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.

 

[oedipussy]

I'm not "baiting" you at all, just engaging in a philosophical discussion. The sharing of ideas is a wonderful thing.

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.

Yes, there is a victim in that scenario. However, that's a completely different situation than what we're talking about with Clearplay. As far as I'm aware, Clearplay doesn't exist for editing movies to then resell to other people - it's a device that allows people to filter content out of their personal movie watching experience. Similar to the way that people use software to avoid donkey sex pictures on the internet. Does a person not have the right to use that software either? I don't see much difference.

So, you expect harmful/deadly indregients to be be continued to be included in our foods?

Well, there are plenty of harmful/deadly ingredients that are allowed to be included all of the government-approved psychotropic drugs we give to little kids. There's plenty of bad stuff that's "allowed" in our foods, too.

Look, the free market can regulate this stuff. No business is going to carelessly sell products that seriously harm/kill their customers because it's bad for business. Yes, get rid of the FDA, or make it nothing more than a public information agency.

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?

OK, now that's just completely silly. Of course people can't just start putting booby-traps to hurt people anywhere they want - this is covered by common law. Not sure why you think this is a realistic scenario.

Is it legal to distribute child porn?

Well, I would assume that the children in such films are being victimized, so no, it would not be legal.

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.

Thanks for the compliment.

I know that heroin is claimed to be "illegal" by the federal government, but I don't know how they assume they have the authority or the power to actually create or enforce such laws. Just because someone says that something is illegal does not make it so. You can't claim to be a free society when you lock people up for exercising their freedom of choice, even if they use that freedom to do things that are unpopular or harmful to themselves. That is tyranny, not freedom.

Heroin may be "illegal", but why? What if the government decided that cigarettes are now illegal? Or alcohol? Or potato chips? Or sexy outfits? Are we all just supposed to accept that violation of our rights without question because the government did it so they must have the power to rule our lives?

I assume you're familiar with the Declaration of Independence?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

No government has the power to take away our natural rights. Any laws that are created to do so are illegitimate.

Personally, I have decided to opt of being a government-owned slave because they don't have my consent and none of their laws apply to me. The people in blue costumes still break into my house and kill my dog and point their machineguns in my face though.

Anyway, I think I'm getting pretty far off-topic here...

[Spindaddydad]

Im not totally familiar with Clearplay either, but I'm pretty sure they sell players that allow the user to alter the original content (which is a copyright violation) and I think you have to have a subscription as well. So, in effect they are getting paid to alter someone else's property. You don't own a movie's rights when you buy the disc. I'm fairly certain Clearplay is currently operating under an appeal in Federal courts for copyright violations. IOW, I wouldn't invest in the company just yet.

if free market could successfully regulate the harmful ingredients in our foods, products, and goods, there would be no need for the federal guidelines that were put into place because of people who were killed or harmed by DDT, Thalidamide, etc. Unfortunately, the free market's greed for money causes them to frequently discount potential harm to consmers.Both sides have reason for abuse. I don't like a fed agency having to regulate this stuff either, but it is my opinion that more harmful things would get through if unregulated or if regulated by those who stood to gain from its continued harmful use. Unfortunately, I feel compelled to put more trust in govt. scientists than I do free market bean counters when it comes to my food, goods and safety.

Of course people can't just start putting booby-traps to hurt people anywhere they want - this is covered by common law. Not sure why you think this is a realistic scenario.

That was in response to your comment that went somethign like "they do not have the "responsibility" nor the power to disallow/ban/regulate anything" (emphasis mine)

 I know that heroin is claimed to be "illegal" by the federal government, but I don't know how they assume they have the authority or the power to actually create or enforce such laws.

It would be nice if it weren't illegal. But the reality is that I have to pay for some addict's methodone and rehab treatment out of my pocket when he got hooked on smack, raped, beat and killed some chick, burglarized my business to support his habit and killed his mother for $10 to pay for his next hit. Free market and societal freedoms work for me and you, not so much for the freaks and knuckleheads. Some rule of law is needed, unfortunately.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

No government has the power to take away our natural rights. Any laws that are created to do so are illegitimate.

Personally, I have decided to opt of being a government-owned slave because they don't have my consent and none of their laws apply to me. The people in blue costumes still break into my house and kill my dog and point their machineguns in my face though.

Sounds noble and all but slants a bit too much towards the extreme manifestos of James Holmes, James Oliver Huberty, and George Hennard for my level of comfort.

