EFF Supporting Home DVD Editing

cheesedog writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a brief in federal court in support of companies that offer software to edit violence or sex from a user's DVD. The full story can be found in this article from the Salt Lake Tribune."

Yes, let the Mormons edit their DVDs

As long as I can still view all the sex and violence I want, then I'm fine with it. Personal censorship is a right.

Re:Yes, let the Mormons edit their DVDs

This should be protected by the first sale principle of the copyright law. I buy a video, I hire clean flicks to remove the stuff I don't want my kids to see. I keep the edited copy they make. The MPAA hates the first sale principle, but there would be no such things as public libraries, used book stores, or used CDs without it.

At least they're consistent

This should be protected by the first sale principle of the copyright law. I buy a video, I hire clean flicks to remove the stuff I don't want my kids to see. I keep the edited copy they make. The MPAA hates the first sale principle, but there would be no such things as public libraries, used book stores, or used CDs without it.

Last I checked, the **AA and the book publishers' organizations hated public libraries, used book stores, and used CDs. They've argued that libraries should pay royalties, that selling used books and CDs should be illegal, etc. So don't be surprised at this stance.

Re:Yes, let the Mormons edit their DVDs

As a Mormon, I'd have to agree. If I want to see a good movie, without the sex & language, why not?

I'm still paying for it. I'm not selling the changes or forcing them upon anyone.

I just get to watch my video (I payed for it), in my home, on my terms.

You would think Hollywood would welcome the chance to relaim customers, but apparently all they're intent on is reducing society to the lowest common denomiator, with no exceptions.

Re:Yes, let the Mormons edit their DVDs

If I want to see a good movie, without the sex & language, why not?

Because you're not watching the same movie. You're watching a film that's been edited to mean something entirely different to that intended by the artists who produced it.

Do the artists that produced the film have a right to force you to watch the movie all the way through, without bathroom breaks? Can they physically restrain you from pressing the "Fast-Forward" button? Or from hiring someone to do so on your behalf? Or from watching it on your 12" Black-and-white TV, without surround sound?

The argument that the artistic work has somehow diminshed through the editing doesn't hold water here, because the people who buy Clean Flicks know exactly what they are (not) getting. People who pay for movie tickets expect and deserve the whole unedited movie. People who buy Clean Flicks expect and deserve a cut-up version. What's the problem?

Re:Yes, let the Mormons edit their DVDs

You know, that quote is far less poignant and powerful when it's used to talk about DVD editing rather than the systematic killing of millions of Jews, Roma, homosexuals, and Slavs.

I would never do this to myself.

They would have my support if they supported tools to add sex or violence though.

Re:I would never do this to myself.

I am strongly in favor of the director deciding what the viewers see. After all its their movie. Movies are a work of art

We need to make a law, or some new technology, to prevent people from fast forwarding through the parts they don't want to see.

You should not get to skip advertisements in a tv program either, because after all, it is their show, and the show and ads together are a work of art that should be seen the way they want you to see it.

JOIN TOGETHER TO BAN FAST-FORWARD CONTROLS!

Now suppose I did the horrible thing of distributing an "edit list", let's say, a text file, that your DVD player, or TiVo, or Freevo or Movix could directly only play the parts that you wanted to see. No copyright material is being distributed. Just an edit list. The edit list allows some people to skip the sex and violence. Other people can skip directly to the sex and violence. Some people can watch only ads with no content. Others can watch content with no ads.

But of course, you feel strongly that people should not be allowed to watch only the parts they want.

What if I go to the art gallery and only look at the bottom halfs of paintings? Or what if I look at them all upside down? This is not what the artist intended. Should I have a right to do this?

Should you have a right to have any say so whatsoever over what content I watch in my home? I want to skip directly to/over the sex/violence/commercials/etc. What is wrong with this?

Why not just watch what's already there?

They would have my support if they supported tools to add sex or violence though.

Or, given that the technology exists to cut out the sex and violence, why not make a drive that skips everything _except_ the sex and violence?

It would certainly make Van Damme's movies watchable.

Clockwork Orange

Every time I read something about this STUPID argument, it makes me thing of the movie Clockwork Orange.

YOU WILL WATCH IT! Here are the toothpicks.

