Push to Allow DVDs to Be 'Sanitized' Alarms Studios

[Mindy]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-decency23jun23,1,842779.story
Push to Allow DVDs to Be 'Sanitized' Alarms Studios
By Richard Simon
Times Staff Writer

June 23, 2004

WASHINGTON — Which should prevail, artistic freedom or a tool that could be used to protect children from foul language, nudity and violence in movies?

Over Hollywood's long-standing objections, some members of Congress are endorsing legislation that would allow DVDs to be "sanitized" — stripped of scenes that parents don't want their children to see or hear — without first requiring the consent of studios or directors.

To the movie studios, the bill is merely the most outrageous of a wave of anti-indecency legislation moving through Congress, spurred by pop star Janet Jackson's breast-baring performance at the Super Bowl.

<snip>

Yet for all the action in Congress on Tuesday, some in Hollywood are starting to focus on the DVD-sanitizing legislation that's waiting just offstage.

A House bill now gaining momentum would make it so that sanitizing films do not violate federal copyright law as long as the edited copies are restricted to home use, as opposed to being shown in theaters. DVDs are sanitized through filters that can remove any kind of material regarded as offensive — profanity, nudity or violence, for example.

Called the Family Movie Act, the bill awaits action in the Judiciary Committee, where it has won an endorsement from the influential chairman of the panel, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R.-Wis.). No comparable bill has been introduced in the Senate.

The legislation was introduced in response to a fight being waged in federal court in Colorado by the studios, the Directors Guild of America and 16 prominent directors against ClearPlay Inc., a Utah company that sells filtering software and DVD players with special filtering features built in.

Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Assn. of America, told a congressional committee last week that such editing without the input of the directors and studios "disfigures the original vision of the creator."

Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-North Hollywood) mustered a different argument against the legislation, saying it would send the wrong message to parents. "Technology should not become an excuse for avoiding the hard work of parenting," he said.

But Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), the bill's chief sponsor, suggested that Berman's position didn't reflect the challenges facing households in which kids are constantly being bombarded by the media.

"It's unrealistic and impractical to expect parents to monitor their children's video habits 24 hours a day," Smith said. "They need help."

The studios and the Directors Guild contend that Smith's bill, by removing dialogue and scenes, can ruin entire films.

In "Austin Powers in Goldmember," for example, 22 minutes were edited from the 94-minute film, said Ernie Getto, an attorney representing the guild in a lawsuit against film sanitizers. "It's not watchable," he said. "It makes virtually no sense."

For his part, Berman called the nude scenes in "Schindler's List" crucial to conveying "the debasement and dehumanization suffered by concentration camp prisoners."

The lawmaker also warned that unauthorized editing could lead to political mischief. "Anti-tobacco groups could offer a filter that strips all movies of scenes depicting tobacco use," Berman said. "Racists might strip 'Jungle Fever' of scenes showing interracial romance between Wesley Snipes and Annabella Sciorra, perhaps leaving only those scenes depicting interracial conflict."

Critics of the legislation also say that parents already have the MPAA's rating system to keep children from watching movies they shouldn't see.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) has not taken a position on the House bill. But he hinted that it might be best for both sides to forge some sort of compromise. "The fastest and surest way to protect and promote family-friendly viewing rights," he said, "is for artists and consumers to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution."

<snip>


AND NOW AMID ALL THIS BS AND CROSS-PURPOSES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Losing Control of Your TV
The latest anti-piracy move will prevent you from making high-quality copies of broadcast TV programs. And the new "broadcast flag" technology enables all manner of other restrictions.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_garfinkel030304.asp?trk=nl

In the future, the Motion Picture Association of America will control your television set. Every TV sold in the United States will come equipped with an electronic circuit that will search incoming TV programs for a tiny electronic “flag.” The MPAA’s members will control this flag, putting it into broadcast movies and television shows as they see fit. If the flag is present, your TV will go into a special high-security mode and lock down its high-quality digital outputs. If you want to record a flagged program, you’ll have to do so on analog tape or on a special low-resolution DVD. Any recording will be limited to analog-quality sound. This security measure is not designed to protect the television from viruses or computer hackers—it’s designed to protect TV programs from you.

