 |
LA Times Op-Ed On Clean Flicks |
|
 |
 |
Posted by Raul Ruiz on Monday, November 11 @ 09:42:43 EST
|
|
|
 |
 |
Our own Ernest Miller has published an op-ed (There Shouldn't Be a Remote Control on How We Watch DVDs) in the LA Times about the Clean Flicks controversy.
The main crux of the story deals with control. Should content creators be able to dictate how their work is privately displayed, or should their limited monopoly, i.e. copyright not extend into the realm of private viewing? Miller argues that with a book, you are able to control how you view the contents. Why should DVDs be any different? I guess one answer (that I don't agree with) is that they can be different. Try rearranging pages with your new e-book. I'm hoping that consumers don't go for these types of business models.
I think Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit puts it best when he, referring to the DGA, says "These guys don't just think they own their movies. They think they own you."
UPDATE: As the LA Times requires users to divulge personal information in exchange for access to the newspaper, LawMeme posts Mr. Miller's article below.
You may be interested in our earlier coverage on the Clean Flicks case:
There Shouldn't Be a Remote Control on How We Watch DVDs
What would you think if you had to get permission from the architect before you could have your house painted another color? How would you feel if the photographer had to agree with your selection of a frame for a favorite photograph? What if the director of a movie could decide when it was OK for you to fast-forward through a DVD you had rented?
Sounds crazy? The last example is now the crux of a lawsuit brought by the Directors Guild of America against a number of companies that make DVD-playing software.
What has the DGA up in arms is the emergence of new technology that controls the playback of DVDs so that they can be enhanced with additional material, such as audio commentary by a film historian, or allows parents to filter out content they feel is inappropriate for their children.
In the words of DGA President Martha Coolidge: "They are taking films and using technology to alter them without permission from either their directors or their copyright holders."
But Coolidge's argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Unlike the technology with CleanFlicks, which permanently alters the videotape, technology from companies such as ClearPlay, Movie Mask and Family Shield requires the viewer to have a legitimately purchased or rented DVD. The home viewer then plays the movie while simultaneously running the software, which instructs the DVD player when, where and for how long to skip specific visuals or mute selected audio in the film.
The software does not -- nor can it -- alter a single second of the rented or purchased disc. It only alters the playback of that DVD. Rented disks get returned in exactly the same condition as when customers received them.
What the DGA is claiming is not the right to prevent alteration of a work, but the right to control how an individual watches a DVD in the privacy of his or her own home. What the DGA is saying is that you either watch a film its way or not at all. What the DGA wants to take away is consumer choice.
The DGA argues that consumers already have a choice: They can choose whether to buy or rent a film. But directors also have a choice. If they don't want people to watch movies in ways they don't approve, they don't have to sell or rent DVDs to the public. Directors should have a right to control what they release to the public. But the directors' right to control content ends once they sell the DVD.
When you buy a book you can highlight portions or rearrange pages. A friend can recommend that you rip out the boring chapters and read only the climax, and neither the author nor the publisher has a right to stop you. Why should movies on DVD be any different?
When a DVD is legitimately purchased or rented, consumers should have the right to play it with software that enhances their personal viewing experience. Parents should have the right to skip a second or two of gratuitous nudity in an otherwise family-friendly film. Film buffs should have the right to watch a film with an alternative audio commentary by an expert such as Roger Ebert, without permanently altering the disc.
Ultimately, the issue is one of control. Technology has given consumers the ability to control how they watch movies in their homes, and the DGA wants to take that control away by banning the technology. Even if you don't have kids, aren't much of a film buff or love graphic movies, do you really want Hollywood dictating how you view DVDs in your own home?
|
|
 |
| |
 |
Login |
 |
 |
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name. |
|
 |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Article Rating |
 |
 |
Average Score: 4.57 Votes: 7

|
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
"User's Login" | Login/Create an Account | 21 comments |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
Re: LA Times Op-Ed On Clean Flicks (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Monday, November 11 @ 15:32:15 EST | I haven't read it yet, as the link in question points to a page that requires divulging all sort of personal information and agreement to certain terms of use in exchange for reading the article. If you take a look at the terms of use that you must agree to in order to read Mr. Miller's article, there is quite a bit of irony to be found.
