News: Digital Censors & Purified DVDs
Jan. 20th, 2003 12:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shannon_aAn interesting article in today's SFGate about the right for people to choose to be censored:Basically, there are a number of firms, among them ClearPlay in Utah, who let customers pay a monthly subscription fee in order to receive info on censoring the movies they watch.
So, you download info every couple of days that automatically updates your "ClearPlay" enabled DVD player. Then, when you choose to play a DVD it censors particularly "inappropriate" scenes for you by skipping over them. Theoretically they try to do it in a way to maintain the continuity of the story, and you can also choose to turn off ClearPlay.
Now, personally, I feel pretty sorry for these people who find it necessary to hide from sex, violence, and other impure thoughts. But, you know, it's a choice they're making. It doesn't meet my definition of censorship, except with regard to their poor kids.
But, there's a catch. The Director's Guild of America, along with some top studios, are bringing suit against the dozen or so companies producing this type of software. They're claiming that what basically amount to instructions on how to avoid parts of a movie are a derivative work, and thus illegal.
And I do find *that* censorship, and of a much more insidious type, because it's so invisible. Hollywood concerns are trying to claim that you have to watch movies their way, or not at all. Or, as ClearPlay's lawyer put it: "It's like they're saying you can't fast-forward through a scene you don't like. If ClearPlay is illegal, then so is the remote control." Which is slightly overstated, but a good analogy.
Now, I'm aware that censorship inevitably grows. That's the third law of social-dynamics, I think. And thus I don't like this proliferation of companies offering censored material. But, censoring the censors seems at least as dangerous.
In any case, this'll be a really interesting court case, because it goes to the heart of whether a copyright holder can protect the way that his creation is shown in a private viewing environment.
So, you download info every couple of days that automatically updates your "ClearPlay" enabled DVD player. Then, when you choose to play a DVD it censors particularly "inappropriate" scenes for you by skipping over them. Theoretically they try to do it in a way to maintain the continuity of the story, and you can also choose to turn off ClearPlay.
Now, personally, I feel pretty sorry for these people who find it necessary to hide from sex, violence, and other impure thoughts. But, you know, it's a choice they're making. It doesn't meet my definition of censorship, except with regard to their poor kids.
But, there's a catch. The Director's Guild of America, along with some top studios, are bringing suit against the dozen or so companies producing this type of software. They're claiming that what basically amount to instructions on how to avoid parts of a movie are a derivative work, and thus illegal.
And I do find *that* censorship, and of a much more insidious type, because it's so invisible. Hollywood concerns are trying to claim that you have to watch movies their way, or not at all. Or, as ClearPlay's lawyer put it: "It's like they're saying you can't fast-forward through a scene you don't like. If ClearPlay is illegal, then so is the remote control." Which is slightly overstated, but a good analogy.
Now, I'm aware that censorship inevitably grows. That's the third law of social-dynamics, I think. And thus I don't like this proliferation of companies offering censored material. But, censoring the censors seems at least as dangerous.
In any case, this'll be a really interesting court case, because it goes to the heart of whether a copyright holder can protect the way that his creation is shown in a private viewing environment.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Hopefully ClearPlay will prevail...
Date: 2003-01-21 09:51 am (UTC)Galoob had something called a Game Genie that would let you jump levels, increase your powers, etc. on the Nintendo. Galoob won in the end because 1) you couldn't use the Game Genie without the Nintendo box and cartridges and 2) Game Genie didn't permanently create or change anything -- it just let you play an existing game differently.
Since ClearPlay doesn't edit the original movies at all, and just provides a data file that the viewer can optionally use to skip over parts of a movie -- if they have the original movie -- they may be on solid ground here.
Of course, the judicial climate has changed since the Galoob case, but we'll see... I'm keeping my fingers crossed.