<snip>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK let me get this straight...

The same Congress that tells me it's illegal for me to copy my own DVD's for archiving purposes now wants to say it's okay for me to copy, edit, and resell the DVD's--as long as I take out the naughty bits with a Utah company's equipment? Corporate welfare?

I just wonder how long after this passes that Wal-Mart will sell only the sanitized versions of movies (as they now do with music)? Why stop there? Think of all those naughty words in books!

Everyday this country becomes more and more Orwellian.

[LT Garrix]

Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-North Hollywood) mustered a different argument against the legislation, saying it would send the wrong message to parents. "Technology should not become an excuse for avoiding the hard work of parenting," he said.

But Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), the bill's chief sponsor, suggested that Berman's position didn't reflect the challenges facing households in which kids are constantly being bombarded by the media.

"It's unrealistic and impractical to expect parents to monitor their children's video habits 24 hours a day," Smith said. "They need help."


Okay, as much as I generally respect Rep Smith, he represents the area my sister lives, this is just ludicrous. I whole-heartedly agree with Rep. Berman, parents need to monitor their kids. I know DVD players come with the ability to program them not to show films with certain ratings. yeah, an industrious kid could crack the code, but if as a parent you change it frequently it would make it hard.

Also, don't let kids have TVs or computers in their rooms. If they have to do these activities in an area a parent is around, they are less likely to get involved in something objectionable.

As for the DVD debate, I'm of two minds on this. I would like to be able to record something in high quality to be able to watch later. But, I can understand where they are coming from. If people can record high quality stuff off TV, they can edit out the commercials and sell the DVDs to those less fortunate or unwilling to wait for the show/movie to come out on DVD. I don't know that there is an answer here.

I do know the MPAA went through the same debate when VCRs came out, tapes were pirated, but many times the quality wasn't as good. That won't be the case here with digital technology.

[grinner]

:g2f:

[Farscape Forever]

:g2f:

my sentiments exactly

I have a question though, are they proposing that all DVD's be sanitized or do they want to sell sanitized versions and normal versions or what?

[Third EYe]

Um, they already do this....

I'm just pretend I understand the desire not to allow this, then I'm gonna go watch something, unedited.

[Paul Cousins]

This is the MPAA's latest arguement against fair use. It's pretty weak. By the way, the Bell Telephone Companies are pushing Congress to pass the 'Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act' which would gut the DMCA and get rid of this most of this insanity. And save the Bells themselves some money also.

[AgentSun]

"It's unrealistic and impractical to expect parents to monitor their children's video habits 24 hours a day," Smith said. "They need help."

it's call freakin responsibility, i know this and i don't even have a kid.

i have a right to watch something unedited. kids shouldn't be protected by the government they should be protected by the people who take care of them...oh wait, the government is supposed to do that too, parents aren't supposed to take care of their kids 24 hours a day.

[NebariNookiee]

So -- when does it get decided that they've gone too far and we stop being nice and just kick the shit out of them?

[fermicat]

We already have a solution in place to the "inappropriate material for children" issue. It is the rating system. If parents do not want their children exposed to mature content, they should stick to G-rated movies, or PG-13 depending on their sensitivities.

[Paul Cousins]

We already have a solution in place to the "inappropriate material for children" issue. It is the rating system. If parents do not want their children exposed to mature content, they should stick to G-rated movies, or PG-13 depending on their sensitivities.

And why is that, this is not piracy, this is not the selling of bootlegged videos.

This is about someone who buys a movie off the shelf of a store, then comes home and makes a edited copy for their children to watch, which is technically legal under the Betamax vs Sony 80's Supreme Court ruling, under the grounds that it is a 'fair use' copy.

