14 ms·

We have this kind of censorship in India as well, even the in weirdly innocous places. In James Bond movies, and I think Gone Girl as well, scenes were by zoomi

We have this kind of censorship in India as well, even the in weirdly innocous places. In James Bond movies, and I think Gone Girl as well, scenes were by zooming into character's faces or just straight cuts. This is probably the only reason I maintain a US iTunes accounts (used to have to buy gift cards from sketchy sites online to keep this going, but I recently discovered that my Indian Amex card works fine with a US address). Also trivia for those who are wondering how cuts are made, at least for cinema content: all video and audio assets are usually sent to theatres in full, but there's an XML file called the CPL (composition playlist) that specifies which file is played from which to which frame / timestamp in what sequence. Pure cuts or audio censorship can be handled by just adding an entry to skip the relevant frames or timestamp, or by specifying a censor beep as the audio track for a particular time range. https://cinepedia.com/packaging/composition/ https://cinepedia.com/packaging/composition/

wrs 4y ago
There is a home version of this called ClearPlay that auto-redacts movies and TV. It actually started with DVD players (!) but now does streaming. Ref: https://amazon.clearplay.com/ https://amazon.clearplay.com/
- coryfklein 4y ago
  My Mormon neighbors tend to use VidAngel, which got in huge trouble with an absolutely hilarious payment model. 1. VidAngel purchases a bunch of Blu-ray discs and stores them in a warehouse 2. Tag all the content of a film and create filters so the user can, for example, filter out all sex and violence but leave in vulgarity 3. User "purchases" a Blu-ray for $20 (!!) and VidAngel says, "since we now know you're the owner of this copy sitting in the warehouse, we'll stream it to you right now instead of going to the bother of mailing it out" (This part legally qualified as a "performance", which was their big mistake.) 4. When user is done watching the film, VidAngel automatically buys back the Blu-ray – still sitting in their warehouse – for $19. So users could essentially stream any film they want (with optional self-selected censorship) for only $1 per viewing. Of course they get a flood of users since they're the cheapest shop in town, and of course since what they were doing was illegal they got taken to court and had to shut down 90% of their business. And then, they wrote an endless tream of publicity saying, "Big media doesn't want to give you the right to skip nudity and violence in your own home! Think of the children! They want to force their values on you!" Yeah, I don't think the film-makers loved the censorship platform, but it was the $1 performances that really got them riled up.
  - dj_gitmo 4y ago
    This reminds me of Aereo. They provided each user with their own individual TV antenna, DVR and streaming server. Their case went to the Supreme Court but they ultimately lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo
    - joezydeco 4y ago
      Part of me still thinks Aereo wasn't honest with their technology. They showed off massive boards full of miniature UHF antennae, but a tuner/encoder is more than that. They never showed that part.
      - CobrastanJorji 4y ago
        It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's logic was "sure, every individual part of this is completely legal, but if you consider it as a black box, it feels like a different thing which is illegal, so we're going to treat it like it's illegal thing." That conclusion was pretty likely, but it's utterly baffling to someone who thinks about the law like a programmer. To put it in the Supreme Court's exact words: "Given Aereo’s overwhelming likeness to the cable companies targeted by the 1976 amendments, this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does not make a critical difference here."
        bentley 4y ago
        I always liked Antonin Scalia’s dissent in that case. “We came within one vote of declaring the VCR contraband 30 years ago in Sony [v. Universal]. The dissent in that case was driven in part by the plaintiffs’ prediction that VCR technology would wreak all manner of havoc in the television and movie industries. The Networks make similarly dire predictions about Aereo. We are told that nothing less than ‘the very existence of broadcast television as we know it’ is at stake. Aereo and its amici dispute those forecasts and make a few of their own.… We are in no position to judge the validity of those self-interested claims or to foresee the path of future technological development. Hence, the proper course is not to bend and twist the Act’s terms in an effort to produce a just outcome, but to apply the law as it stands…”
