Source: AP
Bush Signs Bill to Let Parents Strip DVDs
Wed Apr 27,11:21 AM ET
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Wednesday signed legislation aimed at helping parents keep their children from seeing sex scenes, violence and foul language in movie DVDs.
The bill gives legal protections to the fledgling filtering technology that helps parents automatically skip or mute sections of commercial movie DVDs. Bush signed it privately and without comment, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
The legislation came about because Hollywood studios and directors had sued to stop the manufacture and distribution of such electronic devices for DVD players. The movies' creators had argued that changing the content ‹ even when it is considered offensive ‹ would violate their copyrights.
The legislation, called the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, creates an exemption in copyright laws to make sure companies selling filtering technology won't get sued out of existence.

Critics of the bill have argued it was aimed at helping one company, Utah-based ClearPlay Inc., whose technology is used in some DVD players. ClearPlay sells filters for hundreds of movies that can be added to such DVD players for $4.95 each month. Hollywood executives maintain that ClearPlay should pay them licensing fees for altering their creative efforts.
Unlike ClearPlay, some other companies produce edited DVD copies of popular movies and sell them directly to consumers.

In a nod to the studios, the legislation contains crackdowns on copyright infringement by explicitly providing no legal protections for those companies that sell copies of the edited movies, creating new penalties for criminals who use small videocameras to record copies of first-run films in movie theaters, and setting tough penalties for anyone caught distributing a movie or song prior to its commercial release.
The legislation also reauthorizes a Library of Congress program dedicated to saving rare, culturally significant works, such as home movies, silent-era films and other works that are unlikely to be protected by the big studios.

"Writing is an occupation in which you have to
keep proving your talent to those who have none."
Jules Renard
1 2 3 4 5 6
I don't get how this device is a bad thing. Isn't it the equivalent of fast-forwarding through "objectionable" scenes? People would use it in the privacy of their own homes; they're not altering copyrighted material for resale.
Lois
I don't get how this device is a bad thing. Isn't it the equivalent of fast-forwarding through "objectionable" scenes? People would use it in the privacy of their own homes; they're not altering copyrighted material for resale.

It's a bad thing because at least when one person fast forwards they're doing it for themselves, whereas this bill allows one organization's interpretation of what's offensive to decide for their entire clientele, who'll be none the wiser.
jaybee
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Bush Signs Bill to Let Parents Strip DVDs Wed Apr 27,11:21 AM ET WASHINGTON - President Bush on Wednesday signed ... mute sections of commercial movie DVDs. Bush signed it privately and without comment, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

- - - snip - - -
Perhaps I don't really understand how this filtering technology works, but how might it affect playback of a film like, say, "Farenheit 911"?

I'm guessing there wouldn't be very much continuity left in it.

W. probably wouldn't like that very much!
Doug
"Sometimes you gotta say goodbye to the things you know, and hello to the things you don't."
Steve McQueen in "The Reivers
Perhaps I don't really understand how this filtering technology works, but how might it affect playback of a film like, say, "Farenheit 911"? I'm guessing there wouldn't be very much continuity left in it. W. probably wouldn't like that very much!

I got to see something similar to this in action, and since I'm... uh... since I'm... SENILE!, I'll just repost it. (The major difference being in this case they actually edited the movie burned a DVD and then rented that. If I'm not mistaken these guys did get legally run out of business. (And probably returned with this new technology.)

Clean Murder By Numbers
Message-ID: (Email Removed)

NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 18:13:11 PST
I've got some questions.
Recently I watched Murder By Numbers. I wasn't really that impressed, but that's not why I'm writing this message. One of my son's friends, brought over the "clean" version of it, from a place called "Clean Flicks". All the movies they rent have been sanitized of bad stuff. Anyway, I also watched the "clean" version.
Minor Spoilers.
Near the beginning of the movie, there is a brief bedroom scene between Sandra Bullock's character (Cassie Mayweather) and Ben Chaplin's character (Sam Kennedy). The scene, itself, probably lasts no more than a minute and is mild compared to what's on Network TV. (This is Sandra Bullock, for crying out loud). But the fact that it happened is an important part of the story.
The "Clean Flicks" people got rid of it okay, no surprise that's what they live for, and with the following scenes, it would be obvious that they had slept with each other anyway.
Except the "Clean Flicks" folks went through the rest* of the movie, removing *any reference that these two had ever slept with each other. It made some scenes completely incomprehensible, since her relationships with men was a symptom of a problem she was dealing with, in this movie.
In one scene, a woman is found left for dead but alive, with stab wounds in her chest. Once again, what was shown was mild, by Network TV standards, but in this "Clean Flick" they had a black band come up on the screen, covering part of it, when they were showing the wounds. I could just imagine the mouth-breathers "Whoa I wonder what* they cut out there!" The answer is *nothing.
And then there was the stupid stuff. They cut out one occurrence of "son-of-a-***" but left in two occurrences of "***!" WTF?

