My new DVD player with TV-Guardian!!!

[deathie mouse]

So does this mean I can't change the Star Trek movies' phaser beams to the blue hue from the tv show that I like anymore? *sniff


_________________
I like to watch blue phaser beams on 23:9 displays with tribbles

[Maerj]

How is this TV Gaurdian any different than watching a movie on television? They censor out violent scenes, sex, nudity and profanity on tv all the time. This device does the same thing, only its in the privacy of one's own home.

[AwallaceUNC]

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.

But those warnings have nothing to do with how you view the movie, which is the subject at hand. They concern what you and are not authorized to do with the work in public, as well as theft.

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?

That would also be irrevocably damaging the original work. If someone bought the Mona Lisa, they'd still technically have the right to do that, but it's an entirely different matter. It's not as if he's destroying the master copy of the film before anyone can get their hands on it. Muting profanity doesn't destroy the original work, it only changes the way one viewer chooses to observe it. I'd want someone to take off their sunglasses to see the Mona Lisa for the first time, but if they don't want to- that's their choice.

-Aaron

[Chicky Mouse]

But those warnings have nothing to do with how you view the movie, which is the subject at hand. They concern what you and are not authorized to do with the work in public, as well as theft.

He was going on and on about how the movie maker completely loses his rights after it is released to DVD. I was just pointing out that the oposite is true.

That would also be irrevocably damaging the original work. If someone bought the Mona Lisa, they'd still technically have the right to do that, but it's an entirely different matter.

One could argue that releasing Make Mine Music only in mutilated form, for generations to come, is also irrevocably damaging the original artwork. Being able to censor things only for yourself is a better way to go, but if people would just get it into their heads to NOT CENSOR AT ALL, AND JUST DEAL WITH THE REAL WORLD, then we wouldn't have to watch the butchered versions that have been released today.

[MickeyMouseboy]

I just traded my 5 disc Magnavox DVD player with a friend for his Sanyo DVD player with TV-Guardian (TV-G).
If you are interested you cna get it from Wal-Mart for$59.87.

What a rip off, your friend got the better system. I wouldnt trade a 5 disc dvd changer for no TV-G lol If you don't want to hear profanity then I suggests hitting the mute button, hearing the movie in another language or just don't buy movies at all That's just so dumb besides for the cheap $59.87 price you could have kept your 5 disc changer and bought you a TV-G DVD player. all we need now are ear plugs that edit out people's conversation when you're at work or running around.......

how about some Glasses that edit out vulgar gestures too! my my what a wonderful world that would be!

[AwallaceUNC]

He was going on and on about how the movie maker completely loses his rights after it is released to DVD. I was just pointing out that the oposite is true.

But it's not. The rights that he was referring to don't apply in the home, and those warnings deal with entirely different legalities, as I pointed out.

That would also be irrevocably damaging the original work. If someone bought the Mona Lisa, they'd still technically have the right to do that, but it's an entirely different matter.

One could argue that releasing Make Mine Music only in mutilated form, for generations to come, is also irrevocably damaging the original artwork. Being able to censor things only for yourself is a better way to go, but if people would just get it into their heads to NOT CENSOR AT ALL, AND JUST DEAL WITH THE REAL WORLD, then we wouldn't have to watch the butchered versions that have been released today.

But the TVGuardian doesn't alter MakeMineMusic, the company did. In fact, the device helps to prevent such censorship from occuring, which you seem to agree with. The problem isn't with people muting out certain words- it's the corporation. As long as they insist on preemptively acting on potential complaints by a minority of non-consuming "consumers," then no amount of force-fed profanity will solve the problem. TVGuardian can't be blamed, even in a roundabout way, for the type of censorship that occured with Make Mine Music, etc.

-Aaron

[Sekaino Jasmine]

Guys, guys, guys...There is nothing wrong with a TV Guardian, okay? All it does is mute the part where a bad word comes up and puts up a subtitle to replace it. It doesn't ruin the movie at all. It really doesn't. It's a little hard to get used to at first, but seriously, it's nothing to argue so much about.

It's kind of funny, though.

[Chicky Mouse]

He was going on and on about how the movie maker completely loses his rights after it is released to DVD. I was just pointing out that the oposite is true.

But it's not. The rights that he was referring to don't apply in the home, and those warnings deal with entirely different legalities, as I pointed out.

The whole thing is hypothetical. If you read his original statement, he said the film maker "should" have the right to have his movie shown intact in the theaters. Is that a legal right? The only legal rights are copyrights, which the film maker holds and has the power to enforce. All I'm saying is that the copyright is exactly the same in the theaters as it is on the DVD. Those are the ONLY rights they have, which don't change once the movie is inside somebody's house, like he was suggesting.

