It's called parenting...try it sometime, Congress.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
U.S. Congress sends Bush bill to let parents strip smut from movies
By Ted Bridis
WASHINGTON (AP) — Fledgling technology that helps parents prevent children from watching movie scenes depicting sex, violence or foul language won new legal protections Tuesday under a bill Congress is sending to U.S. President George W. Bush.
The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act would assure manufacturers of DVD players and other devices using such technology they would not be violating copyrights of the Hollywood producers of movies.
The House passed it Tuesday on a voice vote. The Senate passed it in February.
The bill also would make it a federal crime to use video cameras to record films in movie theatres, and it would set tough penalties of up to 10 years in prison for anyone caught distributing a movie or song prior to its commercial release.
Moviegoers caught using video cameras in theatres would face up to three years in prison for a first offence and up to six years for later arrests.
The bill’s most controversial provision focused on new filtering technology that lets parents automatically skip or mute sections of commercial movies that contain foul language, violence or nudity.
The author of the provision, Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas), compared a parent’s freedom to skip violent movie scenes to skipping offensive passages in a book. That section of the bill was rewritten to ban filtering companies from selling copies of the edited movies.
“It lets parents decide for themselves what children see and hear on television,” Smith said. “Raising children may be the toughest job in the world. Parents need all the help they can get.”
Some lawmakers said they objected to the filtering provision but voted to approve the bill because of the crackdown on copyright infringement in other parts of the legislation.
“The intent of the movie-filtering technology is to sanitize movies to protect children,” said Representative Diane Watson (D-Calif.) “While I support family-friendly entertainment, I believe this method is not only a violation of filmmakers’ copyright protections but also an infringement of their artistic vision.”
Critics of the bill have argued it was aimed at helping one company, Utah-based ClearPlay Inc., whose technology is used in some DVD players to help parents filter inappropriate material by muting dialogue or skipping scenes. ClearPlay sells filters for hundreds of movies that can be added to such DVD players for $4.95 US each month.
Hollywood executives have complained that ClearPlay’s technology represents unauthorized editing of their movies. They maintain that ClearPlay should pay them licensing fees for altering their creative efforts.
The Directors Guild of America sued ClearPlay in federal court in Colorado alleging copyright violations. The company’s chief executive, Bill Aho, said he expects the lawsuit will be dismissed after Bush signs the bill into law.
The bill is Senate 167.

Huk-L, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:08 (twenty years ago)

i'd rather not congress try parenting. oh wait.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:11 (twenty years ago)

Every single joke about TV remotes ever made goes RIGHT FUCKING HERE. Also, yay for riders:

"The bill also would make it a federal crime to use video cameras to record films in movie theatres, and it would set tough penalties of up to 10 years in prison for anyone caught distributing a movie or song prior to its commercial release."

David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:11 (twenty years ago)

dude but that'll put canal st. outta business!

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:12 (twenty years ago)

We briefly touched on this on the Sin City thread on ILComics, about seeing parents walk out of theatres with their kids during R rated movies like Sin City and Jackass.
Wtf, parents?
You thought Jackass was about that loveable donkey from Shrek, but didn't realize it wasn't until the guy stuck the Hot Wheels up his butt? GET REAL and pay attention.

Huk-L, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:12 (twenty years ago)

not to mention g.g. allin's brother merle.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:12 (twenty years ago)

anyway this doesn't seem that different from clinton's touted v-chip.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:14 (twenty years ago)

Kids under 13 shouldn't be allowed in R movies at theatres. Period.

Open your eyes; you can fly! (ex machina), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:21 (twenty years ago)

"unless accompanied by parent or guardian"

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:24 (twenty years ago)

Well, didn't the V-chip just block out entire programs & movies? This seems bent on blocking out "objectionable" content within programs & movies, based on I dunno what type of criteria. Maybe this tech will turn nipples into flowers, and dicks into corn dogs, and pubic hair into licorice, and instead of sex scenes, kids'll get bees pollinating flowers, and instead of lots of violence, kids'll get C-Span. Wheeeeeee!

My first R movie was Blade Runner. I was 7.

David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:26 (twenty years ago)

People were dumb enough to take their kids to Sin City?

Tantrum The Cat (Tantrum The Cat), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:28 (twenty years ago)

Some older people still think anything cartoon- or comic-related is inherently for children.

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:32 (twenty years ago)

NB this doesn't sound like anything particularly weird. My guess is that the cues for what to censor would wind up being encoded by people producing the media, which could theoretically almost be a cool idea: you could throw on a DVD and set it to give you whatever version is appropriate to everyone watching. Not that it'd work, but it's not inherently a bad concept.

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:33 (twenty years ago)

Though that makes the "parents decide for themselves" line kinda rich -- surely it's more like "please, Hollywood, could you package your products in some handy, censorable form so we don't have to pretend to be morally outraged all the time?"

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:35 (twenty years ago)

i'm more freaked about the 10 years for ripping promos (not that i do that) thing.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:35 (twenty years ago)

We're all gonna shit our pants when the RIAA makes an example of ten kids YouSendIting the next Timberlake single.

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:39 (twenty years ago)

ILM SHUT DOWN. ROCKCRITS HAVE TO GET ONE REAL JOB.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 20:41 (twenty years ago)

I saw "Scarface" on network TV once. They said "mickey-frickey" like seventy times.

andy --, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 21:09 (twenty years ago)

WHAT'S THE STREET DATE ON THE MIA CD, BUDDY???

The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 21:15 (twenty years ago)

never.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 21:15 (twenty years ago)

The bill also would make it a federal crime to use video cameras to record films in movie theatres, and it would set tough penalties of up to 10 years in prison for anyone caught distributing a movie or song prior to its commercial release.
Moviegoers caught using video cameras in theatres would face up to three years in prison for a first offence and up to six years for later arrests.

this is what the bill's really about. the rest is just smoke.

remember, this is the same lobbying group that wanted to push thru a law to have the Dept of Justice instigate lawsuits to protect/enforce various RIAA copyrights...

kingfish, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 21:20 (twenty years ago)

Released in Is that released in the US, or worldwide? Ten years for including, say, a song from Waiting For The Sirens' Call on a mixtape seems a little harsh…

carson dial (carson dial), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 21:31 (twenty years ago)

to follow-up, the bill didn't really have much chance when it was just a piece of legislature designed to protect the financial interests of the RIAA/MPAA, etc.

however, slap some "culture war"/"WE MUST PROTECT THE CHILDRENZ!" pieces on it, and you'll instantly reframe it as a "pro-family" initiative, which automatically puts anyone arguing against such pro-corporate laws as at a disadvantage.

or, in other words, pretty much a standard Repub tactic from the last 20 years...

kingfish, Tuesday, 19 April 2005 21:41 (twenty years ago)

The first R-rate movie I remember seeing was Total Recall when I was four. I fell asleep through it.

Ian Riese-Moraine. To Hell with you and your gradual evolution! (Eastern Mantra), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 21:44 (twenty years ago)

the coils of oppression wrap themselves around freedom and suffocate it slowly, i much approve \m/

Mr. Vas Djifrens (byzantum), Tuesday, 19 April 2005 22:22 (twenty years ago)

Andy, same with 'Do the Right Thing' when it was on CBS. I love it so much that I watched anyway (this was years before the DVD), but . . . man.

Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 04:56 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.