[Mindy]

"We have to protect the children, so we're going to allow parents to use this technology to remove offensive materials from their DVDs, but only if they buy a special $200 DVD player."

leads to

"Why can't I have the same protections the rich people with their fancy $200 DVD players get on my $29.95 DVD player? This is clearly discrimination against the poor."

leads to

"As the CEO of Wal-Mart, we will no longer carry DVDs that contain sex or vulgar language, but violence is okay because Mel Gibson is a religious man and we wouldn't want to upset him by censoring his works."

leads to

"We, the CEOs of Target, Circuit City and Best Buy, certify that our DVD selection comply with the same high family-friendly standards DVDs from Wal-Mart meet."

leads to

"The Home Video Software Association of America's members attest that it is too expensive to maintain two SKUs for every DVD, one for the four largest sellers of DVDs and one for everyone else, so we will no longer make non-Family Friendly(TM) DVDs. We promise that DVDs will no longer contain sex, vulgar language, smoking, drinking, drug use, fast driving, eating of unhealthy foods, playing of unsafe sports or any other activity that may damage the psyche or adversely influence American children under the age of 21."

leads to

"We at the Motion Picture Association of America are responding to complaints from American consumers who are upset that the movies they see in theatres have sex, vulgar language and drug use in them, so we have decided to stop making movies that do not conform to Family Friendly(TM) standards."

which leads to

"Psst! Hey Joe! C'mere! Wanna good DVD? I got lots of 'em. My secret little film studio makes 'em. I've got this one here 'Smokin!' that's got nothing but people sitting around smoking and telling dirty jokes. Cigars, cigarettes, pipes. There's even a guy smoking a hookah! And check this one out. 'Drinking!' It's just two men and a woman sitting on a couch, drinking a case of Budweiser and telling telling dirty jokes. We got one called 'Fast Driving!' where two guys screw a video camera to the dashboard of a Camaro and just drive the shit out of it, but there's no dirty jokes in that one. Only $19.95 apiece and guaranteed great. Whaddaya say?"

which inevitably leads to...

"In CNN Business News...three guys who are fed up by what they see as 'wimpy movies with no redeeming social features whatsoever' have gotten rich by making their own movies under the banner of 'Reprehensible Films' and selling them out of the trunks of cars on street corners. The surprise hit 'Smokin!,' which critic Roger Ebert describes as 'the first movie whose stars are a sofa, a carton of Marlboros and a big hookah,' has sold over 10 million DVDs in its first week on the market. We watched the film 'French Kissing,' which is a close-up shot of the faces of two people French kissing to loud music, and were left with the urge to drive home and suck our wives' lips right off their faces. We got a copy of 'Smokin!' and showed it to ten non-smoking editors; by the end of the movie six of them had managed to wrestle a production assistant to the ground and relieve her of her pack of Virginia Slims. Reprehensible Films' works are irreverent and a lot of fun. See one today."


credit to jmowreader-du

[Third EYe]

So -- when does it get decided that they've gone too far and we stop being nice and just kick the shit out of them?

are we still talking about parents?

[Spedoinkel]

STOP MINDY You are frelling scaring me.

I feel a very large urge to use profanities in this thread, and them go slap a bunch of congress men... Who's with me?

This is frelling dren! Congress has no right...sort of. But this is out of line. Cenorship like this frelling pisses me off. This is about censoring merchandise you buy to veiw in the privacy of you home, which is a far more serious than censoring freely distrubted public broadcast. If some one wants to watch it, let them pay and watch it! If you want to keep it away from children, let the parents (who it is their responsibility wholey to raise thier children, and should take responsibility for it.) decide whether their child can watch it. IT'S THE WHOLE FRELLIG REASON WHY THERE IS A RATING SYSTEM!!!!!

I am quite angry at the presant. Congress can take this bill and shove it!

[Paul Cousins]

Mindy: the RIAA and MPAA want to outlaw personal computers, strip us ours rights and elimate copyrights from becoming public domain.

Take a look at the (SDMCA) bills they are pushing at state and federal levels, they make almost all technology illegal or so crippled them with DRM that they are useless.