It ups the potential audience size

, so what's the problem?

"Consumers are being empowered to use technology to customize the way they view something in the privacy of their own home, and this makes Hollywood nervous," said Jason Schultz, the EFF attorney

I don't see why empowering the customer in this way would be bad for Hollywood. The customer wins, but I don't see the flipside loss.

Is it that Hollywood would want to sell their own software to do this? Is it lost opportunity cost?

Re:It ups the potential audience size

it must be converted into an editable format first

That's wrong. What we're talking about here is a system that recognizes a DVD and looks at its (the systems not the dvds) data (probably downloads it from somewhere) and then automatically fastforwards past the bad parts. How does noting that minute 25-27 contains sex require access to the data on the dvd? All you need is a player and a notepad

Re:It ups the potential audience size

I don't see why empowering the customer in this way would be bad for Hollywood. The customer wins, but I don't see the flipside loss.

The argument I've heard is that the film's directors disapprove of their work being "altered" so as to change the artistic vision. This was in connection not with software for consumers but in the context of companies that were reselling modified discs to consumers, but if all copyright conditions are fulfilled (paying for each copy of the disc up front) I don't see why the cases would be different.

I for one don't recall hearing any directors or studios complaining about the damage to their artistic vision when their films get edited for TV audiences and they get a big royalty check...

My guess is the real motive for opposing this technology is that the implicit copying involved would be a step onto a slippery slope that undermines their draconian stance on copy control.

Re:It ups the potential audience size

If customers assert their right to control something they (gasp) actually own, they might (gasp) get ideas above their station.

Maybe they'll want to show their kids a version with sponsorship messages and product placements removed. It's not difficult to imagine a (PC based) player that takes a "blurtrack" file which matches a DVD, and superimposes a blur over parts of the screen that I don't want crammed down my throat.

Maybe they'll want to watch the basketball but have the TV show a replay rather than listen to the network's shamless shill proclaim "I'm going to Disnaeland".

Moreover, the EFF is defending the principle that the customer should control what they've already paid for. That the customer can watch a US region movie in Australia. That the customer who bought the home version of "I know what you did last Tuesday" can watch it on their laptop, on their cellphone, can listen to the soundtrack without the dialog, can skip over the ten minutes of trailers and ads that preceed it.

Hollywood doesn't want the consumer having this control. It devalues their advertising and prevents them from reselling you the same material over again in each format you want to use.

If I can edit out the sex and violence...

I can also edit out the coming attractions, Pepsi commercials, stupid music videos and other forms of 'coordinated marketing'...

...and therein lies the rub.

Re:Not very important

To the contrary, this is very important.

Personally, I have no problem checking out Kate Winslett naked in "Titantic" - it was probably the only good part of the movie for me.

But if somebody else wants to buy the movie and edit it to remove those parts, that should be their right as owners of their own property.

This case goes to the issue of what do you own. Do you own the DVD and the movie contents inside, to modify as you please? If that is the case, if you purchase a full version of the movie, the artist/producer/copyright holders all get their money, are you not allowed to then take it to some other third party to edit out scenes you don't like? Or if you are a third party dealer, can you buy the movie, edit it, and sell the edited versions with the same profit going back to the original copyright holders (for example, you include the original DVD, and for an extra $5 - $10 dollars you can get the PG version as a separate disk that says "Edited by John's Prude Company".

What if you want to make dance remixes of a song? Can you buy the CD, take it into a professional DJ, and have him give you a CD with the music you bought with the various other remixed music inside?

So while the issue is rather silly - (Oh, No! A Utah Mormon might see a breast or hear the F-Word! Runnnn!), the central idea of ownership is far from it.

Of course, (as Dennis Miller was oft to say), I could be wrong.

Editing DVDs

From the article:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a brief in federal court in support of companies that offer software to

edit violence or sex from a user's DVD. The full story can be found in this article from the Salt Lake Tribune.

I have no problem with the violence or sex. What I want to edit out are the mandatory previews, FBI warnings, "The comments made are those of the individual and not the studio", kinds of things. Those bother me far more than the content of the video. Any word on if that's a possibility?