In one part, one of the bad boys, Ryan Gosling's character (Richard Haywood) is lip-synching to a loud rock song. Part of the song's lyrics are "six six six". (You guessed it, they cut that out too).

In two different scenes, the kid (Richard Haywood) licks (Cassie Mayweather) on the face in one of the scenes it's while he's trying to kill her. It establishes that he's creepy. That's all gone.

And guns are gone too with the sound of a gun shot on a black screen. I'm not kidding. Some nasty is about to kill someone he reaches for his gun starts to pull it out and the screen goes black BLAM!!! The sound is of a violent gun death is okay, apparently, just don't show it. (Even though the original only showed the gun put up to the guys head, then cut away to killer's face, when the gun was fired, anyway).

Not only was the movie chopped up it was done, badly. Often the editing consisted of muting the sound, while people talked.

One place they cut out the previews at the beginning of the tape.

Here are the questions. How can these guys expect to get away with this? Isn't this blatant copyright infringement? And who would want to watch these "clean" movies?
"Okay, kids, let's go rent a movie with lots of sex and violence, but with the sex and violence taken out."
It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

Paulo Joe Jingy
I don't get how this device is a bad thing. Isn't it the equivalent of fast-forwarding through "objectionable" scenes? People would use it in the privacy of their own homes; they're not altering copyrighted material for resale.

Lois! What do you think these people are doing?! They're altering copyrighted material and reselling it! If folks out there don't want to watch films with material they feel is inappropriate, that's fine. Nobody's forcing anyone to do it. But to have amateurs independently re-edit the work of others is beyond offensive to me. (And passing a law that affirms the legality of this sleazy practice is even worse.)
Ken
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
H.R.357
Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

TITLE II EXEMPTION FROM INFRINGEMENT FOR SKIPPING AUDIO AND VIDEO CONTENT IN MOTION PICTURES
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the `Family Movie Act of 2005'.

SEC. 202. EXEMPTION FROM INFRINGEMENT FOR SKIPPING AUDIO AND VIDEO CONTENT IN MOTION PICTURES.
(a) In General- Section 110 of title 17, United States Code, is amended
(1) in paragraph (9), by striking `and' after the semicolon at the end;
(2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and';
(3) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following:

`(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology.'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`For purposes of paragraph (11), the term `making imperceptible' does not include the addition of audio or video content that is performed or displayed over or in place of existing content in a motion picture.
`Nothing in paragraph (11) shall be construed to imply further rights under section 106 of this title, or to have any effect on defenses or limitations on rights granted under any other section of this title or under any other paragraph of this section.'.

(b) Exemption From Trademark Infringement- Section 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1114) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(3)(A) Any person who engages in the conduct described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of title 17, United States Code, and who complies with the requirements set forth in that paragraph is not liable on account of such conduct for a violation of any right under this Act. This subparagraph does not preclude liability, nor shall it be construed to restrict the defenses or limitations on rights granted under this Act, of a person for conduct not described in paragraph (11) of section
110 of title 17, United States Code, even if that person also engages inconduct described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of such title.

`(B) A manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible as described in subparagraph (A) is not liable on account of such manufacture or license for a violation of any right under this Act, if such manufacturer, licensee, or licensor ensures that the technology provides a clear and conspicuous notice at the beginning of each performance that the performance of the motion picture is altered from the performance intended by the director or copyright holder of the motion picture. The limitations on liability in subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall not apply to a manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that fails to comply with this paragraph.
`(C) The requirement under subparagraph (B) to provide notice shall apply only with respect to technology manufactured after the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Family Movie Act of 2005.
`(D) Any failure by a manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology to qualify for the exemption under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not be construed to create an inference that any such party that engages in conduct described in paragraph (11) of section 110 of title 17, United States Code, is liable for trademark infringement by reason of such conduct.'.
(c) Definition- In this section, the term `Trademark Act of 1946' means the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.).
Sure makes me suspicious. Anything President George W. Bush touches turns to ***.
Perhaps I don't really understand how this filtering technology works, ... left in it. W. probably wouldn't like that very much!

I got to see something similar to this in action, and since I'm... uh... since I'm... SENILE!, I'll just repost ... If I'm not mistaken these guys did get legally run out of business. (And probably returned with this new technology.)

snip
Thanks for the repost, Paulo!
Scary stuff happening in the U.S. right now. I'm guessing there'll be a lot more to come before people wise up and edit George and his clique of goons out of the picture.
Hmm? Just a guess...
Making a law that all DVD players must embed this new and "improved" technology. Some company in China with exclusive import license.

Yep. That sounds about par for the course... in today's world.

Doug
"Sometimes you gotta say goodbye to the things you know, and hello to the things you don't."
Steve McQueen in "The Reivers
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more