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."

Comments

Before anyone here tries to blame Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Before anyone here tries to blame Republicans

[Megaweapon]

They've got people from both parties in their pockets.

So it is appropriate to blame Republicans then. Just so long as you lump the Democrats in as well. Personally I see so little difference between the two parties anyways.

Re:Before anyone here tries to blame Republicans

[trajano]

This is why I vote for a different party other than the popular ones. I voted for the Green party here in Canada, I don't know about the US though, I am not sure if Nader is a good person to have run the country since I haven't done any research on US political parties.

But how would you get people to change from the norm in US case (Republican vs Democrat) or in Canada (NDP, Liberal, Conservative). In my opinion they are all bad, since they haven't made any move to bring the needs of common people first. I am not talking about the poor people under the proverty line, I am talking about the average joe middle class person.

Its like most of the highschool teachers we have here. During parent teacher conferences they only a lot to talk about the smartest kids or the most difficult kids, the rest who are average are just "yah they do well blah blah blah"

I don't vote for those big parties since I know they screwed us before. Why would I vote for them again (if I ever voted for them which I never did).

Also media has put forth a message saying that voting for the independents is a wasted vote or a vote for the other party. You know what? Its not a wasted vote. And personally, I would have more respect for a person that voted independent rather than the major parties (even if it is the Marjuana party or the communist party) because they actually know what they would want and know how to learn from the past.

I think I saw it posted somewhere...

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result"

Re:Before anyone here tries to blame Republicans

[Martin Blank]

Nader's not a green. He's a guy who simply enjoys grabbing just as much camera time as he can get, and the news networks are usually happy to provide it. He has, unfortunately, given a very bad image in the US to true Greens.

Re:Before anyone here tries to blame Republicans

[Rei]

How can you see little difference between two parties that have a stark partisan divide on about 90% of votes? Or are you referring to specifically copyright issues? If so, you're wrong there, too. Name a bill, and I'll get you the voting record for it. The Democrats have a much better copyright voting record; I went into this in a lot more detail over here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=111525&t hr eshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=153&mode=thread&cid=946 6472

It's mostly focused on civil liberties in general, but the same thing applies to copyright law specifically.

Re:Before anyone here tries to blame Republicans

[doc6502]

Coward, you also ought to mention that Hatch has been buds with a number of the people in the RIAA for some time-- they contributed heavily to his last campaign.

I guess the Evil Empire (not Microsoft this time, the RIAA) has to ram this legislation through before Arlen Specter becomes head of the House Judiciary committee...

Re:Before anyone here tries to blame Republicans

[doublem]

All politicians are the same. They're all out to screw the public. The only real difference is if they want you to bend over or open wide.

Re:Before anyone here tries to blame Republicans

[Rei]

Oh, please, give me a break. Present a *REAL* example of a single bill that has gone that way. If you can't, then drop it.

In the real world, the parties have ideological stances. You may not agree with every stance a party has, but a consistant majority of each party takes a given stance on a given issue. On abortion, a clear majority of democrats will vote to support it, and a clear majority of Republicans will vote to oppose it. On hate crimes laws, a clear majority of Democrats will suport it, and the opposite for Republicans. School prayer? Republicans support, Democrats oppose. Bracketted taxes? Democrats support, Republicans oppose. UN? Democrats support, Republicans oppose. I could keep going for hours.

Now, the caveats: There's the 10% or so of bills for which both parties agree, or there is no ideological divide, or that there is a divide even while both sides get a majority**. There's also, for every bill, dissenters with each party's line. Nonetheless, the totality of the situation - ideological divides on the vast majority of issues - is very clear and present to anyone who takes a non-selective look at bills, interest-group ratings (Sierra Club, ACLU, NRA, or whatnot), etc.

** Examples: A vote on creationism in public schools will get a majority of both Republicans and Democrats in opposition; however, while almost every Democrat will be opposed, perhaps only 2/3 of Republicans will be opposed. On the opposite side, a vote to ban gay marriage will get almost every Republican in tow, but only 2/3 or so of the Democrats.

Re:Before anyone here tries to blame Republicans

[MrBigInThePants]

But how would you get people to change from the norm in US case (Republican vs Democrat) or in Canada (NDP, Liberal, Conservative).

In New Zeland, we recently switched to the MMP (mixed member proportional) system. This allows minority parties who actually have a significant (>5%) share of the vote to actually get a seat. An individual votes for a party and a candidate and the number of seats obtained in parliment is based on both.

While not perfect, it certainly allows minority parties (who actually have support) to have a say. In our situation, coalitions are formed to get a majority and so party policy becomes not so extreme.
The tendancy towards coalition is further exagerated because people tend to actually vote for the party they like, rather than the one they prefer in the hopes that their vote will somehow count more.
This was a problem identified in the US elections recently with nader and actually demonstrated in NZ with the removal of a bi-party duoply post MMP.

Coalitions mean a party cannot railroad through legislation through and that debate (remember that democracy=debate anyone??) becomes vital. Even in a bi-party duopoly, the common values of those two parties end up being grossly overrepresented. (e.g. people's complaints about simularities between rep. and dem.)

As I said not perfect but, so far as I have seen, the change has led to a system approximating democracy much closer than others I have seen.
Of course the US/CAN politicians would never buy this, they like their duopoly. :)

First Heinlein Reference

[Le Marteau]

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."

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Cougem]

What if people start to advertising things with sex? Like using penises like billboards? Do we have to watch?

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[ivan256]

Your TiVo doesn't automatically skip commercials, which is what would be disallowed by this law. It's not forcing you to play commercials, or even stopping you from manually skipping them.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine a lot of people find the sexual references in all the ED drug ads to be pretty offensive, would you be able to skip these advertisements?

