Comments on: Bush Signs Bill to Let Parents Filter DVDs

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:28:45 +0000

They still buy the original. I generally support the rights of consumers to do whatever they want to with the legal DVDs that they buy. I'd prefer that they also specifically allowed adding subtitles, for example. But this at least legalizes automatic Jar-Jar removal software for Star Wars Episode I, for example. Republican-sponsored? It carried on a voice vote. Dastardly Republicans, again passing a bipartisan bill. Allowing people to privately engage in censorship in their own homes with a legally bought copy of something? The horrors. I'd say it's more pro-free speech and pro-fair use than anything else. Mind you, I think people ought to be able to add things and skip commercials, etc., so long as they buy a legal copy.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:04:41 +0000

I say, let the kids watch the R rated scenes, theyâre going to see them anyway in a few years, what the hell do you think yourâe shielding them from?

And I say, let kids drink hard liquor -- theyâre going to drink anyway in a few years, what the hell do you think you're shielding them from?

By: The American Mind

The American Mind — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:01:32 +0000

Protect All Legitimate DVD Users
It's not a bad idea to protect DVD filtering technology to allow parents to edit movies for their children. The...

By: JackLewis.net

JackLewis.net — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:33:32 +0000

Around the Blogosphere, Part Two
Zarqawi's Laptop Powerline Air America Goes Too Far Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Blogs for Bush, Pardon my English, Volokh Conspiracy Filibuster...

By: Just Me

Just Me — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:29:03 +0000

"How about the parents taking responsibilty for what their kids are looking at or is that to old fashioned.?"

Well that is essentially what this allows them to do. Although, I don't quite understand the desire to show an R rated film to your children, there are probably some PG-13 films and probably some PG films that could be made more family/kid friendly.

By: Half Sigma

Half Sigma — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:46:16 +0000

But to comment further, i wouldn't pay money for this. I say, let the kids watch the R rated scenes, they're going to see them anyway in a few years, what the hell do you think your'e shielding them from?

By: Half Sigma

Half Sigma — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:44:39 +0000

This is like paying someone to put bookmarks into a book so you can skip chapters marked with the bookmark.

It's not copying anything, so why is there even an issue of it violating the copyright law?

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:33:54 +0000

Just one more step toward censureship. How about the parents taking responsibilty for what their kids are looking at or is that to old fashioned.?

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:25:14 +0000

Michael, it was between the Shiavo case and the horror of baseball steroids. If you blinked, you probably missed it :)

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:01:15 +0000

James,

I must have missed the big outcry over this. I stand corrected.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:56:41 +0000

I hope that every film maker that complains about this bill destroying the artistic integrity of their work will prevent their movies from being edited for airplanes or TV, as well.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:54:49 +0000

Well, it is a representative government. Congress responding to the expressed wishes of their constituents isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And relatively non-controversial bills can get through in short order, not expending much legislative energy. Fixing Social Security and solving our dependence on foreign oil can't be done that quickly.

My guess, too, is that the impetus for the bill was mostly settling the dispute between the two industries at stake and heading off lawsuits that would have been good for no one.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:48:03 +0000

kappiy, While I'm dismissive of this bill as "harmless", you are exactly right. The administration certainly seems to concentrate more on what they believe "sells" than they are on anything substantive lately

By: kappiy

kappiy — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:37:38 +0000

It is good to see that Congress and the President are continuing to pursue the most pressing and urgent issues of the day: first it was the millionaires steroid problem, next it was getting involved in a single family's dispute over medical procedures, now we have safety from the horrible curse of R-rated movies.

Their dutiful alacrity is unprecendented. Maybe now with these pressing issues out of the way, Bush and Congress can get around to more mundane matters, like finally passing the highway reauthorization bill or dealing with the genocide being perpetrated by Islamic terrorists in Sudan.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:20:08 +0000

At first glance, I was opposed to the legislation on the grounds of infringing the intellectual property rights of the copyright owners....but then I thought, "Oh right! I forgot this was a Republican-sponsored bill..." JUST KIDDING. :-) Seriously, this is harmless legislation that probably protects studios more than it hurts them.