5 ms·

When I saw the title I hoped this to be about a particular kerning issue ... This is hypocritical at best. If you don't want sexual content or profanity in yo

When I saw the title I hoped this to be about a particular kerning issue ... This is hypocritical at best. If you don't want sexual content or profanity in your media then either create your own content or pay for the creation of such content. Manipulating original content to suit your particular moral convictions not only truncates that content but also doesn't help with incentivising the production of original content you might rather want to see.

ballenf 7y ago
Are you against ad blockers too?
- BjoernKW 7y ago
  Ads are a different topic. Anyway, ads aren't content themselves but a means for paying for that content, which in itself is completely legitimate. The reason why I'm not against using ad blockers is that the way ads often are used today poses security and privacy risks as well as performance problems.
  - kd5bjo 7y ago
    > ads aren't content themselves but a means for paying for that content I’ve seen plenty of ads that are creative, funny, and engaging in their own right. A lot of talented people lend their creativity to make these, and your statement feels reminiscent of people that say genres they don’t like aren’t actually music. It’s incredibly condescending to dismiss their work as “not content”.
    - BjoernKW 7y ago
      Then let me define it more precisely: Ads usually are not the content a user requested or wanted to see when accessing a particular media outlet. In a way, well-designed ads are similar to a well-designed checkout process in that respect: I can admire its beauty or simplicity but I wouldn’t visit a website solely because of it.
      - kd5bjo 7y ago
        This whole conversation is about the situation where the artist/author includes something that the viewer/user doesn’t want to see. Whether or not to include ads is as much an artistic choice as whether or not to include profanity— they’re both parts of the aggregate experience, and editing them out means you’re no longer experiencing the work as its creator intended. This is evident in that works sometimes include fictional advertisements with the same presentation as you would expect from real ones. As such, I struggle to see a meaningful distinction between these cases. As a corollary, I also believe online publications have a responsibility to exercise editorial control over the ads that appear on their sites.
        pjc50 7y ago
        Ironically it's not usually the artists' choice, it's not unusual for the actual creators to be under contracts to the publisher which give them very little veto over the context in which a work is shown and what ads are included in it. Especially with works produced by a large number of people like films.
        kd5bjo 7y ago
        But it was their choice to enter into the contract in the first place. When someone delegates part of their job to someone else (in this case distribution to the publisher), that doesn’t absolve them of responsibility for the end result— choose your partners wisely, because their choices will reflect on you.
      - gpderetta 7y ago
        Yet you could make the same claim (" not the content a user requested or wanted to see") for edited movies.
- dTal 7y ago
  Ad blockers are distinct as ads are separate from, and frequently interfere with, the actual content. The ads themselves are written by different people. If the goal is "consume media as the artist intended", then ad blockers are entirely in line with that goal.
  - otabdeveloper4 7y ago
    You're bonkers if you think that news websites intend for you to read news without ads. Ultimately this is just another case of "rules for thee but not for me".
jasonkester 7y ago
I see this reaction every time one of these services is discussed here. People with angry, even violent opposition to people fast-forwarding through parts of movies. It's fascinating. I can't imagine an issue that could affect the parent's life less than this. And yet he and a couple other folks downstream are properly losing their soup over it. As to the point in question, I tend to disagree that Disney will be disincentivised from making more Star Wars movies because of that time somebody skipped the "Luke's Parents On Fire" scene when showing Episode 4 to their kids the first time.
- BjoernKW 7y ago
  Fast-forwarding parts of movies for your own private use is entirely different from selling an unlicensed edited version of original content, which is precisely what CleanFlicks did. Unless that content is licensed under a free licence that specifically permits you to remix content (e.g. some Creative Commons variants) selling an unauthorised edited version is unethical and probably illegal as well. By arbitrarily removing parts of original content and publishing the changed versions CleanFlicks were altering it in ways the content creators didn't intend and it's perfectly understandably that those content creators don't want to be associated with these versions.
- smcl 7y ago
  BjoernKW isn't angry, violent or "losing their soup" over anything. It was just a comment that stated pretty plainly and succinctly what their impression of the problem was.
brobdingnagians 7y ago
I pay for content that I want to support and I'm very active in choosing media I want to support and putting my money where my mouth is, but there are many reasons why someone might want to use a service like this: 1. Editing for their children as an audience. Something like Lord of the Rings is a classic with an amazing set of movies, but I might not want to edit a few things for children. 2. Editing gratuitous violence out of an otherwise good film. A lot of movies put in gratuitous violence or swearing just because it is expected to be a "serious film" even though it has no reason to be in it. If there is simply a choice between "Barnie goes to Paris" or "Lord of the Rings" with a few things edited; I know what I'll pick. 3. Slipping standards and ratings in modern movies: classic movies managed to be great without the violence, sex, and profanity. A PG13 of today is very different than a PG13 of yesteryear. 4. Production costs and minority status: the demand for clean films seems low. Producing a state of the art movie costs a lot of money, it's easier to cleanup a film than to produce the same movie from scratch without the objectionable parts. This is something of a minority rights issue and how to fit into a larger society. 5. Triggers and Choice: people have a wide variety of psychological needs and quirks. It is important for them to be able to fit into society and not be traumatized by it. These solutions help a oid things that may trigger things or aggravate conditions. Choice is similar. You can and should be able to choose what you eat, drink, etc. Same with "mental eating". You can filter your water for things, why not filter what your mind eats to suit your tastes?
- BjoernKW 7y ago
  Sure, everyone is fine to do as you described for his or her own private use. You might think that an otherwise good film contains gratuitous violence but the film's creators put it there for a reason. Even if that reason was a shallow one you can't simply decide for yourself to sell a new "improved" version of that content without asking for permission first, which is precisely what CleanFlicks did.
  - winkeltripel 7y ago
    right, but for any parent to do that editing by themselves is a monumental task. If the mormons: 1. bought an original copy of each film 2. added an edited DVD to each box 3. re-sold the box with both DVDs That would seem ethical to me, and abiding by reasonable copyright laws. Their right to remix (even if in somewhat boring ways) should be important.

