My new DVD player with TV-Guardian!!!

[AwallaceUNC]

Again, you seem to be emphasising that diversity and freedom are the rights to NOT hear something.

No, I'm emphasizing that freedom is the right to CHOOSE whether you want to hear it or listen to it.

You say that Papa Bear is exercising his right to view movies the way he wants to. What about the rights of the filmmakers to have everybody who views the film seen in the way that they intended it?

Do they have that right? Debatable. It's really no different than a viewer using the mute button when they are in their house. True, their may be a legal case with this machine. The precedent you cited may lend itself to that case. But this isn't something that's being indefinitely censored or edited. The work itself is being presented to the public and the consumers in tact, as it was made. The viewer is then choosing to edit it for themselves (yeah, the machine makes the decision- but that's more or less semantics... the consumer knows what's being edited out and consents to it). It would be interesting to follow that in court.

The U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court have upheld that this is to "prevent any intentional mutilation or distortion of the work ". This would include any "edited publications" (in this case, publication would be the act of screening it).

That settles it. OAR should be enforced by law.

To me, a device that modifies an author's work, no matter how slight, is contravening the author's moral rights. This is not just about an individual's right to choose what they want to see, as it is not the individual choosing what they do/don't see. It is a machine that bases its decisions on a group of moral standards that have been decided for it. Further, it negates the original freedom of expression of the author, simply because the viewer has decided that there are bits they do not like about the work.

The machine is simply carrying out the wishes of the viewer, much like the remote control does when the viewer hits the mute button. The medium used doesn't make it any different. The intention here was to prevent the public from being denied the author's intended work, and to keep the author's work from being maligned- not to prevent them from making personal decisions on their viewing preferences. The machine isn't maligning anything. Sure, it's programmed to follow a "moral standard," but it's the standard of the viewer. Authors aren't guaranteed that their viewers will be forced to observe their works the way they wish.

Freedom of expression is NOT choosing what you do/don't want to hear. It is about everyone having a right to be heard. And devices like these ensure that the Walmart buying public will never look beyond their own narrow world views.

Yes, we're guaranteed the right to be heard, but we aren't guaranteed that others will listen. The devide doesn't take away from the filmmakers' rights to be heard- their voice is still being presented to the consumer. The consumer then makes their conscious decision not to listen. You don't have to like it, but it's their right. And if narrow world views are what they choose (though I hardly think muting profanity constitutes that), then so be it- it's their choice.

-Aaron

[Kram Nebuer]

I'm gonna say something that no one has seemed to have said...

Congratulations on your new DVD player, Papa Bear! I'm glad you found something that coincides with your morals and standards!

Why are some of you so pessimistic? Papa Bear is just proclaiming a new product he enjoys and he felt others who had no knowledge of such a product may be interested. As we always say in this forum (especially regarding sequels), if you don't like something, don't involve yourself with it. No one's forcing you to. We are all here to voice our opinions and if our opinion conflicts with anothers, than just say IMHO and don't accuse someone as something they're not.

Phew. Sorry if I sounded mean, but I had to say something.

[2099net]

Well, I'd be more impressed it a dirty great siren went off every time an altered scene in the upcoming Star Wars discs was screened!

[deathie mouse]

AHAHAHAHA!

I think if that happened I'd have to be wearing ear-plugs all throught the movie 2099net!

[Loomis]

As we always say in this forum (especially regarding sequels), if you don't like something, don't involve yourself with it. No one's forcing you to. We are all here to voice our opinions and if our opinion conflicts with anothers, than just say IMHO and don't accuse someone as something they're not.

I could actually extend that to apply to my argument. If you don't like foul language, don't involve yourself - just don't buy DVDs that say "contains coarse language". Choose to ignore them. Otherwise it is just censorship in a very ugly form.

Filmmakers are there to voice their opinions as well, as if you insist on enforcing your right to "not hear something if you choose not to", then do that by not purchasing those films you don't want to hear. Don't engage in censorship, even if it is just for you.

Don't let the "nanny box" do it for you. Stand up and make your own decisions as to what you do/don't want to see and hear by using your own common sense. That's all I'm saying.

[Papa Bear]

Netty to answer your question on how it works here is the info they have listed on the www.tvguardian.com website.


How does TVGuardian work?
TVGuardian uses a patented process invented by our founder to detect profanity and other offensive phrases, mute the audio and modify the broadcast closed captioned signal. The process consists of monitoring the closed captioned signal, each captioned word is checked against a dictionary of foul words stored in TVGuardian. If an inappropriate word or phrase is detected, the audio is muted, the offensive word is removed from the closed captioned signal, and a suitable word is substituted, when appropriate.


