In case you’re new to this running dialogue, see:
Bleep & Cut Your DVD
ClearPlay DVD Filtering
More ClearPlay Discussion
Final Thoughts on ClearPlay
One More Time on ClearPlay
The Absolute Last Word on ClearPlay… until next time…
Carl writes:
Whenever you want to “go extreme”, you bring up the Amish. Because of a misinterpretation of Scripture, the Amish choose to live a life of isolation and self-denial, which includes no electricity, radio and TV.
Who says the Amish are “misinterpreting” Scripture? Interesting Freudian slip, there. We’ll have to ask an Orthodox Jew about that while we enjoy our breakfast of ham & eggs.
But the bottom line is that they made a choice to live without modern conveniences. As for me, since the technology exists to remove parts of a movie that I don’t care to see, I’m going to take advantage of it. It’s my choice.
By all means, go ahead. Haven’t I been consistent about “until it’s illegal, it’s legal”? I’m just arguing that it should not be legal, at least in its current form. Heck, I even grudgingly admitted that I like the technology; I just cry foul when it is implemented against a director’s wishes. If DGA and ClearPlay come to an agreement, I’m going to buy one for my mom.
I have decided not to comment on your little diagram because it’s a moot diagram of a moot point. No matter how sound your reasoning seems to be, it just doesn’t hold water because it cannot be supported by state or federal law.
So, are you telling me my reasoning is sound, just not supported by law? Perfect, because I was arguing why it should be illegal. The point is not moot, the entire point was to describe why ClearPlay is ethically wrong.
If this country were governed strictly by our personal opinions, it would be more messed up than it is now.
Yes. It is a good thing that on matters like gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, drug addiction, homelessness, obscenity, and stem cell research, we don’t let personal opinions interfere with our governance. We rely on scientific fact, sociological research, and Constitutional precedent, not religious opinion.
That’s what this issue really boils down to: religious opinion. It’s really hard to make an obscenity argument stick without the moral framework of religion behind it.
The ClearPlay DVD is an example of the ends justifying the means (like Bush’s foreign policy). You have something that religious folk want (sanitized movies) which is a good thing, so the means by which it is accomplished (altering movies without the director’s consent) are justified. This way, religious folks get to enjoy the fruits of secular Hollywood without compromising religious values.
The reason I keep bringing up the Amish is not to “go extreme”, but rather to highlight religious inconsistency. The Amish are consistent. They believe in eschewing modern conveniences because of their religion. Therefore, they don’t get offended by cursewords in movies. Those things are of the secular world and the Amish don’t play in that world.
Movies with cursewords, nudity, and adult situations are secular things. They reflect the real world which is chock full of cursewords, nudity, and adult situations. That is what makes movies art — they interpret and reflect reality. You want your secular cake but want to eat it in the church. If Spielberg, Scorsese, or Kubrick wanted to make a sanitized movie reflecting good churchly values, that’s what they would have filmed.
Why oh why can’t good religious folk make enough of a potential audience to attract filmmakers to make wholesome, “G”-rated movies that can make a profit? Could it be that the profit in secular movies is partially supported by good religious folks who are only lukewarm in their offense over cursing and nudity and violence? After all, a majority in this country consider themselves religious, yet movie box-office totals continue to climb. That can’t be just us filth-lovin’ atheists and agnostics shelling out $8.50 apiece for “A Few Good Men”, can it?
If the ruling comes down that ClearPlay is in clear violation of making “unauthorized” changes to the movie director’s vision, I’ll take your diagram and frame it.
I guess we’ll just have to wait for the courts. I’ve been wrong before; maybe they will find no harm in ClearPlay. So, to fulfill our bargain: if I’m right, you frame my diagram. If you’re right, I’ll buy a ClearPlay for my mom. And since I’ve needled you about hypocrisy and the Amish, I’ll violate my own ethics if you’re right: I’ll buy the ClearPlay at a WalMart.
If you are so gung-ho over Hollywood having everything its way, why are you using software that is capable of duplicating commercial DVDs? Although I am not aware of any law that prohibits the copying of commercial DVDs, the movie industry is up in arms against it. Fearing that it is a contributing factor in the scourge of movie piracy that costs the studios billions of dollars annually in lost revenue, Hollywood is adamantly opposed to your using DVD duplicating technology for any reason, including backing up your own commercial DVDs. Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America told The Associated Press last November, “If you buy a DVD you have a copy. If you want a backup copy, you buy another one.”
I’m not gung-ho over Hollywood having everything its way. I’m gung-ho over artists maintaining control over their creations and I’m gung-ho about not allowing companies to profit from altering art.
As far as DVD copying: I don’t use that technology. But if I did, I would still maintain that a person has the right to backup digital data. The courts have found for my position as this applies to music CD’s, commercial software, and VHS tapes. I know the MPAA opposes this, but that’s tough for them. Just like I feel you have the right to do what you like as you watch your DVD (fast-forward, mute, skip), you have the right to back-up your DVD.
Funny thing about the movie industry opposing DVD copying…
DISNEY owns partial interest in TiVo, a digital recording company that provides the ability to make perfect DVD copies of movies on cable or satellite.
BERTELSMAN AG, owners of UFA Films, also owns RCA, which makes this wonderful DVD recorder.
GENERAL ELECTRIC, owners of Universal Pictures, is partners with Microsoft in their MSNBC venture. Microsoft makes some great software for copying DVDs.
SONY, owners of Sony Pictures, makes the fabulous VAIO computer system (with DVD-RW burner) and the blank DVD-RW discs to copy movies onto.
There’s a few more examples, but it begs the question, how opposed to DVD copying can these movie companies be when their parent companies are making the software, computers, recorders, and discs necessary for the process?
The laws that cover these sensitive issues are either vague or nonexistent. So until our lawmakers settle these issues by passing well-defined laws, why don’t we just live and let live?
I am! I’ve been consistent here: go ahead and use your ClearPlay. I’ve just been explaining why I think it is wrong and why I think it should be illegal. I’m not organizing a posse to round up all the ClearPlay DVD’s, lynch the owners of the company, and imprison people like you that use it. I trust the courts on this issue, and I trust that they’ll agree with my opinion. If not, fine.
“Radical” Russ — I’m still amused by the idea that “flippin’ idiot” would have to be censored because “flippin'” would just remind someone of a curse word…
