Slashdot Mirror
Senate May Rush Copyright Legislation
iman1003 writes "According to an article on Wired, the Senate may soon pass a bill labeled HR2391, a bill which lumps many other copyright bills. If passed the bill would "would criminally punish a person who 'infringes a copyright by ... offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement.'" In addition the bill would "permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited." The bill would also punish people "who bring a video camera into a movie theater to make a copy of the film for distribution" with up to three years imprisonment and fines. If any of this worries you please contact your Senators and Representatives and voice your concern."
Just remember, this is the current "lame duck" Senate, the one split 51/49. If the *AA thought they'd have an easier time with the new, more Republican Senate next year, they wouldn't be in a hurry to get this passed right now. They've got people from both parties in their pockets.
The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited.
Say WHAT???! The article wasn't clear about how this would be accomplished (not allowing us to skip commercials) but I assume the commercials would be flagged, and any new hardware must respect the flag's autho-i-tay.
And who are these Senators representing, anyway? Planning to FORCE our hardware to play commercials? They sure as hell aren't representing ME. Bunch of streetwalkers, they are.
***sigh*** I have a TiVo now, and there is no way in HELL I will EVER watch another commercial again. In a way, I hope these shitheads actually DO get their way, and FORCE my hardware to play all commercials. That would be a sure way to get me to unplug the goddamned thing once and for all.
I have to post the obligatory Robert Heinlien quote for this:
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back, for their private benefit."
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
George, where are you?
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
`(A) no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology; and
;-)
`(B) no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture.
Does motion picture mean TV programs as well? They weren't clear enough for me. If they mean any program (like DVD Shrink) which allows you to edit video of the "original content" and remove what you want I would say that it would have damaging effects on all video editing software.
Would we have to buy/download video editing software that carried a warning that you couldn't remove unwanted commercials from products you already paid for and shouldn't be required to suffer through anyway?
Sometimes I want to sit these lawmakers in front of a limited edition, Gold copy, digitally enhanced, Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Disney DVD with their eyelids taped open. Maybe then they would think twice about forcing every hard-working, tax paying, voting American from "editing" the content of their PURCHASED media. Then again, Disney and their marketers might pay them more than our taxes are worth
Will the end of Hatch mean the end of crap or will the big bucks be able to corrupt a whole new group of lawmakers?
please spell "concern" correctly.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
... nothing.
And exactly HOW do they plan on enforcing this (other than by draconian DRM-esque hardware locks) ?? Are they going to send the marketing police over to my house if i fast forward through the previews?
I hope the land around you yields, a crop like all the other fields, and then your waiting might make sense...
they can not steal things, poor babies
It's good to know the best Government money can buy.
I'm also glad they are protecting me from those dangerous Canadian prescription drugs.
What will be the penalty for going to the bathroom during a commercial break? Hey, it's no less ridiculous than some of Hatch's other ideas.
A bit late to wake up early, perhaps?
We should all pool our money and buy every Senator a TiVo, then send someone to their house to show them how to program the 30-second skip. This bill would be killed after about a week of them getting addicted.
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
I'll be suing on the fact that the commercials aimed at my children are offensive to adults.
Last one in jail is a fascist.
Did not read the article. I assume it is a US thing.
It is a very strange idea. Why would you want to skip the sex scenes but not the ads??
Why did you guys vote Bush in anyway? Oh, that's right, you're stupid.
Is it just me or are any of you sick of advertising too? Seems like I can't do anything outside of my own home without being exposed to advertising in some form. (I sold my TV years ago.) Now they are legislating advertising?!? How long before the adblock extension in firefox becomes illegal? Sorry, not trying to troll here but am feeling a bit frustrated. (and being in DC without any legislative voting representation I can tell you there is not much I feel I can do about it.)
Seems like everyday there is more and more reasons to start using I2P and or Freenet. Frankly I'm not worried, in part because I don't live in the USA :), because of these anonymous
P2P applications. If these weren't around, I'd be freaking out more ;).
http://www.aipla.org/Content/ContentGroups/Legisla tive_Action/108th_Congress1/House/hr2391.pdf
now that you've read what they're voting on (even if they probably haven't) write or e-mail your representative.
-Teiresias
Wouldn't this also ban Adblock from Firefox? From the sound of it, it would, and if ads are forcibly viewed, it sounds like they'll forcibly allow adware and spyware soon too.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
Your Disney DVD example has nothing to do with what is actually being proposed. This is about broadcasting, time shifting, and the notion of "copyright" as it relates to the combination of content and advertising. No one is stopping you from editing the movie or whatever in your own home, it involves redistribution.
Come on people. Right to your senators. Let them know this is not acceptable to you. You've only got 2 of them and they've got a webform. Give "fair use" two minutes of your time. Here is what I sent in:
Dear Senator,
I write to you today in opposition to H.R.2391 which seeks to lump several controversial copyright bills into one for swift passage through the lame-duck session of congress. Copyright law exists to protect the interests of the citizens, not just those of corporations. This bill harms the "fair use" rights of citizens and puts too much power in the hands of the "entertainment" industry, among others. These bills deserves at least the chance to face fair and open hearings and to be debated carefully. Please vote against this bill.
Why? because skipping adverts isn't stealing.
Many commercials could be considered offensive. What if you don't drink? What if you don't want your kids to demand sugar cereals? What if you don't want to know about the benefits of Viagra?
Lasers Controlled Games!
I guess this means that if I want to watch any of my old VHS tapes, I won't be allowed to purchase a VCR with a fast forward button, or I could skip the trailers.
At the risk of being redundant, just what in the flaming, farging heck does that mean, "skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited"?
If it means what I think it means, then this corporate control of the federal government has gone far enough.
When it's gotten to the point where the federal government is actually proposing criminalizing the use of technology to ignore a corporation's mind-numbing commercial pabulum, then it's perfectly obvious to me that what needs to be overhauled is not copyright law, but the whole damn government.
And up to three years in prison for camcordering a movie? THREE YEARS?! Guys spend less time in prison for rape!
I did RTFA, but I didn't attempt to plow through the language of the bill itself.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
I wish there was a list of dvd producers who did this so that I could avoid them. I hate the invasion of my time and the lack of control. I expect it at the movies, but not at home.
Its like forcing a purchaser of a RAP album, to listen to a promo for the dixie chicks with no way to skip it.
Yes, I know fast forward works on some dvds...
Jeoin
Simply put a product tie-in into the sexually
explicit gory scene. There, it's an ad, so you
can't bypass it.
your consternation
So, it would make it perfectly acceptable for producers to put 30 mins of promotional crap at the beginning of a DVD that *I* bought and I couldn't skip it?
I already return the ones that won't let me skip 5 mins of it, because I feel it treats me like an idiot! And now they expect better sales because of the 'extra' protection this bill allows?
And they wonder why people rip DVDs and such. Geez.
AC comments get piped to
You can respond online by following this link
...can be found here.
More US authoritarian consumer mandates? (reminds me of US' AMA and nutrient medicine like Europe's Codex) Another warning, time to leave, if you can... Seig Heil.
...with reckless disregard...
What if I do it will full, contemplated disregard? That'd be alright?
I am guessing they mean the legal sense for reckless...
Just because they're Canadian doesn't mean they shouldn't get paid.
my g/f's dad is the chief of staff for my congressman...trust me, they don't care. They are more concerned with special intrest groups (i.e church groups). I've talked many times with him. When I was in college, we even wrote a letter about the DMCA and I was told he didn't care.
sucks, but this is the truth.
20 Minutes Into the Future...and getting closer every second.
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
The philosophy of the Republican Party in a nutshell.
I'm deeply conserned by compyright!!!!!!1111
Nice troll. Actually, no . . . mediocre troll.
I don't think that is the issue. The issue is the following language:
under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited
I think many are unhappy that they can't escape the commericalism that is everywhere. I think many people are overwhelmed by advertising everywhere. It is in the ballpark when you go there, and even worse, when you turn on your tv to watch a ballgame they now have advertising images superimposed behind the batters box. It is on billboards, in rural communities where before there was no intrusive advertising signs.
I think people like using their VCR or Tivo or whatever to record a show and skip the commercials. According to the story, that would become illegal.
In the end, I don't think techonolgy can keep people free of advertising. Companies know people don't like/respond to traditional advertising, so they are now using things like product placement on shows. Did anyone watche "Still Standing" last week. It ended with the main character drinking an Amstel light, and holding the bottle in a way like she was showcasing it for the camera.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
What if I find the ads objectionable?
Non-rhetorical stance:
Really, what if there's an ad for say, Wonderbras, that I find explicit? Can I turn that off? This is insane. Who are they to say what I can and can't watch? Howabout turning off the TV to eat dinner when there's an ad on... is that okay? Do I have their permission for that at least? Ugh.
Hey, just because i share my collection of music and movies with a few million of my friends online, doesn't make me a criminal.
... Superman is trapped in a copywrite law!
Now that the government has added kryptonite to the copywrite law, Superman is doomed... (to remain a mere corporate product used to sell molded plastic toxins to fat, rich, diabetic, American, candy suckers... and thier ignorant adolecent fanboy slashdot fathers) FOREVER!
The end?
Fuggin' right it is.
The Senate bill is S.2192
The House bill is H.R.2391
See the S is for Senate, the H in H.R. is for House...
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
I don't see how this fits into the Republican ideal of smaller government. Should the government be concerned with if you decide to skip any commercials or promotional announcements? I'm sure the democrats will oppose this bill, and I would urge all Republicans to do the same. It is against the core values of your party.
PS- No matter what your political affiliation is, Do you think sending people to prison for three years who "bring a video camera into a movie theater to make a copy of the film for distribution" is a good use of your tax money? Those three years probably come to around/at least $150,000
If any of this worries you please contact your Senators and Representatives and voice your consern."
You're preaching to the wrong crowd here. If anyone on slashdot owned a Senator, this bill would never have been introduced.
0 1 - just my two bits
Now, commercials are what pay for the free content. So if I watch TV, should I feel morally obliged to watch commercials? If I read a newspaper, should I be obliged to read some ads? Should I be legally required to do so? If I stop watching the commercials, will they stop providing the free content? Am I willing to give that up?
People need to have a sane discussion about these points before legislation of any kind makes sense. Either way, the death knell for free content-paid advertising may already be audible. Anyone have any ideas on this?
just stop stealing and then you don't have to worry about it? I just don't understand why people get so upset over these proposed laws??? I mean, wow, my neighbor drives a Porsche that I'd love to have, but that doesn't mean I go steel it! Wake up people. If you're upset about this then you are doing something that is illegal. Face it. I'm not Trolling, just trying to get people to face the music (pun intended). :)
Well, I have no doubt that this legislation will not pass. It is diametrically opposed to the "features" we want, like the ability to *NOT* record commercials (which is currently not provided). In fact, if they flag the commercials so that Tivo's and other systems like them do not allow skipping, my PVR *WILL* be able to skip commercials (with some modifications of course).
I foresee the rising up, of the print media to its once great state. You can take it with you where ever you go, and even use it when no electricity is available. Best of all....if you really don't like the advertisements, you can tear them out and use them to wipe your butt in the absence of toilet paper. Just be careful to not receive a paper-cut.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
Since when does the Senate pass HR bills?
"If any of this worries you please contact your Senators and Representatives and voice your consern."
It sounds like if we did, they'd take us away in handcuffs....
But as far as I'm concerned, the commercials and promotional announcements are the content that I'm most likely to find objectionable.
"If any of this worries you please contact your Senators and Representatives and voice your consern."
Why?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
The bill would also punish people "who bring a video camera into a movie theater to make a copy of the film for distribution" with up to three years imprisonment and fines.
This is the good part. All of this was MPAAs agenda etc... But people carrying cameras into theaters is a big part of how they gathered public momentum (political momentum was acquired on a COD basis)
although I don't like the sounds of this bill, I'm not sure how far I'd get writing to my rep/senator as I didn't vote for them...never have (yet, she's still there). To make things worse, my senator who I did not vote for is one of those politicians with their hands in the R/MIAA-fia's pockets.
At least my rep is very technically up-to-date and she even tried to pass laws favorable to the consumer and to try to protect the fair balance between copyright holders and copyright users.
We just need Arnold to call them "girlie losers" and we are home-free.