I think that this is good

Because it lets people self-censor, rather than a giant company doing it for all of us. This lets people who don't mind (or even enjoy) violence and sex to see more of it, and those who do mind can watch the same stuff, sans sex and violence. Anything to increase the granularity of censorship is great in my book.

I totally support this idea

To me this is like muting the TV when the commercials come on. The notion that "editing" content being wrong or illegal? Come on. What are they going to do next, tell you you can't cover your eyes during a scary part of the movie?

Editing...

There's selling pre-edited movies. I'd say that should be protected under Doctrine of First Sale, as long as it's clearly labeled, but that argument doesn't appear to hold much water in cases so far.

Then there's selling companion data which DVD players could use on-the-fly to edit out portions of movies. Since the companion data wouldn't even quote the original media, it's quite likely it would hold up to any sensible interpretation of the law.

Re:Editing...

I have no problem with home-editting equipment that lets a person edit a movie that they have purchased in their own home (although I find the idea repulsive in general). But editting movies and reselling them is definitely a bad idea IMO. Yes, they can label the movie as being editted, but there isn't a way to know what was editted, so there they are basically selling a copy of the movie that is butchered, and no one knows what was butchered. If something in the movie doesn't make sense, is it because of the editting, or because of the movie? People then make assumptions about the movie and director/producer/actors/whoever based on a product they didn't create. It would be like taking LoTR and rewriting select parts of the book. I then sell that book (with a note saying parts were "editted") and people refuse to by any other Tolkien books because that one made no sense (because of my rewrites). I am changing the artists vision.

I remember The movie industery promising this.

When dvd's where just out, I remember hearing That you could watch a the movie with a lower ratting. But now since they failed on their promise (or claim) third party company's are filling the niche. Then the Movie studio's get angry.. Wait didn't they say that dvd's could filter stuff for me.. And then never put that filtering feature in. Seems to me that some directors are just high and mighty and need some humbling.

Your DVD, Your Player, Your right

This makes sense to me. This is not forced censorship in anyway. This is self censorship for those who wish to have it. While I would never use this product I can see where families wanting to not have to explain sex and violence because the kid is in shock, but rather when it seems the time is right. Let kids stay kids, and quit always thinking they need to be exposed to things to "learn". A good parent will teach a child a base for everything they need to learn. Be honest with your kids, but you be the parent, not the MPAA.

Keep in mind that...

This isn't about sex and violence, but about the DVD owner's rights to fair use. As well as other things, fair use is supposed to guarentee us the right to edit and view DVD's we own however we want. As most of you are aware, the MPAA doesn't like this and is trying to prevent it. That is what the EFF is standing up against.

Re:Double Edged

This would be like going to a museum and taking crayola's to a Rembrandt.

No, it would be like taking crayolas to a reproduction of a Rembrandt. The original art isn't defiled in any way.

My Rights!

"Consumers are being empowered to use technology to customize the way they view something in the privacy of their own home, and this makes Hollywood nervous," said Jason Schultz, the EFF attorney who filed the brief

Perhaps this is because they'd rather force feed our brains with crap some of us don't like viewing with small children in the room, or even just because some of us (??) find it objectional

Schultz argues that companies like ClearPlay and Trilogy do not infringe on movie copyright because those laws or restrictions only apply to public performances or involve "derivative works," in which the movies are drastically changed

Drastically changed and sold in mass... THAT would be illegal. It's no different if I bought a DVD and wanted some of the violence or sex "skipped" by a third party. This is all Trilogy Studios in Sandy, ClearPlay in Salt Lake City and CleanFlicks of Salt Lake City are doing.

I don't see much wrong, if anything at all if I wanted to skip or edit something I owned - so if I can buy this product from a third party where certian items are "skipped" then I'm more inclined to purchace there.

Re:Finally opposed

People make something, it ought to be presented to the public the way it was envisioned

No, you have it wrong. The EFF isn't standing for public censorship. Rather, they're saying individuals should be allowed to cut out things they don't want their children to see. I agree that if it was a broad-based public censorship, then it would be bad. But basically all their advocating here is a fair use right for individuals (or families) to do what they want with something they bought. That is totally something I can understand.