- lapetitejort 4y ago
  I watched many movies through TV Guardian [0] (the old composite cable variant). It connected inline to a VHS/DVD player and read closed captioned for any swear words. It would then mute the sound and show the censored CC. Of course it simply looked for words in a database and couldn't mute innuendos or blank out non-heteronormative relations. [0]: https://www.tvguardian.com/ https://www.tvguardian.com/
- Natsu 4y ago
  There was a company called Clean Flicks that did something like what's reported here until they got sued: https://www.msk.com/newsroom-alerts-2512 https://www.msk.com/newsroom-alerts-2512
- jokowueu 4y ago
  Woah this is fantastic ! Thanks for the tip
- janandonly 4y ago
  Thanks for the tip. I did not know this exists...
- mzs 4y ago
  I had a VCR with something like this. It would scan the CCs for bad words and then mute the audio and filter the caption. You could even edit the lists. And it was hilarious! Often the caption was slightly delayed relative to the audio so you would get a stream of swearing and then the rest of the dialog was removed :)
ginger2016 4y ago
Given the racist protrayal of Indian American Raj Kuthrapalli, I am of the opinion Indians are magnanimous in allowing this show to be aired there.
- clouddrover 4y ago
  What in particular is racist about it?
  - ginger2016 4y ago
    If you have watched the show and failed see why it is racist, then we need to give some anti-racist education. It is affirming the stereotype Indian males lack confidence with women. Raj can’t speak with women without the use of alcohol, the show constantly mocks his accent, worshipping of cows etc.
    - clouddrover 4y ago
      > If you have watched the show and failed see why it is racist, then we need to give some anti-racist education. Weak. > It is affirming the stereotype Indian males Is your claim that there are no Indian males who lack confidence with women? Or that there are no nerdy, geeky men who lack confidence with women? What's an example of the show mocking his accent? You do understand that's his normal speaking voice, I hope. Kunal Nayyar (the actor) grew up in India.
      - ginger2016 4y ago
        Where Kunal Nayar grew is insignificant. Most of the soldiers who fought for British India were Indians themselves but that doesn’t mean the occupation of India was right. In the case of Indian soldiers it was in their personal monetary interest to fight for the British. You are trying to make a similar argument, the role advances Kunal Nayar’s career and I am sure he is in it because it helps him, doesn’t mean the show gets a pass. I am not sure whether you are Indian or not, but if you fail to see why many Indians consider this portrayal problematic then we really need more anti-racism training in this country. Yes, I am sure there are Indian men who lack confidence with women, but given India is 1.5 billion strong, I am sure men who are confident outnumber Raj Kuthrapalli types.
4m1rk 4y ago
I didn't expect India! Iran for sure does that too. The zoom part was kind of nostalgic :) they are getting better and better (just technically). They were even covering women bodies! Shit load of money and resources for these nonesense censorships.
- anthropodie 4y ago
  I'm from India and I have seen shows like BBT, HIMYM, Friends, etc,. dozen of times on different national televisions and then again on streaming platforms. I have not seen a single instance of censorship in these shows(except for subtitles replacing words like Fuck with ** on national television). I'm not saying we don't censor at all but it's definitely not as bad as this post or GP is saying.
  - drraj32 4y ago
    Thanks for chiming in. I am really surprised to see the grand parent comment to be the top one on this thread. I guess facts don't come in the way here when people want to collect some brownie points by self-flagellating.
  - srvmshr 4y ago
    In India, movies & shows that are shown in theaters and broadcast media are subject to Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). However majority of American sitcoms are OTT and hence still not under the purview of CBFC. Let's not dwell too far for an example:) "Sacred Games" had enough sex, nudity and cussing - far more than average American sitcom
biggu 4y ago
I live in India and have a Netflix account here. There is no censoring
- anshumankmr 4y ago
  I think Amazon Prime did censor the first scene from the Boys season 3 (I think) but I can't bear to re-watch it and compare it.
truthwhisperer 4y ago