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Le Marteau]

Your TiVo doesn't automatically skip commercials, which is what would be disallowed by this law. It's not forcing you to play commercials, or even stopping you from manually skipping them.

Maybe, but the article wasn't clear about that. It said, However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. The article said nothing about whether the skipping was automatic or user-initiated.

The technology certainly is there to prevent us from skipping commercials, for example, on DVDs, the hardware can be prevented from fast forwarding through content they don't want us to skip. I had to assume this was what they wanted to do for future TiVos.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we already have this. I find most commercials aimed at children (toys, cereal, movies, etc.) very disturbing and inappropriate. I certainly wouldn't want my children watching commercials for the latest sex aid medication or condoms. Actually, most of the commercials on night time television are offensive. I don't care if they are paying for the program, if I find them offensive for any reason (and wasting my time is one reason) then I shouldn't be forced to watch them. I already have my own morality, I don't need the government imposed one.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Progman3K]

I agree with your sentiment.

Personally, I can't wait until all these repressive measures are put in place and the United States can finally implode and leave the rest of the world in peace.

The end of a tyrant is always something to rejoice about.

Sure, mod this flamebait if you want, but let me first say that I believe in the ideals of truth, freedom and the pursuit of liberty.

The problem is that NONE of those are being espoused by the U.S. and its policy makers, who instead seem hell-bent on enslaving their own people.

It's not the American dream I want to see destroyed, but the horrible travesty that has been put in its place, foisted on the american people by its own electorate who serve nothing but the corporations' dollar-interests.

If you can't live free, die.

May the end come quickly.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

['nother poster]

"Bunch of streetwalkers, they are."

No, streetwalkers have standards. :)

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[stecoop]

Your TiVo doesn't automatically skip commercials

My Replay-TV does. It has a flag that automagically skips commercials. Recently, replay was forced to remove that future due to legal threats. However, the code was left in the machines and you can modify a flag to automatically skip the commercials with a small code modification.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[capnjack41]

Yeah, this sucks and all, but what we really should be asking is what the hell commercials have to do with copyright infringement. Is it now a violation of the work's author's copyright to skip commercials interpersed with his work? That copyright belongs to someone else. In fact, trying to control rewinding and fast-forwarding through anything doesn't have anything to do with intellectual property, period, or does it?

Let's say I'm watching Law and Order, and there's a commercial. Let's say before that commercial, there was something important I missed, so I rewind back to it. Does that mean I'll have to watch the commercial again? Yeah I know I'm harping on some pretty dumb points, but I don't think they really thought this one through.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[xystren]

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.

But I find the gore and the sexually explicit to be fine. It's the commercials that I find to be objectional!

Xysten
---
Tag lines? We don't need no stinky taglines!!!

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[micromoog]

No shit. Even the logo of one is sexually explicit. Yes, that's a snatch.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[John Seminal]

The problem is that NONE of those are being espoused by the U.S. and its policy makers, who instead seem hell-bent on enslaving their own people.

Money corrupts. And I agree, the USA is becomming a profit driven country. The problem is politicians no longer view people as their electorate, instead they view complex algorithms of where to spend money on advertising as the equation to get elected. We have become sheep. And it is the corporations which fund politicians. Is it any wonder why politicians pass these rediculous laws? They need the continued financial support to wage their election campaigns.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[jarich]

1) Only applies to motion pictures (ie: movies) 2) Prevents any commercial skippage... so when they show a movie on TV, you are legally required to not skip them? From here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./tem p/~c10864QF67:e20039: `(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.';

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[TheOldFart]

-

Using this logic, the channel up, channel down, and power button on your remote control and in the front panel of the TV are going to be illegal. If you use them with the intent of skipping the commercial and watch something else while the commercial is playing, you will be braking the law.

-

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Arcturax]

This is all the more reason to build a MythTV box.

Initially it will probably cost more than a Tivo but you will be free of corporate crap and restrictions. That and no monthly fees which means in the long run it will be far cheaper.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Elwood P Dowd]

What makes you so sure this would take us closer to the end? Why won't this just further solidify the existing power structure?

Maybe there's a way out.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[RazzleFrog]

A motion pictures according to copyright law are:

"audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images which, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together with accompanying sounds, if any."

That is not just movies.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[DunbarTheInept]

Personally, I can't wait until all these repressive measures are put in place and the United States can finally implode and leave the rest of the world in peace.

The problem is, that through the magic of selective enforcement, the government is perfectly capable of keeping the country running even with laws on the books that would cause implosions if actually enforced uniformly. If enforced everywhere, this law would make the entire entertainment industry implode. But rest assured, it will only be enforced when and where the industry wants it to be.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Progman3K]

>The problem is politicians no longer view people as their electorate, instead they view complex algorithms of where to spend money on advertising as the equation to get elected.

You're right, dammit. And it's hard to fix; it verges on darwinism: If they can get an advantage using methods like you describe, then they are selected, and it reinforces itself. How can you fix something like that? Any attempts at leveling the field are usually subverted and exploited.

Americans need REAL leaders, who aren't just in it to get greased by lobbyists or cronies.

>We have become sheep.

No, you and many others like you are NOT sheep. You're seeing clearly. But of course the minute you try to ally yourself with others, it'll degenrate into extremism, radicalism, and possibly terrorism. Your mission is NOT to hurt the "sheep", no matter what. And I think any revolutionary leader that feels it is OK to sacrifice innocents to defeat such a system will undoubtedly establish an even greater tyranny.

What's the answer?

I think the U.S. has to change ONE law very quickly: It was ruled by the supreme court quite a while ago that corporations may exercise the same rights as individuals. THIS has got to go.

Without the individual being protected and valued ABOVE corporate interests, lobbies will always have more resources and weild MORE and MORE power.

