-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bush Signs Bill to Let Parents Strip DVDs
- Thread starter goodcow
- Start date
- Status
Smiles and Cries
Member
Cool, we should keep all american children in little glass cages until they turn 18 
Family Entertainment and Copyright Act?
Well I for one say this FECA Law sucks....
At least it doesn't seem to be giving the OK to those services that sell tamed-down versions of Hollywood movies. But as far as I'm concerned, unless it's a movie with maybe 30 seconds of "questionable" content, what's the point? Changing Kill BIll to "Hurt Bill?" Sin City to "Black and White City" and so on?
Well I for one say this FECA Law sucks....
At least it doesn't seem to be giving the OK to those services that sell tamed-down versions of Hollywood movies. But as far as I'm concerned, unless it's a movie with maybe 30 seconds of "questionable" content, what's the point? Changing Kill BIll to "Hurt Bill?" Sin City to "Black and White City" and so on?
Well, I don't see much wrong with it if it's used for parents and young children. Beyond the scope of that though, well really, I guess I don't see much wrong with it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, so can someone clarify for me? Is this basically saying if I buy a movie I can choose to edit out shitty scenes if I so choose? If that's the case, I don't see a thing wrong with it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, so can someone clarify for me? Is this basically saying if I buy a movie I can choose to edit out shitty scenes if I so choose? If that's the case, I don't see a thing wrong with it.
SlickWilly223
Time ta STEP IT UP
Well I don't really give a shit since I won't be watching these "edited versions." So I say go for it.
The only thing keeping me unsure about this whole thing is whether or not this is going to increase censorship on all kinds of media to the point where it gets way too out of control...
The only thing keeping me unsure about this whole thing is whether or not this is going to increase censorship on all kinds of media to the point where it gets way too out of control...
Jive Turkey
Unconfirmed Member
Well you see the problem there is that would require parents to actually take an active role in parenting. This way if we serilize the ENTIRE WORLD then we won't have to worry about school shootings. After all I went on a shooting spree the first time I saw a boob.Claus said:
King Jippo
Banned
This part is why Hollywood didn't fight this. In fact, they seem quite happy with this bill. One small company in Utah can continue on with its niche offering and Hollywood gets tougher copyright enforcement laws.
element
Member
it isn't what you edit, it is what the chip picks up as offensive. so someone other then you is deciding what is offensive. who are these people? what do they find offensive? do you agree with it? does the government have influence? does major religous parties have influence?
pretty much makes people with the best lobbiest, deciding what you will be able to see.
element
Member
no, it is if you buy a DVD player that has the chip in it and have it enabled. it will edit material out.skip said:
Some movie companies are providing 'edited' version of certain films, similar to the music industry with 'clean' or 'radio friendly' versions.
this makes it legal for companies to make products that edits a movie, and not get sued for copyright infringment.
fine, so the consumer has to a) buy the protection-enabled player, and then b) enable it to edit offensive material out. you are ultimately deciding what you are able to see.
they clearly want their content edited, and if it's not edited to their liking (if sex/violence somehow sneaks by), then their beef is with the dvd player manufacturer and their shoddy protection. the rest of us can buy/disable whatever we want.
(but I would agree that if anyone is profiting off this business model, then yeah, they should have to pay the copyright holders.)
they clearly want their content edited, and if it's not edited to their liking (if sex/violence somehow sneaks by), then their beef is with the dvd player manufacturer and their shoddy protection. the rest of us can buy/disable whatever we want.
(but I would agree that if anyone is profiting off this business model, then yeah, they should have to pay the copyright holders.)
This the exact kind of functionality I was imagining when DVD players first came out. I actually assumed (naively) that this feature was going to be built in to every box. It's so simple to allow the user to basically reedit the movie to his/her liking. I have a bunch of movies that I'd love to watch only 50% of in one sitting.. like cutting out the excess background scenes, or horrid romance scenes (i.e. Star Wars Episode II) .. I was frothing with anticipation over being able to just cut together the action scenes in a movie like Equilibrium. Sure.. short movie but what an intense one.. I've already seen the movie a dozen times.. I don't need all that useless filler in my 13th viewing.
wait, is this still chip limited??
wait, is this still chip limited??
dskillzhtown
keep your strippers out of my American football
You know....this was one of the selling points of DVDs when they were first introduced. The ability for parents to turn an R-rated movie to a PG-13 movie with the touch of a button. That, a long with the ability to pick your own camera through the movie never really came a reality.