But the TVGuardian doesn't alter MakeMineMusic, the company did. In fact, the device helps to prevent such censorship from occuring, which you seem to agree with.

If given a choice between having a DVD released in censored form only, such as Make Mine Music, or having it released uncensored where people can use a machine to censor it for them, I would chose the later. However, the makers of the machine have nothing to do with the people who are censoring the DVDs, so the only thing this machine is really doing is adding MORE CENSORING!

As long as they insist on preemptively acting on potential complaints by a minority of non-consuming "consumers," then no amount of force-fed profanity will solve the problem.

Right, and no amount of force-fed censorship will solve it either.

TVGuardian can't be blamed, even in a roundabout way, for the type of censorship that occured with Make Mine Music, etc.

Obviously, TVGuardian wasn't around when Make Mine Music was censored. But people who think censoring is a good thing, can be blamed. And what do you know, those are the same people who LOVE TVGuardian. The fact that society thinks we require such a machine is both hilarious and nausiating.

[Kram Nebuer]

I wasn't sure if should post this, but here it is anyway...

This is a public announcement for everyone:

JUST DEAL WITH THE REAL WORLD

Exactly. So if some society or movie company or DVD manufaturer decides to censor then deal with it. If the artist/director/producer/etc. is not happy with this censoring then they should fight for it so it is avaliable to the public, so then the public can see the original, intended presentation. If these movies have been censored and released to the public and a percentage of the public is not satisfied with this edition and wants the original, then quit complaining to those with opposing viewpoints. Go and fight for what you believe is right and maybe you just might get it. If nothing works then

JUST DEAL WITH THE REAL WORLD

I don't mean any hard feelings to those who greatly support noncensoring. I understand you all believe that censoring will destroy/ruin the intentions of the moviemakers. I've been observing and reading all these posts and wondering..."Hey! Why is everyone complainging here? Shouldn't we just stop arguing among ourselves (a group of people with common interests who usually get along great on this forum) and just go straight to the source and tell THEM?" All this bickering and picking apart each others posts and this endless debating is getting on my nerves! What's gonna be next? An endless argument of whether Aurora's dress should really be blue or pink?

Have a nice day!

[AwallaceUNC]

The whole thing is hypothetical. If you read his original statement, he said the film maker "should" have the right to have his movie shown intact in the theaters. Is that a legal right? The only legal rights are copyrights, which the film maker holds and has the power to enforce. All I'm saying is that the copyright is exactly the same in the theaters as it is on the DVD. Those are the ONLY rights they have, which don't change once the movie is inside somebody's house, like he was suggesting.

Indeed, we did get off on a bit of a tangent, didn't we? We were discussing the assertion of an author's rights, spinning off of the precedent cited by Loomis. But the copyrights don't allow the filmmaker to dictate what the viewer does with the film in his own home, but they do allow him to dictate how it is shown in public. Therefore, there is a difference.

However, the makers of the machine have nothing to do with the people who are censoring the DVDs, so the only thing this machine is really doing is adding MORE CENSORING!

No, it's only computerizing what the viewers were already doing themselves with the 'mute' button. You said it yourself- if the DVD is censored, it wasn't by TVGuardian. 100% of the censorship came from the distributor of the film, or it isn't there at all. And again, the word "censorship" is thrown around far too hastily on this board.

As long as they insist on preemptively acting on potential complaints by a minority of non-consuming "consumers," then no amount of force-fed profanity will solve the problem.

Right, and no amount of force-fed censorship will solve it either.

Exactly. Disney force-feeds censorship. TVGuardian does quite the opposite- allowing omissions to be at the viewer's private discretion, thereby forcing nothing.

Obviously, TVGuardian wasn't around when Make Mine Music was censored. But people who think censoring is a good thing, can be blamed. And what do you know, those are the same people who LOVE TVGuardian. The fact that society thinks we require such a machine is both hilarious and nausiating.

I don't think that's necessarily true. PapaBear is a prime example. He's said multiple times that he doesn't wish censorship upon those who don't want it. He never called in and complained, and he's not asking others to abstain. Obviously, these aren't the same people. And I think it goes beyond PapaBear. Obviously, we're talking in hasty generalizations here. Neither of us can make declarative summarizations of a group of people we can't truly identify. But just as I can't say for certain that they aren't the same people, you certainly can't say that they are. In reality, it's probably a mix of both. TVGuardian seems to grate against the desires of those who have brought about past censorship, though. They want it deleted for the "good" of everyone. TVGuardian advocates personal choice.