ballenf 7y ago

Are you against ad blockers too?

BjoernKW 7y ago
Ads are a different topic. Anyway, ads aren't content themselves but a means for paying for that content, which in itself is completely legitimate. The reason why I'm not against using ad blockers is that the way ads often are used today poses security and privacy risks as well as performance problems.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  > ads aren't content themselves but a means for paying for that content I’ve seen plenty of ads that are creative, funny, and engaging in their own right. A lot of talented people lend their creativity to make these, and your statement feels reminiscent of people that say genres they don’t like aren’t actually music. It’s incredibly condescending to dismiss their work as “not content”.
  - BjoernKW 7y ago
    Then let me define it more precisely: Ads usually are not the content a user requested or wanted to see when accessing a particular media outlet. In a way, well-designed ads are similar to a well-designed checkout process in that respect: I can admire its beauty or simplicity but I wouldn’t visit a website solely because of it.
    - kd5bjo 7y ago
      This whole conversation is about the situation where the artist/author includes something that the viewer/user doesn’t want to see. Whether or not to include ads is as much an artistic choice as whether or not to include profanity— they’re both parts of the aggregate experience, and editing them out means you’re no longer experiencing the work as its creator intended. This is evident in that works sometimes include fictional advertisements with the same presentation as you would expect from real ones. As such, I struggle to see a meaningful distinction between these cases. As a corollary, I also believe online publications have a responsibility to exercise editorial control over the ads that appear on their sites.
      - pjc50 7y ago
        Ironically it's not usually the artists' choice, it's not unusual for the actual creators to be under contracts to the publisher which give them very little veto over the context in which a work is shown and what ads are included in it. Especially with works produced by a large number of people like films.
        kd5bjo 7y ago
        But it was their choice to enter into the contract in the first place. When someone delegates part of their job to someone else (in this case distribution to the publisher), that doesn’t absolve them of responsibility for the end result— choose your partners wisely, because their choices will reflect on you.
    - gpderetta 7y ago
      Yet you could make the same claim (" not the content a user requested or wanted to see") for edited movies.
dTal 7y ago
Ad blockers are distinct as ads are separate from, and frequently interfere with, the actual content. The ads themselves are written by different people. If the goal is "consume media as the artist intended", then ad blockers are entirely in line with that goal.
- otabdeveloper4 7y ago
  You're bonkers if you think that news websites intend for you to read news without ads. Ultimately this is just another case of "rules for thee but not for me".