I don't see it as a bad thing and I am not sure why there needed to be a bill to protect the technology. Seemed like this was something courts should have decided.
I don't see it as a bad thing and I am not sure why there needed to be a bill to protect the technology. Seemed like this was something courts should have decided.
Ninja Scooter
Member
i don't really see the harm in this. Yeah, its stupid, but if thats what certain parents want to do, more power to them. They've been selling censored versions of CDs and tapes for ages now, this isn't much different to me. Hey, it could be worse, Bush and his right wing wackjobs could be trying to censor ALL movies for EVERYone.
But an R rated movie isn't necessarily just R rated because of nudity, or swearing. The whole tone of the movie can be dark or adult in nature. Still not suitable for children to watch.
Its kinda funny how this is creating 'airline edited versions' for home viewing, and at the same time Airlines are getting less strict on content - BA has certificates on content (which you can lock for childrens seats). So sideways has full on dangly bits.
Its kinda funny how this is creating 'airline edited versions' for home viewing, and at the same time Airlines are getting less strict on content - BA has certificates on content (which you can lock for childrens seats). So sideways has full on dangly bits.
Instigator
Banned
Shouta said:
Indeed, we've seen their kind before. I ain't fooled by that typo.
Although I don't neccesarilly agree with the logic behind it, I don't think the government should get involved and make it ILLEGAL for parents to have control over what their kids watch. At the end of the day, they can just as easilly fastforward past a scene or ban their kids from watching a film altogether, so giving parents a choice over what their kids can view isn't exactly new.
The reason there is a bill to protect this technology is because the company that device doesn't automatically know how to convert a R movie into a PG-13 movie. The company also sells preprogrammed filtering scripts that will play a dvd in a certain way to remove offensive content. This is controversial because movie corporations consider these preprogrammed filtering scripts to be a copyright violation and have been suing to get royalties from the say of th scripts. This bill effectively says that the preprogrammed scripts do not violate copyrights.
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
mrklaw said:
:O
NOW I'VE HEARD EVERYTHING!
Flynn said:
I don't think so. The scripts are really just a timeline telling the DVD player which bits to skip. Its not doing anything on the DVD itself. Nothing different than the parents pressing FFWD at set times.
Perhaps they could release some LCD glasses that shut at 'naughty' bits, so the kids don't get harmed but the parents still get to see the good stuff. It'd need some headphones that play preset Winnie the Pooh phrases over swearwords too.
So if a movie has a scene where an important character gives a piece of information related to the development of the story, and she has her titties out during the whole scene, the DVD will skip through it?
What an excellent idea, turn parents into even lazier people by letting home appliances raise and educate their children instead of them.
What an excellent idea, turn parents into even lazier people by letting home appliances raise and educate their children instead of them.
Outcast2004
Banned
Claus said:
BINGO! This is EXACTLY what's wrong with young parents these days...
NO ACCOUNTABILITY!
look don't try to have everyone else monitor your kids for you, be an active parent and pay attentio to what you child is viewing.
Like the V-chip... WTF!?! Like changing the channel is so hard. God forbid people actually take responsibility for their offspring.
I'm not a parent yet, but I'm damn sure going to keep a fine eye one what my children listens to or watches. At least I know they are mature enough to handle it.
Too much violence in the movie... TURN IT OFF!
Too much sex content... TURN IT OFF!
too much harsh languge.... TURN IT OFF!
Easy solution isnt it?
Fucking slacker parents....
My uncles bought their parents a DVD player that censors profanity. i'm assuming what it does is read the subtitle track, then bleep the audio upon finding one of the words in its dictionary. It's an interesting concept and i've yet to see it in action for myself." So why don't they jusy get G-rated DVDs," you ask? Well it's not like they starting a hude DVD collection, but i'm sure they'd rather not have to hear profanity, even "mild" profantiy that's on daytime tv. i know my grandparents don't watch a lot of tv, but they're pretty selective about what they watch, and my grandma's mentioned that they unnecessarily swear a lot on certain shows.
