Auto-Censoring DVD Player 1061
Gogl writes "Those clever folks at RCA have apparently designed a DVD player that automatically scans movies and censors them to make them kosher, as it were. That means none of the naughty bits and none of those bad words either. It will be sold by Walmart for the price of $79, and what with the recent Janet Jackson 'wardrobe malfunction' this product will likely be lauded by the FCC and moralists everywhere, though Hollywood is already complaining."
I want (Score:5, Funny)
Damn those dumb people, why are they taking the b00bies away from me???
What, are these corporations my MOTHER or something now??
Re:I want (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to applaud RCA for providing this product. It will make everyone happy, if they would shut up and think for a minute..
1) RCA makes money on an innovative product
2) Producers make money selling more DVD's to people who would otherwise find their content objectionable.
3) Consumers get to enjoy more movies.
Uh hello, this is a win-win for everybody!
Re:I want (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Producers make money...
3) Consumers get to enjoy more movies.
Uh hello, this is a win-win for everybody!
Except the creators of the movie, who find their work has been bowdlerised without their permission. The creators (the producer at least) usually have the option of pulling a movie from a market rather than cutting it. As a last resort, if the studio overrides them, the director can pull their name from the credits to show that they disapprove of this. Creators have moral rights on their works.
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Alan Smithee is a pseudonym used by the director of a movie if he wants to disown it. A director cannot do so on his own, however, he has to get permission to do so from the Directors Guild of America, which has a number of rules for it, the most important being that it is only used when someone else (for example the editor or the studio) has changed the movie to something different than what the director intended.
Re:I want (Score:5, Funny)
They must be really pissed off when I skip the boring bits then.
Not to mention all those bastards who blink during viewing!
Re:I want (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing the point, you can edit or watch your copy of a movie however you like. When you distribute that version to others, even as a "patch" to the original, you cross over a line. The director's name is still on it, but it isn't what he signed off on. If these players are sold widely (they are in Walmart after all) they could even become the way most people saw the movie; as
Re:I want (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I want (Score:5, Interesting)
Relatively few people were freaked out about it. The loudest voices were those of the opportunistic politicians who were looking for some political hay to make it look like they were doing something useful
I like the idea of the censor chips because then broadcasters will be free of the censors (since that function will be rightly in the hands of the viewers) and will be free to include nudity and even sex on prime time TV without fear of government reprisal.
Re:I want (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I think a better idea woul be a law that every programme break on every channel must include a 20 second shot chosen at random from a library of films of naked people perfoming every common bodily function from eating to picking their nose to masturbating to having a shit to ... taken from every angle and from every distance from 2 inches to 10 feet. Then everyone will have the choice of either getting rid of their TV or learning to cope with the human body. The resulting appolplexy among those who can't cope will do wonders to improve the species. Of course it will destroy the only profitable segment of the online economy.
Re:I want (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case it was about what btis of the human body people want to pretend don't exist.
All kids are different.
Well, yes some are more screwed up by their parents than others. (Insert Philip Larkin poem here).
Re:As a mammal... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I want (Score:4, Interesting)
What is relevant is that copyright law gives the copyright owner the right to control the production and distribution of derivitive works. Making a "no-naughty-bits" derivitive of a movie for your own use probably falls under fair use. However, as with the MP-3 debate, there's a very ill-defined border between legal fair use and illegal copyright infringement.
Directors and other artists working on a movie are usually hired by a studio or production company to make the movie. In legal terms, this makes the movie a work for hire -- copyright and creative control belong to the people who paid for it, unless they contractually gave those rights to someone else.
Re:I want (Score:3, Insightful)
Moral arguments are, by definition, based on an appeal to authority, tradition, and/or emotion. These are all classical logical fallacies. Contrast this to ethical arguments, which are built on sound logical reasoning and as such are objective and provably correct (or provably false).
As an example, consider the following: Is the act of consentual sex between unmarried adults, in and of
Re:I want (Score:4, Insightful)
Pop-up blockers.
Auto-editing DVD players.
Commerical-skip button on TiVo.
Seems to me all 4 of these do basically the same thing, pre-edit something so the user doesn't have to see something they know they won't want to.
If you object to this Auto-Censoring DVD player, then shouldn't you also object to the other 3 things above? The user is bowderlising the content someone else provided, without their permission.