Sure, the advertisers have a right to try to get me to watch their ads but I also have the right to ignore them... apparently I shouldn't, thinks Congress. It's getting to the point where it's hard to ignore them, what with the AOL First Down Marker, Verizon Wireless Amphitheater, Viagra Checkout Line, Giant Telco Hat Trick... and now they want to force them on me. Is there no resipte?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
I (unfortunately) live in Utah and I have been writing Hatch about this for the past year. every time I write a letter to him all I get in response is some generic auto-response letter. I'm not talking about email I'm talking about an actual letter sent to me by snail-mail. In addition, this letter usually arrives two to three months after I sent the original letter.
It goes on to say something about how he is working with 'The Leaders in the Computer Industry' to 'Single Out a Few Bad Apples' or something to that effect. I have lost all faith in writing to him or any public official higher up than the Mayor.
What's the use when his votes come from the Disney addicted Mormons who would love to be able to censor content and eat up commercials like they are gospel.
This will pass.
Have phun in US. I think i'll stay here in EUrope. I love to hear from more and more harsh laws in US, but of course I oppose them in EUrope. It's at least four more years there =)
OMG!
Bea Arthur and Betty White in a strap-on frenzy. Won't someone think of the poor fake link trolls?
I found this interesting:
The groups that lined up against the bill include the Consumer Electronics Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the American Conservative Union and public-interest advocacy group Public Knowledge, which hosted a press briefing on Friday as the opening salvo of its campaign to stop passage.
and
Hollywood's involvement has even irked the American Conservative Union, which holds considerable sway with conservative Republicans in Congress. The ACU plans a major print ad campaign this week to oppose the bill, mainly because some provisions would require the Justice Department to file civil copyright lawsuits on behalf of the entertainment industry.
"It's just plain wrong to make the Department of Justice Hollywood's law firm," said Stacie Rumenap, ACU's deputy director.
Sounds like there's some pretty good opposition lined up. Besides writing your Congressbeings, it may be worth keeping track of what these groups are up to.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
"I think many are unhappy that they can't escape the commericalism that is everywhere. I think many people are overwhelmed by advertising everywhere. It is in the ballpark when you go there, and even worse, when you turn on your tv to watch a ballgame they now have advertising images superimposed behind the batters box. It is on billboards, in rural communities where before there was no intrusive advertising signs."
Not to mention in the sky. I want to shoot down the planes here advertising crap.
Anyone else find the ideological mix interesting? The bill is co-sponsered by a mix of Democrats and Republicans. Many get money from Hollywood, which is traditionally Democrat and liberal. Yet this issue is considered by many as being pushed by "conservatives". Where are all the celebrity pundits now?
who ever voted for that dweeb should repent for putting that corporate slut in office. talk about a soulless thieving bastard.
Funny how the Republicans campaign against "Godless Hollywood which is corrupting our values", and then when elected immediatly rush through legislation which will greatly increase the cultural power of Hollywood and Nashville.
That said, this one is a lock. Expect it to be on the President's desk the week after Thanksgiving.
sPh
Compyright? Consern? Editors, please fucking EDIT these stories!!!
</rant>
The Senate will never pass a bill labelled HR2391, that would be a House of Representatives bill.
It wouldn't hurt to notify your Senators and Representatives anyway. Click the link, pick your state or zip and go to their e-mail forms.
only outlaws will PVR!
er... doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
This is legislation by exhaustion. It is clear that there is zero popular support for any of this copyright fascism legislation, and every time a new bill comes around, the various grass roots organizations stir up a frenzy about it, because we all learned our lesson when we let the DMCA get passed.
I have decided they are just trying to tire us out. If they keep trying to push the same kinds of insane measures through by repackaging them with new insane measures, they hope we will be caught offguard and forget to protest one. Once it's passed, it's going to be damned near impossible to get it revoked, barring years of painful jurisprudence to limit its powers (witness the DMCA which only now is starting to be limited in scope by judicial precendent).
How can we make it crystal clear that we don't want more copyright restrictions and that we want our fair use rights encoded in law and guaranteed to us? We need more, well funded groups to stand up for our rights against the fascist copyright regime (and I mean that literally, as the government and big media are essentially working in lockstep on this issue, which is the definition of fascism).
Linkified.
Yer living in it!
___Abuse of power comes as no surprise___
I'm sorry. You're all fucked.
However, I believe this will greatly accelerate the movement toward things like the Creative Commons and FOSS. It will be too dangerous to do otherwise. When lending a book carries a jail sentence, the market will quickly shift toward books that explicitly permit sharing. When misplacing your retail Windows XP carton lands you in prison, Linux will be on everyone's computer.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Senior corporate people are almost always from "marketing". Many corporate dollars and salaries are built around marketing.
Technologies that block or make "marketing" activities moot threaten the most powerful corporate players, either through obsolesence or disrupting business models based on marketers spending money on marketing services.
It's only a matter of time before absorbing marketing messages gets defined as a constitutional obligation, and generating them a constitutional right (oh wait, they've redefined the 1st Ammendment to the US constitution this way already....)
Ah... :) No lameness here (filter buster)
Jay | http://oldos.org
Funny how it's never the US who needs to harmonise with other countries where the lawmakers are not yet completely coopted by large corporate special interests. But that's because most of said special interests call the USA their home. If it were somewhere else, things would still be heading this way, but with a different nation "leading the way".
I believe it's been mentioned on /. before, but those who haven't read it should read Joel Bakan's "The Corporation". It's a very interesting read, and it will certainly open your eyes as to why this sort of thing is happening more and more. Unfortunately, Prof. Bakan hasn't come up with any suggestions as to how to deal with it that I can see working right now...
-- Your mother uses Emacs.
I think the rest of the bill is actually OK. But the non-skip-over commercial stuff is really over the top.
> skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited
I cant believe it. I don't even own my eyes anymore! These politicians can GO TO HELL.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Why do such weird laws always 'occur' in the USA? Everbody knows it, USA is no longer the land of the free.
This doesn't benefit the majority, as is abundantly obvious to /.ers.
However, it greatly benefits the wealthy content-controllers. They have the money, and hence the power, to make it happen.
If we stop them this time, they will just re-propose the bill again and again until we fail to stop them.
Eventually, they will get what they want. They always do.
We're one step closer to The Revolution.
Hey!! Look at the bright side!
;)
All you 30 something software developers out there should rejoice! The average inmate will be a early 20's something computer geek who'd be gunning for your job in a few years time. So all you coders can look forward to knowing that you can safely count on job security while this country goes about throwing most college age people in prison.
And if you're a Bush Voting Republican -- it's double plus good!
You can expect a massive sweep of all those college-edumacated left wing pinko "closet intellectuals" off the streets just in time for Cheney's Presidential Election Campaign.
The last thing this country needs is people who question authority.
And for the rest of you -- REJOICE TOO!!!
Adding millions of people into the prison population means higher STATE REVENUE! We'll have more people bamming out license plates than ever and I'm sure most State Prison Industries will add a contract coding department so your company can hire cheap development from the prisons instead of India! That means, more state revenue to lower your taxes with, cheap labor to help keep your company afloat AND LESS OFFSHORING!!!
Really people, it's a win-win situation.
My anchor tag was flawless. Slashdot is broken.
link
Where television really does watch YOU!
When you write to your representatives, make sure you stay centered on the real problems with the bill.
Also, for pity's sake, use the spellchecker! Then have someone who understands how to construct a sentence review your grammar. The slack-jawed-troglogeek thing works fine for /. but don't expect your representatives to be that sophisticated...
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Could being forced not to skip objectionable commercial content be viewed as a violation of privacy or decency (the right not to be exposed to that which we do not want to endure)?
-phixxr
ungggghhhh
We'll be filling our prison system with bootleggers and people who skip commercials?
Skipping commercials or promotional annoucements is bad, mmmkay!
gotta a light for my Sig?
Does that make it legal to make a copy of the film for personal use? Sweet!
(No, I didn't read either proposed bill. Yes, I'm joking. If I liked a movie enough, I'd buy the DVD.)
Sorry, but as a non-American I can only laugh.
...Now these companies are turning around to the puppets they helped to elect and are expecting a return for all that commerical investment.
You guys voted in these people who had recieved A LOT of campaigning money from large companies.
Apparently this isn't corruption though. Although its hard to see how it isn't corruption when as you say, elected representatives are making decisions which stand to benefit only the select few who gave them campaign money.
Here is a link to the bill itself so you can read it. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./tem p/~c108ActhsU::
NO! NO! Please don't mod me, I'm too young to die a troll. *click* Oh the pain, the pain...
But bills like this can be killed easily if there's opposition. This only works if nobody notices.
So write your member of Congress today.
It's gotten to the point where I cannot allow my young son to watch sporting events in the middle of the day because of the advertising! I'm going to be forced to tivo them and make sure that I'm there to pause and skip over them.
It amazes me to think that so many people in office can be so incredibly out of touch. I'm off to email my reps now.
[insert sig file here]
In America, 53% =~ 100% ("Clear Mandate," sez the Grate Communicator)
Yeah, right.
will be illegal :ohnoes:
But seriously everyone, write your sentators
It may just be an erroneous reference in the Wired article, but the HR 2391 bill does not contain any of the provisions described in the Original Post. The bill with that number does not even carry the same title as mentioned in the Wired article.
Perhaps someone knows the correct number of the bill and could post it here because I would like to read the bill for myself before calling my elected officials in Washington.
I think we will be fine. All you have to do is "infringe copyright by ... offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with calculated expectations of the wonderful potential of further infringement."
Will it be illegal to hit the "mute" button when an ad comes on? because everytime an ad comes on I hit that button. why should I pay for the power to hear something I really don't want to?
Will someone please build a device, not a TIVO, whose sole purpose is to block ads. It should instead play your choice of soothing images and music until the adverts are over. You would have to sell it online from outside the US. You will be rich.
humanfly
Heinlein references are good, but I've noticed that this discussion has a distinct lack of Sagan references. Didn't Sol Hadden get big on a gizmo for automatically skipping commercials?
Dear Avi Lazar, Thank you for contacting me to express your opinions and concerns about legislative matters before the Congress. This is just a short note to let you know your message has been received by my office. Due to the large volume of electronic correspondence that come in, my staff and I are unable to reply directly to your concerns. However, I appreciate your taking the time to write and convey your viewpoints. Your E-mail, along with the many others I receive from the people of Philadelphia and Cheltenham, will help me as I navigate through matters before the U.S. House of Representatives. Thank you for writing to me and if you would like more information on Congress, please visit the U.S. House of Representatives' web site at http://www.house.gov/ or my web site at http://www.house.gov/fattah.
Now while I understand he must get thousands of e-mails, I would like to have seen, somewhere, it saying that someone will READ my statement and add it to the talley of people who wrote similar letters...what a load of crap. He did say it will help him navigate, but this non-pulsed e-mail sounds like it is auto-forwarded to the junk bin. And I did not vote for this guy - I am just stuck with him.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I realise that research on foriegn governments may not be your thing, but if you are going to talk about them, you should know about them. The president does not make laws. Not only does he not, he cannot. He can endorse them, and he has the power to veto their passage (subject to override), but he doesn't make laws.
In the US laws are made by the legslative body congress. It is a body of two houses. The lower body, called the House of Representitives, is composed of 435 representitives. They are divided across the US based on population. The upper body is called the Senate is is composed of 100 senators, two from each state.
For a law to be made, a bill is introduced in one of the bodies of congress. The bill is then debated and voted on (there are a number of ways this can happen and most bills are killed before a full vote). If the bill passes a majority vote, it is tehn sent to the other body for another vote. If it passes a majority in both bodies, it is then given to the President to sign in to law.
So no, the President isn't responsible for this. The person most responsible is Senator Orrin Hatch, from Utah. However the president has nothing to do with this legslation, and hasn't commented on it either way. The only say he'll get is if it does pass both houses, he can veto it (which congress can then override with a 66% vote).
Please, if you are going to comment on the America political system, at least do some cursory research in to how it works. The President is the Chief Executive, meaning he is responsible for the enforcement of the law, not the creation of it. The legslature handles that.
Same thing with treaties. It is not the president's responsibility to make a treaty law. The president signs treties, but that means nothing. A treaty is not law in the US unless ratified by the Senate. The President can sign whatever they like, the Senate has the final say on if that gets to become US law (though the judiciary can override them if it is unconstutional).