If parents want to use this as a way to filter language from their children, it's their choice. But i think it's silly if they expect bleeped language to save their children, even in movies that don't have overt sexuality or violence. Unless their children have been extremely sheltered, they'll know many of the things being said, and such simple censorship does nothing to remove the suggestive themes prevalent throughout the rest of the movie. i think my mom handled it pretty well by telling me what what words were profaned, and then telling me that they weren't allowed in her house and why.
If parents want to use this as a way to filter language from their children, it's their choice. But i think it's silly if they expect bleeped language to save their children, even in movies that don't have overt sexuality or violence. Unless their children have been extremely sheltered, they'll know many of the things being said, and such simple censorship does nothing to remove the suggestive themes prevalent throughout the rest of the movie. i think my mom handled it pretty well by telling me what what words were profaned, and then telling me that they weren't allowed in her house and why.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
evil ways said:
Welcome to the 90s
err wait....
Lotta bullshit floating around in this thread that I feel needs correcting...
1) There is no material loss to the movie companies as a result of filtering technology, and, as such, their protestations are farcical; further, the "artistic integrity" angle (i.e., that it "violates copyrights") is unpersuasive, because a parent sitting there in front of the TV with their kid is also going to "edit out" (i.e., skip over) questionable scenes, just like this filter does-- what's the difference there, qualitatively? There is none. Hence, unless film studios would sue for copyright infringement when parents sat down with their kids and did the same, there's no excuse for it here.
2) We have a bunch of hypocrites in this thread who will incessantly cry that "the parents should do their jobs", yet when technology is made available that will make that job easier and more feasible in a changing world, they lambaste it. It's easy to say, "the parents should monitor their children more closely" (a notion that I agree with in principle)-- however, when said parent works two jobs, or works long hours, or works odd hours, and there's no familial support structure in place, it's not that easy to do so. You people act like this is the 1950's, where mothers were home at 3 PM when school let out. It's not-- and most of the people bitching about the purported "ramifications" of this technology wouldn't want society to be that way anyway, so it's doubly amusing in that sense. Changing times call for novel solutions to emerging problems.
3) Though the fact that this bill contains no protections for those selling edited versions of motion pictures might initially seem troubling-- seeing as how it's designed to protect the interests of the major studios, in keeping with Bushco's general pandering to big business-- it's entirely proper in this instance, as in this case (i.e., the selling of edited versions of films) there is a material loss to the content producers. Clearly, producing said films and not paying licensing fees is llegal and must be remedied. The argument that the bill was shuttled through to help ClearPlay Inc. make money, however, is silly, as there is obviously a market for the technology either way-- this bill was simply addressing the legal aspects in terms of protection against lawsuits (the grounds for which are specious, as seen in #1).
If anyone takes issue with anything said herein, I'd ask them to answer the following question:
What, precisely, is the difference between a parent sitting at the TV with their child and fast-forwarding offensive scenes and this filtering solution? The answer should not hinge on the fact that one cannot be sure whether one's personal standards of decency as a parent would be exactly the same as the company's, since I'm sure parents would do some research and if the company's standards were found to be so different from their own, they would simply not purchase DVD players equipped with the tech.
Yes, obviously it would be nice if every family earned enough with one bread-winner to adequately provide for themselves, but unless you're going to lobby hard for substantial corporate reform, that's never going to be the case again. Why should parents not have at their disposal such effective, time-saving solutions in an increasingly fast-paced world? Yes, parents should spend as much time as humanly possibly with their children-- on this there is no argument. But what about when circumstances conspire to ensure that they can't? Does that mean that we should oppose sensible measures which would allow them to still do their job to at least some degree?
Finally, I'd like to point out those who have made idiotic comments in this thread:
Cool, we should apparently not see anything wrong with children who have little or no adult supervision for whatever reasons watching the licentious tripe that Hollywood regularly purveys.