They are anti-freedom and anti-technology.

Spedoinkel, this is about the right to watch a movie you PAY FOR in the way you want in the privacy of YOUR OWN HOME.

[Spedoinkel]

They are what would be considered tyranical. Anyone remeber the whole freedom of expression thing.

[Paul Cousins]

They are what would be considered tyranical. Anyone remeber the whole freedom of expression thing.

Yes, that is why I am against the RIAA and MPAA and their tyrannical actions.

Spedoinkel, you are getting spoon feed a line of propaganda from the RIAA and MPAA, why can you not see that?

[Spedoinkel]

You mean the bill is propoganda?
Either way, I can't stand censorship..well at this extent. Cencorship should only be put in the hands of parents.

[Paul Cousins]

You mean the bill is propoganda?
Either way, I can't stand censorship..well at this extent. Cencorship should only be put in the hands of parents.

That is the entire point I am trying to make, the parents buy the movies for their home, only they and their children are going to watch their custom edited versions.

[Third EYe]

what about preserving artistic integrity?

I do have say that what's the point of showing your kids an edited film? I'd smack my parents verbally with a barrage of insults if they had even tried that. you either let me watch the movie, or don't. None of this "hey want to watch a 2hr movie that is cut down 45 minutes after I took all the offensive stuff out?"

My mother censored me, not very well, but she did what she did. if the flick wasn't appropriate for me in her mind, that was the end of it.

Having said that. Once I purchase a movie, I'm doing with it what I want, making copies, letting my friends borrow it, hiding it in a closet, using it for skeet. IT'S MINE DAMMIT YOU GREEDY LITTLE PRICKS!

[Paul Cousins]

what about preserving artistic integrity?

That dies at the MPAA cutting rooms before the movie even reachs the threaters.

[NebariNookiee]

And now for something truly disturbing
______________________________
http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000181.shtml

May 18, 2004
New Censorship Bill Turns Parents into Prosecutors
On April 28, California Congressman Duncan Hunter (R) introduced legislation that could “turn parents into prosecuting attorneys fighting a wave of obscenity,” the representative told Family.org.

H.B. 4239, also called the “Parents’ Empowerment Act,” would allow the parent or guardian of a minor to sue in federal court anyone who knowingly disseminates any media containing “material that is harmful to minors” if the material is distributed in a way that “a reasonable person can expect a substantial number of minors to be exposed to the material and the minor, as a result to exposure to the material, is likely to suffer personal or emotional injury or injury to mental or moral welfare.” The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

The bill allows compensatory damages starting at no less than $10,000 for any instance in which a minor is exposed to “harmful to minors” entertainment products. The bill also allows that punitive damages and reasonable fees may be awarded to the prevailing party at the discretion of the court. The bill also seeks to strengthen the current test courts utilize in determining what is obscene material by providing a separate definition of obscenity specifically for children. It is an affirmative defense to action under this bill if a parent or guardian of the minor owned the material.

The bill is in its earliest stage, but if it passes, it will seriously threaten retailers, distributors, and publishers. Family.org talked to Hunter who said, “If the people who published (the material), published it in such a way that they could reasonably have expected children to access it, then the parents can receive an award of $10,000.”

“This bill is troubling on several levels,” explains CBLDF Director Charles Brownstein. “It appears to allow for civil actions against any, or every, member of the dissemination food chain, from the retailer to the distributor to the publisher, of work that an individual parent may object to. So any citizen, using their own sense of what is obscene or harmful to minors, can bring suit. Considering that comics still suffer the cultural and legal stigma of being perceived as a juvenile medium, this bill could become a dangerous weapon in the hands of an individual who walks into a comic book store and is shocked to find that comics offer much more than Archie and Superman.”

Hunter’s bill enjoys the support of several religious, family, and conservative legal groups including the Christian Coalition, the American Center for Law and Justice and the World Family Policy Center at Brigham Young University. Working closely with Media Coalition, the CBLDF will continue to monitor the progress of this bill.

