IS "Clearplay OnDemand" coming for Netflix streaming?

[Troy]

I have used ClearPlay DVD players for years to filter movies in compliance with the “Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005” which allows for editing of movies in the form of omitting/muting & skipping content.

 

In recent months I have switched to primarily using my XBOX 360 to stream movies using Netflix streaming.  I long for a filter service through netflix, but historically have only had clearplay on Netflix DVDs not streaming.

 

I recently came accross the terms "ClearPlay OnDemand" which appearantly according to Clearplay's international site offers services to subscribers to Cable TV, Satellite TV, IPTV and Streaming Video Service Providers.

 

I would love to see "ClearPlay OnDemand" or any filtering service be an option for Streaming Movies so I can use my XBOX with Netflix as my primary (or only) media center and still have the option to filter objectionable materials out.

 

[eviltimes]

And another correction.  BD didn't "win" anything, Sony bribed and threatened everybody into abandoning the quite superior HDVD from Toshiba.

[Knaldskalle]

Anything goes in love and High Definition Format War.

[sevenstars]

What was superior about it?

[Spindaddydad]

Not sure why anyone would want to see the Venus de Milo with a gaudy shawl draped over her shoulders. Just don't get it.

[Jenncmatt]

I would like to use this for myself, not my kids. I censor what things I see and don't see, for my own reasons. And I won't try and justify it because it needs no justification. 

Just to add to something I've seen argued in this thread quite a bit--the idea of what's the point of watching something other than what the artist intended, since you won't be seeing the film in it's "pure" form. But I think that's a faulty argument  based on really broad definitions and narrow interpretations. If someone writes a screenplay, and a director decides to change parts of it, film other parts differently, interpret it in a different way, etc , is that altering the original intent? If a producer decides that such and such wouldn't work well or sell well and wants to take out or add sections does that even further cloud the purity of the artistic expression? When was the work in it's purest form?  If you let the director have complete control, you would have a different film than if the editor, screenplay writer, actors, producers, etc had more control. Well I look at myself as simply another interpreter of the film. Someone with a different take.  I don't mind extreme content when it's essential to the story-telling or message or impact of the film. I watched The Wind that Shakes the Barley, as an example, which has fairly extreme content, and found it moving and thought-provoking. I thought the violence and language were necessary to the integrity of the film. But there are a lot of films where violence, language and nudity are thrown in for shock value or for edginess or to get more people to watch it. That's why I thoroughly research movies with such content to determine if, in my own opinion, this type of content is needed. If it's integral I'll watch it. If not, I will watch an edited version with this content removed. That's just my own interpretation based on my opinions. Would you say a director's cut is not worth watching because it's not the original version? Or an editor's cut? Then why is a version I decide on any different? I've seen fan remakes of films which are better than the original. Should I not watch these because the experience will have no value?

Which brings me to the point, who is to say that a version of a film with certain content removed wouldn't be better? So what if I'm not seeing the original version. If I'm seeing a better film then I'm doing myself a favor. Maybe I'm not, but maybe I am. Why should I be constrained by what the filmmakers intended? In the end I decide what does and does not create a meaningful viewing experience for myself, and if I feel that cutting out certain content would improve that experience it does not have to translate into destroying the purity or artistic merit of a film.

Anyway, I'd like to see ClearPlay expanded to streaming sites like Netflix as well. They really need to get with the times and modernize. They should realize that pretty soon everything will be streaming and even DVD and BluRay players will be a thing of the past. You know Google is offering a internet connection with a speed of 1000 mb per second in certain areas, soon to expand. That's enough to stream a film at HD comparable to BluRay quality. Soon everyone will follow suit and connection speeds will only increase from there. Get with it ClearPlay.

[Spindaddydad]

Directors, producers, writers, actors, etc. decide what you get to see in sometimes several different versions of a film. They are the filmmakers. Neither Clearplay nor you get to make that decision.

If you refuse to watch a film because of some of its content, then you don't get to watch that film.

They really need to get with the times and modernize

"Getting with the times and modernizing" is letting a film play in the way that its makers (directors, writer, producers, etc) intended for it to be seen. Not in chopping it down to what satisfies some prude that just stepped off the Mayflower.