So just because a parent might find certain scenes questionable, it means that they view the film in its entirety as pointless? Let us be frank: the number of Hollywood movies that actually have "artistic integrity", and "vision", or any sort of socially redeeming value can be counted on one hand in any given calendar year. Everyone knows this. So there's really no "vision" being violated in the majority of instances.
Regardless, however, this brings us back to the crux of the issue: how is this any different from parents fast-forwarding flicks at home? Unless you can come up with an answer as to how it's different (again, qualitatively-- I don't want to hear, "in one case the parents are involved and in the other they aren't"), then I suggest you rethink your stance. And if you're insisting that parents should not have the right to do so in their own homes, with their own children, then I'd suggest that you're as much a totalitarian as you suppose those you're crusading against are.
Enlighten me as to how this technology-- which no one is coercing you to buy-- is "sterilizing the entire world." Thanks.
Censorship at the content-production stage is obviously ridiculous. This is not. I trust you'll summon the combined might of the scant few brain cells you have to figure out what the differences between these two things are.
And, as an aside, if you can't see any connection between lasciviousness and crime (on a broad societal scale), then you should do some more thinking in your life. Before I hear the hue and cry of our resident sexaholics, allow me to note that I am not suggesting any sort of one-to-one correspondence between these two phenomena, as if every promiscuous or sexually active person is somehow more prone to violence-- it's much deeper than that. I don't have the time to elaborate, however, as this was just a tangent.
Now for those who made non-idiotic comments I'd like to reply to:
I'm sure you'll admit that those are extreme examples. What of the vast majority of films where there are perhaps a few scenes of a questionable nature (for younger teens and pre-teens) with the rest of it being okay? At least the kid would still get to see the movie (however redacted), and could talk about it with his or her peers; I'd tend to think that's better, and leaves less of an opening for ridicule, than a kid having to say to his friends, "no, my mom didn't let me see that movie", and having his parents derided as "lamers." Yes, there's a chance (and, given the nature of kids, a good chance) that the conversation will eventually center around stuff like, "hey, did you see those titties?", in which case the kid would have to fess up that he didn't-- but then again, we cannot prepare for every eventuality; I just feel that this tech is a step in the right direction for parents who might be unable (note: not "unwilling") to police their children.
What possible merit can you think that such claims as these movie studios are making have? Especially in light of the analogy between this technological solution and a parent simply fast-forwarding certain scenes at home. Do you think they'd sue parents who did that for themselves? If not, then why here? There's no material loss (i.e., people are still buying copies of their films), and the alleged "artistic loss" is the same in both cases. You've always seemed like a level-headed guy, and I'm honestly curious is all...
Maybe you have one older and one younger child and bought the movie for the elder? Maybe your child borrowed it from a friend unbeknownst to you? I can think of a million and one ways a child can come into possession of content that their parents would not deem acceptable (lord knows I did in my youth)-- does that mean that we should stand against sensible measures which would help to guard against the ill effects of such content?
(and, make no mistake, everything we "take in" as people makes an impression on us, consciously or otherwise-- the only question is, "to what extent?" Towards this end, people on this board, and in general really, tend to underestimate the impact of popular culture, since most of us come from stable family situations which mitigated the damage done by said culture; we should not assume that everyone else is as fortunate as we were, however)
This is end-user censorship, essentially by the parent. Censorship at the content-production stage is abhorrent, and anyone with good sense can see how misguided it is. One does not necessarily beget the other, however, no matter how many Orwellian vibes the administration gives off at times. I think we need to make a clear distinction there.
Negligence on the part of parents is undoubtedly a dire problem. However, the existence of, and success of, this technology is not going to dramatically change the level of said involvement either way. Actively involved parents will remain so, and those disinclined towards raising their children properly will remain so. If anything, this will allow parents who want to be more involved but cannot to have another option.
Parents-- the unwilling ones, that is-- are "lazy" for a variety of reasons, none of which are going to change anytime soon. What should we do, then, in the meantime?
That's just how I see it.
1) There is no material loss to the movie companies as a result of filtering technology, and, as such, their protestations are farcical; further, the "artistic integrity" angle (i.e., that it "violates copyrights") is unpersuasive, because a parent sitting there in front of the TV with their kid is also going to "edit out" (i.e., skip over) questionable scenes, just like this filter does-- what's the difference there, qualitatively? There is none. Hence, unless film studios would sue for copyright infringement when parents sat down with their kids and did the same, there's no excuse for it here.