So ... what if I object the stupid ass commercial? We get enough advertising shoved down our throats the way it is.
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
If this law gets passed, they'll still have to enforce it. And when they try, it will bring more light on these shennanigans by these groups (**AA) than they will be comfortable with.
Last thing they want is for 90% of people in the US to be aware of the DMCA, etc.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
I read both versions of the bill. It appears to deal only with who owns a patent and what is allowed as prior art. It says nothing about copyright. Are these the right bills?
The Senate bill is S.2192
The House bill is H.R.2391
I have no problem with Congress protecting copyright holder. If you come up with something original and people like it, why shouldn't you expect that work to be protected from unauthorize distribution- whatever the means. We should protect the creative impulses that make this country great. However, for the love of Lord, why do I have to sit through these lame commercials?! Why do I need Viagra for or douche or panty liners? I don't have genital herpes!!! Why is the superbowl the only time in the year we get commercial that is actually entertaining. I submit we should abandon the whole television medium and break the bond that shackle us to our couch. Live, learn, be merry, and most important be passionate.
I know sounds easier than it is. But, one day at a time, it all it takes for freedom
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Here is a link to a contact for senator John Warner. Copy the above paragraph and send it his way! http://warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm
wasn't it Dems that introduced the bill to reinstate the draft? would it be right to say that Dems were the problem when it was only 2 of their own and not the party?
Compyright? Compy is dead!
Fellowship 9/11
This is just part of the massive government conspiracty to make everyone a criminal, thus giving the government something to lord over the general populace and pull the dissenters out of society. The proposed laws are intentionally vague (like virtually all existing federal laws), will only be enforced selectively, and will have no real benefit to the society the government claims to represent.
I can't wait until civilization crumbles.
"...under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited."
Does this also apply to websites? Could it soon be illegal to block pop-up ads?
This nonsense can be laid at the foot of corporatism. Corporatism is not only the driving force behind this latest bit of corporate slavery, but it is also behind the lack of universal healthcare in American (about the only industrialized nation not to have it), and the war machine that has been creating bloody, murderous unnecessary wars since after WW2. It is also why this country is going backwards while countries like Sweden and Denmark and Belgium are going forward.
Now, you may say, Oh, it is the Republicans doing this. Well, maybe they are in the lead, but it is really the Democrat's fault for going along with it.
I say, the way to stop Corporatism is not to attack the lead dog pulling the sled (the Republicans), but instead to starve out the party that is supposedly the opposition--the Democrats.
Now, I am a hardcore liberal, a lefty. But I am no longer voting for Democrats, except in exceptional cases. Instead, I will vote for Republicans, in order to put the Democrats out of power compeletely. I will vote Green Party when the race is not close.
Once the Democrats are out of power almost completely, then it will be a lot easier to reform the party as a true leftist party.
STOP VOTING DEMOCRAT, MY FELLOW LIBERALS!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I have a question for Mister Love the Ads Man who thinks it is stealing to skip commercials. What if Ramses make and ad with two young people about make out and opening a condom? I personally would not want my young daughter to see that ad yet. What about a product that you know you will never buy like a Tampax ad viewed by a single man or an ad for a really violent movie that offends you? There are a lot of reasons to skip ads that have nothing to do with wanting to steal the movie's content. They industry used to transmit this product freely with the knowledge that the ads in it might or might not appeal to us. We had the right to choose to look at them. Now they want to say this is our product and you cannot look at it unless you look at all these ads whether you want the product or not. This changes the whole notion of art and free expression and makes its into a commodity. Take note they have been given the right to use our airwaves freely. In a way it is like a barter system, they get the right to use our airwaves to try to sell their products. This may or may not work but they do so freely. Well shouldn't it work both ways? Why can they get free broadcast rights but we cannot get the free choice to restrict what part of that broadcast we see. Think about that next time you have to explain to your wife why your child is asking about condoms or when an ad for a violent flick comes out and your kids in tears. Think about next time you pay taxes that the FCC uses to regulate airwaves. You are already paying for it. I say if they want to force us to view ads, then they are trespassing on my property with their transmissions and I want to charge them for that right.
The bill would also punish people "who bring a video camera into a movie theater to make a copy of the film for distribution" with up to three years imprisonment and fines.
Good. Why would anybody in the world be against this? These people are stealing movies. You can pose and say that 'movies' are some sort of ethereal work of art and no one is arrested for taking a picture of the mona lisa, or some other bullshit, but in the end, these are the same kiddiez inventing little transparent graphics to overlay movies in premeir so that people know the l33t hax0r that ripped the movie. And subsequently ripped off all those trying to make a living and create something.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Why must a commercial be sexually explicit to be objectionable?
You have basically conceded that a commercial in and of itself is something that you have no right to skip.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
I'm a Republican, and I normally try to be as law-abiding as I can. However, I am fed up with Hollywood-oriented copyright laws, and as I see prior examples in this country's history for civil disobedience, that is the road I take. For example, I own several collections of episodes which I have copied to my computer, using a DeCSS program. I do not do this to share them, or to make illegal copies. I simply do it so that I don't have to fumble around with switching disks every time I want to see something different. I am not in any way harming the companies that produced this stuff. Someday I would like to have all the shows I like to watch this way, rather than having to watch TV, but I don't think my wife would let me divert our cable bill into DVD purchases. So, if more laws like this keep getting passed (I hope they do not, but who knows...) I will simply continue, in the privacy of my own home, to do as I see fit. I will endeavor not to violate the real "rights" of media producers, but stuff like saying I can't skip through comercials... thats just absurd. If I am paying for content, I should be able to choose wether I view it or not - wether it be a TV show, a sex scene, or a viagra add. Anyway, thats my two cents... and yes, I'm posting annonymously because of my tin foil hat... ;)
Not, it's not.
Presumably, as a limiting example, Libertarians would have NO government interference in the free market. It cuts both ways. In this case, if the free market decides that there is a place for commercial-skipping playback, and people are willing to pay for it, then there WILL be commercial-skipping playback devices on the market.
What is the Libertarian position on copyright and patent law?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Pretty soon, when buying food from the store, you will be told how you are allowed to eat your Reeses Peanut Butter Cup. Gone are the days of eating the edges first as you will be breaking the law by circumventing the rights of the peanut butter to be eaten in a fair manner alongside its chocolate counter part.
... oh wait a minute ... that's right, they are still making money off of us paying for their cable service.
Are you some kind of discriminatory racist criminal? You surely belong in jail, but we wont tell anyone where, why, or even acknowledge that we were involved in the hate crimes you were pushing onto the people of this fine country.
Obviously, the advertisers are tracking who watches what commercials and then pay the broadcasters accordingly.
If you skip the commercials, the cable companies don't make any money
The greedy bastards should all die.
Most of the comments so far simply address commercials.
There are, however, some who do object to pornography and gratuitous violence. People who do so may not have appropriate representation, however, when advertisements themselves contain objectionable material. How would this legislation address this kind of issue?
Oh, great. Now they are going to mandate manufacture of TVs that disable the remote when commercials come on? OK, I'll just hit the power button. Oh, wait, that'll be a soft button that doesn't work at commercial time, too.
How 'bout I pull the plug?
"I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that..."
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Senator Specter, I am extremely worried about HR2391, the Intellectual Property Protection Act. From what I have read it seems this bill only supports big business and not the general public. It seems that it, along with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act will continue to strip away the fundamental freedoms from American public. The only group that this seems to help are large corporations. The bill's summary states that I can skip gore/violence in a movie (which I already can do with a remote control) but I would not be able to skip commercials? This is ridiculous. If this passes, I can only assume that the next logical step taken by commercial backed lobbyists is to promote a bill that bans the American public from switching the television channel during commercial breaks to see what else is on. Television advertising has only been around as long as the television. Before this, companies were able to market and advertise their products and still make large profits. This bill just seems to be taking a step backwards. It doesn't protect the free market but strips it of its basic ideals. The beauty of the free market is that the market (the public) will dictate what businesses will be profitable, instead of the government or large corporations deciding. If we all end up with TiVo's and skip every single commercial, and television advertising becomes extinct (which is a ridiculous long shot) then the market will bounce back with INNOVATION and find a new avenue to market their products. The internet has already provided, in my mind, a much better advertising platform. I have never bought anything off a television ad, but yet have bought numerous items off a internet ad that was linked categorically to the webpage I was visiting. This bill just seems to only hurt the American public in order to protect a few corporations who refuse to adapt and innovate to stay profitable within our supposed free market, which seems to be moving to a more unfree market with each passing year. Thank You, David ****** Munhall, PA 15120
[insert lame joke here]
Bad legislation is often hurried or rushed.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Title I of the bill seems to indicate that if someone develops an invention while recieving a grant, then the grant giver can patent the invention. Doesn't this seem outlandish too? Why should a grant alone, with no other contracts in place take away the inventor's ownership of the invention?
I wouldn't worry much about the bill. At least, not right now. We're now in a lame duck session of Congress and there are several other bills that both the House and Senate are trying to get through, get sent to committee and get finalized and signed by the President before this session is through. The intelligence reform bill comes to mind.
Anything that passes the Senate, in order to become law, would also have to be passed by the House. Then it would have to be sent to a conference committee where members from both the House and the Senate try to reconcile the differences between the bills passed in each chamber. Members of that committee would have to agree on a final form of the bill and then send the compromise back to House and Senate for an up or down vote. This in and of itself, is no small feat. There are plenty of bills that pass both the House and the Senate that never make it out of the conference committee.
If both chambers managed to pass it, the president would then have to sign it. The chances of all of this happening in a lame duck session of Congress are slim to none. Especially when you consider that they are trying to get this mammoth intelligence reform bill done. This copyright bill will then die when this session of Congress ends and the process will have to begin all over again. Don't worry about this bill, at least, not yet. Instead, focus your energy on getting the idiots that sponsored the bill and the idiots that ultimately voted for it out of office the next time they are up for reelection.
One day corporations will be able to strategically destroy key stars in the sky in order to display a celestial version of logos in the heavens.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
It's less about breaking the law than it is concern of excessive punishments for minor, nonviolent crimes. Granted, that sounds like the same case for pot, but when a spammer or some 15 year old downloading stuff off of kazaa has the ability to see more jail time than a rapist or child molester, it causes me some greif and concern.
*sigh* :/
This portion of the bill would add an exemption. It doesn't do anything else.
Therefore, it merely says that skipping over material other than commercials and some other things, accomplished in a particular manner, is completely legal.
It doesn't say that anything is illegal. So skipping commercials, which isn't within this exemption, will have to merely not be prima face infringement or will have to fall into a different exemption, just as it does right now!
So if it is legal to skip commercials now, it will still be legal even if this exemption becomes law.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Ah, but one of my Senators is in the Subject line, so I know in advance that it's no good writing to him about this. I've done so several times, though to his credit, I get answers back.
Actually I need to get on the stick about my next letter to Senator Leahy. I plan to write how BOTH sides are wrong in the copyright debates, not just the filesharers. I further plan to include "Courtney Love Does the Math" as well as similar articles I can readily find. I also plan to look up the Slashdot article about RIAA not paying royalties to artists from earlier this year. (Then settling for smaller amounts, where they were caught.) I'd like to make a brief case about how the RIAA is NOT protecting artists, but running a business even LESS efficient than the Pentagon. How else do you take $.25 hardware costs, (Need a royalty number, when the artist isn't cut out, entirely.) and then cry about NOT making a profit at $15.95?
I don't want to kill a tree on this, but if anyone has helpful links I can print, I'm interested.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited
This bill contradicts itself. I find most commercials/promotional announcements objectionable, and more and more these days are sexually explicit. Does the "skip objectionable content" part trump the "prohibit skipping commercials" part? Really, I don't want my kids minds to be warped by the likes of Britney Spears selling brown sugar water or any other product.
I'm glad I live in Canada where the government doesn't try to tell us what we can and cannot watch...Oh wait...
Only a republican adminstration would prevent people from skipping ads in their own home! Money...money...money...someone has to fund the DOJ's prosecution of infringers...
Jax
Hello 'right not to be offended'.
Goodbye 'right to free entertainment'.
Of course if you find commercials and announcements offensive...
Comments based purely on wired report. I did NOT read the proposed legislation.