For example, my mom still hasn't seen all of Saving Private Ryan because she couldn't get through the first five minutes, which is just the beginninng of a very realistic portrayal of the storming of Normandy beach. If I were to cut out some of the most disgusting scenes for her, then she would probably watch it and enjoy it. I don't see why this should be wrong.

She also doesn't like swearing, and if a movie has a lot of F--- this and F--- that, she's very likely to be turned off by it even though she says she likes the plot. She should be allowed to do that if she wants.

It's all about user's choice. The censorship is self-censorship, and therefore totally permissible (and supportable) IMHO.

Torn here, Against or For the issue.

While I do believe using someones else artwork, and changing it should be illegal, just as taking someones song and editing out parts you don't like and re-selling it.

But I also believe the consumer should have the choice to skip over any part. If they want to pay someone to do that for them, then its ok. Just as you buy black lists for email or websites.

Tough call, but I think I side with the Artists on this one if its a simple edit. If its a normal option to view both uncut/cut, then I would agree with the CleanFlicks.

The likely outcome...

...are DVDs with built-in parental control via the disc's menus. In order to watch the unedited movie you have to enter a code from the DVD packaging, otherwise you get a sanitized version, free of any "offending content" via seamless branching.

This will nip the "What about the CHILDREN!?!?!" and religious fundamentalist justifications for editing/manipulating content, since parents can just toss/hide the adults-only code for the DVD so that junior is stuck with the G version.

It will also serve to get the right-wing Republicans backing their activist constitutents doing the editing to stop being interested in fair use issues and back with the rest of the Republicans in legislatively enshrining MPAA corporate objectives.

They'll still offer the non-code-based DVDs to the rest of us, so that filmies and others won't whine to loudly about this inconvenience.

"Everybody" wins -- Mormon kiddies don't see titties, filmies get "normal" DVDs, the MPAA gets Orrin Hatch off his back AND can get back to kicking home editors in the ass.

EFF Press Release

I still don't understand why people don't put this kind of stuff in their story submissions. Here's the EFF's press release [eff.org].]

David Lynch

"I know that most DVDs have chapter stops. It is my opinion that a film is not like a book - it should not be broken up. It is a continuum and should be seen as such. Thank you for understanding" - David Lynch on why his DVDs have no chapter stops.

I think I would agree with this philosophy. If you dont like parts of a movie, try to live with it.

Unfortunately the real shame of this case is...

That the Hollywood Studios are represented by people that think that they should only protect Hollywood's interests. This translates in over-protection which unfortunately treads on the

If I am a concerned parent who whishes his children to enjoy a good piece of art like a movie, but as a concerned parent don't want some "bad memes" (ideas, images and feelings) to taint my offspring so early, why shouldn't I be free to choose a software that helps me in my role as educator?

The reason is this: Hollywood has already drawn their cards: they will want to sell me again special dvd players which will play specially crafted dvds which have the memes that the Hollywood makers allow me to screen off to my children (so that I can jump the gunfight, but not the scene were the female co-protagonist drinks soft drink "X").

All this is a shame because:
a) Hollywood will not satisfy all the public
b) real competition in "volouteer censoring software/hardware" will not ensue, bringing along worse hardware or software with all the flaws (maybe not being children proof like the 99% of the technology today preposed to it...)
c) again Hollywood stomps on the common sense.

It was a bad day when technology compaines began investing in movie companies.

Thanks to it more movies were produced, and more money was invested for a little time, but on the long run if one of the two sides has a crises, the other half can't say it's party time :(

Greater acceptance of film in religous communities

Utah, and Utah County (the location of Clean Flicks) have a majority LDS community. The LDS faith has been instructed by it's leadership to avoid seeing rated "R" films. This is a moral decision made by the LDS leadership as a guideline for it's followers.

The down-side to this is that there are a number of good films that should not be viewed by LDS followers. "Schindler's List" is a great example of this. It was rated "R" for violence and mature themes. However, it is a powerfull film made to tell an important story. BYU, the LDS church owned university in Utah County, could not show this film to it's history students, due to it's graphical nature and it's violation of the honor code that the BYU students agree to. Given the import of that particular film, I would love to hear that an edited version could be made available for those who want to see it, without violating the guidelines their faith lays out for them. Given the particular moral outlook of the prominent faith in Utah, I think it is great that a good film can be made to conform to the expectations of the largest demographic in the community.