And no, neither do you get to cover up Michelangelo's David's dick just so you and your family can enjoy art.

[oedipussy]

Um, what?

What business of yours is it what someone else does in their own home? They're not hurting anyone or forcing you to watch their watered-down versions of movies.

[Spindaddydad]

Um, what?

OK, here it is again: Directors, producers, writers, actors, etc. decide what you get to see in sometimes several different versions of a film. They are the filmmakers. Neither Clearplay nor you get to make that decision.

If you refuse to watch a film because of some of its content, then you don't get to watch that film.

They're not hurting anyone or forcing you to watch their watered-down versions of movies

No they're not hurting anyone. But if they can attempt to make a feeble argument to justify watching an altered version of what an artist intended, then they need to be big enough to understand that that ridiculous stance is going to be challenged. Art can't be physically altered by the viewer. However, if found to be objectionable, It CAN be avoided. Most reasonable people (entities, govts., corps., etc.) eventually cede to this notion, but then always shift the argument to the question of WHAT is art. But in the case of film, the designation of art can't be argued.

[oedipussy]

Yeah, you can use that argument for any type of authoritarian concept. Here, let me try:

Politicians, police, community leaders, etc. decide what kind of substances you get to put into your body. They are the authorities. You don't get to make that decision.

I see no problem with someone experiencing something in a way that the original artist didn't intend. What about kids who play their records at the wrong speed for fun or create remixes of their favorite songs? Do you want to lock them up for thoughtcrime?

[Spindaddydad]

Politicians, police, community leaders, etc. decide what kind of substances you get to put into your body.

Yes, and if police, community leaders, etc decide it is illegal/harmful/etc to consume, they have the responsibility to disallow/ban it. But in the case of art, they can ban it, just can't alter it then put it back on display.

What about kids who play their records at the wrong speed for fun or create remixes of their favorite songs? Do you want to lock them up for thoughtcrime?

A completely different scenario than what we're discussing. The person above has the right to alter her movie her/himself. However, s/he can't have a third-party (company/govt/corp.) do it for her/him then offer it for commercial consumption.

[oedipussy]

Yes, and if police, community leaders, etc decide it is illegal/harmful/etc to consume, they have the responsibility to disallow/ban it.

Um, no, they do not have the "responsibility" nor the power to disallow/ban/regulate anything. Freedom of choice is a natural human right that is not granted to us by any "authority" to take away whenever they please. No one has the right or the power to impose their will upon someone else with the use of force - Not even our own illegitimate government, regardless of what our dictators have led us to believe.

A person shooting up heroin in their apartment is merely exercising their natural rights. If there isn't a victim, there can't be a crime.

The person above has the right to alter her movie herself. However, she can't have a third-party do it for her.

So in that case, the person who creates the software tools that allows someone to remix a song has no right to provide that service? Seems like a distinction without a difference to me...

[Spindaddydad]

they do not have the "responsibility" nor the power to disallow/ban/regulate anything

So, you expect harmful/deadly indregients to be be continued to be included in our foods? Or you expect the trap door someone installed on the public sidewalk to be allowed to continue to devour citizens who walk their dogs down the sidewalk at night? Is it legal to distribute child porn? (just triggered the authorities) This is what separates us from third-world countries.

A person shooting up heroin in their apartment is merely exercising their natural rights. If there isn't a victim, there can't be a crime.

now come on Oedipussy. I've read your posts here for years. I know you are smart enough to realize that heroin is ILLEGAL and therefore not just a mere exercise of "natural rights." Your argument applies to cigarettes but not heroin. Editing/modifying copyrighted works for commercial use is illegal. There actually is a victim... believe it or not.

So in that case, the person who creates the software tools that allows someone to remix a song has no right to provide that service? Seems like a distinction without a difference to me...

if the software company includes instructions with the software that say " use this software to create remix tapes that you can then resell on the open market" then yes they should be held legally negligent and prosecuted. Again, there IS a victim.

It just dawned on me: I'm being baited.