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
You guys voted in these people who had recieved A LOT of campaigning money from large companies
No, I didn't. I voted third-party. I am now suffering from the tyranny of the majority, or at least, the tyranny of the representatives that the majority elected.
Democracy (ok, ok, "Representative Democracy") is overrated. Sure, it's better than most of the other systems, but it still sucks. Ultimatly, in this supposedly enlightened age, people are STILL telling me what to do, when, and how to do it, even when what I want to do (or NOT to do) has no effect on any one else. I don't give a rats ass if it IS the law, or if it IS democracy, or whatever, it is still tyranny to me, me being a sovereign individual.
But then again, we really aren't that evolved as a species or as a society, and these things are to be expected.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
... during the commercials. Guess that makes legs illegal?
I was trying to figure this out so I go to the US copyright office faq. So far so good. Format is
Copyright 2004 Anonymous Coward
or
© 2004 Anonymous Coward
But I notice that all the GNU/Linux stuff is
Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc
and that "(C)" is not a copyright symbol. What makes it worse is the UCC doesn't allow "Copyright", it must be "©". So is the copyleft valid outside the US, given it's not a legal form of copyright notice?
The commericials that are in the middle of work- inserted in a time break, or into the visual- are altering the authors original expression without their permission. The doesn't apply to advertisement before or after a presentation (e.g. videotapes) or off to the side of a visual.
Or does it mean it's a bill in the senate?
Only George Bush's administration would prevent someone from skipping ads in their own home. Who else will pay the DOJ's expenses for prosecuting infringers? This should be the definition for paradox in Websters.
Jax
A nearly lame duck House and Senate passed both the Bono Act and the DMCA about a week before the November 1998 election, and they did it by voice vote so that constituents couldn't know which way anybody voted.
Before I write a letter to my senators, in the interests of not looking totally stupid, could someone explain why the senate is handling a bill numbered with an HR - a House Resolution? Shouldn't the senate have an SR number for this bill?
>
> 20 Minutes Into the Future...and getting closer every second.
20 minutes into the future -- 17 years into the past.
From the Max Headroom Episode Guide, we have 14 episodes. Of those 14, I can classify only THREE as "fiction", meaning "requires technology that doesn't exist today."
Episode 1: Blipverts. Check. (Ad agencies are designing ads to look "good" even if you're fast-forwarding them at 30x on a DVR).
Episode 2: Rakers. 75% there. ("Ultimate Fighting Championships", "COPS" - it'll be official when we have a reality TV series in which serious bodily harm and/or death is part of the show.)
Episode 3: Body Banks. Check. (Harvesting of Brazilian street youth, Chinese execution market.)
Episode 4: Security Systems. Check. ("Credit fraud! That's worse than murder!" - and now 3 years for skipping commercials.)
Episode 5: War. Check. (Bringing you the opening 72 hours of Operation Iraqi Freedom, live and direct!)
Episode 6: The Blanks. 50% there. (HomeSec, national ID card, Safe Travel programme, MATRIX database, Supreme Court decisions regarding citizens' obligation to reveal or provide identity on demand, all clearly pointing towards the criminalization of anonymity and development of systems and technologies to make the "roundup" option more practical.)
Episode 7: Academy. Check. ("Captain Midnight" was a real-life "zipper", and was likely the inspiration for this episode. This was the only "current events" episode in the series.)
Episode 8: Deities. 75% there. (We already have "online churches", it's only a matter of time before some huckster starts charging for diskspace for the soul. All the technology is now in place, all we need is the huckster and some suckers. :)
Episode 9: Grossberg's Return. Check. ("Watch while you sleep" devices in the episode are basically like auto-clickers for those stupid dotcom pyramid schemes like AllAdvantage, used to artificially boost clickthrough ratings.)
Episode 10: Dream Thieves. 0% there. (Finally, something that's just science fiction!)
Episode 11: Whacketts. 0% there. (Finally, another fiction episode :)
Episode 12: Neurostim. 25% there. ("Neuromarketing" is the buzzword -- advertisers are doing active brain scans to see how effective their campaigns are. Long way from being able to induce brain states to drive product, but it's a start.)
Episode 13. Lessons. Check. (Any teacher using showing taped from the TV in the classroom without paying a license fee is eligible for the DMCA smackdown. In 1987, the smackdown was dystopian science fiction. Today, the surprising thing would be if they didn't get the smackdown.)
Episode 14. Baby Growbags. 0% (OK, three episodes out of 14, fiction.)
It's not illegal if you can't get caught.
I find promotional announcements and comercials to be very objectionable content.
Turn off that fucking idiot box!
There are other options, ya know. Go outdoors with your kids! Spend time with your family! Make your kids do their homework!
People are slaves to electornic teats because they choose to be.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
UHHH.. I can't find this bill on www.congress.gov
Are you sure it's 2391?
JH
If any of this worries you please contact your Senators and Representatives and voice your concern.
No. Contact your local news media, both paper and telelvision. Explain why this is bad, how it will adversely affect Americans. If the mainstream media starts to cover this, more people will hear about it and that, in turn, will generate calls to your local Senators and Representatives.
I've always thought that if you follow the logic that copying music is "theft" (which I don't, btw)
Some state governments do, btw. Your state might have a definition of "theft" like that of the Indiana Code.
Some of the things also provided for include:
- A "voluntary program" of the DoJ to send copyright warning letters to ISPs regarding users they're watching.
- All DoJ units dedicated to computer hacking will also have people specialized in IP Infringement added to their teams.
- The Attorney General/US Government being given leeway to prosecute in civil cases in lieu of the copyright owner
- Automatic removal of commercials banned (not manual skipping)
- Extending rights of libraries with the Orphan Copyright Clause (amending Sec. 108(i) in Title 17 to apply to (b), (c), and (h) instead of (b) and (c))
Another interesting section involves Congress's "findings" regarding P2P apps. Choice findings include:
"The vast majority of software products, including peer-to-peer technology, do not pose an inherent risk. Responsible persons making software products should be encouraged and commended for the due diligence and reasonable care they take including by providing instructions, relevant information in the documentation, disseminating patches, updates, and other appropriate modifications to the software."
"Massive volumes of illegal activity, including the distribution of child pornography, viruses, and confidential personal information, and copyright infringement occur on publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services every day."
And of course the clincher!
"It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) responsible software developers should be commended, recognized, and encouraged for their efforts to protect consumers;
(2) currently the level of ongoing and persistent illegal and dangerous activity on publicly accessible peer-to-peer file sharing services is harmful to consumers, minors, and the economy; and
(3) therefore, Congress and the executive branch should consider all appropriate measures to protect consumers and children, and prevent such illegal activity."
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?!?!
Have to go to the bathroom during the comercial break while watching the football game? Don't even think about it. You had better go during the (explicit) half-time show, I guess.
Never leave the kids watching a DVD: they might not pay attention during the previews, and prison will ruin the rest of their precious lives.
(All in good fun.)
Oh, my bad. Only Wired seems to call it the Intellectual Property Protection Act.
Others call it by the bill's REAL name.
I say bring it on. Let them totally lock down content and the way people interact with it. For years now we have all relied on alternative media and distribution systems while at the same time relying on traditional "big content" for the stuff getting delivered. It's time for a creative revolution on the content side.
... for making changes to the original star wars movies and to E.T. Damn ex post facto law. Walkie talkies instead of guns, seriously...
today is spelling optional day.
I am always amazed at the extreme ignorance that Americans have of history. It's part of the corporatist strategy that this be so, I suspect.
So: I suggest analyzing the factors that allowed the fascitst to grab state power in much of Europe in the period between the wars. The opposition was split because the bourgeois parties were mostly scared of the communists and the communists refused any alliance with the center, per Stalin's orders. So they both cut deals with the far right; the latter manipulated the situation to their advantage and in the end trumped them all.
The lunatic narcissist Nader is now making the same mistake.
Ours is a time in which all people of good will should unite againt the very real threat posed by a crazed, superstitious, violent, money-grabbing far right.
http://www.senate.gov/
Unfortunately I don't see much way back out of this situation now. The average person in a reasonably stable society is perfectly fine with just picking the person they see in ads who offends them less, and not doing any research into their agendas on a campaign-contribution-source and vote-by-vote basis. And then there's the fact that even if you do that with all the candidates, there's a good chance you will still be forced to pick the lesser of several evils, as you're not likely to agree with someone on all the issues. There is currently very little incentive (read chance of winning) for any additional parties to really fight for a shot at the presidency.
You are still officially wasted your time. My senator is Hatch, and he, like most of the others, are bought and paid for.
So at what point do I need to tatoo 666 to my forhead so I can be prepared for it?
And at the very least, after a few weeks we could bust them all for whatever the hell they're going to call the crime
When Congress passes a law, they typically exempt themselves. For example, Congress exempted themselves from the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If you're upset about this then you are doing something that is illegal. Face it
So if I buy a DVD from the store and want to fast forward past the advertisements before the movie, that means I stole it?
I am able to fast forward past advertisements on the VHS tapes I have, but on DVD's they are taking advantage of the lock feature to prevent you from fast forwarding past the advertisements. With this bill, not only don't we have a choice available to skip the ads, but it will be ILLEGAL to skip the ads.
Seems like an abuse of power to me, it shows where the money that is filling politicians' pockets is coming from.
Any teacher using showing taped from the TV in the classroom without paying a license fee is eligible for the DMCA smackdown.
This is NOT completely true.
If the film is used CLEARLY for educational purposes, it's in 100% safe legal territory.
If it's CLEARLY not, it's illegal without a license.
If it's NOT clear, then things get sticky.
Clearly legal:
Watch Romeo and Juliet and write an essay on what you saw.
Clearly illegal:
Watch Romeo and Juliet and move on to the next lesson.
Not clear:
#1) Watch Romeo and Juliet and take a pop quiz just to make sure you were paying attention.
#2) Read Romeo and Juliet, write an essay, then watch the movie as a reward.
Ways to fix the not clear's:
#1) Make the students take detailed notes, grade the notes, then test them in detail over the movie.
#2) Write a paper comparing and contrasting the book to the movie, and discuss why the producer may have chosen to deviate from the play in the way that he did.
Despite your best efforts, your safe-harbor protection may go out the window if the movie in question is not directly related to the curriculumn you are teaching. It may also go out the window if watching only a small PART of the movie would satisfy the curriculumn requirements.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Don't fight this bill, or any other measure of it's type.
Why?
At this point, the only way to stop this is to let it go too far...way too far. Yes, it's a risk, we could end up in a 1984 type situation, but I think it's the only way to wake up the average Joe to the problem.
See, when we fight this in a long, drawn out fashion, the population becomes numbed to the fighting. "Oh, it's just them libruls yellin' again..." We also serve to slow down the societal effects of the bad guys, giving the averate Joe time to get used to it, time to adjust.
But if we let go, the bad guys might get cocky. (They are already, to a great extent.) If they try to take over too fast they could shock the average Joe awake.
Maybe.
I know, to the activist this sounds like insanity. You think you've got to fight as hard as you can to win. Sometimes, though, the best strategy is to let the bull charge past. Then, if you're lucky, you can stab him in the ass.
What next...
A law that says you cannot change the television program you are watching during commercial breaks!
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
There are a lot of significant differences, but few of them are actually important. For example, though I supported Kerry, Kerry's presidency would have simply been a kinder, gentler version of the same stuff Bush's administration is doing. Some environmental and labor policy would change, but the two greatest fundamental issues facing America and the world in the 21st century would not have gone away. The spotlight on them would merely have dimmed.
1) Western imperialism (dare I say American imperialism?), of which terrorism is merely a facet.
2) The rise of and lack of limits on corporate power - of which terrorism is also a facet.
If we could honestly deal with these two issues, which are fast becoming one and the same due to corporate power influencing governments (and therefore imperialist policies), many other problems would become more manageable, and some might even disappear.
blarg.
I think that either I'm missing something in the text of this bill, or someone else is. As I read it, the bill's prohibition of removing commercial material relates to companies providing this as a service. What this section (start on page 27, line 8 in the version I just grabbed) seems to be doing is indemnifying companies that modify movies for families. That is, if someone bought a copy of "The GodFather" and would let their kids watch it if only it wasn't for the horse head scene, a company could legitimately provide a service whereby they remove that scene from the movie for a price so that this person's kids can watch it. I don't read it as saying that we can't SKIP commercials, but rather that I can't set up a company where you send me a movie and I remove all the trademarks and commercial symbols within it. That seems pretty fair to me. I don't think people should be able to remove "universal pictures" from the opening of a movie and replace it with "joe bob's films" and then distribute them legally. Am I just misreading this?
