hph6203 said:

---

According to Congress it's not their right to decide if the content gets censored or not, but they have to go about that censorship within existing copyright laws, which this company did not do. They failed when the broke the encryption on the disc to alter the content.

They also failed when they claimed transfer of ownership of the disc to the consumer without actually physically transferring it. For their business model to work they either need an adjustment to the law or they have to make an investment in hardware that they don't seem willing to do.

---

IANAL but,...

They get to choose to whom they license the content. I'd imagine the licenses include whether it will be shown as produced or edited for content or length, etc. In that sense, they can control whether something is distributed as released or not even if it isn't explicit. They seem to have control over how things are distributed as well. If you went into the rental business with retail versions of movies and became sufficiently successful, you'd probably garner some negative legal attention.

The encryption is there to protect the distribution. The laws protecting the encryption is there for the same reason. The encryption isn't protected for the sake of protecting the encryption alone.

Redistributing via the internet when it was originally purchased as physical media is right out. Even if they had bluray players queued up with each movie and it was streaming a physical copy of the movie on a one to one basis, there is precedent on that not being acceptable either (the company that had individual antennae linked to individual tuners streaming to individual people got shot down.) Distribution rights on physical discs (especially retail discs) only covers sales to the end consumer, not broadcast of any kind.

atag said:

---

I let my kiddo watch movies with cursing and sometimes curse in her presence. She knows what words are adult words and knows not to use them. Otoh I grew up in a very censored household and found it taboo and fun to curse at a young age. Just sayin.

---

I don't have kids, but I understand this. We all try not to curse in front of my nephew because he is too young to understand the nuances of social situations and other peoples' interpretation of their words. I think that is important to teach when it comes to curse words as much as any other words.

That said, I personally believe that a word is just a word in that it is a tool to express an idea. Sometimes curse words help you get an idea across. I choose not to curse in many situations, but I don't think there are actually any bad words.

I can't, however, get my head around having nudity and curse words being the ONLY thing you keep a kid from seeing... It would be like censoring a kid from seeing baguettes in paper sacks... which would keep them from being able to enjoy a litany of faux european romantic comedies fully.

VERY well put.

Many many movies have gratuitous scenes and language that add nothing. But don't let that throw you off.

VanZandt92 said:

---

Many many movies have gratuitous scenes and language that add nothing. But don't let that throw you off.

---

So kind of like how I explicitly said that some films are gratuitous and show things just to show them?

VanZandt92 said:

---

Many many movies have gratuitous scenes and language that add nothing. But don't let that throw you off.

---

That's your opinion. Not the opinion of the people that created and own the movie.

Affirming a preliminary injunction granted in December, a three-judge panel rejected various defenses from VidAngel, which lets users stream films without nudity and violence most notably its claim that it is protected by the obscure federal Family Movie Act.

Allowing the service to hide behind the FMA, the court wrote, "would create a giant loophole in copyright law, sanctioning infringement so long as it filters some content and a copy of the work was lawfully purchased at some point."

"It is quite unlikely that Congress contemplated such a result," U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote for the panel.

But this isn't about artists fighting censorship, it's movie studios wanting their piece of the action... No?

I just don't see the point of the service. It's parental punting.

As long as the language isn't hard R vulgar, I don't really care if my kids hear the normal four or five swear words out there. As I have told them since they were very little, you're going to hear bad words your whole life, but that fact doesn't make it acceptable for you to use them.

As for violence, I'm fine with them seeing PG13 level violence, I know what they can handle at their age, and I do my research first if I have concerns. Some rated R level violence is acceptable but it completely depends on what it is. For example, I let my 11 year old see Hacksaw Ridge but under no circumstances would I let him rated R level horror or mob violence for example.

As for sexual content, well first of all, Hollywood has almost gotten puritanical on sex scenes so there doesn't seem to be much of it nor are the the movies it would appear the type my kids want to see. So I don't have to worry that much. THey are too young for R level sex scenes obviously but if a boob pops out from time to time it aint going to kill them.

This thread reminds me of when I saw 300 in the theater.
Guy in front of me is there with his kid..when the oracle scene came up he reached over and put his hand over the kid's eyes.

Just so wierd.

Letting your kid watch hacksaw ridge stikes me as a different thing since it isn't glorifying violence like 300 did.