You may also e-mail your representative or call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-225-3121 to voice your concern about this bill to your representative.

[Paul Cousins]

And now for something truly disturbing
______________________________
http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000181.shtml

May 18, 2004
New Censorship Bill Turns Parents into Prosecutors
On April 28, California Congressman Duncan Hunter (R) introduced legislation that could “turn parents into prosecuting attorneys fighting a wave of obscenity,” the representative told Family.org.

H.B. 4239, also called the “Parents’ Empowerment Act,” would allow the parent or guardian of a minor to sue in federal court anyone who knowingly disseminates any media containing “material that is harmful to minors” if the material is distributed in a way that “a reasonable person can expect a substantial number of minors to be exposed to the material and the minor, as a result to exposure to the material, is likely to suffer personal or emotional injury or injury to mental or moral welfare.” The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

NebariNookiee, do not confuse the issue, the above bill should be titled the "Lawyers' Empowerment Act" designed to created more business for them.

This bill is so broad that it is tyrannical in a similar way as telling parents they cannot edit what they watch in the privacy of their home.

[NebariNookiee]

I'm not confusing the issue -- the topic is censorship -- this is censorship under the guise of aiding parents. Where did I stray? This bill give folks the power to sue an adult video store just because they find their product objectionable. Again -- where did I stray?

[Paul Cousins]

I'm not confusing the issue -- the topic is censorship -- this is censorship under the guise of aiding parents. Where did I stray? This bill give folks the power to sue an adult video store just because they find their product objectionable. Again -- where did I stray?

The original bill on this thread is talked about preventing parents from copying the movies they buy and editing out scenes that they don't want their children to watch. Which I disagree with under 'fair use'.

This bill you are posted about is true censorship in that it attacks anything the control-freaks in government find offensive and enriching the pockets of lawyers under the guise of helping parents and children.

[NebariNookiee]

I'm just showing that the true issue being discussed goes far deeper than the original post.

[mfa96]

What ever happened to just not letting kids watch something until they are old enogh to understand the full scope of it? There is no reason for a child to see Saving Private Ryan cut as the parent see fit. This gets into the rights of the artist to create art. It's like parents being able to go and put a fig leaf on Michaelangelo's David because they don't want to see a penis with perfectly coifed pubic hair. You don't like it- don't look at it.

[NYPinTA]

Ok... I am not sure what all the fuss is about over the DVD players that take out what some parents might consider 'objectionable' if it is for their own use in their own home. I would rather people have the choice to snip a movie for themselves rather then have a hissy fit when someone releases a movie and have the entire movie not be released because of it. (Although, when has that ever happened??) It kinda goes along with the thinking: If you don't like it, don't watch it... and with these DVDs they will have that choice... without making everyone else watch the same version.
I mean, when your parents read you bed time stories and they skipped over a few pages because they thought it was too scary, did people throw around the word 'censorship'? I don't think so.

What ever happened to just not letting kids watch something until they are old enogh to understand the full scope of it? There is no reason for a child to see Saving Private Ryan cut as the parent see fit. This gets into the rights of the artist to create art. It's like parents being able to go and put a fig leaf on Michaelangelo's David because they don't want to see a penis with perfectly coifed pubic hair. You don't like it- don't look at it.
:lol

I would like to think that people would use these devices for movies that are already geared towards kids, but maybe have one or two scenes that go too far.... and there are movies like that.

[Third EYe]

you mean like harry palmer, err potter movies?

[frellyou]

This really isn't about protecting children at all. It's about the religious right and that monkey George W. Bush imposing their wacky beliefs on the rest of us. When the hell did we turn into the freaking Taliban?

[Third EYe]

This really isn't about protecting children at all. It's about the religious right and that monkey George W. Bush imposing their wacky beliefs on the rest of us. When the hell did we turn into the freaking Taliban?


um no, it's the opposite, read very carefully. The taliban here is the MPAA. All that is being sought after is the right to "sanitize" your own copy of the flick. I think it's a rediculous exercise, yet I have no objection to it. Stupid people do stupid things all the time, and they don't go to jail.

unless your parents are still deciding what you watch, this only affects you in that the MPAA doesn't want you to use a film that you purchase in anyway you see fit.