How many words does it filter?
TVGuardian uses a sophisticated algorithm to detect and mute offensive words. It's nearly impossible to determine how many words it filters because it examines each word or phrase for the root of the curse word. For example, the dictionary entry ``sh**" detects anything with ``sh**" as part of the word or phrase. There may be dozens of variations of the curse word root, even some that we would never think of, but the TVG algorithm catches even the unusual usage.

TVGuardian has two filter levels. The Strict level takes the ``better safe than sorry" approach. It will look for all offensive words including exclamatory uses of God, Jesus and Christ. The Moderate level allows some milder words such as crap, butt and sucks. This mode also allows most uses, except for obviously offensive ones, of God, Jesus and Christ for viewing programs with a religious theme.


Why does TVGuardian mute the phrase instead of just the profane word?
TVGuardian's method of muting the offensive phrase is much more effective than just muting the profane word. If only a single word were muted, your eyes would still be focused on the mouth, making it easy to read lips and fill-in-the-blanks. Thus, muting only a single word would defeat the purpose of TVGuardian.


Does my TV need a closed-caption decoder for TVGuardian to work?
No. It doesn't matter what kind of TV you have or how old it is. TVGuardian has everything that it needs to filter out the foul language.


Is the closed-captioning displayed all the time?
Only if you want it to be. TVGuardian has three closed-caption settings. The normal setting will display modified, profanity-free closed-captioning only during the mute of offensive phrases. You can also set TVGuardian to not display any closed-captioning, or it can be set to display profanity-free closed-captioning during the entire program.

Does TVGuardian work with all DVD Movies?
TVGuardian works with virtually all DVDs tested except those from Universal Studios. Luckily, Universal Studios only produces a small percentage of the available movies. Universal Studios does not provide the closed-captioning signal in the format standards used by the rest of the industry and required by the FCC for broadcast television.



But to answer your question it does seem to work really well I have watched a few movies on it and it seems to catch everything that I would want it too. So for me it works awesome. But I agree a loud siren would be kind of cool.

And Kram Nebuer and awallaceunc thank you both for your kind words![/quote]

[AwallaceUNC]

Don't engage in censorship, even if it is just for you.

Who was it a while back that was making the "censorship is a nasty word" argument here? I think that applies now. I get the point you are driving at, but censorship would be an assault on whoever is being heard or his audience. But as I said in my earlier post, the right to be heard in no way is being restrained (see previous post), nor is the right to hear it. No one is being censored, one person is choosing to ignore the other. No one likes being ignored, but one freedom that American doesn't guarantee is attention.


PapaBear- how's the accuracy been thus far? I've got to say I'm a tad skeptical about the reason for muting the whole phrase. They claim it's to mute context as well, but I think it's really because that's the only way the technology can be sure it mutes the profane word. After all, caption tracks and audio tracks aren't synchronized. It still seems like there would be occasions of hit-and-miss. It's all very interesting.

Man, if you got rid of my DisneyCo. and Universal DVDs, I wouldn't be left with much, so I don't think this one would help me much even if I did want it.

Oh, and think nothing of it, PB.

-Aaron

[Sir Hawkins]

I could actually extend that to apply to my argument. If you don't like foul language, don't involve yourself - just don't buy DVDs that say "contains coarse language". Choose to ignore them. Otherwise it is just censorship in a very ugly form.

Well that's about 99% of non G-Rated movies, Loomis. Who in the world wants to restrict themselves to that? I could stand here all day and name movies that have nothing offensive in them EXCEPT bad language, which is where TVG comes in. I don't see the point of trying to force your morals (or lack thereof) on everybody else.

And as for your comment on Song of the South, I think tha'ts probably the most racist, bigoted thing I've ever read on this board. You're equating foul, dirty language with African Americans? Where's the connection, or am I missing something? You're implication that black people are just as offensive as foul language sounds extremely racist. So I guess because I also own a TVG unit, I don't like black people? You have issues

[mvealf]

Don't engage in censorship, even if it is just for you.

No one likes being ignored, but one freedom that American doesn't guarantee is attention.

So why would anyone buy a DVD that they don't want to pay attention to? Do they think, I love this movie, but OOH, don't let me hear that, somebody shield me from it. Even if it offends me, I still want to understand the movie. Do you not realize that self censorship would leave the viewer ignorant of the film maker's point? I would rather be educated, personally.

[AwallaceUNC]

You would rather hear it with the profanity, and that's fine. He would rather not. It's as simple as that.

