At least in my mind, the real issue not that the studio capitulated. If they had to, so be it. The problem is that there are people in charge who feel that a head butt is enough to prohibit parents from bringing their kids into a theater. I mean, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles head butted, and they were aimed at a younger audience than Star Wars.
So, you're saying there *shouldn't* be a law preventing 13-year old kids from buying/renting a video game featuring rape and prostitution?
There should be no unneccesary laws, however warm and fuzzy they seem.
Parents should be aware of what their kids are doing.
Gee, I thought *I* said that.
Indeed you did. I restated it in a different context.
Yes, parents *should* be aware of what their kids are doing. No law in the world can MAKE that happen, but this law would make it more likely.
Where do you think these kids are playing these games? A parent who never sees what games their kids are playing isn't likely to care which ones they buy.
I remember re"read"ing a few passages from the Clan of the Cave Bear series several times as a kid, but now it makes national news when she announces she's writing a new book. Not a mention of sexual content in those press releases; no complaints about corrupting children.
Movies aren't subject to that type of law. Their rating system is self-imposed. Video stores are legally allowed to sell unrated (e.g. foreign) films to kids, but not porn. And let's not forget - none of these games that are being discussed are porn.
I think that was part of the joke. Of course, an added bit of humor is that the raver scene is biggest with one generation removed from the Pac-man generation.
Most legal understandings of the second amendment allude to that right as being the right for the country to build
and maintain a military; not your personal right to own a gun.
They also consider corporations to have "personhood", and "interstate commerce" to be anything at all. All three are silly after-the-fact interpretations designed to legitimize politically expedient but unconstitutional legislation without passing an ammendment.
If they'll help to create the mechanism by which I, for $1 each, can download tracks from any label from the Internet, I promise you, my copy of
Kazaa Lite is going right in the virtual trash bin.
Actually, it is a democratic republic - the representatives in the republic are elected democratically, for the most part. The great weakness in any republic is not just that citizens are lazy, it is that your representative is unlikely to share your views on more than a few issues. You end up having to decide between someone like Hollings (who may be a fine senator on anything unrelated to Disney) and someone like, say, David Duke. With choices like that, it's psycological self-defense to place blind faith on the court system.
(1) The lack of high quality digital content continues to hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and digital television products.
Who cares? It's not the government's job to get their citizens to buy into HDTV or broadband.
(2) Owners of digital programming and content are increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless digital media devices incorporate
technologies that recognize and respond to content security measures designed to prevent theft.
Only as long as they hold out hope that there's a different way. If that hope is squashed, they'll adapt.
(3) Because digital content can be copied quickly, easily, and without degradation, digital programmers and content owners face an exponentially
increasing piracy threat in a digital age.
So technology has rendered obsolete some old concepts.
(4) Current agreements reached in the marketplace to include security technologies in certain digital media devices fail to provide a secure digital environment because those agreements do not prevent the continued use and manufacture of digital media devices that fail to incorporate such security technologies.
Even an enforced "agreement" to standardize "security technologies" will fail. There will be more people dedicated to destroying it than creating it, and new technologies will make any agreement obsolete.
(5) Other existing digital rights management schemes represent proprietary, partial solutions that limit, rather than promote, consumers' access to the
greatest variety of digital content possible.
Agreed, assuming they worked.
(6) Technological solutions can be developed to protect digital content on digital broadcast television and over the Internet.
And technological solutions can be developed to undo them.
(7) Competing business interests have frustrated agreement on the deployment of existing technology in digital media devices to protect digital content
on the Internet or on digital broadcast television.
In other words, there's one business interested in forcing another business to deploy them against its will and interest.
(8) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to the dissemination, and on-line availability, of high quality digital content,
which will benefit consumers and lead to the rapid growth of broadband networks.
This seems to be a restatement of number 2, and is dubious.
(9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to facilitating and hastening the transition to high-definition television, which
will benefit consumers.
This has even less basis. Do they seriously think that media companies will be reluctant to show TV shows and movies if people can use good VCRs?
(10) Today, cable and satellite have a competitive advantage over digital television because the closed nature of cable and satellite systems permit
encryption, which provides some protection for digital content.
Are they insane? Cable and satellite have a competitive advantage over digital television (HDTV I assume) because they are older, more entrenched, cheaper, and have hundreds of channels. Oh, and people record shows off of cable and satellite all the time.
(11) Over-the-air broadcasts of digital television are not encrypted for public policy reasons and thus lack those protections afforded to programming
delivered via cable or satellite.
So public policy prevents encryption of digital TV, but we should turn that policy against the public?
(12) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous
adoption.
I sincerely doubt that it is "technologically feasible," but it would definately require a government mandate - too many people rightly oppose it.
