←back to thread

1444 points feross | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
sudhirj ◴[] No.32641992[source]
We have this kind of censorship in India as well, even the in weirdly innocous places. In James Bond movies, and I think Gone Girl as well, scenes were by zooming into character's faces or just straight cuts.

This is probably the only reason I maintain a US iTunes accounts (used to have to buy gift cards from sketchy sites online to keep this going, but I recently discovered that my Indian Amex card works fine with a US address).

Also trivia for those who are wondering how cuts are made, at least for cinema content: all video and audio assets are usually sent to theatres in full, but there's an XML file called the CPL (composition playlist) that specifies which file is played from which to which frame / timestamp in what sequence. Pure cuts or audio censorship can be handled by just adding an entry to skip the relevant frames or timestamp, or by specifying a censor beep as the audio track for a particular time range.

https://cinepedia.com/packaging/composition/

replies(5): >>32643254 #>>32643886 #>>32646888 #>>32647131 #>>32647296 #
wrs ◴[] No.32643254[source]
There is a home version of this called ClearPlay that auto-redacts movies and TV. It actually started with DVD players (!) but now does streaming.

Ref: https://amazon.clearplay.com/

replies(6): >>32643679 #>>32644418 #>>32646727 #>>32648113 #>>32648388 #>>32651506 #
coryfklein ◴[] No.32643679[source]
My Mormon neighbors tend to use VidAngel, which got in huge trouble with an absolutely hilarious payment model.

1. VidAngel purchases a bunch of Blu-ray discs and stores them in a warehouse

2. Tag all the content of a film and create filters so the user can, for example, filter out all sex and violence but leave in vulgarity

3. User "purchases" a Blu-ray for $20 (!!) and VidAngel says, "since we now know you're the owner of this copy sitting in the warehouse, we'll stream it to you right now instead of going to the bother of mailing it out" (This part legally qualified as a "performance", which was their big mistake.)

4. When user is done watching the film, VidAngel automatically buys back the Blu-ray – still sitting in their warehouse – for $19.

So users could essentially stream any film they want (with optional self-selected censorship) for only $1 per viewing. Of course they get a flood of users since they're the cheapest shop in town, and of course since what they were doing was illegal they got taken to court and had to shut down 90% of their business.

And then, they wrote an endless tream of publicity saying, "Big media doesn't want to give you the right to skip nudity and violence in your own home! Think of the children! They want to force their values on you!" Yeah, I don't think the film-makers loved the censorship platform, but it was the $1 performances that really got them riled up.

replies(8): >>32643747 #>>32643879 #>>32643987 #>>32644992 #>>32645051 #>>32645085 #>>32645671 #>>32650301 #
MichaelCollins ◴[] No.32643879[source]
Leaving aside the matter of Mormons and their weird puritan sensibilities, what this company essentially did was reinvent movie rental, but because they did it on the internet instead of a brick and mortar shop we're all expected to think it obvious and self evidence that what they did was horrible.

In other contexts on sites like this, "do [common thing] but on a computer" patents get mocked and derided because "but on a computer" is seen as a farce, not a fundamental difference from the [common thing].

Anyway, I guess the mormons could get around this and achieve their desired effect by instead selling DVD players with a subscription to a service that distributes EDL files; instructions to the DVD player about which parts of movies should be skipped.

replies(6): >>32644020 #>>32644970 #>>32645286 #>>32646519 #>>32648005 #>>32650503 #
Ajedi32 ◴[] No.32644970[source]
Taken to it's logical extreme though, such a service could easily render copyright effectively useless. Break the movie into 10 second clips, "rent out" each of those clips during the 10 seconds they're being viewed and automatically return them after. There, you can now "legally" stream 720 concurrent copies of a 2 hour movie at once in perpetuity for near zero marginal cost.

The only reason rentals worked was because of the physical constraints that limited the distribution of each copy. Take that away, what you're left with is just thinly veiled copyright abolishment.

replies(5): >>32645005 #>>32645084 #>>32645097 #>>32645128 #>>32645129 #
1. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.32645005[source]
So put a minimum rental time on things. Banning online rental is a bad solution.
replies(1): >>32646266 #
2. MikeTheGreat ◴[] No.32646266[source]
No-one's saying that online rental should be banned.

