Why would someone want to hack / break the technology? Its a win/win. The
streaming video company gets more viewers watching the video which means both it
and the video producer make more profits. And it costs them nothing to obtain
these profits. Heck, they ought to be advertising VidAngel in appropriate
demographic regions -- e.g., Utah, the Deep South, India and the Middle East (
areas where laws have significant restrictions on what can be shown in movies).
OK. I spoke too soon. Appears the comments from those who disagree with the
posters who disagree with the technology are pretty well mannered.
All I hear from this is: I'd like to participate in modernity, but without
the challenges or discomfort often posed by artistic expression. We are less
peculiar, and more straight up weird here in Utah.
@ My2CentsVoice recognition systems are now sophisticated enough to
recognize almost any word. All videos have an audio stream. Run it through a
voice recognition system and you can mute any word you want and that code cannot
be broken.Video imaging systems now recognize faces easily. Put
that technology to work and you can recognize any body part (within reason).
Such technology could easily block all porn, nudity,etc. Again, this can be
handled after the video stream has been buffered and before it has been
displayed.Again, this is not censorship. I have the right not to
consume garbage. I don't buy garbage at the grocery store. I do have to
clean up some veggies and cut rotting spots out of fruit I pick from my own
garden and trees. This does the same thing to the media people consume.I refuse to install any Google product on my computers. I am looking forward
to seeing this on other platforms.
@one old man: You said "A constant flow of garbage into our living rooms and
computers is a violation of the Constitutional rights of people who don't
want it." Um, no. Are you saying you have the right to tell other people
what they can broadcast or post online? You do not have that constitutional
right. You do have the right not to watch something or to turn it off.
Old man: "Just watch -- comments here will soon be blasting
"liberals" for opposing this kind of thing. They will call it
"censorship" and a "violation" of our Constitutional
rights."Are you saying the Liberals will be calling it
"censorship" and a "violation of our Constitutional rights"? If so, you're probably right that they will get blasted...
Sally: You feel that allowing someone to make their own choices is
“scary”? This company does not seek to control anyone. Rather, they
are placing that control in the hands of those who should have it. Why are you
so worried about what others do or do not want to view in the privacy of their
own home? You wouldn't know what they are or are not viewing and editing,
it has zero effect on the original owner of the film, so why do you care? Posters so often say "If you don't like it, don't watch it".
I agree. So, how is using technology to fast forward or mute through unwanted
content any different than using the remote to do so? You don't know who is
or is not doing that, either. Do you also feel that if people watch
ANYTHING on TV they must watch ALL of it or they shouldn’t be allowed to
watch any of it? Maybe we need to outlaw the fast forward and mute
buttons…To me, this idea is the perfect fit for those that choose to
have a say in what they see.
TheOneandOnlySallyOMalleyIm50: I can understand the artist's desire to
maintain the integrity of the original work. My husband often prepares gourmet
meals, only to watch in dismay as our son picks out and discards the mushrooms.
But here's the thing - once a movie has been offered to the public for
consumption, what is the harm in letting people consume it in a manner that
makes it appetizing to them, especially in the privacy of their own homes?
It's not as though this one person is demanding that the filmmaker leave
all of the mushrooms out of the dish to begin with. Besides, I
personally believe that there are times when a filmmaker will throw in one use
of bad profanity just to be sure of a PG13 rating instead of PG so that the film
will be taken more seriously. I remember when that word would have caused the
movie to be rated R. Removing that one expletive is unlikely to damage the mood
of the film. I guess I'm not a big fan of mushrooms myself. :)
@My2CentsWhy in the world would a team try to "crack" this
technology? If someone doesn't want it, they simply won't install it.
If I install this plug-in, it's because I want the services it provides.