Re:I want (Score:3, Insightful)
If I buy the original Mona Lisa, very much a "'work ' in the artistic sense," I have every right to shred it. Or, to make it more clearly related to the topic, what if I think she's smiling and, since smiling is (obviously) the devil's work, I wanted to use a marker to cover up the corners of her mouth?
Do I have the right to do that, since it is not what the original artist wanted?
I might get screamed at by millions of people, but I
Re:I want (Score:5, Insightful)
So the list of entities responsible for bringing up a child and therefore liable when he gets fat, anti social and/or psychopathic now includes:
McDonalds
The police
School teachers
DVD Players
Not exactly what I call win-win.
All little boys want to see boobies. It's the duty of a parent to talk about this with their child, explaining that it's natural to like looking at naked flesh but that it's not the answer to everything. What's not their duty is to flip a switch on a DVD player and then sue the company when, 10 years later, poor Johnny gets confused on prom night because he is greeted with big pink round things instead of black squares that he's grown up on. My entire generation loaned eachother uncensored VHS tapes because of our childish curiosity, and my god didn't we all turn out badly? We're all going round raping girls because of that smut we watched as 10 year olds and swearing like sailors in restaurants, quick somone sue Francis Ford Coppola! This whole thing smacks of finding a problem for a solution.
Also, can someone name me a film that has 'filthy nudity and swear words' that kids would even be able to understand let alone enjoy if this was censored out?
Prom night (Score:5, Funny)
If Johnny is the average
Re:I want (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why individuals are getting bent out of shape because other people want to live their life a particular way. I don't agree with a lot of things that other parents do but you know what? They are not my kids. I don't have any more right to say what your kids can and can't do than you do mine.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Everyone but the artists, that is. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, let's use another example. There is a movie by the name of "Overboard" that shows on TV quite regularly and has been edited for TV in such a way that there is limited objectionable language and a few references to sexual acts. If you purchase the DVD, the ojectionable blanguage content becomes much more noticable while still retaining the few references to sexual acts. On TV this is a movie that I don't find objectionable for my children to watch, the story line isn't bad and there are some things in the movie to generate discussion within the family every time we see it. On DVD, it is unwatchable by my children due to the language. This is the same movie and both of the movies carry the same director's and producer's names, but the impact is totally different. If I could put the DVD into a player and get basically the TV version of the movie, I would be much happier.
I am sure that many other examples could be found, but this one just jumped into my mind. As to the art portion, see my post earlier in this thread. Art is sometimes carried to the extreme.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Everyone but the artists, that is. (Score:3, Insightful)
As a viewer of said art, I should be allowed to do whatever the hell I want with it. I should be able to shut my eyes, plug my ears, place black paper over my TV screen, edit the movie so it is out of chronological order, remove the sound and replace it with Raffi's Greatest Hits, add a Pink Floyd album to the soundtrack of the mov
Re:Everyone but the artists, that is. (Score:3, Insightful)
Some writers and directors consider their work to be art and not something to be trifled with by some right-wing Mormon zealot working for Clearplay in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Then they should release their films as art, not as commercial entertainment products. They could choose only to show it in a limited set of theatres, under environments designed to most effectively convey the meaning and impact they intended.
But if they want me to fork over my money for a DVD, they'd better get over themselves and
Re:I want (Score:5, Insightful)
I go see a movie with my wife. She covers her eyes during the disgusting/scary parts and tells me to tell her when it's safe to look. How is that any different? By your line of reasoning, I should tell her to "try getting that tree branch out of your ass" and make her open her eyes. The only recourse she should have (according to you) is to leave the theater.
This is a machine I can CHOOSE to buy and I'm telling RCA to fast forward over content that I say I don't want to see. Are you telling me I shouldn't have that right?
Re:I want (Score:5, Insightful)
Good god people, this isn't censorship. No one is pointing a gun to your head telling you to buy the thing. This is a simple techonological solution to something some people think is a problem. Censorship is when the government tells you, you can't print or say something. If you don't like the product don't buy it.
For the record, I don't intend to buy it because movies that it would be used on I don't let my kids watch. I really don't see a need for it but some people do. If RCA can makes some money off these people the more power to them. RCA gets cash for a product people want, and these people get a product they want.
Re:I want (Score:5, Insightful)
If you support fair use (as your sig indicates that you do), why do you condemn people viewing the movie as they wish do view it?
Do you violate the creator's vision by listening to tracks on a CD out of the sequence intended by the creator? What if the whole Album is intended as one creative unit, such as The Who's Tommy, or Pink Floyd's The Wall?