Remember, moderation (in both thoughts and actions) will set you free!

[oedipussy]

Im not totally familiar with Clearplay either, but I'm pretty sure they sell players that allow the user to alter the original content (which is a copyright violation) and I think you have to have a subscription as well. So, in effect they are getting paid to alter someone else's property. You don't own a movie's rights when you buy the disc. I'm fairly certain Clearplay is currently operating under an appeal in Federal courts for copyright violations. IOW, I wouldn't invest in the company just yet.

Hmm, I'm not sure if I would qualify that as copyright infringement, but oh well. I believe that if someone buys a movie or book or whatever they should be free to experience it however they want privately. But we can agree to disagree I think.

 

if free market could successfully regulate the harmful ingredients in our foods, products, and goods, there would be no need for the federal guidelines that were put into place because of people who were killed or harmed by DDT, Thalidamide, etc. Unfortunately, the free market's greed for money causes them to frequently discount potential harm to consmers.Both sides have reason for abuse. I don't like a fed agency having to regulate this stuff either, but it is my opinion that more harmful things would get through if unregulated or if regulated by those who stood to gain from its continued harmful use. Unfortunately, I feel compelled to put more trust in govt. scientists than I do free market bean counters when it comes to my food, goods and safety.

The only thing those regulations really accomplish is to limit your choices and create a buffer of responsibility for the businesses that are being regulated. You say that our Ritalin gave you schizophrenia? Well, the FDA says it's safe so take it up with them. Good luck with that.

And shouldn't I be able to use something even if I know it's harmful? I know cigarettes are bad for me but I still smoke them. It's funny that you mention Thalidomide because from what I've studied heroin can be used to treat all of the same stuff and the side effects probably aren't as bad. From what I understand it's a medically useful drug that you used to be able to buy legally in stores as a cough syrup and pain reliever and such, but now it's illegal for some reason and it's not questioned. You are still allowed by the FDA to buy and use Thalidomide legally though.

As for the free market, if I buy a burger at McDonald's and it makes me sick or I don't like the way it tastes I can stop giving them my business. I can sue them if they were negligent and caused me serious harm. If I decide to stop paying my taxes because I don't like what the government is doing I'll probably get thrown in the monkey cages or shot in the face.

It was the Feds who gave us wonderful stuff like the atomic bomb, MKULTRA, Project ARTICHOKE, COINTELPRO, internment camps, the War on Drugs, the IRS, the TSA, etc. At least McDonald's has never tried to brainwash me, experiment on me, kill me, imprison me, or steal from me as far as I'm aware. I'll trust McDonald's over the government I think.

Who are these government "scientists" that you trust anyway? The Nazi war criminal scientists that the CIA hired in Operation Paperclip to research mind control and torture? Those ones? :)

 

It would be nice if it weren't illegal. But the reality is that I have to pay for some addict's methodone and rehab treatment out of my pocket when he got hooked on smack, raped, beat and killed some chick, burglarized my business to support his habit and killed his mother for $10 to pay for his next hit. Free market and societal freedoms work for me and you, not so much for the freaks and knuckleheads. Some rule of law is needed, unfortunately.

 

Why do you have to pay for some heroin addict's rehab treatment? Is it the addict who is stealing your money from your bank account? Or is it the government who steals it by taxing you?

I'm not sure what kind of heroin addicts you're hanging out with who are running around raping and killing people. I've known some and they're very boring people who pretty much just sit around being drowsy and sleep a lot after using it. I've never seen any violent behavior from any of them.

The problems you describe with theft is a direct result of the prohibition laws and regulation of commerce. Wouldn't it be great if we just let the drug addicts set up lemonade stands or sell flowers on their front lawns or work at a brothel to pay for their habits and then buy their drugs for fair prices at the supermarket rather than from armed gangsters who extort them?

 

That was in response to your comment that went somethign like "they do not have the "responsibility" nor the power to disallow/ban/regulate anything" (emphasis mine)

Right, unjustified violence against others is covered by common law. I can't harm your person or your property. Unless you are arguing that we need the authorities to come and disarm the booby-traps because no one else could or would do it, in which case I still disagree. It's our personal responsibility as human beings to look out for each other.

Sounds noble and all but slants a bit too much towards the manifestos of James Holmes, James Oliver Huberty, and George Hennard for my level of comfort.

