Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

This is going to be controversial, but I would say this is the sort of thing HN would be in favour of if it wasn't Mormons doing it:

- consumer-side voluntary filtering as an alternative to demanding censorship

- elastic approach to copyright

- technological solution to social problem that's also a neat hack ("customized DVD player with software running concurrently with the DVD playback to perform edits")

It does raise the question of how OK it is for people to construct a bubble from which they remove entire classes of people (I'm betting that queerness is very heavily edited, even in its least explicit forms).

View on HN

> they remove entire classes of people

They remove themselves, voluntarily. I have a problem with censorship by Twitter or Facebook because of their near-monopoly status on social media, but I have no problem if some small company serves their small target audience with censorhip that they choose themselves.

It's two different things indeed. Still, I do have a problem if it is the religious sect censoring but I do not if it is a company offering that service to the religious, and customers choose to use it, but not because a religious leader said so. This is because religious leaders have too much power, easily becomes cultish, I'm really afraid of religions that are just ways to make money, I think it's unethical, and because religion can be like a drug, if you add censorship into the mix, it's too dangerous. Basically, don't put censorship into the hands of powerful entities, being it facebook, or religious leaders.

As a disclaimer, I'm a Christian, with a catholic upbringing. I like religions, I think it's an important part of human life, it's just that they can be very dangerous as well.

>don't put censorship into the hands of powerful entities, being it facebook, or religious leaders.

Umm, one of the core principles of religion is providing a framework for mortality. I'd say it's exactly within the scope of religion.

The practical implication of giving religious leaders "too much power" is a cost of religious freedom.

I meant "Mormons removing queer people from their media because they don't like the representation".

For a more international version of this, see Eurovision and the refusal of various Arab countries to broadcast the Israeli entries at all - which led to said Arab countries being excluded from it for refusal to comply with the rules.

It's within the rights of the Arabs to not broadcast, and within the rights of Eurovision to not allow them to participate.

Are you suggesting that we should force people to watch things they don't agree with?

That isn't exactly what you said, but seems to suggest it.

I agree that taking the movie, editing it, copying it, and selling it-- is and should be illegal. But other solutions like client side indices of what to skip or mute don't harm the producer and are not editing of the copyrighted material itself.

>I agree that taking the movie, editing it, copying it, and selling it-- is and should be illegal.

I don't see why it should be illegal at all. Assuming:

1) The original owner gets paid for each copy sold

2) End customers are clearly informed that the edited version has been edited.

> Are you suggesting that we should force people to watch things they don't agree with?

That is explicitly what I'm avoiding saying, because obviously that's an illiberal and unworkable idea. In fact, I'm not trying to mandate anything at all. Not every observation is a criticism, not every criticism is a threat.

Well said.

> Are you suggesting that we should force people to watch things they don't agree with? That isn't exactly what you said, but seems to suggest it.

It's more complicated than that.

The right not to listen to things you don't like applies equally to someone who doesn't listen to rap music because too much of it demeans women; and someone who doesn't listen to rap music because too much of it is by black people.

But if those two people announce those tastes in public, they should expect different responses for obvious reasons!

So why couldn’t a company create a social network to serve their own small group of people?

Would you want your creative work edited to say something you didn’t intend it to say and still have your name attached to it?

That's irrelevant. I'd argue, at a minimum, that this falls under fair use, if not by statue/regs, then by principle.

Obviously there's a process in place for when movies are edited for TV. More times than not, nowadays it's not even for censorship, but to cut down time so they can add more commercials. That's more of editing a work specifically for direct financial gain than what we're taking about here.

So the law as interpreted by the court is “irrelevant” but your interpretation of the “principal” is? There has never been a precedent saying that you could modify a work as you see fit and redistribute it.

Obviously there's a process in place for when movies are edited for TV.

Yes that “process” is that the copyright holder edits the content. Not some random third party.

1) It's irrelevant because First Sale Doctrine (SCOTUS Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus 1908 and 17 U.S.C. 109) extinguishes any distribution rights a copyright owner might have to a copy which has been (legally) sold.

2) The "principles" aren't my interpretation, they are derived from common-law and codified under "Fair Use" (17USC107). Additionally (108-112) adds specific cases which are automatically deemed Fair Use. More Fair Use cases may be determined by some administrative actions, including determinations by the US Library of Congress.

I'm merely arguing CleanFlicks falls under the principles general Fair Use (107) if not already covered by one of the specified use exemptions (108-112 et al).

>There has never been a precedent saying that you could modify a work as you see fit and redistribute it.

Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios (464 U.S. 417) (1984) is the infamous betamax case, which legalized time-shifted viewing, even when the viewer had to make an "unauthorized copy" of up to and including 100% of the content in order to accomplish it, as it involved content freely broadcast over-the-air. As one of the codified principles of Fair Use takes into account the proportion of the work copied, this and their language in the case text implies a less than 100% copy would be permissible as well.

The CleanFlicks technology is simply an automated version of the betamax time-shifting.

>Yes that “process” is that the copyright holder edits the content. Not some random third party

Sometimes they might sell/license a censored version, but certainly not always. And not some random third party, but a party that has legally licensed use of the work (including broadcasters, DVD purchasers, or broadcast viewers).

For example, South Park refused to edit their Mohammed episode, but Comedy Central edited it themselves before broadcast. And I seriously doubt copyright owners edit their works for time-compression; it's TBS-TNT-etc that are trying to cram-in more commercials and have rigid scheduling to accommodate. Also, it's now standard practice for broadcasters to edit, time-compress, or completely re-create the credits of TV shows, which are certainly considered to be part of the copyrighted work, as they are typically overlaid earlier in the episode.

No, but on the other hand I also don't want copyright holders to decide if and what parts of a video I am allowed to fast-forward in, or if I am allowed to skip chapters or paragraphs in a book.

They were actually modifying the original content and distributing it.

And it was clearly marked as being edited.

Should I be restricted from modifying products for my personal use? If not, what if I choose to pay someone to make the edits for me? If that's okay, what about purchasing an already edited version? If it's clearly marked as an edited version and I'm purchasing the original as well, I really don't see the problem with a value added product like this.

If I produce some content and people choose to edit it, I really don't care as long as they give me the proper credit (as in, they pay my retail price) and clearly indicate that changes have been made (as well as a list of changes). Something like "X by Y with modifications made by Z (detailed list of changes inside)", where X is the work, Y is the copyright holder, and Z is the retailer.

So it shouldn't be OK for someone not to watch something they don't want to watch? I don't understand or perhaps I'm misreading.

Per other comment: that is explicitly what I'm avoiding saying, because obviously that's an illiberal and unworkable idea. In fact, I'm not trying to mandate anything at all. Not every observation is a criticism, not every criticism is a threat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com