And as for why someone would want to watch something other than G-rated films (something I wouldn't think would be difficult to understand), I'll refer you to the top of Sir Hawkins' recent post.

-Aaron

[mvealf]

You would rather hear it with the profanity, and that's fine. He would rather not. It's as simple as that.

You don't need to speak for me, I'm capable of speaking for myself. Your assumption of what I would rather hear is wrong. "I" don't care whether I hear profanity or not. I just want to hear and see the original intent of the film maker. And regardless of whether or not people "enjoy" hearing profanity, editing it out still leaves the viewer not understanding the real intent. That's a pretty simple but true concept. Sorry you don't like it.

[AwallaceUNC]

I didn't say you enjoy the profanity. I was paraphrasing your own words. Obviously, I wasn't suggesting you wanted profanity added to movies. You said that you wanted to see the movie with profanity intact, which is what I said. I think it was very clear what was meant, don't make it out to be something it isn't.

And it's not a matter of me not liking it. Again, that's really missing the whole debate here. We've already established that I prefer to watch the movie with the profanity intact as well, just as you do. Our difference lies in whether PapaBear deserves such scolding for quite harmlessly preferring to view the film with the profanity muted (which, by the way, is something that happens on television every single day, as for as the morality and legality of editing goes). Just because you want to hear it that way doesn't mean he should have to, and that is the simple concept here. I appreciate opposing viewpoints, but not hateful tones.


-Aaron

[Papa Bear]

PapaBear- how's the accuracy been thus far? I've got to say I'm a tad skeptical about the reason for muting the whole phrase. They claim it's to mute context as well, but I think it's really because that's the only way the technology can be sure it mutes the profane word. After all, caption tracks and audio tracks aren't synchronized. It still seems like there would be occasions of hit-and-miss. It's all very interesting.

So far it seems to be really accurate. I think you are correct that it is due to lack of technology that it cuts out the whole phrase. But it does not take away from the movie in any away atleast as far as I am concerned. To some it might be a little annoying but it has not bothered me in the least bit.

The following are some actual results. You might be surprised just how many swear words your kids hear during a typical 90-minute movie.


Movie Name Rated Total Cuss Words With TV-G % Filtered

Dr. Doolittle PG-13 41 0 100%

Independence Day PG-13 83 2 98%

E.T. PG 13 1 92%

Home Alone PG 12 1 93%

Lost World - JP PG-13 17 0 100%

Men In Black PG-13 66 1 98%

Dante's Peak PG-13 27 0 100%

Mrs. Doubtfire PG-13 21 1 95%

Volcano PG-13 58 0 100%

[mvealf]

I didn't say you enjoy the profanity. I was paraphrasing your own words. Obviously, I wasn't suggesting you wanted profanity added to movies. You said that you wanted to see the movie with profanity intact, which is what I said.

I DIDN'T SAY THAT!!! If you're going to quote me, then dig it up. I said, now listen carefully, that I want to see and hear movies the way the film makers originally intended. If that means the most offensive racial stereotypes, happy little kitchen conversations, bad or hateful language, bunnies hopping around a wheat field, gore and violence, warm hugs from grandmothers, graphic sex, whatever ... I want to be exposed to the true vision. I'm an intelligent person who can handle anything thrown at me, and I can reach my own conclusions without a machine or person shielding me from anything.

Our difference lies in whether PapaBear deserves such scolding for quite harmlessly preferring to view the film with the profanity muted

I have to ask, but have you even read my posts? When have I ever scolded PapaBear? I even stated before that I respect PapaBear. If he wants to build his entire collection of things that makes him happy (isn't that what we all do?), then more power to him. I would even help him if he wanted. None of my coments have ever been directed towards a person, but rather my feelings about owning a censoring machine. It goes against my grain. I can't even imagine purchasing such a beast. Anyone who would want to buy this machine has a philosophy that is different than mine. But so what? I'm just sharing my opinion, which some others agree with. That's the point of a forum.

Just because you want to hear it that way doesn't mean he should have to, and that is the simple concept here.

I agree. And it goes the other way too. And again, I'm not being specific to any person, but over the past decade, censorship has been FORCED down the public's throat because of people who want to be shielded from things they don't like, which is very subjective. I resent anyone who makes a decision to withhold something from me, that is simply wrong. As I have said before, if ALL movies would be released uncensored, then I would whole heartedly support this machine.

I appreciate opposing viewpoints, but not hateful tones.

Any hateful tones you are sensing, are about censorship, not about you personally, so please don't take it that way.

[AwallaceUNC]

I didn't say you enjoy the profanity. I was paraphrasing your own words. Obviously, I wasn't suggesting you wanted profanity added to movies. You said that you wanted to see the movie with profanity intact, which is what I said.