That's OK, I'm probably going to federal prison for a few years for growing a marijuana plant in my backyard so you don't have to worry about me, not that I would want to hurt anyone anyway. They tell me that it's for my own good so they can re-educate me and make me a useful member of society again. I'm lucky to have a government that loves me so much.

And I'm not sure that I would assume that James Holmes, James Oliver Huberty, and George Hennard weren't all MKULTRA "robot agents"...

[Spindaddydad]

You're right. Its difficult to have a sustainable and meaningful discussion with someone who has no respect for law, order, property, social mores, and societal responsibility.

[Spindaddydad]

THAT is what you took away from my post?

No. What I took away from your post is that it is impossible to discuss an issue involving copyright infringement with someone who clearly doesn't recognize law, order, ownership, obedience, property, morality, authority, etc. And I'm basing my assessment of your character on your previous comments, some of which I've copied below.

Not being confrontational, just finally came to the realization of what I'm dealing with, which will always end in a dead end discussion.

It's easy for you to say the sky is green when you don't base it on any established and accepted standards.

I apologize to the OP for dragging their concerns through this ridiculousness.

Your belief system (culled from previous commentary)

• they [police/authorities/etc] do not have the "responsibility" nor the power to disallow/ban/regulate anything.
• 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.
• No business is going to carelessly sell products that seriously harm/kill their customers because it's bad for business
• [our government] illegitimate government, regardless of what our dictators have led us to believe.
• Heroin may be "illegal", but why? Are we all just supposed to accept that violation of our rights without question because the government did it so they must have the power to rule our lives?
• Personally, I have decided to opt of being a government-owned slave because they don't have my consent and none of their laws apply to me.
• Or is it the government who steals it [money] by taxing you?
• I know that heroin is claimed to be "illegal" by the federal government, but I don't know how they assume they have the authority or the power to actually create or enforce such laws.
• I've never seen any violent behavior from any of them [heroin addicts].
• Wouldn't it be great if we just let the drug addicts set up lemonade stands or sell flowers on their front lawns or work at a brothel to pay for their habits and then buy their drugs for fair prices at the supermarket rather than from armed gangsters who extort them?

[oedipussy]

The OP hasn't posted here in like 2 years. I'm sure he doesn't mind the detour in the discussion.

Where are you getting the idea that I don't recognize property rights and ownership? That's one of the most important rights that people have. This was the basis of my original argument that someone who buys a physical item can use that item the way that they want in their own home.

It's easy for you to say the sky is green when you don't base it on any established and accepted standards.

Well, I could recite a bunch of quotes from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc. There are some good ones here:

 http://www.dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm

Forced taxation is robbery by any dictionary definition. I'm not sure why you would be against people having the freedom to sell flowers or lemonade on their own property. I have no idea why you think heroin use causes violent behavior - I've never heard of any respected physician making that claim.

Anyway, I just used heroin as an example because for some reason its taboo. You could replace it with the word "cheeseburger" and the argument would be the same.

It's easy to look the other way and say nothing when people that are different from us are being oppressed.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Look, we are all criminals in this system. I don't know what laws you're currently breaking, but I'm sure that you are:

I know Fox News sucks, but Stossel is a good guy and even most self-described liberals would probably agree with most of what he says.

LOL, this is getting way off the rails and I do apologize for that. But this site doesn't see much activity anymore anyway, so I guess it's kind of a good thing that we're having any kind of discussion here at all, right?

[Spindaddydad]

Yes, you're right, we have gotten way off the rails. but, oh well.

This really has nothing to do with law or the legal system. Not sure anymore how we got there so if it was me, I apologize. What it really has to do with (and this is back to my original contention) is the ideas and concepts of the consumption of art. And yes, these are largely personal notions, but are nonetheless widely held ones and not original to my little pea brain.

Art belongs to the artist(s)/creator(s). Not the person viewing it. It can't be changed/ edited/ obscured/ altered in any way by the viewer or a third party. And to the OP's point (the last OP, not the first one) about a producer or director changing a movie. The studio, and anyone who worked for them, )barring special contracts to the contrary) are the artists/creators. They can do with it what they want and spit it back out as art. Doesn't mean they should, but it is acceptable. In the case of a permanent piece of art (such as a sculpture or painting) a museum can't cover up the Venus de Milo and put it on display as Venus de Milo, neither can a mother cover up a photo of David and show it to her children and feel proud for exposing her family to culture. Just because she can, doesn't mean she should.