I learned that that the Constitution does not "grant" rights. They are mine to start with. Hence the needs for laws to curb what may or may not be my right (for example copying other peoples stuff).
I've read the current copyright law. What in the HELL do we need to add MORE crap to it?
This goes beyond protection and borders on the edge of being a nightmarish "Clockwork Orangian" dystopia.
But better than Fallujah...
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
What's the use when his votes come from the Disney addicted Mormons
The Walt Disney Company made Kill Bill. What would the LDS think of that?
I don't think that is the issue. The issue is the following language:
under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited
===-=-==-==-==-=
See, that's the problem. That's not what the law says. You're reading from the article. Which is not what the bill says.
Well, I see a pony. I don't know about you. :-P
Microsoft will be so busy sueing everyone making a linux distribution, you'll have to compile and build it from scratch.
Do you mean a Gentoo stage 1 that runs under Windows?
Ricers.
When Linux is outlawed, only outlaws will use Linux; the rest of us will have moved on to the allegedly superior security practices of OpenBSD.
The president signs treties, but that means nothing. IANAL, etc. The point I think you're trying to make is technically true but misleading. The President can in fact make "treaties" without going through the Senate. The only real difference is they're called executive agreements and only the President has to expressly approve them. The Supreme Court has established that these are constitutional. See for example Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654.
It isn't the beginning of April already is it!? Or is /. starting early now?
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
If I have an orange security clearance, am I allowed to watch yellow commercials?
That is that the end user consumer (one who has legally purchased or acquired posession of a non-infringing copy of a copyrighted work) has the full and unlimited freedom to copy whatever the hell he or she desires, to rip any portions of its content out, and to even decrypt it, if he or she desires _AS LONG AS_ the resulting copy is for personal and private use only.
Of course, this will never happen... because the technology that would enable a person to do legally do this would be widely exploited to aid pirates as well... and guess which side of the equation gets more attention from the industries that create the media?
So since the provision won't happen, I'm not okay with it... but I can honestly say that _IF_ it were to be that way, I would actually not only have less aversion to this proposal, but would actually be willing to even support it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391 Summary As the 108th congressional session winds down, there is one major piece of intellectual property legislation currently under consideration. Here are the pieces of the bill: H.R. 2391 Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2003 The Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2004 would allow researchers and inventors who work for different organizations to share information without losing the ability to file a patent. Passed the House March 10, 2004. H.R. 4077 Piracy Deterrence in Education Establishes "offering for distribution" as basis for criminal copyright violation and "making available" for civil violation, regardless of whether there is any distribution or copying, let alone infringement. While traditional infringement employs a higher, "willful" infringement standard, this new cause of action lowers the standard of infringement to "knowing with reckless disregard." Passed the House Sept. 28, 2004 on voice vote. S. 2237 The Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation (PIRATE) Act The bill would authorize the Justice Dept. to file civil actions against copyright infringers. We believe that is an inappropriate use of federal funds to enforce private rights of action. Passed Senate June 25, 2004 under unanimous consent. Passed the Senate June 25, 2004. S. 1932 The Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004 (ART Act) The bill would make the unauthorized use of a video camera in a movie theater to transmit or make a copy of a copyrighted work into an imprisonable offense. Fair use protections guaranteed under copyright law would not apply. Text was folded into H.R. 4077. Passed the Senate June 25, 2004. H.R. 4586 The Family Movie Act The provisions were included in H.R. 4077 as passed by the House. The original House version of this bill provided an affirmative right for those who used technology to skip objectionable material, such as profanity, violence, or other adult material, in the audio / video works that they legally purchased. This is a right that most believe manufacturers of technology and consumers already have--regardless of H.R. 4077. The entertainment community has hijacked this provision and turned it against consumers and the tech community. Now, the affirmative right to watch and skip parts of the content that a consumer has legally obtained only exists if certain conditions are met: no commercial or promotional ads may be skipped. Additionally, technology manufacturers must provide a notice at the beginning each showing stating that "the motion picture is altered from the performance intended by the director or copyright holder of the motion picture." This sets the functionality of the everyday VCR and TiVo on its head. H.R. 3632 The Anticounterfeiting Act of 2004 Provides penalties and jail sentences for trafficking in "counterfeit labels, illicit labels or counterfeit documentation or packaging" of records, software, movies, etc. The original bill also provided penalties for filing false information with Internet registrars, but that portion wasn't picked up in the omnibus. Passed the House Sept. 21, 2004. H.R. 5136 The Preservation of Orphan Works Act The bill would allow libraries to create copies of certain copyrighted works that, in their last twenty years of copyright term, are no longer commercially exploited, and are not available at a reasonable price. Introduced Sept. 23, 2004. No further action. S. 1933 Enhancing Federal Obscenity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement The bill would amend copyright law to provide that a certificate of registration shall satisfy registration requirements irrespective of any inaccurate information on the registration application, unless: (1) the inaccurate information was included on the application with knowledge that it was inaccurate; and (2) the inaccurate information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration. This is a way of eliminating defenses raised in many suits (including Napster,
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
Don't just write to your senator, write to them continously. Ask them if they really love you and your country, ask them what was the last thing they did for you - what was the last law they past that was on 'your' side. Tell them that it would be nice once in a while if they called or wrote to you instead of you having to do it all the time. Tell them you don't appreciate being used and abused like this, explain that the little whore corporate lobbyist they are seeing is just after their power and that you will lobby twice as hard for all your friends to vote for someone else. If these cockroaches are taking bribes or doing special favours then you need to make damn sure you and all you're friends give them the bitch treatment, if you're not sure what to write, you'll need to find someone who knows how its done;)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Ok I am curious, how would this play with the vchip? After all doesn't the vchip moderate both commercials as well as non comercial content?
Government has no place in making these kind of laws. Especially the US government. Shit, when are more people going to start voting Libertarian. This is legislated thought. Insane..
Commercials and promotional announcements are objectionable content.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/action/hr4077
Just fill out your info and click.
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I thought they like to enforce existing laws,not make new ones?
I live in Canada.
to recreate all forms of entertainment using copyright licenses like the Creative Commons. Just don't play their game. Let them make their IP an unassailable bastion for the new robber barons and just ignore their oh so precious music, books, and movies. Just opt out of this culture once and for all.
Painfully, this means starting back with the public domain and I have no doubt that it will take decades to rebuild a comparable archive of high quality music, books, and movies.
Personally, I am becoming less and less interested with what the traditional media has to offer anyway. It's just too stale. I find myself looking more for a community of people willing to share their ideas and creations with each other freely.
What the open source community should do is continue to self-organize into a community capable of supporting fulltime authors, artists and musicians. Seriously, let's not wait for legislation to help us with establishing a free society. Let's do it now and let our 'leaders' follow (like they nearly always do anyway).
AC because I'm at work.
However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited.
This is wrong. The proposed law does not prohibit skipping commercials.
What this portion of the law is about are products like ClearPlay, which is a DVD player that "sanitizes" movies by eliminating the naughty bits. Some object to this as censorship, others endorse it as personal control of content.
Movie producers have claimed that ClearPlay violates their copyrights on movies. This new bill incorporates an earlier proposal that would basically make it clear that the system does not violate copyright. It explicitly says that these kinds of filtering systems are legal.
However, the exemption from copyright does not apply to systems that eliminate commercials. That is the clause which is causing so much controversy. It leaves open the possibility that filtering commercials might be said to violate the copyright held by the original producers of the content.
Here is where the big mistake is made in interpreting this. The new law does not change the legal status of filtering commercials. It might be legal, or it might not. Generally, it is untested. What the new law FAILS to do is to explicitly state that it is legal.
I hope that readers are intelligent enough to distinguish between a law that criminalizes skipping commercials, versus a law that fails to legalize them. The truth is that this law does not change the legality of the action.
Unfortunately the Wired author either was not intelligent enough to make this distinction, or chose to present an inflammatory and false interpretation in order to increase his readership and make more money for his employer.
for the last FUCKING TIME.
:(
David Cobb was the green party presidential candidate.
-sigh-
Maybe not, but someone (M$?) is sure to try to make it ban Adblock if the law passes. Some of those ads have videos, and the ads are part of the web page being viewed, so Firefox is blocking part of the integral whole of the web page.
Truman Show anyone?
I agree, most program will have embeded commercials in them. Many shows and movies have been doing this for awhile though (think of all the movies with people drinking coke/Pepsi)
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
From the article:
RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy wrote in an e-mail. "The intellectual property industries are one of our leading national exports, and it's approprate for the federal government to have a role in protecting those sectors from rampant piracy."
Ok, so how is cracking down on copyright law within the US going to prevent people from other countries from doing these things? Bunch of blithering idiots, they are.
---in which the inventor who would change the world is murdered and all records of his invention destroyed.
The gadget, for those of you who haven't read the story, could probe the future and determine with 100% accuracy the time and date of your death. No one mourns it's loss.
Sad state the US has come to... The only thing we can do to change things now is to suceed and start from scratch.
Sec. 2319B. Unauthorized recording of motion pictures in a motion picture exhibition facility
[...]
At least they don't try to regulate private screenings. I guess.
SEC. 210. ENHANCEMENT OF CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
(1) infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain,
(2) infringes a copyright willfully by the reproduction or distribution, including by the offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, or
(3) infringes a copyright by the knowing distribution, including by the offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement, during any 180-day period, of--
(A) 1,000 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works,
(B) 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $10,000, or
(C) 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted pre-release works,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish the necessary level of intent under this subsection.; and
[...]
(g) Limitation on Liability of Service Providers-
[...]
These provisions say that there are three ways you can be liable:
The valuation is "retail value", but in effect they munge that in the definitions section to mean the asking price. So street value may or may not determine whether someone goes to jail; it may be some absurdly high asking price.
Still, on its face anyway, this is going after people who are either profiting or trafficking in other people's copyrighted commercial stuff.
The next question is, since FOSS is copyrighted, how does this change affect enforcement of the GPL? Someone who loses their right to copy under the GPL would be liable depending on the value of the work, which may or may not be its asking price.
sigs, as if you care.
Reading the Wired article talks about HR4077 and S2237. So where did H.R.2391 and S.2192 come in?
Actually, now that I'm digging some more, it looks like H.R.2391 got padded w/ that piracy mess. Actually, it looks like they trojan-horsed it, where they took the patent bill and stripped the copy out and put in that mess. So if the Senate version passed, does it have to go through re-voting in the Senate, given that the House has dramatically changed the bill?
Just want to make sure I tell my representative the right bill. If I'm confused, I'm thinking they might be, too. Of course, they've been at this game for a while longer than I have.
Looks like I need to write my H.R. dude (instead of my Senate dudes).
I'm not sure what the secret to success is, but the secret to failure lies in trying to please everyone -Bill Cosby
n addition the bill would "permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have.
Not the way Cleanflicks does it. "We are the leading provider of Edited Hollywood movies." Editing out naked Kate Winslet in Titanic, and Arnold's bare-naked-butt in Terminator 2 and Terminator 3.
They've been fighting in court against MGM and Universal for years, because they used to take the actual mastered DVD and burn their own "version" of the movie, and ship that back to the customer. They've finally worked out a way around it, where the actual disk isn't changed and shipped back to the customer. They sell a player that blurs or skips scenes, based on the flashable firmware (you have to pay for a subscription on the firmware updates). I doubt Saving Ryan's Privates would even play.
This law makes them legal. Whoot for Orin Hatch. Whoot for special interests. Whoot for Illinois kicking out the Mormons back when they had the chance in the 1800's. Whoot for Utah.
Know the Difference.
Marketing is where you come up with an idea, get together with focus groups and determine needs/wants for a potential product.
Advertising is when you try and tell people outside of the group the product is originally marketed for, that they need it more then anything else.
One is filled with lies, the other is filled with attempting to make the right thing. Knowing that difference is very important.