Why would I then install someone's hack so that I can subvert it? This
isn't some firewall meant to protect vital data.Try telling
your anti-technology story to the countless organizations that exist today
because they have used technology in creative ways to improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of their organizations. Try telling Walmart that their
game-changing data mining techniques had nothing to do with where they're
at today.Nicholas Carr tried your argument (see his book titled,
"IT doesn't matter"). He has since changed his tune.
If it is necessary to filter a movie to watch it. Then do not watch the movie
filtered or not.
MaggieMom, the VidAngel group have posted a comparison of VidAngel and Clearplay
here on the VidAngel blog.TheOneandOnlySallyOMalleyIm50: I
don't know what to say, except that I know that what I watch and listen to
has an effect on my mind and how I see others. What I watch changes me. It
affects me. I've experienced it.It's not a neutral experience:
it's inspiring or degrading. It affects my relationships with family. I
want to have positive things in my life.I do understand what you are
saying about not damaging the artistic integrity of a piece, but I disagree that
altering the content to make it more appropriate is going to substantially
change how the viewers see the piece of work or understand it.That is
possible, but I don't think that is what is going on here: this is highly
targeted slicing of content, probably noticeable but not in a way to alter the
plot of a film. Fially, I don't think my opinion of a film is
going to change because I saw it edited. That's just silly. I'll
respect it for what it is.
I support this type of product.We need to get the sleaze out of the
movie industry. It's pathetic.also, we need to get ourselves
out of the house and into the wild more.Movies are lame. America is
overweight and uninspired.Go ride your bike America!
I'm sorry, I made a mistake when I typed: But in my own experience,
it's really the conservatives who support this type of device.The word SUPPORT should have been OPPOSE.Ooops. My bad.
Just watch -- comments here will soon be blasting "liberals" for
opposing this kind of thing. They will call it "censorship" and a
"violation" of our Constitutional rights.But in my own
experience, it's really the conservatives who support this type of
device.Be that as it may, you mark this "liberal" up as one
who supports filtering. We need a whole lot more of it. Not less. A constant
flow of garbage into our living rooms and computers is a violation of the
Constitutional rights of people who don't want it.
My2Cents, This concept can't be broken without changing the foundations of
how all video works and that just isn't happening without breaking all
video players. There is timecode in all video. This company is watching the
movies and marking all of the places where the video needs to be muted or
skipped. Because all video has timecode, it's a VERY basic function of
being able to use things like fast forward and mute after that. These guys are
simply taking advantage of what makes the video and there really isn't any
type of filter, just instructions of what to do at specific time codes in the
What a potentially scary product and what censors like Harmon never understand
is that in seeking to control things, they actually have the opposite effect (in
the long run) then they intended. Sanitizing and altering someone else's
vision and art is not only dangerous it is also dishonest. Key elements of plot
and content--even with a so-called disclaimer--could be lost or skewered and
isn't it better to let people decide for themselves the merits of someone
else's creative work based on the "entire" thing and not some
moralists' narrowed viewpoint of it? An adult should decide what their
underage child should or not should not see, but in presenting something that is
not fully realized or potentially disjointed and taken out of context says more
about the adult's questionable morals than anything a fictional motion
picture or televised program ever could.
The problem is with all these so called high tech IT is they are not as smart as
they think. In 30-60 days this app will be rendered useless when intelligent
teams break his code and bypass his filtering app. Technology is only temporary
and no job in technology is permanent because no one can keep up with the
changes fast enough, not even computers which have to be programed every time a
single I or O is changed.For this reason technology is not a
sustainable industry of benefit to the economy or business or jobs. Jobs in
technology is a smoke screen for the mind, its the air pollution of the mind and
economy. And the mind can't be scrubbed or cleaned or filtered like
tangible particulate matter. Its impossible for individuals to keep
up with intangible changes to manipulate data or make it life so simple the
individuals don't need a mind to even function. Sometimes its best to keep
the mind functional by making people have to think by using archaic brain power
and common sense using the accumulation of math, science, physics, and language
stored in the brain.
Isn't this the same thing as ClearPlay's filtering for streaming