and combine it with how we felt when we were children and how we reacted to our parents as a sort of guideline on how to be a parent. Thus, age is not very relevant once you've grown out of teen age. I'm not saying I'm ready to be a parent, but I'm already considering what I'd deem acceptable for a child of mine to see. And I'd try very hard to live up to what my parents did with me and my sister.. we were never censored, our parents tried to teach us how to responsibly handle difficult content. Hey, I had access to Doom years before I was supposed to by law, and now I have access to fully automatic weapons and chainsaws, yet I'm no killer. So being exposed to violence doesn't automatically mean it's hurtful.. there are other defining factors. One thing most adult people I know think, is that it's very important for parents to be around... so letting your kids watch violent DVDs with auto-censorship qualifies as a bad idea. I grew up without a TV, yet I'm just as normal as anyone who had one.. so I guess my kids could do just fine without sitting in front of a TV all the time.. and being technically proficient I'd just put a TV in the living room and program it to shut down at a certain time so they don't get to see movies I don't want them to see. I like that idea much better than censoring movies that are not suitable for children in the first place. And I think when it comes to movies, that would make me a more responsible parent than those relying on censorship technology and just let their kids watch whatever they want, for as long as they want. I'll try very hard to ensure that at least one parent in a future family of mine would be able to stay with the children, so that it's all but impossible to watch difficult content with them and talk about this. You don't have to do it for every movie.. in fact it's rarely required.

Why stop there? Why have any laws? Why is it illegal to drink one day but you can on the birthday immediately after that? Those are good questions. In fact I feel any restriction of freedom is by its very own nature a bad thing. So if we decide to restrict freedom, it must be only after due consideration of all side effects, and it must be the lesser or two evils, thus not restricting the freedom would have damaging effects to our society. Then I guess you could argue we'd have to ban alcohol altogether because it's clearly something destructive. But should it ever come to that, I'll still live just fine even though I like to have a beer or two every now and then.

[Doobie]

It is absurd to equate the parental responsibility of censorship with the tyrannical government act of censorship, unless you want to raise another John Wayne Gacy. And, it is absurd to insist that personal editing is not fair because a Hollywood editor has free speech rights in your home.

This is a victory for Fair Use. Enjoy it. There aren't many Fair Use victories these days.

[FredThompson]

Sigh...It's pointless to continue this. You keep adding in things and changing the subject.

Thus, age is not very relevant once you've grown out of teen age.Ask an actuarial if that is true.

[dragongodz]

wow, i am away for awhile and miss out on such interesting debates. :)

ok since neither Doom9 or Fred are parents let me give you a real parents perspective. thats me in case you couldnt guess.

first censorship.
its good and its bad.
good because anyone that thinks just anything, such as child pornogrophy or extreme real violence etc, is acceptable is screwed in the head in my opinion. these things should never be deemed watchable under any freedom of speech or fair use or any other excuse you wish to use. get over it.
bad when it is taken to extremes and does not reflect the general populations opinion of whats acceptable.

now on to the case of films. well if you wish to butcher films in your own home without anyone knowing thats up to you. if however you wish to make a business of this then indeed the film makers do have a right to say hang on thats not how the film was meant to be.
taking the saving private ryan as just 1 example. i would not let my son watch it until i decided he was of an age or had sufficeint understanding to cope with it. even then i would watch it with him and talk about it after it.
would i let him watch a cencored version before that ? no because that movie in particular has those violent scenes(such as the start) for a reason. there is absolutly no reason for my son to see that film until he is ready to see it all.

if you can not find a more acceptable(to you) film for your child to watch whole then you are not looking hard enough. there is no reason to let a child watch a film with the "bad bits" cut out, you simply do not let them watch the film at all. it really IS that simple.

you know i remember some years ago there was complaints about the satue of david by Michelangelo. some people complained that it was nude and wanted a leaf put over the privates. that suggestion was refused of course as thats not how it was intended and the people were told that if they didnt like it not to go see it. this all smacks of the very same thing. ok 99% of films are hardly what anyone would call art but on the same hand a film IS a type of art and especially films dealing with real life situations and/or historical events are usually done the way they are for a reason.

why do you need more control than being able to choose whether to watch it whole or not at all ? you dont and no excuse of letting a child see it is good enough.

now on to some amazing statements in this very thread. :)

When you edit out objectionable content (or have someone do it for you), that's Fair Use.
This is a victory for Fair Use
this has nothing to do with fair use. that states you can make a personal backup not butcher or censor as you see fit.