Instead, the solution that the USA's current legal system is going with is "You _can_ run an online rental service, as long as you have the copyright owner's permission (e.g., you have a contract with them in which you give them money and they give you their permission)"

replies(1): >>32647862 #
3. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.32647862[source]
That's a ban on the normal mechanism via which rentals work. Sorry for shortening it. It's a bad solution.

It should require no cooperation to build an online version of DVD rental.

replies(1): >>32650982 #
4. dahart ◴[] No.32650982{3}[source]
For better or worse, the US legal system and media publishers disagree, and they’ve established the rules that do require cooperation with the copyrights holders to build online streaming services. But as I’m sure you know, it’s at best problematic to call online streaming a “DVD rental”. It doesn’t fall under first sale doctrine if you stream a transcoded copy of the DVD you bought. This is why the laws around digital distribution and copyright aren’t exactly the same as the laws around physical distribution and copyright.
replies(1): >>32653679 #
5. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.32653679{4}[source]
I would say the law around first sale doctrine has not caught up yet more than it actively disagrees.

> It doesn’t fall under first sale doctrine if you stream a transcoded copy of the DVD you bought. This is why the laws around digital distribution and copyright aren’t exactly the same as the laws around physical distribution and copyright.

I don't think transcoding should matter, at least if it's done on the fly, but also it's entirely doable to throw raw DVD bits over the wire. And neither one should count as a copy any more than shining light onto a book makes "copies".

replies(1): >>32654880 #
6. dahart ◴[] No.32654880{5}[source]
I’m not arguing your opinion, I’m just pointing out the established precedent and law disagrees with your opinion, so it’s going to take some work if you want the outcome you’re describing. Saying it could work in theory if people just transcode on the fly and self-limit the rental rate isn’t particularly convincing, fwiw. The shining light analogy is a little hyperbolic, I’m sure you know. Transcoding & streaming definitely is making a copy, because the bits exist in two places. Not that this matters, it’s splitting hairs that may not exist. The point of copyright law is to give copyrights holder control over who gets to distribute and who gets to consume, and it may not make any difference whether there’s technically copying involved according to however you define copying.
replies(1): >>32656643 #
7. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.32656643{6}[source]
> I’m not arguing your opinion, I’m just pointing out the established precedent and law disagrees with your opinion, so it’s going to take some work if you want the outcome you’re describing.

Except for all the pre-digital precedent that informs and agrees with my opinion.

> The shining light analogy is a little hyperbolic, I’m sure you know. Transcoding & streaming definitely is making a copy, because the bits exist in two places.

I don't think it reaches hyperbole. The bits only need to exist in two places for milliseconds. It should not count as a copy. It's only a copy in a pedantic technical sense.

> The point of copyright law is to give copyrights holder control over who gets to distribute and who gets to consume, and it may not make any difference whether there’s technically copying involved according to however you define copying.

Except they're supposed to lose a huge amount of control after the first sale. This feature of copyright is broken for digital items.

replies(1): >>32662674 #
8. dahart ◴[] No.32662674{7}[source]
Well, shoot, maybe it’s time to write your congressperson and get copyright law changed to how you think it should be! Beware of Chesterton’s Fence though; you can claim that digital distribution is exactly the same as physical, you can claim a copy should not count as a copy and that anyone who disagrees with you is a pedant (including congress, media, and copyright law itself?), and that old laws are good enough, but there are reasons we are where we are, reasons that have been well covered, philosophized, argued about, and litigated in court. That doesn’t mean we’re done nor that everything’s right, but failure to understand those historical reasons might leave you in a position to not be able to make a compelling case. For example, copyrights holders do in fact lose a lot of control over the physical copy after first sale, the issue here is you’re trying to claim unconvincingly that a cross-over copy from physical distribution to digital distribution has no ramifications whatsoever and should be allowed without question, though you’ve made a whole series of assumptions about how it would work and what conditions it works under, arguing that it’s possible without addressing whether it’s realistic and without addressing the actual reasons we have separate standards for digital distribution today.
replies(1): >>32666022 #
9. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.32666022{8}[source]
Ok.

I mean, Europe's already working on it. I think we'll get there eventually.

And I'm not claiming most of what you seem to think I am.