2) We have a bunch of hypocrites in this thread who will incessantly cry that "the parents should do their jobs", yet when technology is made available that will make that job easier and more feasible in a changing world, they lambaste it. It's easy to say, "the parents should monitor their children more closely" (a notion that I agree with in principle)-- however, when said parent works two jobs, or works long hours, or works odd hours, and there's no familial support structure in place, it's not that easy to do so. You people act like this is the 1950's, where mothers were home at 3 PM when school let out. It's not-- and most of the people bitching about the purported "ramifications" of this technology wouldn't want society to be that way anyway, so it's doubly amusing in that sense. Changing times call for novel solutions to emerging problems.
3) Though the fact that this bill contains no protections for those selling edited versions of motion pictures might initially seem troubling-- seeing as how it's designed to protect the interests of the major studios, in keeping with Bushco's general pandering to big business-- it's entirely proper in this instance, as in this case (i.e., the selling of edited versions of films) there is a material loss to the content producers. Clearly, producing said films and not paying licensing fees is llegal and must be remedied. The argument that the bill was shuttled through to help ClearPlay Inc. make money, however, is silly, as there is obviously a market for the technology either way-- this bill was simply addressing the legal aspects in terms of protection against lawsuits (the grounds for which are specious, as seen in #1).
If anyone takes issue with anything said herein, I'd ask them to answer the following question:
What, precisely, is the difference between a parent sitting at the TV with their child and fast-forwarding offensive scenes and this filtering solution? The answer should not hinge on the fact that one cannot be sure whether one's personal standards of decency as a parent would be exactly the same as the company's, since I'm sure parents would do some research and if the company's standards were found to be so different from their own, they would simply not purchase DVD players equipped with the tech.
Yes, obviously it would be nice if every family earned enough with one bread-winner to adequately provide for themselves, but unless you're going to lobby hard for substantial corporate reform, that's never going to be the case again. Why should parents not have at their disposal such effective, time-saving solutions in an increasingly fast-paced world? Yes, parents should spend as much time as humanly possibly with their children-- on this there is no argument. But what about when circumstances conspire to ensure that they can't? Does that mean that we should oppose sensible measures which would allow them to still do their job to at least some degree?
Finally, I'd like to point out those who have made idiotic comments in this thread:
Smiles and Cries said:Cool, we should keep all american children in little glass cages until they turn 18
Cool, we should apparently not see anything wrong with children who have little or no adult supervision for whatever reasons watching the licentious tripe that Hollywood regularly purveys.
ge-man said:
So just because a parent might find certain scenes questionable, it means that they view the film in its entirety as pointless? Let us be frank: the number of Hollywood movies that actually have "artistic integrity", and "vision", or any sort of socially redeeming value can be counted on one hand in any given calendar year. Everyone knows this. So there's really no "vision" being violated in the majority of instances.
Regardless, however, this brings us back to the crux of the issue: how is this any different from parents fast-forwarding flicks at home? Unless you can come up with an answer as to how it's different (again, qualitatively-- I don't want to hear, "in one case the parents are involved and in the other they aren't"), then I suggest you rethink your stance. And if you're insisting that parents should not have the right to do so in their own homes, with their own children, then I'd suggest that you're as much a totalitarian as you suppose those you're crusading against are.
Jive Turkey said:
Enlighten me as to how this technology-- which no one is coercing you to buy-- is "sterilizing the entire world." Thanks.
Censorship at the content-production stage is obviously ridiculous. This is not. I trust you'll summon the combined might of the scant few brain cells you have to figure out what the differences between these two things are.
And, as an aside, if you can't see any connection between lasciviousness and crime (on a broad societal scale), then you should do some more thinking in your life. Before I hear the hue and cry of our resident sexaholics, allow me to note that I am not suggesting any sort of one-to-one correspondence between these two phenomena, as if every promiscuous or sexually active person is somehow more prone to violence-- it's much deeper than that. I don't have the time to elaborate, however, as this was just a tangent.