When you rent or buy a DVD, you do not own that movie. You can't do with it whatever you want. It is not your property. It belongs to someone else and you need to respect that. Your disbelief in copyright laws does not justify your contention. The rights of the movie still belong to the artist. I realize you are going to say the gub'ment has no right to say that, but you need to work and think within some confines here (at least for the point of having a grounded discussion). The law is the law, you can't just break the law because you don't like it. The sky is not green.

These are my points in response to that poor person immediately above us who got slammed with all this. Now, at the risk of falling into your extremist trap, I'll address your discussion points points, and this probably where we got off topic last time, so these must be disassociated from the Clearplay discussion:

Forced taxation is robbery by any dictionary definition.
Call it whatever you want. But you have to live by it. You have to pay taxes. And you can't use the notion of "taxes are robbery" as an argument against having to pay or respect them.

I'm not sure why you would be against people having the freedom to sell flowers or lemonade on their own property
And I'm not sure where that came from. I went back and looked and can't see anywhere that I said that, nor do I hold that notion.

I have no idea why you think heroin use causes violent behavior
I didn't say that heroin causes violent behavior. However I did say that drug users (more so than non drug users) commit and cause more than their fair share of crimes both directly and indirectly attributed to their drug use. I laid out a scenario above to illustrate this. If heroin users grew their own poppies, processed it, consumed it, and NEVER left their house, and NEVER sold it, then MAYBE you'd have an argument. However, the reality is that heroin (and other drug) use indirectly and directly causes much violent crime up and down the chain (and not just because it is considered illegal). Needing to supply a nasty (expensive) addiction likely being one of the greatest causes.

You could replace it with the word "cheeseburger" and the argument would be the same.
That's just ridiculous, and I'll assume you actually know it is. How many cases can you come up with of a cheeseburger gang throwing down in a violent shootout in South central?

Look, we are all criminals in this system. I don't know what laws you're currently breaking, but I'm sure that you are
Actually, I'm not.

I'll point this out again. Please consider it. Moderate thinking, centrist ideals, and logic will set you free. I would hate for us to hear in the future of a person by the name of Oedipussy holed up in a dirt-floor shack deep in the woods of Montana, armed to the teeth in a stand off with the gub'ment over $65,000 in back taxes. Perhaps that's your destiny, I don't know, but please, it doesn't have to be that way.

[oedipussy]

No, it wasn't you, I was the one who started this parallel argument when I went off on a tangent about authoritarianism in my second reply in this thread. My bad.

When you rent or buy a DVD, you do not own that movie. You can't do with it whatever you want. It is not your property. It belongs to someone else and you need to respect that. Your disbelief in copyright laws does not justify your contention. The rights of the movie still belong to the artist. I realize you are going to say the gub'ment has no right to say that, but you need to work and think within some confines here (at least for the point of having a grounded discussion). The law is the law, you can't just break the law because you don't like it. The sky is not green.

I think I need to clarify my position here - I don't disbelieve in copyright laws. It's the intention and scope of them where we seem to not be seeing eye to eye on this. It's my interpretation that copyright laws exist for the purpose of protecting an artist from the theft of their creation. This is the assumption that I'm using to base my argument.

When I buy a DVD, I'm not granted the ownership of the original content, but I do own the disc which includes a reproduction of that content. If I decide that I want turn my TV upside down for whatever reason when I watch it, or if I buy a poster of the Mona Lisa and draw a mustache on it, I'm not infringing upon the artist's ownership of their artwork, I'm merely controlling my personal experience of the item that I own. That's the best way I can explain it anyway. Under your interpretation it seems like it would be illegal for someone to make a collage out of pictures from magazines or remixing a song for personal use. Assuming these items were purchased with the artist's consent, there's no theft occurring there.

I agree that people should watch movies the way that they were intended to be seen, but I can't force them to do so.

In the case of a permanent piece of art (such as a sculpture or painting) a museum can't cover up the Venus de Milo and put it on display as Venus de Milo, neither can a mother cover up a photo of David and show it to her children and feel proud for exposing her family to culture. Just because she can, doesn't mean she should.

I think it would be tragic for something to be censored like that for public display, but I don't see it as a case of copyright infringement. Even if the art itself was altered, that would probably fall under vandalism rather than copyright infringement. Things like statues and paintings seem difficult to apply concepts like this to, because if the original art itself is sold to someone else, the artist really only owns the unique "shape" of the art (if that makes sense), and no longer the piece of artwork itself. I'm pretty sure that's how I feel about it anyway, although I haven't given it much thought.