Re:i don't care what you want, it's still wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
And your reason for thinking I shouldn't be allowed to do this if I want, or caring whether I do it or not, is what, exactly?
Last I checked, nobody was required to buy this thing. No movie is required to be run through this filter. If it does a bad job at filtering, then only those who use it will be affected adversely. Perhaps it is a dumb idea, but then wha
Re:I want my pr0n! (Score:3, Funny)
Opening credits...closing credits.
Derivative works (Score:4, Insightful)
Flamebait? Stupid mods (Score:3, Informative)
Why is this flamebait?
The parent was referring to modifying somebodies intellectual property without their permission. That is covered by the DMCA. Why do you think Hollywood hates the idea of these things? They consider themselves artists and artists don't like it when other people start changing their work. If you don't like
Re:Flamebait? Stupid mods (Score:4, Insightful)
So, if I cue up just the car chase in "Streets of San Fancisco," or maybe just the rescue of Morpheus in "The Matrix" without actually watching the movies in their entirety, am I violating the rights of the artistic creators?
If not, how is it any different if I'm a puritanical old biddy who wants to watch "Eyes Wide Shut" with a DVD player that automatically skips over the orgy scene? Or "Clockwork Orange" without the rape scenes? Granted, "Clockwork Orange" would be a very short movie if you took the sex and violence out, but if somebody really just wants to watch Malcome MacDowell extoll the joys of drinking "milk plus" for 10 minutes, that should be up to them.
Re:Flamebait? Stupid mods (Score:3, Informative)
If not, how is it any different if I'm a puritanical old biddy who wants to watch "Eyes Wide Shut" with a DVD player that automatically skips over the orgy scene?
Well, its different in the sense that you want to only watch the good bits and she's missing out on the only good bit...
Re:Flamebait? Stupid mods (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if DVDs suddenly started including "ButtBlaster" technology to ensure that people couldn't fast forward through the racy bits, and this DVD player had to bypass that technology, then the DMCA would be perfectly applicable.
As it stands, this
Re:Flamebait? Stupid mods (Score:3, Informative)
A Hollywood consortium, including some of Tinseltown's top directors, has sued Clearplay and others, arguing that they are abusing the films' artistic integrity.
By producing - without permission - altered versions of intellectual property, censors are effectively pirating directors' and studios' work, the lawsuit argues.
Clearplay hopes to escape through a loophole: instead of making new versions of films, it argues, its technology is simply anoth
Re:Flamebait? Stupid mods (Score:3, Informative)
In the book themselves some just have a warning that if the book it is a missing the front cover it could of been illegally sold, and for the would-be purchases not to buy it. As a purchasers I am under no legal requirement, just a moral one.
I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
Presentation is my choice. I can watch in on a b/w television, with the sound muted, or I can turn past a page in the newspaper. That does not violate any copyright law. Even the most 1984esque sections of the DMCA were designed to prevent copyright violations (including tools and information that could lead to such), not to control the presentation.
If the presented work was recaptured (b/w, muted or missing a page), it would be a derivative work and thus subject to copyright law. But since that is not the case, the DMCA should not apply. Next thing you know, it'll be illegal to see a movie wearing shades or with earplugs...
Kjella
Damn it! (Score:5, Funny)
but would it catch.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:but would it catch.. (Score:3, Informative)
The big question is how it will sell. If it sells really well then firstly I'll be surprised, and secondly frightened.
I'd also love to get my hands on that database...
As an American... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As an American... (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of fucked up system is that?
Re:As an American... (Score:5, Funny)
What kind of fucked up system is that?
I hope youre kidding. (Score:3, Insightful)
Filmmakers can't even make a realistic sex scene without getting the NC-17 kiss off death from the moralists.
Kids grow up with no positive images of sex, just religious hatred. Not to mention the federal government is pushing unrealistic abstinence and downplaying the importance of condoms and birth-control.
Who is the fucked up culture here?
Re:I hope youre kidding. (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, I'm all in favor of pornography, but let's not confuse it with a healthy expression of sexuality. Objectifying the female body on Page Three of the daily paper, or Justin Timberlake pawing at Janet Jackson's costume while singing about getting her naked by the end of the song, is not the baseline of normal sexuality that I would want my kids to pick up from the media.
Should sexually suggestive material be allowed? Absolutely. Should it be completely unrestricted? In my op
Re:As an American... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As an Englandian... (Score:3)
Re:As an American... (Score:3, Interesting)
IFAIK Walmart is still selling "Vice City". Moral of the story: While saying "fuck" is bad it's ok to beat the shit out of a prostitute with a golf club.