jasonkester 7y ago

I see this reaction every time one of these services is discussed here. People with angry, even violent opposition to people fast-forwarding through parts of movies. It's fascinating. I can't imagine an issue that could affect the parent's life less than this. And yet he and a couple other folks downstream are properly losing their soup over it. As to the point in question, I tend to disagree that Disney will be disincentivised from making more Star Wars movies because of that time somebody skipped the "Luke's Parents On Fire" scene when showing Episode 4 to their kids the first time.

BjoernKW 7y ago
Fast-forwarding parts of movies for your own private use is entirely different from selling an unlicensed edited version of original content, which is precisely what CleanFlicks did. Unless that content is licensed under a free licence that specifically permits you to remix content (e.g. some Creative Commons variants) selling an unauthorised edited version is unethical and probably illegal as well. By arbitrarily removing parts of original content and publishing the changed versions CleanFlicks were altering it in ways the content creators didn't intend and it's perfectly understandably that those content creators don't want to be associated with these versions.
smcl 7y ago
BjoernKW isn't angry, violent or "losing their soup" over anything. It was just a comment that stated pretty plainly and succinctly what their impression of the problem was.

brobdingnagians 7y ago

I pay for content that I want to support and I'm very active in choosing media I want to support and putting my money where my mouth is, but there are many reasons why someone might want to use a service like this: 1. Editing for their children as an audience. Something like Lord of the Rings is a classic with an amazing set of movies, but I might not want to edit a few things for children. 2. Editing gratuitous violence out of an otherwise good film. A lot of movies put in gratuitous violence or swearing just because it is expected to be a "serious film" even though it has no reason to be in it. If there is simply a choice between "Barnie goes to Paris" or "Lord of the Rings" with a few things edited; I know what I'll pick. 3. Slipping standards and ratings in modern movies: classic movies managed to be great without the violence, sex, and profanity. A PG13 of today is very different than a PG13 of yesteryear. 4. Production costs and minority status: the demand for clean films seems low. Producing a state of the art movie costs a lot of money, it's easier to cleanup a film than to produce the same movie from scratch without the objectionable parts. This is something of a minority rights issue and how to fit into a larger society. 5. Triggers and Choice: people have a wide variety of psychological needs and quirks. It is important for them to be able to fit into society and not be traumatized by it. These solutions help a oid things that may trigger things or aggravate conditions. Choice is similar. You can and should be able to choose what you eat, drink, etc. Same with "mental eating". You can filter your water for things, why not filter what your mind eats to suit your tastes?

BjoernKW 7y ago
Sure, everyone is fine to do as you described for his or her own private use. You might think that an otherwise good film contains gratuitous violence but the film's creators put it there for a reason. Even if that reason was a shallow one you can't simply decide for yourself to sell a new "improved" version of that content without asking for permission first, which is precisely what CleanFlicks did.
- winkeltripel 7y ago
  right, but for any parent to do that editing by themselves is a monumental task. If the mormons: 1. bought an original copy of each film 2. added an edited DVD to each box 3. re-sold the box with both DVDs That would seem ethical to me, and abiding by reasonable copyright laws. Their right to remix (even if in somewhat boring ways) should be important.