http://hollywoodreporter.com/thr/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000531710

June 15, 2004

Congressman to put forth filter bill

WASHINGTON -- A Texas congressman is set to introduce a bill today called the Family Movie Act that would take the dramatic step of legislating the digital filtering of indecent content in movies. Rep. Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House subcommittee on courts, the Internet and intellectual property, plans to introduce the bill today and hold a hearing Thursday. The action comes as Utah-based ClearPlay is in a dispute with the movie studios and the DGA over a DVD player that edits movies for sexual content, foul language and violence. The studios and directors contend that such dramatic editing would destroy the artistic value of the films. (Glynn Wilson)

"The studios and directors contend that such dramatic editing would destroy the artistic value of the films."

What artistic value? How many new movies have anything remotely artistic in them? In my opinion, very few.

I personally don't have a problem with someone using a DVD player to edit the movies for content they don't want to see. This puts the ability to censor in the hands of the individual rather than the government. That's the way it should be. I won't be purchasing one of these players, because I don't mind the content in question, but it's better than having a corrupt entity like the FCC try to dictate what is acceptable for me.

Good point, sinistermidget2. (Btw, is there a sinistermidget1?)
It would allow the consumer to do what he/she wanted with the material that he/she purchased. That is the bottom line! Being ABLE to buy it! I wonder if it can fast-forward through any trailers.

I'm not sure if there is a sinistermidget1 here, but I've used this name for other sites because there was one there. It's just easier to use sinistermidget2 than it is to remember whether I'm sinistermidget or sinistermidget2 on a particular site. The name is a reference to the Frank Zappa song "The Torture Never Stops" BTW.

Thanks for the clarification. Speaking of Frank Zappa, I learned a lot from him. Remember, "Wowie, Zowie"? So irreverent...No filtering there.

Can't wait to see these jerks fight it out.

Remember Dynamo Hum?

ZIPPY "Don't eat the Yellow Snow"

"Magic Fingers" anyone?

I don't have any Zappa albums, zippy, stilltrying. But who can forget the lyrics!
Can you imagine a Greatist Hits album advertised on TV? The stations would get indecency fines for saying the titles. (They couldn't play many of the songs) :0)
Sen. Brownback wants to increase the fines to $ 275,000 per violation.
"Lawmaker may add indecency fines to defense bill ": http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000531960

My sister and brother-in-law have a good idea, they don't let the kids watch stuff that they should not be watching. I think the whole idea is a wast of time. congress has better things to do, like go take a long nap.

Smokindog, months ago we discussed this particular DVD player: some arguing that it was just another easy way for parents to not take responsibility for what their kids are watching, some feeling that it would be a valuable device in the home to allow their kids to watch something without the objectionable language, sex, or violence in it.
I think we agreed that the consumer should be given the choice to buy it if he/she wants to buy it and edit the DVD that he/she PAID for or rented. Why should the MPAA or the RIAA be able to dictate to the consumer? Fast forward if you like, edit if you like.
If you want to make your own mix CD's, you should have the right to do that, too (no copy protection).
That's why we need the DMCRA - H.R. 107!

Very stupid for a MPAA to protest this law. It can acually be worthy for some parents or other people who may be offended by some content. Again, there isn't much artistic value in most of the new movies. Also, this is a nice option of DVD-Players, and the more nice options we get with DVD, the more DVD's people will buy, which is good for the movie industry.

Because the MPAA dislikes anyone messing with their films, for any reason. Its a cultural thing, the rather childish "My film!" attitude. Yes, the player can remove objectionable content. But if it removes something important, people dont like the film. And theres a small gap between a sex-remover filter and an advert-remover filter. If the former is available, how long before someone builds the latter?

comes back to fair use...if i buy it, i can do with it whatever i want as long as i don't profit from it. i think it's stupid to censor anything, but there are some religious close minded people that want to pretend things aren't how they really are.

I don't have a problem with manufacturers adding functionality into players. I do have a problem with legally forced compliance. It's like that V-chip Clinton pushed so hard for. It's in all TVs now, but I never use it, and it raised the cost.

When this DVD player came out, many people said that as long as they did not have to buy it, they had no problem with it. Well, now people in California will be FORCED to use ClearPlay technology. It will be illegal to purchase a DVD player without the filtering system such as an Apex. Hopefully older equipment will be grandfathered in, as many people would be upset if they have to throw away their current DVD player and purchase a ClearPlay DVD player instead. Most likely the filters will be on by default, and it might not even be possible to turn them off. So now anyone in California can't legally watch the unedited version if they wish. How is that not censorship? Why not let people who want to use the filters use them, and people who don't want the filters buy an Apex or something?

Its one thing to change the technology,sounds like this may be pretty cool, BUT don't make this a law. Like I said the congress has better things to do.

peace-smokindog

I agree, the technology isn't any different than a Game Genie or Gameshark. It is only a matter of time before it is possible for people to make their own filters (such as a skip FBI warning and forced ads filter), just like the gameshark creator's club makes their own gameshark codes. In fact, currently it is either disabled by default, or it asks if you want to use the filters by default (not sure which). Of course, this law will likely require the filters be turned on by default, and you will have to call the company to get a code to opt-out. The argument will be that most people didn't use the V-chip because it was disabled by default, so clearplay should be on by default to get more parents to use it. Like I said, technology mandates (SSSCA/CBDTPA and now mandatory ClearPlay) suck.

Where does it say all dvd players are required to have this? Jumping to conclusions?

From the article "..dramatic step of legislating the digital filtering of indecent content in movies." That sounds like a technology mandate to me. It could just be a tactic to get a "watered down" version that does not mandate anything, but just makes the technology legal. Asking for it to be mandatory, and then settling for a law that allows the technology but does not require it could work, the same tactic was used with the DMCA (ask for SSSCA/CBDTPA like controls, but settle for the DMCA). Perhaps with enough amendments the Family Movie Act could have the same effect as the DRMCA, without mandating anything.

Rep. Lamar Smith is an idiot who should be voted OUT at the earliest opportunity, but I certainly agree in principle with a bill that gives the CONSUMER the choice of what they want to watch or not.

It is in matters like this that I "reach across the isle" to my puritanish conservative right-wing friends.

Shmoo