Re: [dvd-discuss] MovieMask - I'm sure the lawsuit is on itsway

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> 
> If they don't allow circumvention they get are not allowing parents to
> edit out objectionable content for their children in the least restrictive
> manner...in fact...I've never believed in the V(?)  chip approach that
> required censorship stuff be installed in TVs etc but this one almost
> "appeals" to me because it does allow the parents to make somewhat more of
> an informed choice rather than "This content has been dubbed "BAD" by
> people you don't know or know why they dubbed it "bad" but trust us it's
> bad".....Yep...you gotta love how SleazeTown may get hoisted by their own
> petard on this ....

This is of course correct.  One set of parents may object to profanity
(or to some specific use for example taking the name of G*d in vain),
another to sexuality or sexuality of a particular level, type, or
intensity, another to violence, another to eating meat or even just
pork.  How about an overlay that translates the work into a language not
supported by Hollywood (that's an interesting case, what is the case law
on translation -- especially if it is done in a way that requires
purchase (rental or other access) to the orginal work?)

> As for profanity hurting little Johnnies ears...he's probably heard it
> from his "old man" already

Not necessarily... even hearing from the schoolyard toughs -- I've
looked in the eyes of younger two -- it's not something they're not
comfortable with.  It's my choice what kind of language my kids hear in
my house (at least until they are a bit older).  I'm not trying to start
a "profanity is bad (or good)" debate... my point is (in agreement with
yours) that parents certainly want and should have finer control.

.002