←back to thread

1444 points feross | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
inopinatus ◴[] No.32643987[source]
The law is not a programming language. Believing so is a common misconception amongst engineers, but assuming as much is likely to lead to disappointment, frustration, anger, bickering, conflict, and vexatiously long and mostly unenforceable contracts.

In particular, you can't just write up your own legal fictions and expect them to be honored. It would seem the developers in the story above learned this lesson the hard way.

replies(1): >>32645169 #
1. kelnos ◴[] No.32645169[source]
I don't think this is really relevant. This isn't about logic or about programming, it's about trying to conform to the spirit of what the law says, and the intent behind it. The idea of copyright is "when you reproduce something, the creator should get a cut". Sure, we can argue all day what counts as a "copy" when it comes to computers, but... c'mon. One Bluray disc is bought, and one person gets to watch it. When they're done with it, someone else gets to watch it. This is how a library works. This is how Netflix's DVD-by-mail service works. But just because a computer and a network are involved, it's somehow different? No, sorry, I don't buy it.

If the law really does say what VidAngel did is wrong, then the law is wrong and should be changed. I think it should be obvious to anyone who can read that the big media companies have (successfully) fought for decades to unfairly protect their bottom line, at the expense of everyone else. That's not ok; governments should not exist to protect crappy business models. Hell, there'd still be plenty of money to be made with much more lax copyright law.

replies(1): >>32645537 #
2. inopinatus ◴[] No.32645537[source]
This seems to be equating copying with performance. They're not the same thing, and for most artists in recorded media, it's performance royalties that generate their primary income.

If you wanna change that, find some other way to compensate artists first. They are the value creator. Attacking the bloated middlemen in the delivery chain doesn't remove the need for creators to eat. That is VidAngel's moral failure, as least going by the scenario as described: they weren't returning value to where it came from, instead tried to create a legal fiction to justify rent-seeking behaviour.

replies(1): >>32646865 #
3. Spivak ◴[] No.32646865[source]
Confusing copying and performance doesn’t matter to this argument because whether or not you consider lending a book copying or performance lending a digital book should work by the same rules.