Now for those who made non-idiotic comments I'd like to reply to:
Sickboy said:
I'm sure you'll admit that those are extreme examples. What of the vast majority of films where there are perhaps a few scenes of a questionable nature (for younger teens and pre-teens) with the rest of it being okay? At least the kid would still get to see the movie (however redacted), and could talk about it with his or her peers; I'd tend to think that's better, and leaves less of an opening for ridicule, than a kid having to say to his friends, "no, my mom didn't let me see that movie", and having his parents derided as "lamers." Yes, there's a chance (and, given the nature of kids, a good chance
) that the conversation will eventually center around stuff like, "hey, did you see those titties?", in which case the kid would have to fess up that he didn't-- but then again, we cannot prepare for every eventuality; I just feel that this tech is a step in the right direction for parents who might be unable (note: not "unwilling") to police their children.Dan said:
What possible merit can you think that such claims as these movie studios are making have? Especially in light of the analogy between this technological solution and a parent simply fast-forwarding certain scenes at home. Do you think they'd sue parents who did that for themselves? If not, then why here? There's no material loss (i.e., people are still buying copies of their films), and the alleged "artistic loss" is the same in both cases. You've always seemed like a level-headed guy, and I'm honestly curious is all...
Claus said:
Maybe you have one older and one younger child and bought the movie for the elder? Maybe your child borrowed it from a friend unbeknownst to you? I can think of a million and one ways a child can come into possession of content that their parents would not deem acceptable (lord knows I did in my youth
)-- does that mean that we should stand against sensible measures which would help to guard against the ill effects of such content? (and, make no mistake, everything we "take in" as people makes an impression on us, consciously or otherwise-- the only question is, "to what extent?" Towards this end, people on this board, and in general really, tend to underestimate the impact of popular culture, since most of us come from stable family situations which mitigated the damage done by said culture; we should not assume that everyone else is as fortunate as we were, however)
badabing said:
This is end-user censorship, essentially by the parent. Censorship at the content-production stage is abhorrent, and anyone with good sense can see how misguided it is. One does not necessarily beget the other, however, no matter how many Orwellian vibes the administration gives off at times. I think we need to make a clear distinction there.
evil ways said:
Negligence on the part of parents is undoubtedly a dire problem. However, the existence of, and success of, this technology is not going to dramatically change the level of said involvement either way. Actively involved parents will remain so, and those disinclined towards raising their children properly will remain so. If anything, this will allow parents who want to be more involved but cannot to have another option.
Parents-- the unwilling ones, that is-- are "lazy" for a variety of reasons, none of which are going to change anytime soon. What should we do, then, in the meantime?
That's just how I see it.
Umm, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I'm not claiming ClearPlay's technology infringes on movie studios' copyrights, nor do I actually think it. I fully suspect that courts would decide the same. I object to Bush going out of his way to attempt and prevent legal action from even running its course. I'm simply a person that believes strongly in the concept of a judiciary, and I don't believe there should be these exceptions that attempt to prevents issues from even being addressed there. Bush's actions just continually demonstrate a desire to circumvent, if not outright hinder, one third of our government, and I can't say I'm a fan regardless of the intention. Laws should be allowed to stand up for themselves.Loki said:
Dan said:
I agree that the courts likely would have found for ClearPlay, and I agree that many of Bush's policies are hostile to the judiciary, either explicitly or implicitly. However, unlike you, I do not believe that people, or entities such as corporations, should be permitted to file lawsuits for just any old reason. You can point to summary judgment and say that the suit would have been tossed outright, but with the clout that movie studios have, I doubt that would have been the case; it would have likely ended up mired in years of legal proceedings at great cost to taxpayers. Such a lawsuit is frivolous, if ever the term meant anything. Frivolous cases do not deserve to be entertained imo. If you believe that any person should be able to bring a lawsuit for any reason, costing taxpayers money and tying up our courts so that they can't deal with weightier issues, then that's just a philosophical disagreement between us which is best saved for the appropriate topic.