That is my humble suggestion.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[drgonzo59]

It it both. They made it look like a snatch, to attract attention it is an old advertising trick "Tie things to sex and people will pay more attention to it." On the other hand nobody can blame them, they'll just say "Oh, it's a flame blah blah"

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Progman3K]

>What makes you so sure this would take us closer to the end? Why won't this just further solidify the existing power structure?

Because I'm a fool.

No, really. I have stars in my eyes, and I expect a happy ending where the american people live out their noble dream by putting an end to this tyranny THEMSELVES, just like they did when they got here.

The king of England a tyrant? Free men wouldn't stand for it.

Huddled masses, yearning to breathe freely? Americans built a country to welcome them.

Why should these dreams be things of the past?

And in the end, no empire that wields the sort of oppresive power you are talking about can last, it WILL fall. History has shown it.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Progman3K]

OK, you're right.
There ARE other goverments that are oppressing their populations in a much worse way, currently.

But amerca was born from the struggle of shaking off exactly that kind of oppression. Freedom and it's pursuit is WOVEN into the American psyche.

THAT'S why it's such a big deal here.

Try no to forget that.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Progman3K]

Simple; pollution control DOESN'T infringe on personal rights, but copyright legislation DOES.

You mix those two up, and I'M the nutcase?

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, we weren't always.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Progman3K]

>HOW ABOUT DOING SOMETHING IN THE WORLD?

OK, you've got it. My country drafted the Kyoto protocol and is the only nation even close to enforcing it, also we DID do something about Kosovo, we sent peace-keepers.

And by the way, it's NOT the U.S. that needs to be destroyed. It's the tyrannical system in place that is searching for ways to rob its citizens of their basic freedoms that needs to be destroyed.

In my travels in the U.S. I've met plenty of decent, forthright, honest americans. People who embody the american ideal, and it is treason for the U.S. government to represent these people with anything less than an eternal vigilance for their rights.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Total_Wimp]

The technology certainly is there to prevent us from skipping commercials, for example, on DVDs, the hardware can be prevented from fast forwarding through content they don't want us to skip. I had to assume this was what they wanted to do for future TiVos.

But at least its only the manufacturers trying to screw us. I can live with that. I don't like it, but I can live with it. When the government starts telling us that we have to watch commercials I have to wonder exactly who's side the government is on?

I don't even understand what theory of government would be involved in such a law. Is there a some sort of constitutional mandate to give businesses whatever will make them happy? Is there some sort of law that insinuates consumers must purchase a full price product with every loss leader? When exactly did businesses get the right to have their business models only negative aspects "corrected" via legislation?

If the age of comercials is waning, then pick another business model. HBO and Showtime do just fine without commercials. So do most DVD releases. Don't foce my government, who I thought was looking out for MY interests, to prop up your failed model with protectionist legislation.

TW

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[KevinIsOwn]

First, the US has always been a profit driven country. That's what capitalism is about: Profits. The key is, has the drive for profits hurt the average citizen, and for the most part the answer is no.

However, everything works in cycles. The US had this problem with widespread worker abuse during the muckraking period of the late 1800s/early 1900s. This gradually was fixed by populist outrage and a movement to fix the situation. The same thing will happen now, if we stand up and fight for what we believe in.

Some posters here have even suggested the only way to fix the problem is with guns. Simply look at history. These problems are fixed when a certain point of outrage is reached. This tipping point forces politicians to either change their ways, or be forced out of office. It has happened before, it will happen again.

Slashdot is full of the notion that politicians routinely cow to corporate interests over the common good of the people. While true in some cases, it is unfair to stereotype the politican as a greedy malfeasant who only wants what is best for his corporate donors. This is true for some politicians, and we must target them. By lumping them all together, we end up taking down the good with the bad.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Grishnakh]

However, having been born and raised in the USA, I have to say that I have never once fealt oppressed. Ever. I don't fear the government. I don't fear the police.

Here's a suggestion: put up a website and post the source code to DeCSS on it. The source code is publicly-available, and open-source. You won't be breaking copyright law by posting it, and the owners of that code will be happy you posted it. Of course, put your name and address on the site too. Now sit back and see how fast the FBI shows up at your door for posting information simply allows people to watch DVDs. Then we'll see what you have to say about feeling oppressed.

There's lots more examples just like this. How is it not oppression when you can't give people information, even when you're not breaking any copyright law in the process?

For another type of oppression, try creating a website that speaks badly of a large corporation and its products, using truthful information. The government and police won't care, but you'll be served by the corporation's lawyers ordering you to cease and desist, even though you've done nothing wrong. Try fighting this in court: how much will it cost you? That corporation can afford to bankrupt you with legal fees. You don't call this oppression? No, the government isn't actively doing the oppression in this case, but it's the government's job to protect people from barratry, and it's not doing that, so the government is complicit in this oppression. In more advanced countries like Germany, this isn't a big problem because they have laws preventing this type of abuse.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Le Marteau]

...attract attention it is an old advertising trick "Tie things to sex and people will pay more attention to it."

Exactly. Like this plainly looks like a uterus to me. But I must be crazy, because no REAL man would have a stylized logo of a uterus on his truck.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Le Marteau]

You accept as your god given right to consume what someone else produces...

No, for fucks sake, no I did not. I never claimed it was my 'right' to consume. All I am bitching about is the government potentially mandating how my hardware functions. If some schmuck wants to broadcast on the public airwaves, and I choose to rig up some hardware to tap into the public airwaves, that is my right. I did not make any 'deal' with the media. They put it up and out, and I tap into it, and the government has no business mandating how my passive hardware functions.

but then staunchly demand you shouldn't have to pay for it.