I live in Utah, but am not a follower of the LDS faith. Many of my friends are, and they will either not go to any "R" rated movie, or they tend to get a guilty feeling if they do. A few have made the decision to judge which films they will see (i.e. avoid films with the "R" rating for sexual scenes or foul language, but not for violence). The ability to make a decision that will not violate their beliefes is a good one. I support Clean Flicks, even though I would not use their service.

The MPAA and the film industry need to come to the realization that their current view on the "Ownership" of the film medium needs to be changed. Then Clean Flicks and other companies might not need to face stupid lawsuits or worse, legislation.

Augmented / Annotated media

This technology is really just the tip of the iceberg.

This is a limited form of annotation and augmentation. For my final year project at uni, I created a web annotation project using a modified KHTML, KIO, and Konqueror.

The idea was that any entity could publish annotations of any uri addressable resource, and any portion of that resource via content specific identifiers - eg XPath for xml, substring matches for text, svg shapes for images, etc etc.

These annotations, which could also carry an rdf payload, were signed, and a web of trust created. The annotations were shared via a p2p network modeled on fast track, implemented in python.

Then whenever a location was visited, your client would perform a search for that uri, evaluate the trustworthyness of the annotations, and then display the ones it thought were useful. Moderation, in the slashdot sense was just a special form of annotation.

These annotations would be passed to the active component, and then, if it knew how, rendered appropriately. It also allowed eg. collaborative porn/ad/change-your-useragent-to-msie-for-these-id iots filtering. Oh, and backlinks, using a partial XLink implementation.

It was a fairly neat project, and I got good marks for it, but I've never got round to polishing it up and releasing it - not sure if the KHTML would like all my changes anyway!

I had created a limited form of the Semantic Web, and when I do release it, I want to model the whole system just using rdf.

The other area I wanted to expand it to was collaborative tv ad filtering. Labeling TV show broadcasts with a unique urn, eg
urn:/BBC/Black Adder/03x04/Broadcast/UKGold/2003-04-14T2200 , and then use the same trust model to cut out ads, and add subtitles, commentarys, even hyperlinks and backlinks. Also geographic urns annotation presents some very exciting possibilty such as collaborative mapping and reviews, eg restaurants.

Well , now thats off my chest I just need to win the lottery, pay off my student loans, quit this mind numbing banking job and implement it... ;-)

No justifiable argument against this.

I don't see any justifiable arguement against people doing this. If I want to buy an expensive painting and draw on it or use it for TP, that's my business I own it. If I want to rip a DVD, edit out swearing, heck add my own scenes, in my home for my own use, then that's my *right* if I bought and paid for the DVD. I own it. I'm not one to go on about rights all the time, but this seems pretty damned cut and dry to me. Obviously distributing the modified DVD or copying is against the law and reasonable, other than that TS for the MPAA.

And I would've thought for DVD that it would be a great move for movie companies to include an edited track and cut of the movie on a DVD anyways - they're going to have to do it for TV, so why not get that out of the way, plus increase the sales of the DVD?

What if this story was without EFF involvement?

I wonder how the /. community would have reacted on a story saying "there's this company that wants to make software that can be used to censor DVD content".

Or better yet- "M$ will put a feature in their next MediaPlayer release that will give the ability to auto-detect certain DVD titles and skip certain scenes".

I just wonder how many of us would be on the side of Microsoft if it came to that...

Just because the Good Guys are pursuing this one, I feel that many here are swayed in favor. I for one feel that censoring a (possibly artistic) work amounts to intellectual rape, in extreme cases, which for me outweighs the right of a buyer to mutilate his property.

On the other hand I do applaud the EFF for taking this stand, regardless of the eyebrows it will raise.

Well Duh

It's sad that the entertainment industry is so out of touch that they take a case like this to court, and the EFF has to waste resources submitting friend of the court documents because the legal system is so screwed up that some judge might actually agree with them.

Of course consumers have the right to view DVDs and skip any part of it for any reason, too much sex, not enough sex, too boring, Jar Jar Binks, etc.

Next they'll tell us we aren't allowed to skip commercials or go to the kitchen while they're on, oh wait, didn't they attack TIVO on those grounds?