If I had a choice between having a good marketer or a good advertiser move into upper management, I would take the marketer all day long, any day. Based on the simple fact that the marketer is trained to find out what is needed and work towards that goal and teh advertiser is trained to take what they have and lie all the way to bank about it.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I don't like not being able to skip commercials and the like, and I realize we have always been able to skip objectionable content. This law is bad because like always it just spells out what the gov can or can't do and does not say much about us or corporations.
Our criminal law is based on the idea the we are supposed to let he government protect us for certain things, the social contract implies we wave the right to protech ourselves in those instances with the assurance someone else will. If some punk kit runs his ricer down my street at 90mph everyday nearly killing me when I am trying to get my mail, its a matter for the police and the procecuter not for me to shoot out his tires or even have standing to sue neccecarily.
If we give the Government power to enfoce copyright as a criminal matter then the *IAA should have to give up their right to do investigations, in most instances to sue violators who were not selling boot legs, and to attempt in most ways to enfoce the rules themselves. It should be a strict matter for the prosecuter. This would be good for most people because 1.The county prosecuter most certainly has bigger fish to fry then your copying a dvd from block buster, the chances of you being investigated and especially charged are nil. 2. You would have all your civil rights. Nobody seems to be doing much of anything to stop record companies from embeding software on auto run cds that call home. The government could do no such thing without a warrant. In short I think criminalizing copyright is probably the best way to give "fair use" back to the un-informed masses.
What is total BS is if both media giants and the gov get to do it which is how its shapeing up now.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
So... if the Emergency Broadcast System happens to play over a commercial, is that still illegal?
When you have to buy tea and salt from one source.
Hmm, so much for the land of the free and home of the brave I guess. I can only wonder what we'll see once the new Congress is sworn in. On the other hand there may be some good in this. If the regulations and govt intrusions become onerous enough, maybe people will watch less TV and do something more worthwhile, like getting the government the f*** out of our living rooms and bedrooms!
This kind of copyright legislation is a good example of big money corporate muscle setting the agenda. I suspect the new Congress will make it even easier for them to get what they want. Yeah, this sort of thing has happened before, but in the past at least it wasn't so brazenly obvious that the strings were being pulled.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
From SEC. 212 of Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act of 2004 (Reported in Senate)[H.R.2391.RS], available as http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.239 1:/ ....
...
(3) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following:
(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed for such use at the direction of a member of a private household, if--
(A) no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology; and
(B) no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture.';and
It seems that one key clause in there is 'the making imperceptible' of the editing out of the commercial. Seems that if you got a 1 second 'commercials removed' screen then it might be OK?
The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited.
Nowadays whole movies could be considered commercials or promotional announcements for the upcoming video games! "You can't skip this scene of the movie, it's an ad for the upcoming Star Wars Pod Racer 2005 for the xbox."
Because it's closer to the truth than I'd care for it to be.
Salt is essential for life. Tea isn't, but by God, we went to War over it.
Jobs: Nya Nya! iTunes makes money jerk! :-) not in my country it doesn't
Gates:
A-Day
I find the commercials objectionable!
Time to go back to VHS. At least I can fast-forward through copyright warnings and adverts.
Democrats who cite John Stewart and the Hollywood "elitists" as a source of "wisdom". The more appropraite analogy would be:
"I just inherited this 'ole flaming pinto with the break lines cut and the quarter panels rusting from neglect. I've got a solid crew in place now, trying to "pimp my ride"...
Al Sharpton 2008 biatches...
I told you so.
As their fine citizens love reminding us, what happens in America (States, United or not, thereof) is really none of our damn business.
... ... those we can comment on ...
Great! I agree totally. Not our problem.
Death Penalty for Copyright Infringement ?
=> Fantastic Idea.
Mandatory, per-citizen purchases (taken from wages at source, by government, for a cut) of whatever
products any corporation wishes to offer, with corporation being chosen by auction ??
=> Super. Bring it on.
Let them deal with it.
We don't live there, are not subject to its laws and really couldn't care less anymore.
Now, WIPO and EU are different stories
(R)ule in Hell or (S)erve in Heaven [R]?
In case anyone has missed it, this is just part of the general attack on personal rights by radical conservatives. Expect more and worse for the next four year. If you voted for Bush, you have only yourself to blame when life goes down the tube.
Here's the new business model. Add product placements to your crappy sitcom to generate more revenue. Categorize the program as an infomercial. Then under these new rules the customer is locked in! They can't even change the channel because they are technically viewing a commercial message. It's so brilliant that they may never think of it. But it's devious so maybe they will.
obMeme: "5. Profit!!!"
Seriously, at this point the US is earnestly entering the beginning of a long slow phase of proving Marx was right. I mean first the crown jewels of American tech, telecoms, slips behind the rest of the world while IC technology rapidly follows it out the door and simultaneously consumer choices begin to be cut back on "moral principles". These same things in the Soviet Union would have been heralded by the US as signs of immenint systemic failure.
Well I say good for these senators. Shut 'em down boys. Death penalty is too good for those nasty American thieves. Public executions are certainly in order.
No, better yet have the Marines do door-to-door like they've been practicing in Falluja.
"That one's not dead yet."
BLAM BLAM BLAM
"Heh heh heh, is now!"
Tehy'll teach you pirates the American way.
hahaha
Neither Hillary or Schumer replied to my INDUCE act letters. However, Senator Feinstein (from CA)did reply, acknowledging my "concerns about file-sharing."
Now that you've seen our product you are in violation of our visual copyright. Please erase this image from your head. If you are unable to do so you will be required to pay a modest license fee for the retention of this image.
Have a nice day!
This is another clear signal that the advertising industry is in deep do-do. It's getting harder and harder to actually get the consumer's attention with almost anything anymore and it's the result of a spiral effect. Labeling something "New" or Improved" isn't enough anymore -- we've seen that label so much that it's lost any real meaning...so advertisers have to up the ante and soon use up the new lingo too. Same thing goes for alot of the "creative" ideas like a mini-game between beer bottles during a real game (boring now right?). Since none of it works as well anymore and sub-liminal is still illegal -- I think -- they just have to outlaw our ignoring these banal attempts to get ous attention. "Advertising is a racket, like the movies and the brokerage business. You cannot be honest without admitting that its constructive contribution to humanity is exactly minus zero." F. Scott Fitzgerald
When I watch something it becomes a part of my memories, why can I not share my memories with others?
...
Actually, your statement is somewhat inaccurate and misleading, though I can't fault you for it, since few media outlets emphasize the difference. The top 30% of American incomes don't pay 65% of the taxes, if you look at taxes other than just income tax. Many of the other taxes are horribly regressive. Social Security tax is the clearest example of a regressive tax, as you are only taxed on the first ~$90,000 of income. Therefore, those who make more than that amount have a lower effective tax rate for Social Security. Similarly, the gasoline tax is relatively regressive, as a family that makes $200,000 a year usually does not drive five times as much as a family that makes $40,000 a year.
more useless laws on the books... too bad the constitution doesn't set a maximum amount of time senators can assemble... only a minimum
Get your torrents...
Oddly reminiscent of the fictional dystopia imagined by Barbara Hambley in Dragonstar. Imagine the Telescreens of 1984 broadcasting nothing but advertizing, 24/7/365.25. And people enjoying it.
:-) )
Definitely a good read, very cautionary, but most important a damn fun book.
(Yes, I appreciate the irony that I'm pitching a product in an anti-consumerism post
Prior the the French revolition (just prior, like a thousand years or so before they were mainly commie bastards), we were ruled by a feudal system, this was overthrown and we then got the Bourgeois and Proletarians with there money grabbing ideas (little better than the feudal system?).
Anyhow, what's going to happen in 30 years time when the oil runs dry? That's probably the question the big businesses are asking, and they want to make sure the law keeps them in power and wealth 30 years from now.
Every time something like this goes through all I can think is pensions, health care, electricity and how the rich are setting them selfs up for when it starts to cost a buck or two.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
IMHO open-source DVD player software with built-in PGP decryption is long overdue. So is a Linux distribution for Xbox with said DVD player. Rip it. DeCSS it, crypt it. Hollywood is dead. If you wanna know what's on the DVDs on my shelf? Well, more power to ya, in breakin' them PGP, bubba.
Jesus, I'd always had a checklist like this in the back of my head, but I'd never actually bothered to write it.
BTW, I might quibble on ep11. Sure, we don't know that they're actually optically delivered physically addictive paraopiates, but it would certainly explain rather a lot about the popularity of, say, "Survivor" and "America's Next Top Model"...
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
Go to your congresspersonso ntact_information /senators_cfm.cfm)p /)
(http://www.senate.gov/general/c
(http://www.house.gov/writere
and say-
I propose a counter-bill, which would:
1) Cut the copyright protection for electronic media to 3 years - the copyright was only intended to allow the author to recoup fair and reasonable compensation, not to give them a monopoly in perpetuity.
2) Put the burden of copy protection on manufacturers, and prohibit the filing of lawsuits or prosecutions against any individual, unless that individual is selling pirate copies for a profit.
3) Ban the regulation or restriction of the sharing of digital content over the internet.
Let's put the Free back in Freedom!
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
I think many are unhappy that they can't escape the commericalism that is everywhere.
Here's an idea that might help: TURN OFF YOUR FUCKING TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*eh-hem* Let me clarify. I don't hate the idea of TV. I'm not saying this law isn't bullshit. I'm not saying you have to stop watching video. What I am saying is that continuing to support the people that try to make laws you hate is not in your best interest. And sitting yourself down in front of a constant stream of information provided by them is not a good idea.
Me? I'd rather pay for my content and get it unedited and in a hard-copy, commercial-less form. I still watch TV, but it's gotten to the point where I can barely handle it. And I'm not joking; I usually watch for ~30 mins at most before I get fed up to the point where I turn it off.
Hi all. Was lucky enough to get on KGO (810 AM) in San Francisco. The host, Ronn Owens, is a big Tivo fan, so I figured he needed to know about this. I told him that this bill would make commercial skipping illegal. He initially thought I was spreading an urban legend, but he now has his staff investigating this. He tried to get a legislator on the phone, but didn't succeed. He may have one on tomorrow (hopefully not too late). So, in addition to calling my Senators' DC offices, that's my work for today. I was sad that as his show ended he was still thinking that this only applied to the commercial sale of copywritten works (which, admittedly, other parts of this omnibus bill does talk about), but I referred his staff to Subsection 212 of HR 2391 SR, which talks about how "by or at the direction of a member of a private household" a commercial or promotional content is skipped, that person can be held liable for copyright infrigement.
So, why doesn't the EFF have a mention of this bill on their site? Yes, I've paid my dues.
Um, that's the wrong Senate bill. The Senate bill is still known by it's house bill number (HR 2391 SR). Search on THOMAS for "Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement". I believe the query result is sorted by date. For me, the relevant result is this:
are SO phucked.
Of course, the rest of the world will be next...
Wasn't skipping commercials commercials eqaul to the death penalty or something watching Max Headroom?
There is a company (possibly more than one) which manufactures a specialized DVD player that is designed to skip objectionable content in movies. The people in this company watche each movie and create instructions for skipping audio and video portions of specific DVDs. The DVD player dials up the company whenever someone watches a movie and receives these instructions.
The movie industry has objected to this practice, claiming that it violates there copyrights by creating a derivative product. There has been much discussion about the legality of these specialized DVD players.
This bill is designed to remove the existing ambiguity in copyright law and establish that what these bowlderizing companies are doing is legal.
The bill's language about skipping comercials is designed to prevent other companies from coming along with a similar product that removes commercials.
This bill in no way diminishes a persons right to skip commercials, only the rights of a movie-bowlderizing company from doing so.
Ninty-nine percent of the Slashdot comments on this are totally FUD, unrelated to the content of the bill under discussion.
You may now return to your fear-mongering. Thank you.
These comments do express the opinions of my employers, and, personally, I think they're complete rubbish.
...it will be illegal to take a toilet break during television commercials.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
Totally unrelated legislation gets stuck together. Sometimes its to sneak by a law that would otherwise be difficult to pass. Sometimes it's to torpedo a bill by attaching a section that no one will support. Sometimes it's just sheer accident. Politics is a strange thing.
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
That suddenly there is talk about a constitutional amendment to change who can become president, but the residents of Washington, DC still have no voting congressional representation. If we are amending the consistitution to address injustices, how about the one that affects 1,000,000 people before the one that will only affect a very, very small number? Are the political aspirations of a very few more important than the basic right of representation specifically denied to one group of people by the constitution?