No, again. I'd GLADLY pay for what I watch, and would pay in cash. WITH PLEASURE. What I WON'T do is sit through a bunch of insulting, mindless, badly produced commercials. That I WILL NOT do, that is TOO HIGH a price to pay for TV, and, like I said, if forced to watch commercials, I would unplug the damned thing.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[AnimalCoward]

>>The problem is politicians no longer view people as their electorate, instead they view complex algorithms of where to spend money on advertising as the equation to get elected.

>You're right, dammit. And it's hard to fix; it verges on darwinism: If they can get an advantage using methods like you describe, then they are selected, and it reinforces itself. How can you fix something like that? Any attempts at leveling the field are usually subverted and exploited.

Oh for Christ's sake...

Could you please put an end to your silly over-simplifications, and actually get involved with the issues?

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Progman3K]

>But they will get better. Americans are optimists, problem solvers. You may think that there's nothing we can do to change the system, but you're wrong because it's a fundamentally good system. As such, it was designed for change.

Yup, I agree. American are blessed by the fact that they originally formed their nation by opposing tyranny. But whatever you do, DON'T let the pigs (animal farm) rewrite your laws to a point where it is illegal for you to correct the situation. The slow erosion going on around you has to be stopped.

The tactic so far is to divide you to better conquer you. You have to stand TOGETHER, like the founding fathers originally envisioned.

OK, OK, I know a few of them owned slaves and didn't really LIVE their ideals fully because of it, but still, the vision was good, and it deserves to be preserved.

Want an example? Gay rights.

"WHAT?" I hear you saying. Well, YOU may not be gay, and you may not even know anyone who is, but the fact is that if you let them treat even ONE segment of the people as less deserving of the basic freedoms than others, you're dooming everyone ultimately.

>The American dream is alive and well. And as long as it exists, there will be people fighting for it.

Right on, that's the ONLY attitude worth having.

>So shut the fuck up!

Please, make me. :-)

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[Le Marteau]

So you are using TiVo to bypass the commercials, and then getting pissed off because the law might prevent you from doing that. I mean, would you use that feature for anything else?

You seem to be of the opinion that, because I tap the airwaves, I _must_ watch their commercials. That does not follow. There is no such requirement, either legally or morally.

Sure, the networks have based their businesses on selling airtime to advertisers, but whose fault is that? They have an archaic business plan, one which is going the way of the buggy whip.

TV is, in fact, broken. It is absolutly UNUSABLE without using things like VCRs and TiVos. They'll need to start charging for their content, and I look forward to supporting them with my dollars rather than have to be witness, or avoid, their asenine adverts.

Re:First Heinlein Reference

[ScrewMaster]

Do any of you remember the Max Headroom series (This this this IS ... Network 21)? It was a silly show in many ways but it is proving to be prophetic. In the future portrayed by Edison Carter and Max Headroom, a television with an OFF switch was illegal and punishable by imprisonment, it being simply unacceptable that someone might miss viewing a commercial. In one episode a girl was arrested for having wired an off switch into her TV. I remember, twenty years ago or so, thinking how ridiculous that was. But now now ... I'm not so sure. Congress and the MPAA certainly seem to be heading us in that direction and I think the producers of that series picked up on trends that escaped the rest of us. No matter ... ultimately television, in any form, is a luxury and luxuries can be dispensed with. Fortunately I have plenty of books and they don't have a broadcast flag.

hello 1984

[Janek Kozicki]

George, where are you?

Re:hello 1984

[Hatta]

In the White House.

Re:hello 1984

[twitter]

George, where are you?

He's laughing at your non free software cellphone with a camera on it.

He's also predicting convergence of law and technology: the home entertainment center which combines a VoIP video camera and TiVo like DVR. The center will not be able to skip the two minutes hate and, due to a bandwith shortage, the video phone will be reduced to security monitoring by authorized persons only. You will have one free of charge brought to you on behalf of our sponsors. Who needs laws when you have the party? Double plus good, comrade!

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

[garcia]

`(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?

Re:Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

[stecoop]

of the "original content"

Hmmm, this dosn't sound good. You know all those freaking commerical up front on say Disney DVDs. I rip about 30 minuts of that crap out so if the kiddies want to watch something, all I have to do is put in the cd and walk away - it autoplays the movies instead of the watching 30 minutes+ of commericals and then hitting play (like that isn't what I wanted to do in the first place).



I rip that stuff out and backup the DVDs to another DVD for this reason plus it child-proofs the orignal.

Re:Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

[UWC]

From the Wired article:

In addition, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) will expire next year, with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) in line to take over the committee. Bill opponents hope Specter would take a different approach to copyright law than Hatch, who has been an advocate of several bills that have rankled public-interest, technology and consumer-electronics camps.

Re:Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

[Wanker]

I initially read this as:

In addition, the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) will expire next year

I was getting pretty excited until I re-read the sentence properly. Darn!

Re:Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

[mark-t]

I've never had trouble skipping the ads at the beginning of a Disney DVD... all I have to do is not allow auto-play to start after putting the DVD in, and then hit the "Top Menu" button. Works every time.

Re:Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

[garcia]

It's your DVD player ignoring the DVD then. I have been noticing more and more DVDs that do not allow you to skip through their advertisements at the beginning.

Some even used to allow you to skip through the FBI warning. No more.

If you wish to voice your concern,

[Megaweapon]

please spell "concern" correctly.

Re:If you wish to voice your concern,

[Megaweapon]

The odds of a politician actually taking consideration of a constituent's letter/email/fax is low enough, it makes it even lower if words aren't spelled correctly. Sending a Slashdot-writeup-editing-effort type of message guarentees it being tossed in the trash. You might as well send "HYE SENATER, YR BILL ON COMPWRIGHT IS TEH SUKC!!11 PLZ NO VTOE FOR IT KTHXBYE!!1~"

Only the best...

[wayward_son]

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.

Re:Only the best...