I DIDN'T SAY THAT!!! If you're going to quote me, then dig it up. I said, now listen carefully, that I want to see and hear movies the way the film makers originally intended. If that means the most offensive racial stereotypes, happy little kitchen conversations, bad or hateful language, bunnies hopping around a wheat field, gore and violence, warm hugs from grandmothers, graphic sex, whatever ... I want to be exposed to the true vision. I'm an intelligent person who can handle anything thrown at me, and I can reach my own conclusions without a machine or person shielding me from anything.

I'm not seeing where what I said and what you said differ. If a movie was made with profanity in it, then you want to hear that profanity. Do you disagree? It's what you've said in the last 3 posts- you want to see what was included by the filmmakers, including the profanity. That means that you want to see the movie intact, with the profanity intact. I don't know what you got out of what I said, but clearly we aren't on the same page here. In other words, you did] say that.

I have to ask, but have you even read my posts? When have I ever scolded PapaBear? I even stated before that I respect PapaBear.

I was referring to the topic of the entire thread, not your posts alone. We (all of the members participating in this thread) are discussing PapaBear's choice to watch movies with the TVGuardian.

I agree. And it goes the other way too. And again, I'm not being specific to any person, but over the past decade, censorship has been FORCED down the public's throat because of people who want to be shielded from things they don't like, which is very subjective. I resent anyone who makes a decision to withhold something from me, that is simply wrong.

We entirely agree on that point.

As I have said before, if ALL movies would be released uncensored, then I would whole heartedly support this machine.

But what fault lies with the machine? If anything, as deathie mouse and some others pointed out, it furthers the cause. If the offended viewers can edit things out for themselves, then nothing will ever have to be released uncensored (though I think we all know that will probably never happen- Corporate Public Relations is a force to be reckoned with).

Any hateful tones you are sensing, are about censorship, not about you personally, so please don't take it that way.

Excellent.

-Aaron

[2099net]

But what fault lies with the machine? If anything, as deathie mouse and some others pointed out, it furthers the cause. If the offended viewers can edit things out for themselves, then nothing will ever have to be released uncensored (though I think we all know that will probably never happen- Corporate Public Relations is a force to be reckoned with).

Well, technically this can be done now with normal DVDs. Multiple soundtracks allow for one with no profanity and seamless branching could, if used carefully, remove any nudity or violence.

But it doesn't happen. And I doubt it ever will, increased HD-DVD capacity or not. I just don't think the demand is there (surely if it was, studios would be doing it?)

[mvealf]

I'm not seeing where what I said and what you said differ. If a movie was made with profanity in it, then you want to hear that profanity. Do you disagree?

You are being specific, and I'm being broad. You could also be saying, "you want to hear racial slurs" or "you want to see gratuitous violence". No, I don't necessarily WANT to see and hear those things. What I want is to see and hear is the original concept so I can understand it fully. I also want to see dance numbers that have been censored, or religious references, or dialog about controversial topics. Don't just limit it to profanity. If you are going to quote me, don't say, "then you want to hear that profanity", because hearing you say that outside of my context is too limiting and doesn't sound accurate to me. If you are going to quote me, then say, "you just want to see the version the way the film maker intended". Pretty simple.

[AwallaceUNC]

I was never driving the point that you want to hear or enjoy hearing profanity just for the sake of it. My point the entire time (it was actually only a statement, not so much a point, but that's what it's been made into) is that you want to hear profanity or [insert here violence, nudity, etc.- though the discussion at hand is profanity] if it is part of the film. That's what I have said over and over and over. I'm not out to make you look like a lover of profanity, and nothing I said indicated that. In fact, quite the opposite. And I think you know that, or at least I would hope so.

Netty- Really? I haven't seen any DVDs like that, though I do remember there being a lot of buzz about that "advantage" of DVDs when they were first being made available. It's certainly easy enough to do. But yeah, like you said, the demand isn't there for it to become commonplace. And I guess that's where TVGuardian comes into play.

-Aaron

[Escapay]

About midway through the second page so far, I realized that this thread has become repetitive with just the same speculation and arguments and didn't bother reading the rest, so forgive me if I repeat anything. This is my opinion on the matter...

1. Filmmakers create their movies, profanities intact, because that is their vision of the movie. They should at least have that right that it remain intact in any public viewing (theater showings). But, I don't think this includes network broadcasts. While a network broadcast is a "public" viewing, it is being received in the privacy of one's home. I believe the filmmakers' rights end at the front door of a private home.