I simply don't have as much faith in our judiciary as you seem to. I've seen too many boneheaded decisions to believe that they're infallible, or even sensible in many instances. Something as common sense as this technology, which is self-evidently benign, quite clearly poses no threat to anyone. Why should our courts even waste their time with such specious claims? Our nation has by far the lowest burden of proof necessary to bring a lawsuit among first-world nations, and that, imo, is to our detriment on sum.
As for "who decides what is frivolous?", well, that's another matter entirely-- suffice it to say that other nations have functioning systems in place which address this matter. I apologize if it seemed that I read too much into your statement. I just thought that you were of the mind that clearly baseless lawsuits don't deserve to be heard, and thus the fact that you were stating that this case should be heard implicitly suggested that you felt it had at least some merit. That was an assumpion, and a mistake, on my part.
Again, though, this discussion is not for this topic.Loki,
Many of your points are valid. However, my main concern is not that this 'is doing the parents job'. Its that this technology will make parents less aware of what is being shown to their kids. Almost like "just put anything on, your DVD player in your room has that chip in it".
Its not just the skipping stuff. IMO the overall content and tone of a movie can be far stronger than a couple of 'f***s' or sex. And that stuff will still get through to kids. Its not about letting them watch an 'R' movie with the naughty bits cut out. They shouldn't be watching an 'R' rated movie in the first place, naughty bits or not. And the parental lock gives you that capability in all DVD players right now.
.
Many of your points are valid. However, my main concern is not that this 'is doing the parents job'. Its that this technology will make parents less aware of what is being shown to their kids. Almost like "just put anything on, your DVD player in your room has that chip in it".
Its not just the skipping stuff. IMO the overall content and tone of a movie can be far stronger than a couple of 'f***s' or sex. And that stuff will still get through to kids. Its not about letting them watch an 'R' movie with the naughty bits cut out. They shouldn't be watching an 'R' rated movie in the first place, naughty bits or not. And the parental lock gives you that capability in all DVD players right now.
.
mrklaw said:
You're correct also; however, I feel that any help is some help.
If the parental lock is as good as you seem to think it is, then this product will not sell as well as they think it will, as there is already a similar/superior product on the market. But it's never hurt us to have two slightly different solutions to the same problem before and allow the market decide which is the more viable of the two. More than anything, I just could not understand the extremely negative reaction this was getting. Suggesting that perhaps an existing technology is better suited for the task at hand is an entirely different matter, and one which I did not mean to focus on.
I think the negative reaction is completely expected from this board.
- There aren't that many parents on here
- Age is relatively young, therefore idealistic, leading to strong reactions not weathered by experience
- changing movies? gets the artistic bunch heated up right there (me too)
- There aren't that many parents on here
- Age is relatively young, therefore idealistic, leading to strong reactions not weathered by experience
- changing movies? gets the artistic bunch heated up right there (me too)
Loki-
Just to respond one more time our little sidebar topic, I don't necessarily disagree with you on frivolous lawsuits. I wish there was a way to fairly and efficiently prevent them, but I'm just not particularly sold on a solution. I can't say I've studied much about other nations' judiciaries, so I'm not up how this may have been accomplished to varying degrees of success. I won't claim our system is infallible, but I tend to think it's more reliable and consistent than Congress, with its members constantly striving to please the whims of their constituents, not to mention campaign donors. There are certainly problems with our courts, but I don't think creating laws to bypass them for specific issues is a solution. It just complicates the matter and ignores the root problems.
So, no harm done with any misunderstanding I enjoy political discussion whenever I can get it anyhow.
Just to respond one more time our little sidebar topic, I don't necessarily disagree with you on frivolous lawsuits. I wish there was a way to fairly and efficiently prevent them, but I'm just not particularly sold on a solution. I can't say I've studied much about other nations' judiciaries, so I'm not up how this may have been accomplished to varying degrees of success. I won't claim our system is infallible, but I tend to think it's more reliable and consistent than Congress, with its members constantly striving to please the whims of their constituents, not to mention campaign donors. There are certainly problems with our courts, but I don't think creating laws to bypass them for specific issues is a solution. It just complicates the matter and ignores the root problems.
So, no harm done with any misunderstanding
I enjoy political discussion whenever I can get it anyhow.- Status