[MillionthMonkey]

I'm also glad they are protecting me from those dangerous Canadian prescription drugs.

They're also working hard to prevent terrorists from finding out about their own assets and insider trading:

Tucked within the House's 497-page version of the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" is a provision to repeal the requirement that senior-level officials report their personal financial assets valued at more than $2.5 million. It also would end the practice of disclosing the dates of stock transactions.
The proposal to limit financial disclosures initially covered only top-level intelligence officials. It was recently expanded to include all executive branch officials, according to a draft version of the bill.

Courtesy of the LA Times. It's good to know they're working in our best interests.

Illegal to skip commercials

[gcaseye6677]

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.

Re:Illegal to skip commercials

[slughead]

Yes, let's blame republicans for what is clearly a bipartisan problem.

Let's ignore the votes on the DMCA and the USA Patriot Act and blame the religious right.

On a related note, I just wrote an e-mail to my Senator, John McCain, asking him not to vote for this bill.

If you're complaining about this whole thing and you don't write a letter to your elected officials, you have officially wasted your time.

Re:Illegal to skip commercials

[Prof.Phreak]

What will be the penalty for going to the bathroom during a commercial break?

The video player will detect your absense (scan room for open eyes, etc.) and will pause the commercial for you until you're right back and ready to see it... and you'll have to see it since once a commercial starts, the only way to get back to normal programming is to have your open eyes in front of the player for 5 minutes.

Buy your Senator a TiVo

[allism]

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.

Re:Buy your Senator a TiVo

[13thirteen]

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 (doesn't seem like copyright infringement) of skipping commercials.

Re:Buy your Senator a TiVo

[iminplaya]

"We should all pool our money and buy every Senator..."

Don't forget the House of Representatives...

Re:Buy your Senator a TiVo

[Tooxs]

Senators, most probably don't watch much TV, and you'd be much better off weaning yourselves from the brain drain & wash hypnobox as well.

Television: One of the most abused weapons of mass instruction.

I'm planing my Law suit.

[Damon C. Richardson]

I'll be suing on the fact that the commercials aimed at my children are offensive to adults.

Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Weird

[AvantLegion]

>> Why did you guys vote Bush in anyway? Oh, that's right, you're stupid.

Who's more stupid: the stupid people who voted for Bush for President, or the stupid troll who can't tell the difference between a President and the Senate?

Re:Weird

[Moofie]

Well, I'm smart enough to understand that 53% only equals 100% in really bad rounding algorithms.

Like Presidential elections.

Re:Weird

[Alien Being]

"Why did you guys vote Bush in anyway?"

Christian fanaticism.

Re:Weird

[asoap]

Actually, the people that voted for Bush for President.

In the words of John Stewart, that went something like: "Do you trust someone who drives your car into the ditch, and says 'ok let me drive it out of the ditch, I got it figured out now'"

-Derek

Advertising makes the world go around

[viniosity]

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.)

Re:Advertising makes the world go around

[Peyna]

Advertising is going the way of many other industries in some respects.

Oil companies want to stop true alternative fuels, because it threatens their business. Force people to use your product, instead of adapting yourself to the market.

We've seen this over and over again since the Industrial Revolution (textile industry was one of the earlier ones).

Instead of trying to come up with more effective ways to advertise products, they're just going to shove it down our throats as long as they can. If they can get the government to help them do it, all the better for them.

It seems to me; however, that the more advertising you have, the less effective it all becomes on the whole. Their solution to this seems to be to simply come out with more advertising, and force up to watch it. The more appropriate solution would be to adapt to the market and find a way to tell me about your product without wasting my time or annoying the crap out of me.


Isn't it great to live in the only place in the United States that is denied voting representation in the government, and yet is subjected to it's laws?

Re:Advertising makes the world go around

[mr_snarf]

Is it just me or are any of you sick of advertising too?
Yeah, nice sig :P

Re:Advertising makes the world go around

[roman_mir]

LEELA: Didn't you have ads in the twentieth century?
FRY: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio... and in magazines... and movies, and at ballgames, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written in the sky. But not in dreams, no sirree.

I don't have a TV for over a year now, do you know how awesome that is? The only magic box that eats my time at home is my laptop.

But I don't listen to music either for 1.5 years now, so I have to enterntain myself sometimes... and go outside time to time....

Re:Advertising makes the world go around

[Evangelion]

I'm sure someone has linked mplayer to libaa....

*google*

What do you know, someone has.

Re:Advertising makes the world go around

[PoderOmega]

You know, I saw an add walking to work today for a Spiderman 2 DVD. It was a picture of the DVD cover and it said "The Adventure Contiues!" I mean really, come on. Some jackass advertising company probably got paid a load for that. "The adventure continues"??? I could have come up with that in 2 seconds. Seriously, maybe if advertisers came up with more creative and less intrusive ways to advertise (i.e. trying to pass a bill that makes it illegal to skip a commerical) maybe we wouldn't hate advertisements so much.

Re:Advertising makes the world go around

[david.given]

Is it just me or are any of you sick of advertising too?

I use Adblock religiously. I hardly ever watch TV that's not prerecorded, and the stuff I do watch tends to come off the BBC (which is commercial-free).

It's incredible how much cleaner my life is.

Every so often I have to use IE or watch some commercial TV channel and I'm always horrified by how much flickering, jittering, attention-grabbing crap there is, always trying to distract me from what I want to read or watch or whatever, metaphorically screaming LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! all the time.

I don't mind advertising, in principle. What I do mind is being advertised at. I don't like spending money so that I can be brainwashed into spending more money. I particularly hate advertisements in the cinema --- I pay seven pounds for a two-hour film, plus 30 minutes of advertising, which means I'm paying over a pound just so I can sit there and watch the bloody things. And I don't even have a choice in the matter.

