Well, all my concerns over ClearPlay technology seem to be for naught. Bush signed the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 which makes a specific copyright exemption for the technology that allows the filtering of sex, violence, and profanity from DVD playbacks, without the director’s permission:
Summary of S 167
Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 … Title II: Exemption from Infringement for Skipping Audio and Video Content In Motion Pictures – Family Movie Act of 2005 – (Sec. 202) Creates an exemption from copyright infringement for: (1) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing from an authorized copy of the motion picture; or (2) the creation or provision of technology that enables such editing, is designed and marketed for such use, creates no fixed copy of the altered version, and makes no changes, deletions or additions to commercial advertisements or promotional announcements that would otherwise be performed or displayed.
Am I reading that correctly? ClearPlay editing is only legal as long as it doesn’t remove commercial placement? Hmm… lots of movies feature subtle (and not-so-subtle) product placements. I think I’ve figured out how Hollywood can get around ClearPlay! Wanna show a naked boobie? Have the “Coke” logo painted on it!
If I’m getting this right, ClearPlay can sell and consumers can program it so their DVD’s skip sex, violence, and profanity, but not commercials? What if a studio released a movie with a 30-second commercial embedded in the film, and that commercial contains sex, violence, and profanity? Looks to me like ClearPlay would have to play that complete, unaltered commercial.
Wow. It’s interesting to me that commercials get more protection than the movies themselves.
Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to protect from liability for trademark infringement: (1) persons who engage in the above-referenced conduct; and (2) manufacturers of technology that enables such editing if notice is provided that the performance of the movie is altered from the director’s or copyright holder’s intended performance.
In other words, as long as the ClearPlay screen says: You are now watching a ClearPlay censored version of “Saving Private Ryan”, it’s OK. Sort of like how the TV versions of movies start with This movie has been edited for content… except of course, the TV versions had to get the permission from the director to do that.
Now, though, it looks like TV stations won’t have to get that permission anymore. Re-read that language that says making imperceptible… limited portions of audio or video content… transmitted to that household for private home viewing… As long as the “private household” requests that some material should be censored, the TV station can use technology to filter it. Now, add to that FCC regulations that limit what can be broadcast on public airwaves, using the concept of “community standards”, one could argue that all households are, in effect, asking to have this censorship applied. I wonder how that is going to play out.
Anyway, I shouldn’t be surprised that Bush and the Republicans rammed this law through, appeasing both the Religious Right (you can filter naughty bits) and the Corporations (but you can’t skip commercials). Congratulations, Carl and Steven. For now, you’ve won.
Though still, I can’t see what good copyright protection is if it doesn’t protect the whole, unaltered work of the artist. What’s next? Museums offering “Family Day”, where certain parts of certain paintings and statues are covered with masking tape (hey, it’s technology that filters offensive content without harming the original work! The tape can be removed on the other week days). Libraries where certain words and passages in certain books are covered with some new electronic white-out that can be programmed from the book’s cover?
I just don’t understand why some people feel they have the right to modify art to suit their tastes. If certain art offends you, don’t view it! There is no Constitutional right to watch “Schindler’s List” on your TV with the kiddies present. The scene of naked emaciated Jews being force marched in prison camps is a portion of what makes the whole statement of that piece of art. If you think the kiddies or yourself are too sensitive to see jiggling geriatric genitalia, then you or your kiddies are too immature to grasp the full meaning of “Schindler’s List”. Go rent “Garfield: The Movie: or something.