Now, at the risk of falling into your extremist trap, I'll address your discussion points points, and this probably where we got off topic last time, so these must be disassociated from the Clearplay discussion

 

Yes, I agree this has nothing to do with the Clearplay discussion.

As far as setting up an extremist trap, a lot of my arguments are pretty much echoing the stated beliefs of the people who created the government we're mainly talking about (well, the government I'm mainly talking about, anyway, I don't know if you live in the US or not). Apparently these are the ideals that were originally intended to be applied to my government a long long time ago.

Call it whatever you want. But you have to live by it. You have to pay taxes. And you can't use the notion of "taxes are robbery" as an argument against having to pay or respect them.

 

The problem with the notion that we must do whatever someone in a position of power tells us is that there are then no limits to their power and it inevitably leads to accepting crimes being committed against us. I don't want to be accused of using Godwin's Law, but you would agree that if a government we were under were to instruct us to participate in committing genocide against a certain group of people, we shouldn't follow those orders, correct? There has to be some limit to what we're willing to put up with.

A government is not supposed to be above the law. Theft by a government is still theft. Murder by a government is still murder. Involuntary taxation meets the legal definition of robbery. I accept the reality that no government will ever prosecute itself for it, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

And I'm not sure where that came from. I went back and looked and can't see anywhere that I said that, nor do I hold that notion.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, you listed that as a part of my belief system in your post above so I assumed that you disagreed with it.

I didn't say that heroin causes violent behavior. However I did say that drug users (more so than non drug users) commit and cause more than their fair share of crimes both directly and indirectly attributed to their drug use. I laid out a scenario above to illustrate this. If heroin users grew their own poppies, processed it, consumed it, and NEVER left their house, and NEVER sold it, then MAYBE you'd have an argument. However, the reality is that heroin (and other drug) use indirectly and directly causes much violent crime up and down the chain (and not just because it is considered illegal). Needing to supply a nasty (expensive) addiction likely being one of the greatest causes.

Well, I guess this depends on if you believe that a law can really prevent an event from taking place, or if it can only make that event punishable after it occurs. If it's the latter, aren't laws against theft and aggression enough? IMO, a drug user who has never harmed another person is being unjustly punished for a crime that they might commit in the future under the current system.

We don't lock up alcoholics or cigarette smokers for their personal shortcomings. Addiction should be treated as a medical issue, not a criminal one.

That's just ridiculous, and I'll assume you actually know it is. How many cases can you come up with of a cheeseburger gang throwing down in a violent shootout in South central?

I don't think it's ridiculous. If cheeseburgers were made completely illegal to sell or possess and the demand for them remained, history and human nature suggest that we would indeed end up with armed cheeseburger gangs to satisfy that demand. We would have cheeseburger turf wars! This happened during alcohol prohibition, and it's currently happening now with drug prohibition. I have come to the conclusion that prohibition only creates more problems and doesn't even solve the original "problem" that it was intended to address. Have you noticed how we no longer have Al Capones running around selling legal alcohol?

Actually, I'm not.

 

Are you absolutely sure that you've never ever broken some obscure regulation that you don't even know about? Who has the time to read them all? And I don't know about you, but in the state I currently reside in we have a Sexcrime law that makes pretty much any sexual act that doesn't involve a penis penetrating a vagina a felony.

I'll point this out again. Please consider it. Moderate thinking, centrist ideals, and logic will set you free. I would hate for us to hear in the future of a person by the name of Oedipussy holed up in a dirt-floor shack deep in the woods of Montana, armed to the teeth in a stand off with the gub'ment over $65,000 in back taxes. Perhaps that's your destiny, I don't know, but please, it doesn't have to be that way.

Heh, well, I don't foresee any of that happening. My fortress would probably be underground and in Nevada where I can enjoy the legal prostitution. :p

I appreciate the advice, but I don't think I can allow myself to accept such a bleak outlook on my future. I only have this one life to live and I don't want to waste it. I believe that Ghandi had it right when he said "You must be the change you want to see in the world." I have no desire to fight with the government or anyone else, I just want to live in a world free of tyranny.

[Spindaddydad]

I agree that people should watch movies the way that they were intended to be seen

That's what I said (or attempted to say) in my original post. Glad to see we agree on our response to Jenncmatt.

[pastryranger]

I appreciate this post and also hope Netflix will choose to offer the service.