Welcome to Amerika. Please leave your common sense ideas at the border.
Re:As an American... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because obviously the DVD player comes with a copy of Vice City. You can't buy them separately.
And it's ok to lump all Wal-Mart shoppers and the entire company into one group, because it delays hard reality hitting my narrow-minded ideology for just a little while longer.
Re:As an American... (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as the "old religious farts" dieing off, I hate to dissapoint you, but I'm 22 years old.
Re:As an American... (Score:3, Funny)
Quick cover their eyes!!!
Re:As an American... (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the "Under God" shit, your child would n
Now... (Score:5, Funny)
Will this be like the web-censoring software that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Can i get one that does the opposite? (Score:4, Funny)
great.. (Score:3, Funny)
Why is this a Censorship story? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a device being sold on the market. Censorship is a word used in reference to a Government office and Government behavior. There is a difference. RCA cannot force you to use its player or punish you for not meeting its standards through capture or violence.
Kosher? (Score:5, Funny)
Time to throw out my copy of Babe: Pig in the City.
Actually, it was time to do that years ago...
Artistic? (Score:5, Insightful)
A Hollywood consortium, including some of Tinseltown's top directors, has sued Clearplay and others, arguing that they are abusing the films' artistic integrity.
Ah, yes. The artistic integrity of, say, the excessive violence in 48 hours? Or, perhaps, the gratiuitous nudity in American Pie.
STFU, morons. 99.9% of Hollywood's tripe is about as artistic as my ass after a binge at Taco Bell.
If people want to screen a movie they paid to see, that's their perogative. An excellent application for this is to effectively turn a "questionable for children" movie into something that you, as a parent, feel is sanitized enough to show your children.
Wake me up if some idiot starts mandating this technology in ALL players. Until then, this is just an interesting technology that people can choose to use if they want. Yawn.
Re:Artistic? (Score:3, Funny)
ClearPlay has interrupted this broadcast to apologize for the previous broadcaster. The broadcaster of the previous broadcast has been sacked.
Re:Artistic? (Score:3, Funny)
Then little john goes off to school saying "Inspector Gadget 4 is great" to his chums. They tell their parents that 'johns dad let HIM watch it' - so they get the DVD out.
Johns friends dad then phones ME up saying "... so you think its appropriate to watch inspector gadget fucking his arch-
Re:Artistic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice post.
So many Hollywood movies are gratuitously sprinkled with unnecessary swear words or the obligatory topless chick shot, just to get the R (or at least PG-13) rating. There are LOTS of movies that older kids could watch that aren't mind-numbingly vapid like "Veggie Tales", but Hollywood insists that anything with a merely G or PG rating must be empty of content as well.
Ironically, we're back to the pre-VCR days when we are desperately watching for movies we like to come on network television - then we know at least (some of) that is filtered out.
I agree with the parent poster here. Taking the swearing and violence out of Pulp Fiction is artistic butchery, but to filter out the nudity in Whole Nine Yards or Short Cuts is hardly "abusing artistic integrity".
Another recent example (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Artistic? (Score:5, Insightful)
>> You don't have the right to go editing it [an artwork] to suit your own desires though and then resell the edited version for cash.
You're wrong. I do have the right to purchase a physical book from you and black out the "bad" passages, and I do have the right to resell it for cash. Not a copy of it, mind you--you still have the copyright.
I do have the right to my opinion that minutes 12.1 to 13.6 and 34.9 to 40.0 contain violence unsuitable for children under 18, and I do have the right to physically cut those minutes out of the tape I purchased from you and resell it for cash, just as I do have the right to sell you a $79 player which will automatically skip over those minutes.
What's wrong with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's a Good Thing(tm).
The problem comes when someone else tries to impose his/her morals on ME. By censoring DVDs at source, that is what happens. This player, OTOH, brings censoring to the destination. Great idea.
Where'd my movie go? (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me... (Score:3, Funny)
Of course at the end I had NO IDEA of what really happened in the movie. Who the characters were, etc...
But I knew ONE thing for SURE : the f-word is the most important word in the american (maybe not english) language
Re:Reminds me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Also had in school:
Clockwork Orange
La Haine
Menace To Society
Reservoir Dogs
Apocalypse Now
etc..
