Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Senate May Ram Copyright Bill (Wired)
Wired examines the
latest silliness before the U.S. Congress. "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. The proposed law also
includes language from the Pirate Act (S2237), which would permit the
Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright
infringers."
(Log in to post comments)
Senate May Ram Copyright Bill (Wired) Posted Nov 16, 2004 17:15 UTC (Tue) by QuisUtDeus (guest, #14854) [Link] More and more commercials are sexually explicit, so I'll still skip them.
Senate May Ram Copyright Bill (Wired) Posted Nov 16, 2004 17:39 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] But which rule preempts the other: the ability to skip explicit content orthe requirement to view commercials?
Senate May Ram Copyright Bill (Wired) Posted Nov 16, 2004 21:19 UTC (Tue) by QuisUtDeus (guest, #14854) [Link] And the technology to go to the kitchen during commercials would be frowned upon as well, I suppose.
Certainly the technology to change the channel would be.
What if the commercials were replaced with top or bottom stripes that said "This segment brought to you by XXX" for a short time. That would seem at least as effective for the advertizers, mixing the content with the advert. This could be an optional alternative to the standard commercials.
Senate May Ram Copyright Bill (Wired) Posted Nov 17, 2004 1:49 UTC (Wed) by jtc (subscriber, #6246) [Link] "And the technology to go to the kitchen during commercials would be frowned upon as well, I suppose."
What, you mean human legs? - very advanced, dangerous technology there.
I don't have time to read the article, but from the description, the law sounds like one of the most absurd laws ever considered. If you buy a DVD of an episode of ER, you're not allowed to watch it without also watching the commercials? <blank>ing ridiculous!
Brezhnev on TV Posted Nov 17, 2004 9:48 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] It's ironic how this brings into life the Soviet anecdote about someone seeing Brezhnev on 1st TV channel, switching to 2nd to see him again, and so on until on the last channel a KGB agent shakes his head and says "Uh-uh, I will getcha!". The Land of the Free, no less...
Senate May Ram Copyright Bill (Wired) Posted Nov 17, 2004 0:14 UTC (Wed) by NightMonkey (subscriber, #23051) [Link] More information here: http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2391 Bad news if passed for Tivo/Replay/MythTV users (of which I'm a happy MythTV user). Possibly bad news for the _programmers_ as well, by the looks of it. The relevant subsection of HR 2391 SR is 212.
Senate May Ram Copyright Bill (Wired) Posted Nov 17, 2004 2:54 UTC (Wed) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] How about technology that replaces the sex scenes with commercials :)
Senate May Ram Copyright Bill (Wired) Posted Nov 17, 2004 2:59 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link] Or... the reverse... ;-)
Just kidding.
What about the eyes? Posted Nov 17, 2004 5:46 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited.
Are we going to be allowed to shut our eyes or will that be prohibited too?
What about the eyes? Posted Nov 18, 2004 0:39 UTC (Thu) by crouchet (guest, #1084) [Link] Probably open you up to law suits.
Maybe soon they can just have us arrested for not buying their products.
JC
What about the eyes? Posted Nov 18, 2004 3:29 UTC (Thu) by jtc (subscriber, #6246) [Link] "Are we going to be allowed to shut our eyes or will that be prohibited too?"
That will be prohibited, as well as allowing your mind to wander. If the thought-monitoring device installed in your entertainment system detects that you were not paying attention to a commercial for longer than 2 seconds, the police will be at your door to arrest you the next morning. Be a responsible viewer and pay good attention to the commercials.
Objectionable Content Posted Nov 17, 2004 14:58 UTC (Wed) by doodaddy (guest, #10649) [Link] Pandering beer commercials irritate me. Using classic songs to sell cars upsets me. Beauty product models striking silly, serious poses embarrasses me for humanity.
TV commercials are often objectionable to me so can I skip them?
Oh, the cleverness Posted Nov 18, 2004 13:10 UTC (Thu) by mp (subscriber, #5615) [Link] I especially like the title (SEC. 212. EXEMPTION FROM INFRINGEMENT FOR SKIPPING AUDIO AND VIDEO CONTENT IN MOTION PICTURES.) of this particular section.Could anybody explain to this poor European if this really _is_ an infringement under the US law and the Congress are only trying to help the viewers?
Oh, the cleverness Posted Nov 19, 2004 22:25 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] This is not the big deal it seems to be. What's in question is an "affirmative right." That's where a law says that people have the right to do certain specific things even if some more general law seems to say otherwise. It is a pre-emptive strike -- it does not imply that there is some more general law that says otherwise. This bill got confusing because the current question is actually a removal of an affirmative right. The original bill said people have the affirmative right to sell machines that help you skip anything you want. The amendment whittles that down just to skipping officially offensive stuff, and in no case commercials. But its all totally irrelevant if there isn't some other law telling you you can't sell machines that help you skip stuff. And the overwhelming legal evidence is that there is not. There is a part of US copyright law that says only the copyright holder can authorize someone to "prepare a derivative work." Making a version of a movie with some scenes missing seems prettly clearly to be preparing a derivative work. But, as the US Copyright Office testified before Congress, simply skipping the scenes as you watch the movie is not preparing anything, because the edited version doesn't take a fixed form. And that takes us to digital video recorders, which sometimes contain tools to help you record material with pieces missing. That might be a fixed form. But even then, other provisions of copyright law might render the derivative work classification irrelevant in this case. Replay TV (a DVR model) used to have a facility for skipping commercials. Someone brought legal action under the copyright law against the manufacturer. The legal matter was not resolved, but Replay thought the case was strong enough that it removed the feature from the machine rather than fight any more.
|
|
||||||||||||