But I can see that you won't agree.

[Paul Cousins]

um no, it's the opposite, read very carefully. The taliban here is the MPAA. All that is being sought after is the right to "sanitize" your own copy of the flick. I think it's a rediculous exercise, yet I have no objection to it. Stupid people do stupid things all the time, and they don't go to jail.

unless your parents are still deciding what you watch, this only affects you in that the MPAA doesn't want you to use a film that you purchase in anyway you see fit.

But I can see that you won't agree.

Thank you Third Eye for explaining that, maybe they will understand what you have stated better than they do with what I have stated.

[Spedoinkel]

ARGH!!!!
If you don't want you kid to see somthing, then you can easily lock up your DVD collection. Adult Film stores (in US, don't know about the rest of you) require you to show your ID when you enter. A competent comic store clerc knows what their stock is, and can require a parent to permit a purchase. DVD players, Computers, and current generation game consoles, all have built in parintal lock tools. This is, in my mind, perfectly sufficent. No more control is needed, and it is there to be used at your discression.
If you want to let you kid see a movie, but first you edit some stuff out of your copy, that's fine too, and within parent's rights and responsibilities. These groups trying to censor the massmarket, are all a bunch of arrogant, selfrightous, shit heads.! They have no right!
Damn Christen groups like this, I challange to read their children the bible without skipping anything.
They are trying to destroy the artist's right of expression, thou it is sad that most of the youth are more iunterested in watching Scary Movie, than say Eve's Bayou (amazing film you should all watch it). And they are impending on my right to be left alone.

[Mindy]

Dear Friend Spenoinkel,

I don't mean to hurt you. I hope only to heighten your awareness. Please stay informed and read read read.

And for the love of God register to vote and then VOTE. If you feel so inclined, register others to vote.

[AgentSun]

< a member of the "religious right" who doesn't agree with the RIAA and MPAA. oh, sorry, have i defied the stereotype again?

[Third EYe]

< a member of the "religious right" who doesn't agree with the RIAA and MPAA. oh, sorry, have i defied the stereotype again?


i just called your parents and they are taking away the rest of your stereotypes.

that'll teach her

[Paul Cousins]

ARGH!!!!
If you don't want you kid to see somthing, then you can easily lock up your DVD collection.

That is not the point. The point is that the MPAA and their lackeys in government want to prevent you from making a back-up (thou edited) copy of a movie you have legally paid for. That's wrong and unconstitution under 'fair use'.

[Third EYe]

I really don't care if it's wrong under fair use, i think it's wrong cause I own the medium and what's represented on it and I should be able to copy, backup and play it anyway, anwhere, anytime I chose. of course i can't charge for any of that, but i beleive it's mine, and sorry, they can't stop me. I'm copying everything, just because i can.

[Spedoinkel]

I don't mean to hurt you. I hope only to heighten your awareness. Please stay informed and read read read.
Why am I being told that I am not informed in this thread, when I keep stating my educated opinion?

That is not the point. The point is that the MPAA and their lackeys in government want to prevent you from making a back-up (thou edited) copy of a movie you have legally paid for. That's wrong and unconstitution under 'fair use'.

I stated in that same post that people should be able to do this.

I really don't care if it's wrong under fair use, i think it's wrong cause I own the medium and what's represented on it and I should be able to copy, backup and play it anyway, anwhere, anytime I chose.
As I said, it is your property and you are allowed to use it in any private way you wish.

[AgentSun]

if i can't do whatever i want with my own property, then um...is aol going to sue me for burning the discs and conducting experiments?

[mfa96]

You all do relaize that you are not free to do whatever you want with your own private property, right?

[Spedoinkel]

There are certain extents that you can't go to, but what is it you where refering to?