Ok, Canadian here too, but never saw any of those in school. I can understand Apocalypse Now, especially if you were reading Heart of Darkness. I'm not sure why Reservoir Dogs would be a good candidate for an English class, though I could certainly see it in a film class.
I did take a quarter credit course in films, but all he played was Alfred Hitchcock stuff. It was interesting to see Psycho (d
An Absurdity (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of idiot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, it will butcher movies, not replace the content with milder cuss words like on TV. If you have ever watched Malaysian TV you will know exactly what it will do. Entire chunks of film will simply disappear leaving an incoherent mess in its place. Imagine (trying) to watch something like Pulp Fiction through it for example.
People who buy this are idiots and following on from its DIVX fiasco it is more proof that RCA really doesn't have a clue.
Of course something good might come out of it. If all the god bothering prudes equip themselves with one of these, it will leave Blockbuster et al with no excuse for not stocking certain titles.
I'm still wondering (Score:4, Insightful)
What the f... ?
Re:I'm still wondering (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
These are tools for parents, nothing more, nothing less. Last I knew parents were allowed to raise their own children. Yeah- censorship is bad, for grown adults, but I plan on censoring the heck out of what I allow my children to see. There is no freedom of speech or freedom to view anything for a 9 year old.
Another way to look at this is as a tool of free speech. It allows parents to further control what their children see whild not forcing entire censorship. I would like to continue to watch movies as my daughter gets old enough to understand what she is seeing on the screen. Most of the time sex scenes and foul language does little to add to the story (I know there are exceptions, like Boogie Nights, for example).
Anyway, just my two cents-- there is no reason to freak out here. RCA and Walmart aren't trying to censor what you are allowed to see, rather, they are providing parents with a tool that will help us to raise our children as we see fit.
Dear RCA... (Score:3, Funny)
Sincerely,
J. Lo.
what the (pretty butterflies) is this? (Score:5, Funny)
what (singing birds) thought this (rolling hills) up?
if you don't like the (grazing deer) movie, don't watch the (blooming flowers) movie!
cutting it up into sanitized (falling rain) pieces is akin to giving yourself a (bubbling brooks) frontal lobotomy
i just don't understand the (belching volcanoes) censorial instincts of some pinheaded (churning lava)
That won't be necessary.. (Score:5, Funny)
I only buy movies prepared under rabbinical supervision.
Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some people don't subscribe to HBO because they don't like the things that are shown. Are they censoring HBO? Well, I guess if you twist the meaning of the word "censor". But is it unreasonable? Of course not! An individuals right to decide (for themselves) whether or not they want to view something isn't censorship, it's freedom of choice.
As far as this particular device, if you don't like it's feature set, don't buy it. But, who's being the censor if, because you don't like the feature set, you prevent someone else from buying it?
What I want (Score:3, Insightful)
That would rock.
Finally, I'd be able to sit through entire viewing of Steel Magnolias with the wife!
Wonder how it will handle The Soprano's? (Score:3, Funny)
Good idea (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems like every film director feels compelled to throw in a sex/nude scene, and the film will be rated R, but only for "violence".
Case in point: the movie Basic, starring John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson. I liked the movie, billed as a "military suspense thriller." What I didn't like was a scene near the end, apparently during a Mardi Gras parade, where a completely topless woman was shown from the front. What the hell? In my opinion, that's not appropriate for my boys to be watching.
There are many good movies out there that barring a few scenes, would be perfectly acceptable for my children to watch. A device like this should allow my family to watch and enjoy these movies.
If you invite it into your house...great (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a Tyler Durden version? (Score:5, Funny)
You and the Mrs are watching Armageddon and boom! Liv Tyler boobies.
New market for studios (Score:4, Interesting)
Or better yet, maybe they will make better movies. I don't have any problem with films that have sex, violence, etc, if it makes sense to the story. But there is a whole raft of crap that is stuck in films because the "filmmakers" don't think we as an audience will stay focused on the film without someone on screen using "F***" in all of its grammatical forms every 10 seconds. Its unnecessary and shows a lack of creativity on the writers' part.
When Hollywood actually starts doing something artistic again, then maybe I'll give "artistic integrity" thought again. Since most of the stuff that comes out now is remakes of films done 30 years ago ( and mostly the earlier ones are better...I give you the Marky Mark Planet of the Apes as a prime example of just because you can doesn't mean you should. ), I hardly think that it requires much artistry to remake something that has already been done. A decent painter could reproduce the Mona Lisa with paint by numbers, but that doesn't require much artistry.