(13) Consumers receive content such as video or programming in analog form.
Uh huh.
(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital
form that can in turn be copied or redistributed illegally.
Uh huh.
(15) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous
adoption.
See number 12.
(16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, downloading, and redistribution over the
Internet.
Indeed.
(17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using `file-sharing' technology.
Much of this activity is illegal, but demonstrates consumers' desire to access digital content.
Indeed.
(18) This piracy poses a substantial economic threat to America's content industries.
Change 'threat' to 'challenge', and the need for government intervention seems smaller.
(19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous
adoption.
See 12.
(20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate consumer expectations
regarding use of digital content in the home.
And putting it in the hands of meda companies would do this how?
(21) Secure technological protections should enable content owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet without frustrating consumers'
legitimate expectations to use that content in a legal manner.
Yes, please.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
How is this possible? By 'facilitate' do they mean 'make it as easy as it is currently'?
(23) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate individuals' ability to engage in legitimate use of digital content for educational or
research purposes.
We'll have to see what they think 'legitimate' means. And I notice they don't mention parody.
BSA: "Step away from the computer. We're installing our auditing tool. Huh? Linucks? What's this gear doing where the Start menu should be?"
(power-cycles machine)
You: "Hey, what are you doing with that DOS boot floppy?"
BSA: We need to install Windows to run the audit.
You: Do you have a license for that copy of Windows?
BSA: Um....
One week later...
BSA: Here's the license.
You: You're going to have to donate that license to us if you're going to install it on our machine.
BSA: OK. (gives CD/license over)
You: Thanks (puts CD/license in pocket). Unfortunately, this machine is designated Linux only, so we can't do that install.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Apparently the Brit censors are particularily sensitive to head butts. Perhaps they have too many soccer hooligans.
At least in my mind, the real issue not that the studio capitulated. If they had to, so be it. The problem is that there are people in charge who feel that a head butt is enough to prohibit parents from bringing their kids into a theater. I mean, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles head butted, and they were aimed at a younger audience than Star Wars.
"Do not thump the Book of G'Quan. It is disrespectful."
If some "professionals" with coins burning holes in their pockets want to throw away some money for a bit of false prestige, more power to them.
If you know how to use a BASH shell, you're less likely to be afraid to push a button you haven't used yet, which is the best way to learn computers.
Read at +3, and change all your "Reason Modifier" values to +/-1.
So, you're saying there *shouldn't* be a law preventing 13-year old kids from buying/renting a video game featuring rape and prostitution?
There should be no unneccesary laws, however warm and fuzzy they seem.
Parents should be aware of what their kids are doing.
Gee, I thought *I* said that.
Indeed you did. I restated it in a different context.
Yes, parents *should* be aware of what their kids are doing. No law in the world can MAKE that happen, but this law would make it more likely.
Where do you think these kids are playing these games? A parent who never sees what games their kids are playing isn't likely to care which ones they buy.
I remember re"read"ing a few passages from the Clan of the Cave Bear series several times as a kid, but now it makes national news when she announces she's writing a new book. Not a mention of sexual content in those press releases; no complaints about corrupting children.
Movies aren't subject to that type of law. Their rating system is self-imposed. Video stores are legally allowed to sell unrated (e.g. foreign) films to kids, but not porn. And let's not forget - none of these games that are being discussed are porn.
Real to the point that a person can get their health back by having sex with a prostitute.
Um - what? I can't quite parse that sentence. What meaning of "real" are you using?
Parents should be aware of what their kids are doing.
Sure, but there's no reason that this needs to be codified into law. Parents should be aware of what their kids are doing.
I think that was part of the joke. Of course, an added bit of humor is that the raver scene is biggest with one generation removed from the Pac-man generation.
Um - there's far too much traffic there for it to be considered a 'fast' mirror.
Haven't you seen all the flavors of Imacs?
Fanboys? That's me. I'll keep you posted.
OK, maybe I won't...
Daggerfall - great game. But WHY OH WHY did it have to be so buggy? Oh, well. I've preordered the sequel anyway.
Yet more evidence that the +1/-1 and the label should be separate dropboxes.
Most legal understandings of the second amendment allude to that right as being the right for the country to build and maintain a military; not your personal right to own a gun.
They also consider corporations to have "personhood", and "interstate commerce" to be anything at all. All three are silly after-the-fact interpretations designed to legitimize politically expedient but unconstitutional legislation without passing an ammendment.
SSSSHHHHHH! We don't want speed limiters, 6-foot fences lining roads, or ammonia sensors every five feet! Don't bring these issues to their attention!
If they'll help to create the mechanism by which I, for $1 each, can download tracks from any label from the Internet, I promise you, my copy of Kazaa Lite is going right in the virtual trash bin.