wrs 4y ago

There is a home version of this called ClearPlay that auto-redacts movies and TV. It actually started with DVD players (!) but now does streaming. Ref: https://amazon.clearplay.com/ https://amazon.clearplay.com/

coryfklein 4y ago
My Mormon neighbors tend to use VidAngel, which got in huge trouble with an absolutely hilarious payment model. 1. VidAngel purchases a bunch of Blu-ray discs and stores them in a warehouse 2. Tag all the content of a film and create filters so the user can, for example, filter out all sex and violence but leave in vulgarity 3. User "purchases" a Blu-ray for $20 (!!) and VidAngel says, "since we now know you're the owner of this copy sitting in the warehouse, we'll stream it to you right now instead of going to the bother of mailing it out" (This part legally qualified as a "performance", which was their big mistake.) 4. When user is done watching the film, VidAngel automatically buys back the Blu-ray – still sitting in their warehouse – for $19. So users could essentially stream any film they want (with optional self-selected censorship) for only $1 per viewing. Of course they get a flood of users since they're the cheapest shop in town, and of course since what they were doing was illegal they got taken to court and had to shut down 90% of their business. And then, they wrote an endless tream of publicity saying, "Big media doesn't want to give you the right to skip nudity and violence in your own home! Think of the children! They want to force their values on you!" Yeah, I don't think the film-makers loved the censorship platform, but it was the $1 performances that really got them riled up.
- dj_gitmo 4y ago
  This reminds me of Aereo. They provided each user with their own individual TV antenna, DVR and streaming server. Their case went to the Supreme Court but they ultimately lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo
  - joezydeco 4y ago
    Part of me still thinks Aereo wasn't honest with their technology. They showed off massive boards full of miniature UHF antennae, but a tuner/encoder is more than that. They never showed that part.
    - CobrastanJorji 4y ago
      It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's logic was "sure, every individual part of this is completely legal, but if you consider it as a black box, it feels like a different thing which is illegal, so we're going to treat it like it's illegal thing." That conclusion was pretty likely, but it's utterly baffling to someone who thinks about the law like a programmer. To put it in the Supreme Court's exact words: "Given Aereo’s overwhelming likeness to the cable companies targeted by the 1976 amendments, this sole technological difference between Aereo and traditional cable companies does not make a critical difference here."
      - bentley 4y ago
        I always liked Antonin Scalia’s dissent in that case. “We came within one vote of declaring the VCR contraband 30 years ago in Sony [v. Universal]. The dissent in that case was driven in part by the plaintiffs’ prediction that VCR technology would wreak all manner of havoc in the television and movie industries. The Networks make similarly dire predictions about Aereo. We are told that nothing less than ‘the very existence of broadcast television as we know it’ is at stake. Aereo and its amici dispute those forecasts and make a few of their own.… We are in no position to judge the validity of those self-interested claims or to foresee the path of future technological development. Hence, the proper course is not to bend and twist the Act’s terms in an effort to produce a just outcome, but to apply the law as it stands…”
lapetitejort 4y ago
I watched many movies through TV Guardian [0] (the old composite cable variant). It connected inline to a VHS/DVD player and read closed captioned for any swear words. It would then mute the sound and show the censored CC. Of course it simply looked for words in a database and couldn't mute innuendos or blank out non-heteronormative relations. [0]: https://www.tvguardian.com/ https://www.tvguardian.com/
Natsu 4y ago
There was a company called Clean Flicks that did something like what's reported here until they got sued: https://www.msk.com/newsroom-alerts-2512 https://www.msk.com/newsroom-alerts-2512
jokowueu 4y ago
Woah this is fantastic ! Thanks for the tip
janandonly 4y ago
Thanks for the tip. I did not know this exists...
mzs 4y ago
I had a VCR with something like this. It would scan the CCs for bad words and then mute the audio and filter the caption. You could even edit the lists. And it was hilarious! Often the caption was slightly delayed relative to the audio so you would get a stream of swearing and then the rest of the dialog was removed :)

ginger2016 4y ago

Given the racist protrayal of Indian American Raj Kuthrapalli, I am of the opinion Indians are magnanimous in allowing this show to be aired there.

clouddrover 4y ago
What in particular is racist about it?
- ginger2016 4y ago
  If you have watched the show and failed see why it is racist, then we need to give some anti-racist education. It is affirming the stereotype Indian males lack confidence with women. Raj can’t speak with women without the use of alcohol, the show constantly mocks his accent, worshipping of cows etc.
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    > If you have watched the show and failed see why it is racist, then we need to give some anti-racist education. Weak. > It is affirming the stereotype Indian males Is your claim that there are no Indian males who lack confidence with women? Or that there are no nerdy, geeky men who lack confidence with women? What's an example of the show mocking his accent? You do understand that's his normal speaking voice, I hope. Kunal Nayyar (the actor) grew up in India.
    - ginger2016 4y ago
      Where Kunal Nayar grew is insignificant. Most of the soldiers who fought for British India were Indians themselves but that doesn’t mean the occupation of India was right. In the case of Indian soldiers it was in their personal monetary interest to fight for the British. You are trying to make a similar argument, the role advances Kunal Nayar’s career and I am sure he is in it because it helps him, doesn’t mean the show gets a pass. I am not sure whether you are Indian or not, but if you fail to see why many Indians consider this portrayal problematic then we really need more anti-racism training in this country. Yes, I am sure there are Indian men who lack confidence with women, but given India is 1.5 billion strong, I am sure men who are confident outnumber Raj Kuthrapalli types.

4m1rk 4y ago

I didn't expect India! Iran for sure does that too. The zoom part was kind of nostalgic :) they are getting better and better (just technically). They were even covering women bodies! Shit load of money and resources for these nonesense censorships.

anthropodie 4y ago
I'm from India and I have seen shows like BBT, HIMYM, Friends, etc,. dozen of times on different national televisions and then again on streaming platforms. I have not seen a single instance of censorship in these shows(except for subtitles replacing words like Fuck with ** on national television). I'm not saying we don't censor at all but it's definitely not as bad as this post or GP is saying.
- drraj32 4y ago
  Thanks for chiming in. I am really surprised to see the grand parent comment to be the top one on this thread. I guess facts don't come in the way here when people want to collect some brownie points by self-flagellating.
- srvmshr 4y ago
  In India, movies & shows that are shown in theaters and broadcast media are subject to Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). However majority of American sitcoms are OTT and hence still not under the purview of CBFC. Let's not dwell too far for an example:) "Sacred Games" had enough sex, nudity and cussing - far more than average American sitcom

biggu 4y ago

I live in India and have a Netflix account here. There is no censoring

anshumankmr 4y ago
I think Amazon Prime did censor the first scene from the Boys season 3 (I think) but I can't bear to re-watch it and compare it.

truthwhisperer 4y ago