2. In a private home, the homeowner has chosen what he or she wishes to watch or not watch, what to hear and not hear. They choose to turn on the television, or put the DVD into the player. It is their choice to view a filmmaker's movie the way they intend to, not the filmmaker's. That's why some people still buy full-screen instead of wide-screen, the bars annoy them and they don't mind a cropped picture. (I personally would rather have a full picture and bars).

3. Devices such as the TV-Guardian are made for homeowners/DVD buyers who choose to view movies in the privacy of their own home, on their terms (i.e. no profanity). No one should tell them "it's censorship" because it is not censorship. Censorship is more of a public matter, where you change something so the general public won't be offended. When done in the privacy of home, it shows it is the choice of a private party, not of the general public. So I would support devices such as TV-Guardian, because it is my right and my choice to buy it or not and use it in the privacy of home. These devices are made for home, and not for a public use. Now, if they started having movie theaters equipped with TV-Guardian, that would be a problem because it is giving a censored version of a filmmaker's movie, because it is being shown to a general public.

4. PapaBear is just sharing his joy that he has purchased a device that allows him to enjoy a movie, IN HIS HOME, ON HIS TERMS. Whether you see this device as a censor, well, that's your thoughts, not the general public's (unless you go out and ask everyone their opinions). He is choosing to watch a movie, he bought the movie, the disc is his property. The filmmaker had rights to airing that movie when it was made and screened in theaters, but once it becomes a private property on a disc in a private home, those rights are gone, and PapaBear or anyone else can do damn well whatever they please with the movie. They can lock it in a safe, they can frame it on the wall, they can use it as a frisbee. It's theirs, they paid for it. How they choose to view it should not be a problem for anyone but the ones viewing it. If PapaBear and others embrace a device like TV-Guardian that allows them to watch a movie profanity-free, good for them. If anyone objects to it, then they can buy TV-Guardian, and throw it away for their own satisfaction that they have defeated censorship in the private home.

5. DVDs, heck any movie or television show or book, should be bought, sold, viewed, read, etc. exactly the way a filmmaker/tv producer/writer intended for it to be. It should be up to those who are actually purchasing these products to choose what they do and don't want to watch/hear. Personal censorship, so to speak.

*As for the cases of Fantasia, Melody Time, Make Mine Music, I believe that Fantasia was later "cropped" during the Pastoral Symphony segments featuring the young black centaur slave girls because Walt decided to change it. He was the filmmaker, it was his choice, and apparently that's the way he wants the film to be viewed later on.

6. Censorship, Ratings, and TV-Guardian are not rules, saying you have to follow this and that. They're guidelines (okay, got this metaphor from POTC). They're there as recommendations, things to take into consideration when you wish to view or purchase a movie. It does not state anywhere that people who hate hearing profanity are therefore limited to watching only G and some PG-rated movies. The censorship/ratings/tv-guardian are showing that a movie may have several aspects that you don't thoroughly enjoy (such as people being stabbed to death in a horror flick, or frequent cussing in a "gangsta" movie), and it's of your own free will whether you choose to watch it, knowing fully well what you will be exposed to.

Anyways, yeah, that was a whole bunch of ramblings by me. Congrats PB on your new DVD-player. PB received a dvd-player with TV-Guardian, and he chose of his own free will to do so, so if he wants to view movies "modified" to suit his tastes, it should be no one's problems but his own, so everyone can just shut up about it. Unless of course, they still enjoy this rather delightful but long argument/discussion/debate about censorship. If that's the case, go right ahead, cause I'll be lurking for the duration of this thread.

ETA: the edit was a "do" to a "don't", everything else is intact.

Escapay

[Chicky Mouse]

I believe the filmmakers' rights end at the front door of a private home.

Your belief is incorrect. Why do you think you get the lovely FBI warning telling you what you are and are not allowed to do, without getting the permission of the copyright holder? If their rights ended as you say, then you wouldn't need their legal permission for anything.

3. Devices such as the TV-Guardian are made for homeowners/DVD buyers who choose to view movies in the privacy of their own home, on their terms (i.e. no profanity). No one should tell them "it's censorship" because it is not censorship.

It's censorship. Self censorship is still censorship. The person doing the censoring doesen't change the definition of the word. Look it up.

The filmmaker had rights to airing that movie when it was made and screened in theaters, but once it becomes a private property on a disc in a private home, those rights are gone,

You are wrong. The film maker has all of the rights, even when you own the DVD.

and PapaBear or anyone else can do damn well whatever they please with the movie.

And someone could buy the Mona Lisa and paint a mustache on it because they think it looks cool. But that would be disrespecting the original artists intent, now wouldn't it?