I just wonder, how much better the world would be if all that money got spent on something worthwhile...

Re:Advertising makes the world go around

[TimboJones]

Instead of trying to come up with more effective ways to advertise products, they're just going to shove it down our throats as long as they can. If they can get the government to help them do it, all the better for them.

Here's the really fun part: according to corporate law and precedent, they are obligated to cram products down consumers' throats, to pander to and bribe politicians. Corporations must maximize shareholder interests, measured in dollars, to the exclusion of all other concerns. Charitable acts are good PR. Environment consciousness appeals to a growing market niche. Corporate actions can only be justified at the bottom line -- by law.

I2P & Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ;).

Read The Ammendment

[teiresias]

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.

Wouldn't this...

[Tuxedo Jack]

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.

Senate.Gov

[pavo]

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.

Re:Senate.Gov

[An. (Coward)]

Better yet, since it's a House bill, write to your representatives, since they'll be the ones actually voting on it. Plus you've only got one of them.

Re:Senate.Gov

[V. Mole]

Actually, despite the misleading prefix (HR), it's already passed the House and is in the Senate. As a side note, it's got an extremely misleading title.

Re:Senate.Gov

[JPelorat]

Right to your senators.

That reminds me.. we should ask them to increase education funding as well. =)

(just a friendly tweak, don't everyone go get excited and moddy about it..)

Re:Senate.Gov

[themaidtricks]

In that case, I'm going to use a piece of construction paper and crayons to write my letter.

Dear Mister Senater,

Pleez doo not pas the bill to ban "Tivo". I fukcing hate comershals.

Luv Jimmy

What if I find commericials objectionable?

[John Harrison]

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?

Re:What if I find commericials objectionable?

[Bastian]

It's funny how making people aware that sex exists and people have it has been decried as obscene, and people say it hurts children.

But on the other hand, it's perfectly fine to skip the part about saying sex exists, and then, from the assumption that everyone knows it does, anyway, proceed to tell them that they are unattractive, under-endowed, smell bad, and are generally worthless people unless they shell out for xxxx.

In other words, outright acknowledging the facts of life is an unimaginable sin, but using them to do deliberate harm to a person's psyche is just the way we do business. (So much so, that apparently we don't have the right to avoid such harm.)

Re:What if I find commericials objectionable?

[elrick_the_brave]

It's simple.. stop buying TV every month.. stop buying *IAA music and movies. Guess what.. without money.. they will not be a factor any more.

Start supporting public TV and independant artists via their websites.

One must fight the battle the way which hurts the enemy the most.. in the pocket book!

Re:More lies from garcia

[garcia]

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.

It would have nothing to do w/Tivo as there is no "redistribution". It's just a recording that you are fastfowarding through. It might affect those Tivolike devices that skip the commercials automatically though.

Like I said in my post... They were never specifically clear in what a "motion picture" is and because they also claim that recording a "motion picture" in a theatre with a camera is a punishable crime I would go out on a limb to say that they WERE NOT talking about TV and they WERE talking about movies.

My head, she is wanting to explode.

[The I Shing]

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.

Re:My head, she is wanting to explode.

[DM9290]

And up to three years in prison for camcordering a movie? THREE YEARS?! Guys spend less time in prison for rape!

It is clear that the public considers bringing a camcorder to the theatre to be a more heinous offence than rape. Rape only has 1 victim. But when you bring a camcorder to a theatre you are raping America.

Remember, you elected these people. Now sit down and shut up before the commercials start.

Re:My head, she is wanting to explode.

[LaCosaNostradamus]

And up to three years in prison for camcordering a movie? THREE YEARS?! Guys spend less time in prison for rape!

Government is becoming more and more concerned about making America safe for corporate profiteering, and correspondingly less and less concerned about the safety and security of people. 114 million people voted FOR this sort of government on Nov 2nd. Having once again made this bed, we will all have to lay in it. (Except those of us who are frankly criminal by deed and intent. {wave and smile})

loophole

[r00t]

Simply put a product tie-in into the sexually
explicit gory scene. There, it's an ad, so you
can't bypass it.

Not allowed to skip?!??

[Sebby]

" skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited."

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.

Bill Summary and Status

[sp00]

...can be found here.

Obligatory Max Headroom Quote

[Doktor Memory]

"It's an off switch. He'll get years for that."

20 Minutes Into the Future...and getting closer every second.

To skip or not to skip

[igaborf]

...skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene....skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited.

The philosophy of the Republican Party in a nutshell.

Re:My what?

[DeepHurtn!]

I'm deeply conserned by compyright!!!!!!1111

Re:don’t steal from people.

[John Seminal]

Why is this a problem? If you're not out there ripping people off and distributing copyrighted material, you shouldn't have a problem, yes? I'm sure that the Slashdot crowd will get all huffy about this, but in the end, after all the convoluted chest thumping, the bottom line is: don't steal from people.

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.

Re:Punishments for skipping commercials?

[limabone]

By forcing manufacturers to lock out any commands on their remote control/dvd player/future technology while the 'advertising bit' of the digital broadcast is on. Could see this happening in the very near future.
Sure there will be hacks, as there always are, but Jane and Joe Sixpack will not be hacking their systems and simply let it happen.

Well...

[rnelsonee]

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."

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.

Just to clarify...

[syphax]

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...

Re:Just to clarify...

[cdrudge]

The original bill was introduced into the House, hence the HR2391 in the write up and article. It basically they was hijacked once it got to the Senate, but it still is tracked by the HR2391 name here. Check out the differences between #4 and #5. Anything that was in the house version was strickened out and all the extra crap was added.

Republicans take back your party!