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
What are you talking about? There are Christian Bin Ladens out there. They are the people who bomb abortion clinics, and murder the staff. They haven't flown a plane into the world trade center, so sure, they don't get the same level of press coverage.
I am of the opinion that the problem with the world isn't Islam, it is any sort of fundy religion. Religious radicals are a menace to everyone.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The best government money can bribe -- and you guys bought it.
Vote nader next time.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
On the subject of sexual symbolisim, Sigmund Freude was once quoted as saying, 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.'
;-)
You're just crazy.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Wouldn't it be great if the recording industry tried embracing new technologies rather than dumping millions of dollars into defending an outdated business model?
...some of their 'rights' come from.
If I understand the objections, people feel they have the right to watch commercially produced material and ignore the advertising that funds the production of the material.
Can someone explain to me where that right comes from? If you object to watching the commercials in order to see the material, then by all means DO NOT WATCH IT! If you would rather pay directly for the material to be watched, then feel free to do so (HBO etc..) But stop thinking you have some right to watch material that costs money to produce without giving the producers a chance to recoup the investment - you DO NOT.
And what right is the objection based on to stopping people from blatantly stealing copyrighted material? I think 3 years is way too short of a prison sentence. If you are criminal enough to walk into a movie theater with a video camera, record a movie and then post it on the internet you deserve to be hung by your balls (or tits) in public for 5 years. You are a drag on society. You probably will steal food from the poor as well since you have no moral judgment. We do not need you in modern society and there are plenty of third world countries where you are still welcome - I would support deportation.
Thank you for bringing this bill to my attention, I plan on supporting it!
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Next will be a law to close all libraries, because they share copyrighted materials amongst many users.
No longer will we be able to skip pages in a magazine that contains an advertisement, Oh there goes the morning paper, and all it's objectionable material, like wars, murders, rapes, etc.
Lets just blow up the whole world and eliminate all human existance, that way all rights will be moot point.
I became an EFF member today, did you?
Don't forget to donate.
I thought that the wonderbra example, was chosen, non-arbitrarily. It implied (to me) that the ability to skip sexual material was an especially important consumer right. The example seemed to imply that there was no innate right to skip commercial material unless the viewer objects on some specified basis (such as sexual content).
Thank you for clarifying your position.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
When can we expect the Enterprise crew eating Burger King burgers or shots of the crew quaffing down a Samuel Adams?
Is it product placement when in a crime drama they identify the weapons used by the heros?
You want to wake the public conscience?
Use the same tools that put it to sleep effectively.
Remember that Benejamin Franklin appreciated the need to be clear and concise, when argueing that non-property owners should be able to vote, he said:
"If I have a donkey - I can vote; If I don't have a donkey - I can't vote. The vote represents not me, but the donkey" (Or maybe he said ass).
My new one is:
"Land of the free - where it's illegal to skip commercials"
Come up with stuff like that, and a reference to more info, and fly post like mad day and night as you go to work, college, eat at McD's.
Why not start a flyposting site where you provide PDF fliers for folk.
Please DON'T have the same site be used in the "more info" references, you don't want to be er.. "closed down" so easily.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
When it comes to voice votes, I'm given to understand that any representative or senator may request that a recorded vote be used instead.
It takes only one member to force a head count, but the houses rarely use head counts. It typically takes 20 percent of either house to force a recorded vote: "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal" (U.S. Const. I.5.3).
Incidentally, the 81 percent assent of a voice vote is more than enough to override a Presidential veto in a subsequent recorded vote.
Bring it on!
So we, as society, apparantly believe that video taping a movie in a theater is equivalent to murder. /What the fuck, no seriously.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
"Under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited."
Hold on one moment here. This has nothing to do with copyright. The fundamental premise of copyright law is that it gives the owners of the rights an exclusive right to distribute copies of those works. It has nothing to do with how copies of those works that have been legally purchased may be used by those who purchase them, otherwise known as "fair use".
What comes next in the outlawing of our legitimate fair-use rights? Outlawing the use of newspapers to wrap up fish and chips? Making it illegal to use CDs as coasters?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Yes, but the penalty is about the same as the penalty on second degree murder.
Am I the only one who thinks that something is wrong?
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Public Knowledge has a really nice summary and position page here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391
I hope they don't rush this like they did the patriot act. I think our government is having a meltdown, might as well become an anarchist now so you can be happy tomorrow.
If you take the following literally, 'infringes a copyright by ... offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement.', then it would be relatively obvious to claim that *any* distribution to the public by electronic means is a reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement. It doesn't even take electronic means of distribution to have this effect, which is evident in all the music sharing going on. Ironically, this would mean all electronic distributors are infringing their own copyright.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
The only bills worth bringing to a vote are those that someone thinks might pass. Therefore estimating how much the two parties have in common based on how they vote is useless. They could have 90% or 10% of a theoretical total-list-of-human-values in common, but most of those issues will never come up for vote. This creates a perception of disparity where little exists, and makes anything further from center look more radical.
A couple simple examples would be the positions of both parties on the so called "wars" on drugs and terror (read civil liberties) and their tendancies toward larger federal budgets (whether paid for by increased taxes or the retirement funds of the young)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:58:45 -0800 (PST)
From: spatch3
Subject: Opposition to bill HR4077
To: feinstein, boxer
Dear Senators,
I realize it is an ongoing, uphill, losing battle to
continually oppose more egregious and draconian
copyright bills that keep cropping up in both the
house and senate. I believe, as do the courts, that
the DMCA of 1998 has many un-constitutional provisions
in it and bill HR4077, presently going to the Senate,
is no different than the DMCA in this respect.
I strongly encourage you to vote against the bill referred to here:
To enhance criminal enforcement of the copyright laws, to educate the public about the application of copyright law to the Internet, and for other purposes.
Please see the following sites for dissenting voices
about this legislation:
Senate May Ram Copyright Bill
Your Rights Online: Senate May Rush Copyright Legislation
Bad: HR4077 Passed the House
Thank you for your consideration.
Chris
PS: Links to court cases that have struck down or
clarified significant portions of the 1998 DMCA:
Court strikes a good balance in file swapping case
Lexmark loses printer toner cartridges lawsuit; DMCA dives, consumers win big
Lexmark Loss Good for Consumers
United States: Circumvention Provision Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Is Not A New Property Right
Every rule has an exception, and this is the only rule with no exceptions! Huh? -- Spatch
>> In addition the bill would "permit people to use technology to skip
>> objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films,
>> a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law,
>> skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited."
>
> Non-rhetorical stance:
> Really, what if there's an ad for say, Wonderbras, that I find explicit? Can
> I turn that off? This is insane. Who are they to say what I can and can't
> watch? Howabout turning off the TV to eat dinner when there's an ad on... is
> that okay? Do I have their permission for that at least? Ugh
Behold the only permitted way to watch content.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Why do the producers have an inalienable right to profit, no matter what?
If the producers of TV shows don't like the risks associated with TV, such as the fact that their viewers may get up to go to the bathroom during the commercial breaks, they shouldn't use is as their medium for distribution.
Advertising always has been a gamble, not a guarantee. There is no guarantee a viewer will see the ad or not ignore it, and there is no guarantee a viewer will like the ad enough to go buy what is advertised. This has been understood by advertisers in the past, and despite this, they have continued to advertise for decades.
What this law basically does is tell Joe Public what he is forced to watch, which is wrong.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
How bout you use your TV for something else? I haven't sat down and watched tv in, jeez, 2 years. Mine I gave away to someone else. They make great backup moniters, and better sledgehammer fodder.
As for enforcing that, heh, good luck.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
I think the thing that's really hasn't been discussed in this "East vs. West" thread -- is what happens to the Middle East when the oil dries up...
It isn't going to shut the west down -- Hydrogen power will happen... it's already on the way and most economic experts say 20 years. ~2025 we will be running primarily on Hydrogen... it will no longer be a fringe energy source anymore.
How are Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region going to survive outside of extreme poverty and jealousy/envy/hatred for developed nations. The only source of global value they have is oil -- they've had incredible wealth for a select few due to oil and it's not being reinvested and developing industries. They're still in the raw material industry phase... FAR below Mexico and China.
------------------------------
Ray Raspberry
raspberry@b3l33t.org
Read the section in context:
SEC. 212. EXEMPTION FROM INFRINGEMENT FOR SKIPPING AUDIO AND VIDEO CONTENT IN MOTION PICTURES.
(a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the `Family Movie Act of 2004'.
(b) Exemption From Copyright and Trademark Infringement for Skipping of Audio or Video Content of Motion Pictures- Section 110 of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9), by striking `and' after the semicolon at the end;
(2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and';
(3) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following:
`(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed for such use at the direction of a member of a private household, if--
`(A) no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology; and
`(B) no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture.'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`For purposes of paragraph (11), the term `making imperceptible' does not include the addition of audio or video content that is performed or displayed over or in place of existing content in a motion picture.'.
It appears that the whole section, including the parts about editing out "objectionable" content and not removing ads are relating to the same practice.
There's a group out there (Yo) that's renting/selling "family-friendly" movies with the materials that might offend conservatives removed. They have to edit the movies in-house to make their versions available. Right now I think they're in a legal grey area. Filmmakers want their work protected from prudish editors, and conservative parents want their children protected from godless liberal Hollywood heathens, so to speak.
Regardless of how you feel about editing movies for content, some people want their content pre-screened before they (or their kids) watch it. I'm personally against it, but this legislation doesn't force anyone to buy movies from these places.
Looks like the advertising bit refers directly to the practice of editing movies for content on after-studio edits. What they're saying is that a business may edit the film for content, but may not remove previews and ads, etc. that would appear on the original DVD or Video. I don't think this has anything to do with TiVo et al.
I had to check into this one further after seeing Rep. Rich "The Slashdot Congressman" Boucher's name on the list of cosponsors.
IANAL, btw.
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Would you rather they got violent like a bitter scorned man?
Um, what about all the commercials on DVDs that you PAY for? I never understood this fixation on including ads in media that is paid for. I can understand ads on content that is not paid for by the viewer (such as free-to-air TV), but not on stuff I'm giving out MY money for. Sort of the difference between the US terrestrial TV system (free, no TV licensing, ads) and the UK system (TV licensing, no ads).
Of course, you're a troll, but I felt I should say this still.
First, ALL Senate bills are labeled S., e.g., S.241. House Bills are labelled H.R.. Just by the number, I'd say this had to be a House bill. The comments about writing your Representatives in Congress and Senators in the Senate could not be more to the point. You can go to http://thomas.loc.gov, and follow the links to write your Congress person of choice. You'll also find a wealth of info on how bill start, move thru the process, etc. Notice that there is NO WWW before the thomas! As general guide, write short, one half to one page (at most) on a single topic, reference the bill if you know it, state your reasons for supporting or objecting to it. Be courteous and try to avoid being dogmatic. The sad thing is that Senators and Representative almost NEVER read the legislation before they vote on it!!! Special interests generally write the bills, or drafts thereof, so 1) read the Constitution (if you have not done so), read some back ground like works by Bernard Bailyn, Frederic Bastiat, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine to mention a few, and write regularly. You'll find that you enjoy it, even if sometimes it does not seem to do any good. At least you can say you tried, and you did not stand quietly by evil was done. It is the best any of us can do.
Sounds like a great time for indy moviemakers/Hollywood outsiders to get a leg up on the inevitable online markets.
Just remember to keep your exemptions simple.
I can think of a half dozen moviemakers/animators who got started online.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
If you're not out there ripping people off and distributing copyrighted material, you shouldn't have a problem, yes?
Of course not. And if you are not doing anything wrong you would not mind if we monitored you through your TV.
I have a suggestion, read 1984 and The Crucible.
Not. Back in 2000, Nader and other Greens said that it was okay if a man that was the polar opposite of almost everything they stood for was elected, because the inevitable backlash would advance their causes. And while there has been a backlash against Bush, it wasn't nearly enough to keep him from winning 51% of the vote and his party taking more seats in the Senate.
So, I would *much* rather act now rather than pin my hopes on a mass backlash that either never arrives or isn't enough to get the job done.