So many hypocrites

Is this the same crowd that believes that once they buy a music CD they can do whatever they want with it? Are these the same people who believe they should be able to tweak someone else's software so it fits theirs needs?

I cannot understand why any of you give a rat's arse what someone else does with their purchased copy of a movie. This has nothing at all to do with offending the artists and everything to do with freedom. It is truely amazing seeing all the hypocrites whine.

Keep the fight going...

just a reminder, the folks over at eff.org can always use your support [eff.org]. TMH

Slashdot!!!!

I think I'll sue Slashdot for providing software to censor user's posts. This threshold is censorship!!!! I want everyone to see my lame postings.



I have a patent on suing people for copyright infringement

Clever choice of issue

I really like how this is an EFF case where they are on the knee jerk conservative side of things. They're not supporting some drug crazed anarchists here, but ultra wholesome Mormons. That can only help.

Just don't waffle...

If you feel that this is a just and good thing, then please don't yell at studios and directors for cutting new versions of classic films.

While it may be quite unreasonable (as Lucas has done, and as Turner did before him) to remove a film from distribution entirely after you have made a change, and only distributing the new version, I can't say that anyone has the right to tell such a studio or director to NOT be unreasonable. Certianly as fans, we can voice an opinion, but I've heard some people try to claim that there's some "right" that we have to old movies in the form in which they were released... that's just silly.

I might mourn that I can't get the old version of a film, but I have no right to expect Hollywood to BE the collectables market or an archive for such....

As for companies that do this sort of modification, I respect them. They provide a service that people want, and while I do not think that people should rely on such a service to shelter themselves or their children, I can see the point of letting your kids see The Matrix: Reloaded while not keeping the "She wasn't kissing your face, love" sceene.

this is all a load (read on to find out why)

directors alter their "vision" ALL THE TIME! after all show me a director that's not going to chop up his "vision" to avoid an NC-17 or *gasp* an X rating. This is the whole reason for the "directors cut" in the first place (barring tech advances, right Mr. StarWars).

i don't care for the self rightous fire and brimstone religious nut jobs any more than anyone else, but hey hollywood choke on my nob.

oh, and utah, save the world, impload. (and that's for starters)

have a nice day :-P

Wow

Congratulations to the EFF and the majority of Slashdot viewers for sticking to your principles. It seems too often lately that I hear people argue a particular point with some moral justification, only to later hear them abandon the moral justification when it supports some other point that the arguer is against.

To spell it out: the moral is that "You've bought it, you can do what you want with it." (Within reason, of course.)

I personally may not edit movies, but I fully support the rights of others to do so, once they've bought it. Besides, we all know how some movies get a sex scene "tacked on" just to titillate the dating audience. In these cases, the people editing movies are probably improving the movie by doing so.

Anyway, I am even more appreciative of the EFF (although not really surprised, they're good guys) and more impressed with Slashdotters in general (what is the world coming to? :).

CleanFlicks.com Vs. Aliens

One of my favourite quotes on the subject, taken from the CleanFlicks [cleanflicks.com] site, describing the classic film Aliens...

"Personally supervised by director James Cameron, this special edition includes scenes eliminated prior to the film's 1986 release which broaden the narrative scope and enrich the emotional impact of the film."

...

Which they then go on to remove :)

Screw that 'auteur' garbage

Why are so many people defending the 'auteur' image of directors? It ignores the input of the scriptwriter, actors, editors, cinematographers, etc, etc, etc. Show me a mainstream movie where the director did all of that. Yes, the director has a very heavy hand, but he is not the end all, be all.

Perhaps most of all, it ignores the audience. Trust me, as funny as 'Friday' was, nothing beat seeing it in a theatre where my brother and I were the only white guys in attendance. Would scary movies be as scary without a bunch of other people jumping at the scary bits?

I remember when the format was first released. One of the things touted was the ability to show different versions on the same disc. All you were supposed to have to do was tell it to play 'clean', and the violent and sex bits would automatically be skipped.

The question isn't why are the MPAA and the DGA fighting this. The question is: why are they leaving this market untapped? How far could Cameron get without $100 million + in studio backing? Screw him. And after Godfather III, I could care less what Coppola (or his daughter:) have to say on the subject.