[JavaLord]

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

Restating rights we already have

[MobyDisk]

...permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have

This part is very interesting to me. Is it good to have a law that explicitly states people's rights? The pure libertarian / constitutionalist in me says no. But the realist in me says this is good - state the rights we have. Of course, giving up the right to skip commercials isn't a fair trade for that.

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?

Objectionable content?

[Bearpaw]

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.

But as far as I'm concerned, the commercials and promotional announcements are the content that I'm most likely to find objectionable.

Re:Objectionable content?

[ad0gg]

Especially the commercials about menstruation. They always seems to come on when I'm eating diner.

Re:Objectionable content?

[moby11]

This is exactly how I feel - and no one else I know seems to get it. Advertising is effective (as evidenced by the billions of $$$ they spend) which means that we are all part of the masses being effectively manipulated. This bothers me, and it should bother all of us.

Re:Objectionable content?

[dgatwood]

Actually, we aren't. That's why we find commercials so offensive. The ones whose minds are manipulated are generally the uneducated, unintelligent masses. The effects of advertisement on intelligent people is negligible.

I can honestly say that, since about the age of 10, I haven't ever chosen one product over another as a result of an advertisement on TV, radio, or in print. The only effect advertisements have on me is in raising my awareness of the existence of a product, and even then, unless it is something that fills a need that I knew existed -prior- to seeing the ad, I don't buy it.

When I buy something, I always know exactly what type of product I'm looking for (i.e. the purpose for buying a product). If the products do not have distinct features that can be evaluated easily, I buy the cheapest product unless something about the product makes me suspect that it is junk, in which case, I buy the cheapest one that doesn't set off red flags.

For products with distinct features, I take the prices of products from every manufacturer I can find, take the feature lists of those products, and try to find the best balance of prices/features based on the expected amount of time that I will be using the product, then I add a few percent to the desired features just to be safe, and choose the product that comes closest.

Nothing pisses off advertisers more than an informed consumer, and intelligent consumers tend to be informed. Ads are almost all content-free, appealing to emotions. That works well for people with limited education and/or intelligence. It doesn't work well for most people reading Slashdot.... That's why we find them so offensive, and thus why we are -less- likely to buy a product after seeing an advertisement, unlike a typical consumer.

Of course, our politicians fall into that group that are affected by ads, so they will never understand our pain.... *sigh*.

Re:Objectionable content?

[doublem]

/me points finger

"LOOK an Enemy Combatant!"

You forget, mere consumer, that your right to be offended stops at advertising. It is a violation of the tenants of the Church of Consumerism to be offended by any advertisement. You are only permitted to obey the urge to buy, you miserable little cog.

No go out there and max out your credit cards buying DVDs and CDs!

Re:Objectionable content?

[GreyWolf3000]

The only effect advertisements have on me is in raising my awareness of the existence of a product, and even then, unless it is something that fills a need that I knew existed -prior- to seeing the ad, I don't buy it.

Advertisements just make mental associations. They define how you perceive products and companies before you even enter into a transaction with them.

I know a lot of so-called intelligent people who scoff at the uninformed, disinterested masses who "fall for" advertising on television. I find the same people laughing at inventive, humorous spots.

Everyone has different kinds of commercials they respond to, but none of us are immune.

Re:Objectionable content?

[Hentai]

I used to think that, too - then I started really paying attention to some odd hunger cravings I would get from time to time. Seeing specific corporate logos (Burger King, Wendy's, or Sonic) will cause me to crave their food, if I see the logo out of the corner of my eye and don't consciously recognize that I saw the logo.

I discovered this after the third time I craved a particular brand of fast food, only to discover we had JUST passed it. After that, I started looking around more whenever I had a fast food craving, and could usually find a logo that had been within my line-of-sight, unnoticed, within the past 90 seconds.

I'd like my medula oblongota back, please.

Re:Objectionable content?

[mgoren]

In case no one's noticed, I might point out that the main point of advertisements is not to blatantly make you go out and buy the product. Or they do try to do that, but only on the most superficial level. They don't actually expect that to appeal to most people. Particularly to the type of intelligent consumer that they really want to attract. The main point of advertisement is simply to get the product name in your head so that when you want that type of product, you subconsciously think, "Oh, I've heard of that brand... they're probably reliable."

So you can say all you want that commercials don't affect you, but it is really quite impossible to know for sure whether or not ads are affecting you.

Some good

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

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)

Looks like it's got quite a bit of opposition

[Badgerman]

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.

Campaign vs. action

[sphealey]

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

Make this known to your reps!

[Meostro]

Compyright? Consern? Editors, please fucking EDIT these stories!!!
</rant>

According to an article on Wired, the Senate may soon pass a bill labelled HR2391, a bill which lumps many other compyright bills.

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.

if pvrs become outlawed

[enrico_suave]

only outlaws will PVR!

er... doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?

Keep trying to sneak it by us

[Fnkmaster]

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).

Re:Keep trying to sneak it by us

[jmac880n]

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?

Vote the bill's sponsors out of office.

Why worry?

[Wylfing]

I don't think it's worth worry about. This will pass, and over the next 2 years the U.S. Congress is going to pass a number of extremely harsh IP-protecting bills. Shortly we will be living under the copyright rules that our founders were desperate to get away from.

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.

Appalled...

[Gleenie]

Having said that, I can Australia & New Zealand following suit pretty soon after. Once these things get passed into US law, the WIPO forces everyone else to "harmonise" with them.

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...

The rest I agree with, but....

[Master Nexxus]

I think the rest of the bill is actually OK. But the non-skip-over commercial stuff is really over the top.

As always, the rich get what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:As always, the rich get what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

I called my senators to oppose this bill from the phone on my desk at one of the major film studios... Oh the delicious irony.

Re:As always, the rich get what they want

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Yeah, whatever.

I just wanna know if I can use the technology to increase the amount of sex in a movie...