And, the fact remains that if the company wouldn't listen to these people who "LOVE censorship," then it wouldn't occur. When these films were hacked up and printed onto DVD, it was entirely the company's fault.

-Aaron

[2099net]

I don't have time to check, but I believe the FBI copyright screen also says the work cannot be altered. I've opened a book here, which has similar conditions of sale and it says as part of the terms and conditions "cannot be multilated" (Mutilate: To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.)

The question is, is muting part of the work altering the work or not. As has been pointed out, the original disc is not amended in any way. Personally, if I was a lawyer I would argue it is altering the work as it is done automatically. It doesn't matter if the disc's actual contents are changed or not - the critical flow of the work is being altered as parts are being automatically removed. However, if a person mutes the sound manually or fast forwards over bits he doesn't care to see manually, it is not altering the work, as these are concious decisions and the viewer is aware of the films original content.

[Loomis]

The question is, is muting part of the work altering the work or not. As has been pointed out, the original disc is not amended in any way. Personally, if I was a lawyer I would argue it is altering the work as it is done automatically. It doesn't matter if the disc's actual contents are changed or not - the critical flow of the work is being altered as parts are being automatically removed. However, if a person mutes the sound manually or fast forwards over bits he doesn't care to see manually, it is not altering the work, as these are concious decisions and the viewer is aware of the films original content.

I think this is the point I was trying to make before. And you would make an exceptionally good lawyer 2099 (it took me 3 years of law to learn how to make an argument like that ). Part of those laws are connected to the moral rights of the author of the work (in the case, the studio that releases the DVD or the director/writer). As 2099 correctly says, given that the machine is making the decisions for you, the "critical flow of the work".

The act of screening this in a modified form, or allowing a device to modify films - even if it is for personal use - is the same as screening a film in a hall, oil rig etc. It is counter to the copyright laws.

This - along with other devices like Clearplay - are making good test cases, actually. I remember a few years back a video store franchise (Clean Flicks) that rented edited copies of famous films (largely doing what this device does). In an odd move, Clean Flicks STARTED the legal action, saying what they did fell under the "fair use" exemption. The Director's Guild argued it was an effort "to legitimize the unauthorized editing and alteration of movies."
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20020903.html

(Another good pro-free speech article is here: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/pr ... 20903.html).

Now some have said "The argument is somewhat undercut by the fact that the studios themselves alter movies for various markets, notably television, and for showing on airlines" (Source: Christian Science Monitor). However, in these cases, it is the studio doing the editing, not the consumer or a third party.

Altering a film, even after purchase, is not only highly unethical, it is quite possibly illegal too. After all, the filmmaker may have intended to make a sexy, foul mouthed film - but what the device is showing is a watered down version of their vision.

Anyhoo, I believe the case is STILL pending with Clean Flicks and Clearview, so it will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Some related links:

On a proposed Clean Flicks Bill: http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/004455.html

A 42 second version of Kill Bill for anyone?

[AwallaceUNC]

The question is, is muting part of the work altering the work or not. As has been pointed out, the original disc is not amended in any way. Personally, if I was a lawyer I would argue it is altering the work as it is done automatically. It doesn't matter if the disc's actual contents are changed or not - the critical flow of the work is being altered as parts are being automatically removed. However, if a person mutes the sound manually or fast forwards over bits he doesn't care to see manually, it is not altering the work, as these are concious decisions and the viewer is aware of the films original content.

Indeed, that is the question. You successfully summed up (more or less) two sides of an argument in one paragraph- good job. Obviously, I side with the latter. If I were the lawyer for the other side, I'd argue that in purchasing the film and the TVGuardian, the viewer is aware of the content and is making exactly the same concious decision as he/she does when using the mute or rewind/fast-forward functions, only through a different medium.

What's gonna be next? An endless argument of whether Aurora's dress should really be blue or pink?

Been there, done that! Make It Blue, Or Make It Pink?

-Aaron

[Chicky Mouse]

But the copyrights don't allow the filmmaker to dictate what the viewer does with the film in his own home,

If that were true, then there would be no need to show the copyright warning, the viewer could do whatever they wanted in their own home. Of course people already do whatever they want in their homes, but whether or not it's legal is another story.

However, the makers of the machine have nothing to do with the people who are censoring the DVDs, so the only thing this machine is really doing is adding MORE CENSORING!

No, it's only computerizing what the viewers were already doing themselves with the 'mute' button.

That would be censoring. You can't argue that TVGuardian does not censor. In fact, it can be called a censoring machine.

Exactly. Disney force-feeds censorship. TVGuardian does quite the opposite- allowing omissions to be at the viewer's private discretion, thereby forcing nothing.