Re:New market for studios (Score:3, Insightful)
I keep seeing references to this kind of thing in the comments, and I can't think of any (and certainly not many) films were it was obviously gratuitis. Could you give some examples?
I thought it was all about choice? (Score:4, Insightful)
This gives the consumer the choice... sounds like a good thing to me.
You don't like it, buy another model for yourself.
This is a good thing! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a feature of DVDs that should have been available from the beginning! Why is it that I can't select the "clean" or "edited for tv" version of a movie from the main dvd menu? Sometimes I want to allow my kids to watch a movie, but only the edited version so they don't have to see any gore or gratuitous sex. This should be an option on every DVD player. It looks like it only edits around 500 movies... If they were smart, they would make something like a CDDB for movie edits. That way, a central database can store all the edits, and you can download them as you get new movies. Something like this could probably be done with MythTv.
You should be lauding this as an long overdue advancement of the technology.
Re:This is a good thing! (Score:4, Informative)
It is a feature of DVDs, it's just not on the menu. You can set the parental lock feature on your player, and the discs check that to either show an edited version or simply refuse to play.
This will work until... (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect this to fly off the shelves into every god-fearing Xtian home in the U.S. until...
Mel releases 'The Passion' on DVD and this player will only show the opening and closing credits.
WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
What do the "filter lists" look like? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not science, this is junk (Score:3, Informative)
The blurb tries to make it sound like they invented something magical, but they didn't. Basically, a company called ClearPlay has humans that watch popular movies, and makes a note of all the "bad" audio/video spots in the movie. They make a big censoring list, and the player IDs the movie against that list and skips the parts the ClearPlay guys said to skip. The database of movie titles is at about 500 so far, which is far, far short of the number of DVDs at your typical rental store. The mentioned Janet Jackson incident, which was live TV, and has nothing at all to do with cencsoring your DVDs.
Paging Mel Gibson (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Control is Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Does their worldview = yours?
Re:Control is Good (Score:4, Insightful)
player contains no artificial intelligence (Score:3, Informative)
No, the player does not have an AI that can detect offensive material. It gets censorship instructions on a per-movie basis from the manufacturer. The article doesn't say, but I assume you have to connect the player to a telephone line to keep it updated so it can censor new movies. There is probably also a subscription charge for this service.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@E
Re:Heuristic? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand what is wrong with this. If you don't like it, don't buy it- its as simple as that.
Re:Heuristic? (Score:4, Interesting)
But you might be surprised how many PG and PG-13 movies have language that many parents don't want their children to hear (again, very young children, I'm not a total prude!)
Uh.....RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
Clearplay scans movies for dodgy content, and then programs that data into its system.
Subscribers can then watch standard copies of the 500-or-so films on its list, with the assurance that they will automatically skip over mute anything that children or the squeamish may not like.
Until now, Clearplay has only run through a PC.
It does not use a heuristic. Clearplay has already screened the movie previously for offensive content and preprogrammed actions (i.e. skipping or bleeping).
Personally I
Isn't this the best answer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Extremism of ANY ideology is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
But before you go and blame fundamentalist Christians for this, look rationally for a moment. There's still choice in the store to buy a normal DVD player of international specifications. You can still watch R-rated movies in the theater with graphic depictions of sex and violence. There have been regimes that were officially atheist that have banned such films in the past in the name of information control, and those atheist regimes were very extreme (read: Communism).
Therefore, don't be so bold to blame something that is really a choice at this point on a religion. Until the government legislates this change, don't get your panties in such a bunch. Government isn't even involved in this decision yet.
Re:To those of you who support this (Score:5, Insightful)
OK. It's called the right to choose. That's not so difficult.
You want to watch the full movie, boobies and all.
For some odd reason, which (although completely illogical to you) shouldn't matter if you truly believe in freedom (it's not freedom if everyone else has to approve of your motivations), my neighbor's grandma would like to see that movie, sans boobies.
With this product, she can do that. Without infringing on YOUR freedom to see boobies.
Doesn't this sound like a much nicer solution than grandma (Whether she has a good reason or not) pushing for stupid laws (like every DVD that contains naked boobies being on shelves at least 5 feet high, etc,etc)?
I'd like to know why folks like you get so scared of an object that solves a problem in a way that doesn't reduce anyone's freedom, but is geared towards people with a self-imposed religious or moral code.
Just because some of those people are over-the-top and obnoxious, doesn't mean you should be against any product that helps the rest of them get what they want without harming you.