And notice that that is "download", not "play".
Actually, it is a democratic republic - the representatives in the republic are elected democratically, for the most part. The great weakness in any republic is not just that citizens are lazy, it is that your representative is unlikely to share your views on more than a few issues. You end up having to decide between someone like Hollings (who may be a fine senator on anything unrelated to Disney) and someone like, say, David Duke. With choices like that, it's psycological self-defense to place blind faith on the court system.
(1) The lack of high quality digital content continues to hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and digital television products.
Who cares? It's not the government's job to get their citizens to buy into HDTV or broadband.
(2) Owners of digital programming and content are increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless digital media devices incorporate technologies that recognize and respond to content security measures designed to prevent theft.
Only as long as they hold out hope that there's a different way. If that hope is squashed, they'll adapt.
(3) Because digital content can be copied quickly, easily, and without degradation, digital programmers and content owners face an exponentially increasing piracy threat in a digital age.
So technology has rendered obsolete some old concepts.
(4) Current agreements reached in the marketplace to include security technologies in certain digital media devices fail to provide a secure digital environment because those agreements do not prevent the continued use and manufacture of digital media devices that fail to incorporate such security technologies.
Even an enforced "agreement" to standardize "security technologies" will fail. There will be more people dedicated to destroying it than creating it, and new technologies will make any agreement obsolete.
(5) Other existing digital rights management schemes represent proprietary, partial solutions that limit, rather than promote, consumers' access to the greatest variety of digital content possible.
Agreed, assuming they worked.
(6) Technological solutions can be developed to protect digital content on digital broadcast television and over the Internet.
And technological solutions can be developed to undo them.
(7) Competing business interests have frustrated agreement on the deployment of existing technology in digital media devices to protect digital content on the Internet or on digital broadcast television.
In other words, there's one business interested in forcing another business to deploy them against its will and interest.
(8) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to the dissemination, and on-line availability, of high quality digital content, which will benefit consumers and lead to the rapid growth of broadband networks.
This seems to be a restatement of number 2, and is dubious.
(9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to facilitating and hastening the transition to high-definition television, which will benefit consumers.
This has even less basis. Do they seriously think that media companies will be reluctant to show TV shows and movies if people can use good VCRs?
(10) Today, cable and satellite have a competitive advantage over digital television because the closed nature of cable and satellite systems permit encryption, which provides some protection for digital content.
Are they insane? Cable and satellite have a competitive advantage over digital television (HDTV I assume) because they are older, more entrenched, cheaper, and have hundreds of channels. Oh, and people record shows off of cable and satellite all the time.
(11) Over-the-air broadcasts of digital television are not encrypted for public policy reasons and thus lack those protections afforded to programming delivered via cable or satellite.
So public policy prevents encryption of digital TV, but we should turn that policy against the public?
(12) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
I sincerely doubt that it is "technologically feasible," but it would definately require a government mandate - too many people rightly oppose it.
(13) Consumers receive content such as video or programming in analog form.
Uh huh.
(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be copied or redistributed illegally.
Uh huh.
(15) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
See number 12.
(16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, downloading, and redistribution over the Internet.
Indeed.
(17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using `file-sharing' technology. Much of this activity is illegal, but demonstrates consumers' desire to access digital content.
Indeed.
(18) This piracy poses a substantial economic threat to America's content industries.
Change 'threat' to 'challenge', and the need for government intervention seems smaller.
(19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
See 12.
(20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate consumer expectations regarding use of digital content in the home.
And putting it in the hands of meda companies would do this how?
(21) Secure technological protections should enable content owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet without frustrating consumers' legitimate expectations to use that content in a legal manner.
Yes, please.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
How is this possible? By 'facilitate' do they mean 'make it as easy as it is currently'?
(23) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate individuals' ability to engage in legitimate use of digital content for educational or research purposes.
We'll have to see what they think 'legitimate' means. And I notice they don't mention parody.
The "too mean" comment makes me wonder which network these FOX executives think they're "running."
BSA: "Step away from the computer. We're installing our auditing tool. Huh? Linucks? What's this gear doing where the Start menu should be?" (power-cycles machine)
You: "Hey, what are you doing with that DOS boot floppy?"
BSA: We need to install Windows to run the audit.
You: Do you have a license for that copy of Windows?
BSA: Um....
One week later...
BSA: Here's the license.
You: You're going to have to donate that license to us if you're going to install it on our machine.
BSA: OK. (gives CD/license over)
You: Thanks (puts CD/license in pocket). Unfortunately, this machine is designated Linux only, so we can't do that install.
OK, so it's unlikely, but I can daydream...
If it's rotten, it will.