Have you ever thought that it may actually cause MORE forced-censoring? Having to self-censor everything in your collection would be a HUGE job. Things could slip through the cracks, people will get tired of the constant fight, and complain "why should I have to PAY for a machine to filter for my innocent kids", etc. The machine could make censoring so common that they begin to expect it. I would love it if it would cause less forced-censoring, but the opposite could also happen. This is a "wait and see" situation.

I don't think that's necessarily true. PapaBear is a prime example. He's said multiple times that he doesn't wish censorship upon those who don't want it. He never called in and complained, and he's not asking others to abstain. Obviously, these aren't the same people. And I think it goes beyond PapaBear. Obviously, we're talking in hasty generalizations here. Neither of us can make declarative summarizations of a group of people we can't truly identify. But just as I can't say for certain that they aren't the same people, you certainly can't say that they are. In reality, it's probably a mix of both. TVGuardian seems to grate against the desires of those who have brought about past censorship, though. They want it deleted for the "good" of everyone. TVGuardian advocates personal choice.

I don't like to generalize people either. PapaBear may not fall into that category. What I was saying is that the people who are pro-censorship, like the mother who was successful at getting The Clock Cleaners permanently censored and removed from Wal-Mart because her 5 year old thought he heard profanity, are definately the type of people who would rush out and buy TVGuardian. Maybe I'm wrong, but call it a hunch.

And, the fact remains that if the company wouldn't listen to these people who "LOVE censorship," then it wouldn't occur. When these films were hacked up and printed onto DVD, it was entirely the company's fault.

And the people who demand censorship are completely innocent?

[AwallaceUNC]

But the copyrights don't allow the filmmaker to dictate what the viewer does with the film in his own home,

If that were true, then there would be no need to show the copyright warning, the viewer could do whatever they wanted in their own home. Of course people already do whatever they want in their homes, but whether or not it's legal is another story.

But what do the warnings say?? DVDs can be shown in a lot of places. As I already stated, the warnings concern public- not private- matters, as well as theft (which yes, you could argue can occur in public or private, but theft is a different issue than what is addressed by TVGuardian).

That would be censoring. You can't argue that TVGuardian does not censor. In fact, it can be called a censoring machine.

.
Actually, I can. In theory, it isn't possible to censor something from one's self. Censorship, a nasty and abused term, implies public denial of viewership, or denial of an author's original work being presented to the public. Now, if the machine took things out of movies by force, that would be different. But it is the viewers who are removing profanity from the films, the machine is merely their tool. This is a very important distinction. But everything I just typed is something I've typed before, so it's gotten to the point that we're just circling here.

Have you ever thought that it may actually cause MORE forced-censoring? Having to self-censor everything in your collection would be a HUGE job. Things could slip through the cracks, people will get tired of the constant fight, and complain "why should I have to PAY for a machine to filter for my innocent kids", etc. The machine could make censoring so common that they begin to expect it. If this would cause less forced-censoring, then it would be great. This is a "wait and see" situation.

Yes, we can wait and see, though it is extremely unlikely that this thing is going to take over normal DVD players across the nation. After all, similar "family-friendly movie" services have been around for a very long time. It has virtually no chance of actually increasing forced censorship. Will it reduce it? If it catches on amongst those who want censorship, sure. The greatest likelihood is that it will make no difference at all.

What I was saying is that the people who are pro-censorship, like the mother who was successful at getting The Clock Cleaners permanently censored and removed from Wal-Mart because her 5 year old thought he heard profanity, are definately the type of people who would rush out and buy TVGuardian. Maybe I'm wrong, but call it a hunch.

We'll call it a hunch, too, then, that this mother would rather skip the TVGuardian and still insist it be censored for the whole world.

And the people who were offended by what was censored are completely innocent?

Morally innocent? Debatable. At fault? No, not whatsoever. These people, in most cases, are non-consumers, and they are members of a VERY small (and only mildly vocal) minority. The corporation has no responsibility to meet their demands, and it doesn't really even benefit them. Has anything Disney done appeased them yet? No, they continue to gripe. But Disney chooses to listen anyways. In fact, Disney often takes preemptive measures to censor, alter, or omit things before anyone has a chance to make the complaint at all. The fault lies 100% with the Disney corporation, notorious for its unhealthy obsession with political correctness.

-Aaron

[2099net]

Morally innocent? Debatable. At fault? No, not whatsoever. These people, in most cases, are non-consumers, and they are members of a VERY small (and only mildly vocal) minority. The corporation has no responsibility to meet their demands, and it doesn't really even benefit them. Has anything Disney done appeased them yet? No, they continue to gripe. But Disney chooses to listen anyways.