I'd say that the energy crisis is, with the environment being a subset of it with world terrorism being another subset.
If we start growing oil (carbon-neutral) instead of buying it from the Middle East, the oil monarchies/theocracies suddenly run out of money to finance the schools that condition kids to provide the cannon fodder for terrorism in order to distract them from asking questions like "where are all these hundreds of billions the West is paying for oil going?" as they look around their Third World shitholes. We also stop dumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere as the CO2 is taken from the atmosphere.
That blimp to orbit project discussed here earlier suggests strongly that it wouldn't take a whole lot of money (relatively speaking) to make shipping the components to orbit for the Space Power Satellite the Bush Administration killed. (Remember the scramjet demo in the news? That's the last flight, Bush defunded it, too.) While there's plenty of coal, IMHO, "clean coal" is an oxymoron. Even if the ordinary pollutants can be scrubbed, the CO2 is a far more intractable problem. I've seen proposals to pump the CO2 from power plants into the seabed.
For more info on answers to the problem, click here
Needless to say Kerry would have been much better then Bush when it comes to the environment.
Only in that he wouldn't be actively trying to make things worse. Anybody who uses the words "HYDROGEN ECONOMY" with a straight face is automatically proclaiming his cluelessness. I read the Kerry and Democratic Party web pages and white papers on energy. Depressing.
Tech Public Policy stuff
In present day Russia the strictness of laws is compensated by the laxity of their enforcement. Anarchy has its benefits. :)
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Don't the Mormons already do this?
By the way, I've read both books sever times, starting when YOU where in grade school. Why do you have this black and white view of things? If Communism and Socialism are your bag, try Cuba (it's not a half bad place, been there) or some Southeast Asian version. You spout rhetoric but your ideas are one dimensional.
If you can not figure out why music / media theft is wrong, you are either in your teens or early 20's, or stupid.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Music and media theft is wrong, it's as wrong as limitless copyright.
When the party that constantly whines about "getting the government off our backs" has even a small congressional majority, I DO BLAME THEM for this crap. Their actual doctrine is to give the business world whatever it wants, regardless of what the citizens (or rather, the "consumers") might want. I blame the Republicans for this just as much as I blame the Democrats for being too incredibly lame to kick a homicidal moron out of the White House. Our political leaders are a disgrace, and so are the people who elected them.
However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited.
U.S.A. -- United States of Advertising.
There is no such thing as good luck. There is only misfortune and its occasional absence.
Republicans and Democrats may differ in their marketing approaches, but they all serve the same ma$ter$. Unless you are wealthy enough to hire a legislator, you are a peasant. The best you can do is get a good job or start a good business, do what you think is right, and try your best to avoid poaching in the royal forest. Enjoy little bits of larceny like speeding on the freeway and skipping the commercials with the curtains closed, but forget about your government representatives representing your interests because they don't.
Where did this bit of insanity come from? Since when does the tedious serious of corporate-masturbatory advertisements for (for example) Disney movies that shows at the beginning of a legally-purchased tape or DVD of another Disney movie "fund the production of the material"?
It looked to me as though such a situation might very well be covered in the mass of bad "copyright protection" laws being discussed here.
Besides...what if I find the advertisements in question genuinely "objectionable"? Advertisers are not widely known for being tasteful in the US (or anywhere else for that matter).
Turn this around - I have legally paid for a television. I have kept up with the payments of my taxes to fund the FCC. A broadcaster spews radio-frequency signals through my home which my legally-purchased receivers can pick up. Are you saying that the broadcaster's ability to spew signals through my home gives them the right to compel me to watch particular portions of those signals? The fact that they don't mean ANY particular portions, but "only the advertisements" is even WORSE - the broadcaster generally does NOT own the copyrights on the advertisements, so this mandate not only means that the broadcaster can compel me to be a captive audience, but in particular that I can be compelled to be a captive audience for ANY agency. Can I be similarly compelled to go outside and listen to, say, a politician's re-election speech on the street outside if I happen to get any benefits from the government agency that the politician runs?
I find this line of argument an insidious and disturbing perversion of the free speech doctrines and practices that have, in my opinion, been one of the keys to making the US "great" (in both senses of the word). It saddens me to know that the US may lose all of this.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
As I understand, it's been refined today, but we're still dealing with non-renewable sources plus the energy necessary to make the conversion. (It was only feasible for the Nazi's because they had a lot of coal, but were shut off from oil)
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I browsed through and searched HR2391 and could find no references to television commercials or skipping them, nor even the word "objectionable" (as in "skipping objectionable content"). The only thing I could find of those things claimed was the recording movies in a movie theater. Is this stuff really in there?
--- What?
While the president may only approve or veto a bill, he still wields enormouse power over the drafting of that bill with the power to endorse or reject the bill. The president's veto of a bill has only been overridden by Congress 160 times out of the tens of thousands of bills passed in the history of the US.
Presidents have often publicly stated whether they will sign a bill or talked about what had to be in a bill or what had to be removed from a bill before they would sign it. GWBush hasn't vetoed a single spending increase in his entire first term. He hasn't used the veto power once because he and his party work very closely together to get what they want.
However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited.
The technology i normally use [while|to] skip commercials is the toilet.
What you are saying is, that it will be illegal to listen to the call of nature while the commercials are running, right? Also, won't be allowed to zap to another channel, because that would circumvent the commercials?
Oh man, i really gotta buy some of this book thingys i heard of, so i can pass the time - wait a minute, that would be illegal, too...
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
Has anyone read HR2391? Oh wait, this is Slashdot, where no one follows the links and reads all the way through.
Well, if you did, you'd see on page 26
If you didn't read where I bolded and italicized the appropriate content, then let me break it out for you:
"if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology."
There's no room for misinterpretation here. Unless you are *CREATING* an altered copy by skipping commercials or other content (which Tivo DOES NOT) you are perfectly fine.
RTFA!!!
Could you please try and not distort what I said?
I Said "material that was funded by the advertising" - if the material was not funded by the advertising, then indeed I may agree with your right to skip it, but not completly.
Regardless of funding, it is well within Disney's rights to say, "if you want to watch this movie you must watch our previews of other movies." Much the same way I have to look at advertising everytime I come to this slashdot web site. If I give people on the net a way to view Slashdot content without advertising how long before Slashdot sends me a cease and desist letter?
And what does skipping commercials have to do with free speech? "insidious and disturbing perversion" is what your arguments are. You have some weird notion that the world owes you and because you can steal it is ok.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Let me see...
.53 rounds to 1, and 1 = 100/100 = 100%
53% = 53/100 = 0.53
IIRC, anything >=.5 is supposed to be rounded up,
therefore
QED
(It just depends on what precision you are rounding to!)
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
"The security and privacy threats posed by certain peer-to-peer networks extend beyond users inadvertently enabling a hacker to access files. Millions of copies of the most popular peer-to-peer works contain software that could allow an independent company to take over portions of users' computers and internet connections and has the capacity to keep track of users' online habits." I guess this means they'll be targeting Microsoft, for releasing software that allows individuals with malicious intent to break in and control a users' computer. Since when did intellectual property legislation extend to protecting these ubiquitous rights they keep talking about?
Come to think of it, I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't give a shit who ran for which
"We'll- Get- A- Maximum- Of- One- Third- Of- One- Percent- Of- The- Vote- No- Matter- Where- You- Vote"
party. It's a very commendable sentiment, trying to usurp the resident behemoths--and I'd love to see it done myself--but until the collective mindset makes a dramatic about-face, what does it prove to adopt a condescending stance while you "inform" those of us ignorant to this? Instead of rolling your eyes at all the online idiots you can't believe you associate with, you bothered to help educate; is it necessary to be a dick whilst doing it?
I'm an American; I should probably know Nader is Orange or Brick Red or Lavender or whatever "Not Green" color he claims to be, but trajano said in no cryptic terms that he's Canadian and hasn't researched anything having to do with the example you found so offensive. He has no reason to know it, and it wasn't anywhere near his main (valid) point, which you chose to ignore as you shook your tiny virtual fists at him.
BTW, yes your post really was informative, and BTW, no I'm not trolling.
Mom says my
I don't have much of an issue with the rest of the bill, but making the skipping of adverts illegal is crazy talk. All it will do is make people look for versions of their films without the adverts at all - and illegal copiers would exploit that demand. All the film companies are doing is driving their customers away. Its an old rule of business - annoy your customers enough, and they're no longer your customers.
If I understand the objections, people feel they have the right to watch commercially produced material and ignore the advertising that funds the production of the material.
-If technology allows it, sure. The providers of the material have already been paid to put the ad there. If you don't happen to -watch- it, that doesn't harm them. If you don't pay attention to the billboard you passed on the highway, does that billboard cost the advertiser less?
-That right comes from my ability to control my computer, television set, or anything else I have bought and paid for. If the content providers wish to put advertising in anything, paid-for or not, that is their right. If I wish to devise a means to skip them, that is my right.
And what right is the objection based on to stopping people from blatantly stealing copyrighted material?
-You equate copyright infringement with theft, a tiresome analogy and an incorrect one. If you break into my car and steal it, that is theft. You now have use of my car, which you did not pay for, and I no longer have use of it.
-What you equate is far more tenuous. If I let a friend borrow my car once a week, saving him from having to purchase a second car, have I "stolen" from Ford or Chevy? Sharing != theft. I fully agree that COMMERCIAL piracy should be considered a crime. However, non-commercial sharing, in which the sharer does not make a profit, is not an act of theft.
-The RIAA/MPAA do not belong in my living room. Once I purchase content, they can't tell me how many people may be at my house party and listen to/watch it. They cannot come around and assess me some sort of "exhibition fee" for using the material in this way. Why? Because the exhibition is noncommercial. An author cannot prosecute me for loaning a book to a friend, preventing them needing to buy a copy. Why? Because this, again, is noncommercial. (In fact, libraries are allowed to do this on a wide scale.) So why should RIAA/MPAA be allowed to tell me that I cannot, noncommercially, share those things I purchased with someone, whether that person is across the room or across the globe? This is most certainly a double standard.
I think 3 years is way too short of a prison sentence. If you are criminal enough to walk into a movie theater with a video camera, record a movie and then post it on the internet you deserve to be hung by your balls (or tits) in public for 5 years. -This is a far harsher sentence then that inflicted on even a child rapist. Is this truly a more serious crime? You are a drag on society. You probably will steal food from the poor as well since you have no moral judgment. We do not need you in modern society and there are plenty of third world countries where you are still welcome - I would support deportation. -See above on equating copyright with theft, as well as harshness of penalty for a nonviolent crime (if you consider it a crime at all). Thank you for bringing this bill to my attention, I plan on supporting it -And remember kids, downloading is theft, but charging $50 for a 10-cent CD because of what's on it is capitalism!To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Here is what I received back from my senator. Obviously it is scripted, but it's a little more info.
"Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts about federal copyright laws. I appreciate having Kansans' views on this issue.
Rapid advancements in technology allow us to make near-perfect recordings of digital media, such as CDs and DVDs, which can be easily distributed via file sharing to computers and MP3 players. The core of the legal and legislative issue is the fair use doctrine, which allows consumers to transfer personal copies of their music and videos to other devices. However, manufacturers and the entertainment industry are concerned that sharing files circumvents copyright law.
Updating copyright law has a big impact, not only on consumers of music and movies, but also on artists and creators. While Congress must be careful not to infringe upon the fair use of consumers to legally copy digital media, we also cannot allow individuals to profit from illegally copied media. Furthermore, we need to ensure that any efforts to alter copyright law do not have the unintended consequence of inhibiting research into software and other technologies.
I appreciate knowing your opposition to S. 2560, the INDUCE Act. The INDUCE Act, makes it illegal to intentionally aid, abet, or induce copyright infringement. The bill is pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. With a small window of time for Congress to act on priority legislation, including reforming the intelligence community, it is unlikely the Senate will turn to S. 2560 this year. However, I will keep your concerns in mind should hearings be held on copyright law and the fair use doctrine. I also appreciate knowing of your opposition to S. 2237, the PIRATE Act. It passed the Senate earlier this year, but the House has not acted on it. This bill would allow the Department of Justice to bring civil charges against copyright violators who exceed the fair use doctrine.
With every best wish,
Sincerely,
Pat Roberts"
I really wish I could remember the name of that book... fascinating stuff.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.