←back to thread

1444 points feross | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.379s | 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 #
kelnos ◴[] No.32645085[source]
It's pretty ridiculous that this isn't legal.

Sure, VidAngel could have built some custom software to play back a real Bluray disc, skipping certain scenes based on configuration file per title, and then would mail the disc to customers, who then have to mail it back, but that would be a worse experience for customers, and would be more wasteful (unnecessary physical shipping, as well as wear-and-tear on the discs). I guess the studios would actually see more money from this kind of scheme, since the discs would wear out and need to be replaced after a while.

But... the world we live in where this sort of thing isn't allowed... is stupid. Calling this a "performance" is just a legal gambit to unreasonably restrict what people (or companies, even) can do with things they've bought and own.

The $20 "purchase" and $19 "buy-back" is creative, but it should also be fine to just charge an all-you-can-watch subscription fee, as long as they don't allow concurrent viewing at greater than the number of Bluray discs they've purchased. "Performance", my ass. Fucking copyright cartels.

replies(1): >>32645935 #
sacrosancty ◴[] No.32645935[source]
A lot of the law we take for granted about copyright is really just a complicated compromise that worked out alright given the limitations of older technology. It's not some moral ideal. What about recording a song off the radio for your personal use? Or downloading one off Youtube? Or inviting your friends round to watch a movie? Or doing that but asking them to bring food, or it's OK if they just bring money instead of food and you buy the food, or they just bring money and you don't buy food but you let them watch the movie in your house, or they can bring their own friends too, or you're a full-blown movie theatre? There are no clear-cut boundaries of "stupid" and "own", just a complicated balance to keep things working well, we hope.
replies(1): >>32655301 #
1. int_19h ◴[] No.32655301[source]
It was a compromise back when we had 28-year copyright terms. It has been chipped away almost entirely from one side.