The biggest fault is the threat of law suits. That's the reason. The west just has a society which is to litigious and jumps at apportioning any sort of blame onto others (with a nice hefty cash reward too).

[AwallaceUNC]

It may be a fault, yes. I can't imagine that a case over Make Mine Music would result in a victory for the complaintant, but you never know. I agree with you that the sue-happy culture is out of control. I still think the biggest cause is Disney's fear of bad PR. That's not a bad thing, but they overreact to what may come across as offensive.

-Aaron

[Chicky Mouse]

But what do the warnings say?? DVDs can be shown in a lot of places. As I already stated, the warnings concern public- not private- matters, as well as theft (which yes, you could argue can occur in public or private, but theft is a different issue than what is addressed by TVGuardian).

One of the lawyers mentioned earlier in this thread that copyright does mention "altering in whole or part" based on the moral rights of the author. It could be argued that because this machine is making the decision for you and "automatically removing" words, that it is infringing on the copyright. Copyright changes all the time, so this is for the lawyers to work out.

Actually, I can. In theory, it isn't possible to censor something from one's self.

I don't want to go around in circles either. You are using a very narrow defination of the word. I don't think of it as a nasty word, it is what it is. Self-censorship is a valid term. I don't think the defination includes a specific person who is doing the deed, it doesn't really matter who does it, removing is still removing.

We'll call it a hunch, too, then, that this mother would rather skip the TVGuardian and still insist it be censored for the whole world.

Yes, that would be the worst. Those kinds of attitudes, where they force their beliefs on others, are extremely narrow minded.

Morally innocent? Debatable. At fault? No, not whatsoever. These people, in most cases, are non-consumers, and they are members of a VERY small (and only mildly vocal) minority. The corporation has no responsibility to meet their demands, and it doesn't really even benefit them. Has anything Disney done appeased them yet? No, they continue to gripe. But Disney chooses to listen anyways. In fact, Disney often takes preemptive measures to censor, alter, or omit things before anyone has a chance to make the complaint at all. The fault lies 100% with the Disney corporation, notorious for its unhealthy obsession with political correctness.

Yes, I agree. As much as I love Disney, I can't understand why they are so cowardly in this regard. Disney is definately at fault. But the small yet vocal censor-demanding minority are still a group that I can't respect. If they think their opinions deserve respect, then they must respect others. Otherwise it's just bullying.

[AwallaceUNC]

One of the lawyers mentioned earlier in this thread that copyright does mention "altering in whole or part" based on the moral rights of the author. It could be argued that because this machine is making the decision for you and "automatically removing" words, that it is infringing on the copyright. Copyright changes all the time, so this is for the lawyers to work out.

It would be a fascinating legal battle. Again, I make the argument that the machine doesn't decide anything for you, and that the 'altering in whole or part' does not apply to personal, private viewership.

I don't want to go around in circles either. You are using a very narrow defination of the word. I don't think of it as a nasty word, it is what it is. Self-censorship is a valid term. I don't think the defination includes a specific person who is doing the deed, it doesn't really matter who does it, removing is still removing.

Then it may very well be that we've hit the wall of semantics. Censorship (and it seems this may not be the universal perception) must involve the denial of rights. If a person is choosing to not view something, they aren't being denied a right, so they can't be censoring themselves. But yes, let's not go 'round in circles. The courts would have to hack out how censorship applies to home video viewing. I'm making my argument based on my extensive legal dealings with censorship in journalism with my high school newspaper (yes, we were one of those newspapers ), in which case the law defined censorship more or less in the terms I've presented.

Yes, that would be the worst. Those kinds of attitudes, where they force their beliefs on others, are extremely narrow minded.

. Well looky there, we agree! They of course have the right to state their opinions and make any objections they wish, but I think it's silly of them to tamper in the way that they have in the examples we've discussed.

Yes, I agree. As much as I love Disney, I can't understand why they are so cowardly in this regard. Disney is definately at fault. But the small yet vocal censor-demanding minority are still a group that I can't respect. If they think their opinions deserve respect, then they must respect others. Otherwise it's just bullying.

Hmm. I don't think I, personally, would go so far to say that I don't respect them. Hmm, I'd have to give that more though. But I understand where you are coming from. Sounds settled to me.

-Aaron

[Chicky Mouse]

Hmm. I don't think I, personally, would go so far to say that I don't respect them. Hmm, I'd have to give that more though. But I understand where you are coming from. Sounds settled to me.

Well, for me, respect is earned. And the first step of earning it, is showing it towards other opinions, which they seem incapable of doing.