Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Senate May Rush Copyright Legislation

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the lick-a-stamp dept.

Politics 970

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."

cancel ×

970 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Before anyone here tries to blame Republicans (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831671)

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 (5, Insightful)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831767)

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.

First Heinlein Reference (5, Insightful)

Le Marteau (206396) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831672)

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 (1)

jon787 (512497) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831715)

For the curious that quote comes from Heinlein's first published story, Life-line.

Its in the Expanded Universe collection I think.

Re:First Heinlein Reference (4, Insightful)

Cougem (734635) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831729)

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

Re:First Heinlein Reference (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831820)

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 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831885)

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 (3, Informative)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831789)

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 (4, Informative)

Le Marteau (206396) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831864)

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.

Objectionable content? (4, Insightful)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831876)

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:First Heinlein Reference (5, Interesting)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831895)

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.

hello 1984 (4, Insightful)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831673)

George, where are you?

Re:hello 1984 (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831813)

In the White House.

Re:hello 1984 (2, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831872)

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! (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831674)

`(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?

Buy your Senator a TiVo (4, Insightful)

allism (457899) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831703)

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 (3, Funny)

13thirteen (725937) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831792)

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.

More lies from garcia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831726)

Your Disney DVD example has nothing to do with what is actually being proposed. This is about broadcasting, time shifting, and the notion of "copyright" as it relates to the combination of content and advertising. No one is stopping you from editing the movie or whatever in your own home, it involves redistribution.

Re:More lies from garcia (3, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831759)

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.

Re:More lies from garcia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831815)

It's basically being argued that Tivo-like devices are in effect "redistribution" devices as they capture and resend media, and potentially editing it in the process. Perhaps if you were to quit spouting your mouth off and RTFA you'd get that.

Re:More lies from garcia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831860)

Perhaps, if you read PAST the article and educated yourself on the proposed bill you would understand what I was talking about. But you didn't. Instead you went off on an uneducated troll based on the content of a Wired article.

The Wired article was 1 page of non-sensical paranoid fluff.

Next time you troll on me be better prepared.

Re:Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! (1)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831736)

End of Hatch? Did he get beat out in the elections? I hadn't heard anything about him. I sure hope he did lose though.

Re:Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! (4, Informative)

UWC (664779) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831782)

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! (2, Informative)

stecoop (759508) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831762)

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.

If you wish to voice your concern, (4, Funny)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831680)

please spell "concern" correctly.

Re:If you wish to voice your concern, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831727)

Um, and "compyright".

Re:If you wish to voice your concern, (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831834)

I would be more worried about the actual law being proposed than the spelling of the warning.

Re:If you wish to voice your concern, (4, Funny)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831906)

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~"

My what? (-1, Offtopic)

oscast (653817) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831682)

my consern?

Re:My what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831793)

your consternation

Re:My what? (2, Funny)

DeepHurtn! (773713) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831811)

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

Better than... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831683)

... nothing.

Punishments for skipping commercials? (1)

AndyBassTbn (789174) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831690)

And exactly HOW do they plan on enforcing this (other than by draconian DRM-esque hardware locks) ?? Are they going to send the marketing police over to my house if i fast forward through the previews?

Re:Punishments for skipping commercials? (4, Informative)

limabone (174795) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831836)

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.

poor geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831693)

they can not steal things, poor babies

Only the best... (2, Insightful)

wayward_son (146338) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831695)

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.

Illegal to skip commercials (5, Interesting)

gcaseye6677 (694805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831697)

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.

the election was two weeks ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831702)

If any of this worries you please contact your Senators and Representatives and voice your consern.

A bit late to wake up early, perhaps?

I'm planing my Law suit. (2, Insightful)

Damon C. Richardson (913) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831707)

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

Re:I'm planing my Law suit. (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831760)

correction: commercials aimed at my children are offensive to children and adults.

Weird (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831709)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831768)

In our defense, some of us are partially educated.

Re:Weird (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831771)

49% of us, did not vote for Bush.

I have a feeling if everyone over the age of 18 had actually voted, the results would have been very different. It's sad that those who actual vote are not an accurate cross-section of the country.