E.g.:
"Copyright. All information, content, services and software displayed on, transmitted through, or used in connection with Latimes.com , including for example news articles, reviews, directories, guides, text, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips, video, html, source and object code, trademarks, logos, and the like (collectively, the “Content”), as well as its selection and arrangement, is owned by Tribune Interactive, Inc. (“TI”), and its affiliated companies, licensors and suppliers. You may use the Content online only, and solely for your personal, non-commercial use, and you may download or print a single copy of any portion of the Content solely for your personal, non-commercial use, provided you do not remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from such Content. If you operate a Web site and wish to link to Latimes.com, you may do so provided you agree to cease such link upon request from Latimes.com."
I suppose this includes Lawmeme?
"No other use is permitted without prior written permission of Latimes.com. The permitted use described in this Paragraph is contingent on your compliance at all times with these Terms of Service. You may not, for example, republish any portion of the Content on any Internet, Intranet or extranet site or incorporate the Content in any database, compilation, archive or cache. You may not distribute any Content to others, whether or not for payment or other consideration, and you may not modify, copy, frame, cache, reproduce, sell, publish, transmit, display or otherwise use any portion of the Content. You agree not to decompile, reverse engineer or disassemble any software or other products or processes accessible through Latimes.com , not to insert any code or product or manipulate the content of Latimes.com in any way that affects the user’s experience, and not to use any data mining, data gathering or extraction method."
etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Any chance of Mr. Miller posting a registration-free copy of the article somewhere more copyleft-friendly, or has he transferred his copyright to the Latimes.com? |
[ Reply to This ]
Re: LA Times Op-Ed On Clean Flicks (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Monday, November 11 @ 21:10:56 EST | It's understandable that artists would not like new technologies that are able to automatically alter copyrighted artistic expression. And yet it's also clear that people want an easy way to filter their own viewing at times. But the ClearPlay, et. al. creators are making filtering decisions in the architecture of the code, which might invisibly takes away the choice from the viewer. I think this is similar to the filtering at libraries. Directors and other artists are worried that users won't be able to chose what is filtered because the program willl make those choices for them. It is different than highlighting pages in a book, because the architecture of the book is obvious, the pages, spine, printed words are there in front of you, and you have total control over that architecture once it's in your possession. But programs, to most users, are mostly invisable. And the decisions embedded in the code decide a lot and are not under the total control of the user.
In addition, why would you want to watch Dirty Harry will all the violence removed? It seems like the point of the movie is that violence is horrific. Don't watch the movie if you don't want horrific violence. But taking violence out of Dirty Harry completely changes the movie. As for other movies halfway down the scale between R-17 and G, I can see parents wanting to limit those scenes with too much violence. But it may be that a lawsuit is needed to sort out the architecture standards in the code, before both sides can live with the software filtering programs.
|
[ Reply to This ]
Re: LA Times Op-Ed On Clean Flicks (Score: 0) by Anonymous (Name Withheld on Advice of Counsel) on Monday, November 11 @ 22:05:36 EST | I find it horribly misleading when Mr. Miller descibes the DGA as wanting "the right to control how an individual watches a DVD in the privacy of his or her own home."
It sounds to me like these software companies are taking that right for themselves.
The DGA wants only -- and rightfully -- to ensure that a third party can't come in and control how a creative work is displayed.
Getting the architect's permission before painting your house is a worthless and misleading analogy. The real analogy would be if you altered a blueprint without asking the architect whether the resulting house would still stand up -- or if he minded having his name on the crumbled ruins left behind.
If it's parental controls you want, that's one thing. But, near as I can tell, all this software does is take the control *away* from the parents and put it in the hands of some programmer who has done nothing to demonstrate that they are equipped to be the arbiter of what my child should or should not see.
Why is it bad to trust a director's choices, but good to trust the censor's choices? Why is that faceless programmer any more trustworthy than the filmmakers who take credit for their own work?
The fact that this software does not permanently alter the material is irrelevant. Banning books from a library does not permanently eradicate those volumes. But that doesn't make it a harmless activity.
- Michael Gilvary, Los Angeles |
[ Reply to This ]
|
Leges
humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die
All stories, comments and submissions copyright their respective posters. Everything Else
Copyright (c) 2002 by the Information Society Project.
This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set
forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later
(the latest version is presently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).
You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php
|