You know, like adding back in the deleted lesbo scenes from Bound or Fatal Instinct, or the cut scene in The Haunting where Catherine Zeta Jones sucks Lili Taylor's toes?

wtf

[gumpish]

My anchor tag was flawless. Slashdot is broken.
link

Also Stated In The Bill

[Phixxr]

All must bow in prayer to the general direction of RIAA and MPAA Headquaters 3 times a day. Or face immediate execution.

-phixxr

Companies now want return on political investment

[malsdavis]

Sorry, but as a non-American I can only laugh.

You guys voted in these people who had recieved A LOT of campaigning money from large companies. ...Now these companies are turning around to the puppets they helped to elect and are expecting a return for all that commerical investment.

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.

next thing you know, Adblock on Firefox

[hsmith]

will be illegal :ohnoes:

But seriously everyone, write your sentators

What about Sagan?

[arodland]

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?

Ok, 'splainin time

[Sycraft-fu]

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).

Re:Ok, 'splainin time

[goon america]

One party controls every branch of the federal government, and one person is in charge of that party. If the President wants something he can tell Congress to do it, and being that the party of which he is the leader controls both houses he'll damn well get it. This President routinely gets anything he asks for from Congress. He has never vetoed or even talked about vetoing a bill. If he doesn't want something it will never make it to the floor, it's that simple.

I might also add that most TV news commentary is conservative. and every conservative commentator gets a fax every week from the White House telling them what to say and what words to use to define the issues most favorably to the party. This gives him substantial control over what gets promulgated in the media, and public opinion as a result.

So while none of these are Constitutionally-denoted powers, that doesn't mean they aren't there. These powers are purely informal, but that doesn't mean they are any less significant.

No problem except

[Enrique1218]

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

Pop-ups?

[Westech]

"...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?

Two words: Civil Disobedience

[Anonymous Coward]

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... ;)

Email to Senator Specter (PA)

[aventius]

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

Don't worry about this. At least, not yet.

[Luscious868]

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.

EXACTLY!

[WebCowboy]

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...

Parallels

[tepples]

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.

Max Headroom: 11 of 14 episodes came true.

[Tackhead]

> "It's an off switch. He'll get years for that."
>
> 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.)

Re:Go Republicans!- Not

[riversky]

Actually it is the Democrats that are supported by the hollywood crowd. Just look at the political contributions by the studios, producers, actors, and the TV execs. Almost all to the Dems. Sure they work with Republicans to get their way because they hold all the power. These are the people with the most to loose. I know people who produce indepentent film and they've been told they can't get insurance for a project because of the potential of theft. This is not a partisan issue.

There are differences, but you're right

[Damek]

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.

Re:There are differences, but you're right

[Damek]

Didn't say it did. I think you misunderstood me.

To overly simplify things, Islamic terrorism stems from the struggle in the Islamic world between a tendency towards historical medieval fundamentalist ideologies, and those who are looking for their place in the modernized, more open and sometimes secular world.

The same thing is going on in the Western world.

In both cases, imperialism and corporatism are at the very least setting bad examples, and at the very worst encouraging ignorance, superstition and war for feudal-style fun and profit.

The West does not lie at the center, but it is also not completely separate.

Re:There are differences, but you're right

[netsharc]

There's an opinion that says, if Islam had become the major religion of the world, and Christianity the minor one, then we'd have christian Bin Laden's out there..

Re:There are differences, but you're right

[HiThere]

The crusades were, indeed, in response to something.

Too many idle rich barons with large armies of retainers making various kings & religous authorities nervous.

Re: levitra logo

[FunkyRat]

Well, I see a pony. I don't know about you. :-P

Send Your representative a letter against this EAS

[ekimminau]

http://www.publicknowledge.org/action/hr4077

Just fill out your info and click.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Truth about Commercials

[SiliconEntity]

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.

What bill HR2391 really says

[RealProgrammer]

Here is the legislation, by the way.

Sec. 2319B. Unauthorized recording of motion pictures in a motion picture exhibition facility

• (f) Definitions, in this section
  [...]
  
  • (3) MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITION FACILITY- The term "motion picture exhibition facility" means a movie theater, screening room, or other venue that is being used primarily for the exhibition of a copyrighted motion picture, if such exhibition is open to the public or is made to an assembled group of viewers outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances.

At least they don't try to regulate private screenings. I guess.

SEC. 210. ENHANCEMENT OF CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

• (a) Criminal Infringement- Any person who--

  • (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:

1. You try to sell the stuff to make money w/o paying the copyright owner
2. You put up some thing(s) worth $1000
3. You privately (or publicly) exchange 1000 files, a $10000 work, or a pre-release work.

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.

Some confusion here...

[mpath]

Looking at the text of the Senate bill (S.2192), I don't see anything that mentions copyright. Rather, it's about patents.

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).

Here's the text of the ad skipping segment ...

[jlrobins_uncc]

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?

Obligatory retort

[TiggertheMad]

On the subject of sexual symbolisim, Sigmund Freude was once quoted as saying, 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.'

You're just crazy. ;-)

This is not copyright

[B.D.Mills]

"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?

More info

[BoldAndBusted]

Public Knowledge has a really nice summary and position page here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391

Re:christian Bin Laden

[mOdQuArK!]

Religion is an expression of morality.

You've got that backwards. Religion is not an expression of morality - a code of morality might be an expression of a particular religion, but just because a set of beliefs calls itself a religion doesn't mean that its adherents are automatically "moral".

Although it is hard for _some_ people to comprehend, it _is_ completely possible for someone with a completely-secular viewpoint to have a strong set of morals. The motivation tends to be a little more practical ("how do I get along with the people around me to make my life easier?") though rather than ideological ("behave or go to hell for eternity").

Interesting...

[vex24]

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.