It is absurd to equate the parental responsibility of censorship with the tyrannical government act of censorship, unless you want to raise another John Wayne Gacy.
government censorship is only tyranical when taken to extremes.

I don't have children. I never said I did.
you implied you did when you criticised Doom9's opinion on the basis that he didnt have children. since you also do not you can not use it as any more of a valid reason than he can. that is Doom9 says he is thinking of what would he find acceptable for IF he had a child, since that is also the only way you could be thinking then you both have just as much right to your opinions. :D

Your comment that parents should watch with their children and discuss sounds plausible in an academic sense but does not take into account the finite temporal resources available.
no its applicable in the real world aswell. if i do not have time to watch a whole film with my son(say i am making tea in the ktchen) then i put on something that i know is ok for him to watch. anything that may be questionable for him to watch i watch by myself first or watch it with him. thats just responsible.

Pretty chilling words. Freedom of expression only for those who repeat what you state. You won't tolerate expression of a different opinion so you'll censor it.
try rereading it Fred and you will see Doom9 is saying he could justify such extremes under censorship but he doesnt because that would be wrong and oppresive. i have had disagreements with Doom9 and the only time things get stopped is when they get out of hand and become a slinging match(it has never got that far with he and i though even when we still havent agreed).

ok thats enough. this is already huge and my fingers are aching from typing it all. so i will finish my 1 and only posting in this thread(yes there will be no more by me since you either understand what i have said or you dont).

a responsible parent censors what their child watchs. you can not use that as an excuse for chopping out bits of films however when you have the ability to simply say no to the child watching it in the first place. anyone who tries to use that as a reason without actually even having a child should be very careful to criticise a real parent aswell. :angry:

[Doobie]

Originally posted by dragongodz why do you need more control than being able to choose whether to watch it whole or not at all ? you dont and no excuse of letting a child see it is good enough.

Why do some people want to make this their business for other parents? Why should a family be deprived of a good movie because of some content they don't like in it?

this has nothing to do with fair use. that states you can make a personal backup not butcher or censor as you see fit.

Maybe if you had some sense of the concept of Fair Use... If it were merely personal backups, we'd just use the phrase Backup Rights. Fair Use is anything someone does for private viewing that increases the value (in someone's mind) of something they own as long as the producer still gets paid. That's why time shifting TV shows with a VCR is Fair Use. That's why short quotes from books for book reviews is Fair Use. That's why editing out the word B!TCH from the children's movie Casper is Fair Use. Yeah, like muting a vulgar word in a copy of a cheezy children's movie amounts to altering the original David (which should be the owner's right to do, BTW). Get some perspective!

government censorship is only tyranical when taken to extremes.

What's extreme? When the government censors things you believe in? You think moderate government censorship is okay, but parental censorship is bad? That's the kind of reasoning Hitler wanted people to appreciate. It's certainly true of a number of Nanny-state advocates in today's society.

Congress has decided that cleaning up films is Fair Use. I see you have decided to side with Orin Hatch, the RIAA, and the MPAA over consumers and the Electronic Frontier Froundation.

[Wilbert]

What's extreme? When the government censors things you believe in? You think moderate government censorship is okay, but parental censorship is bad? That's the kind of reasoning (...) wanted people to appreciate.
You might want to tone down your post above a bit. This kind of comparison is insulting, and not justified in any way.

[Doom9]

@dragongodz: thank you for taking the time to share your viewpoint as a parent. I'm glad to know actual parents can feel the same way I do.

knowing dragongodz, I'm convinced he's as much against the IP industry and their henchman as anybody else. Thus comparisons like the one Wilbert already mentioned and Congress has decided that cleaning up films is Fair Use. I see you have decided to side with Orin Hatch, the RIAA, and the MPAA over consumers and the Electronic Frontier Froundation.only help to further discredit you.

That's why editing out the word B!TCH from the children's movie Casper is Fair Use.It is, but it is also censorship, and censorship is rotten. You need to teach your kids that using bitch, fuck, etc is not acceptable. Cutting those words out of movies isn't going to achieve that.