Re:Weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831775)

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

At least 49% of us aren't stupid.

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/ [sorryeverybody.com]

Re:Weird (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831806)

Well, apparently 53% of us are stupid anyway.

Re:Weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831897)

i was gonna correct you and say 47%
but i wont even start on that and marginalizing who you voted for because that is your right.

so get off your high horse and stop pretending every bush voter is a moron, the same can be said about kerry voters.

Re:Weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831835)

+5 intuitive... :)

if only I could be arsed getting an account.

Advertising makes the world go around (4, Interesting)

viniosity (592905) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831717)

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 (1)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831900)

There's always a backup browser to avoid legal hassels in being forced to watch advertisements on the web -> Lynx [browser.org] . Now if only they had a Lynx TV. I've always wanted to watch the Simpsons in ascii art.

I2P & Freenet (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831718)

Seems like everyday there is more and more reasons to start using I2P [i2p.net] and or Freenet [sourceforge.net] . 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 (4, Informative)

teiresias (101481) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831720)

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... (5, Interesting)

Tuxedo Jack (648130) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831722)

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.

Re:Wouldn't this... (1)

whovian (107062) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831886)

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.

It seems as if it could ban blocking spam, do-not-call lists, etc.

Personally I think this bill is going a bit too far.

don’t steal from people. (-1, Troll)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831723)

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.

Skipping adverts isn't stealing. (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831741)

Why? because skipping adverts isn't stealing.

Re:don’t steal from people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831826)

Nice troll. Actually, no . . . mediocre troll.

Re:don’t steal from people. (5, Insightful)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831829)

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:don’t steal from people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831843)

Hey, just because i share my collection of music and movies with a few million of my friends online, doesn't make me a criminal.

Senate.Gov (5, Insightful)

pavo (70713) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831734)

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 (2, Insightful)

An. (Coward) (258552) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831908)

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.

What if I find commericials objectionable? (5, Insightful)

John Harrison (223649) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831747)

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?

gmail invites (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831751)

despite what liar trolls are saying, I am posting genuine gmail invites. the people trolling don't want you to receive gmail becuase they want to horde the links for themselves and then call me stupid for it. see for yourself and click on one if you dont believe me.

http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-df9a66ca25-22745f7 9bf-58ddc56a64 [google.com]
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-df9a66ca25-4690232 dc9-b7d45ae541 [google.com]
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-df9a66ca25-717f932 53c-14255febce [google.com]
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-df9a66ca25-31ca601 9fb-4bdad06078 [google.com]
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-df9a66ca25-9c006db fe4-5af2392928 [google.com]
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-df9a66ca25-1cfe7b8 94c-aa44a2294a [google.com]

Re:gmail invites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831910)

OMG!

Bea Arthur and Betty White in a strap-on frenzy. Won't someone think of the poor fake link trolls?

Not just digital media... (1)

Jumbo Jimbo (828571) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831764)

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.

I guess this means that if I want to watch any of my old VHS tapes, I won't be allowed to purchase a VCR with a fast forward button, or I could skip the trailers.

My head, she is wanting to explode. (5, Insightful)

The I Shing (700142) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831780)

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. (1)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831893)

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 you will hate what else is comming. Did you hear about the new hypnotic advertising? Say you are walking in a mall past the McDonalds. All of a sudden you get the thought you are hungry. It could be the store is using a low sound to place the thought in your head.

And before you think about suing them for making you fat, by making you eat when you otherwise would not have, the goverment passed laws outlawing that too.

DVDs with forced previews (1)

jeoin (668566) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831781)

I wish there was a list of dvd producers who did this so that I could avoid them. I hate the invasion of my time and the lack of control. I expect it at the movies, but not at home.

Its like forcing a purchaser of a RAP album, to listen to a promo for the dixie chicks with no way to skip it.
Yes, I know fast forward works on some dvds...

Re:DVDs with forced previews (1)

gcaseye6677 (694805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831855)

I already do a web search for the title of any DVD I am considering buying to see if people have reported that it has forced previews. If so, I don't buy, no matter what it is. If I really want the movie, I'll take the time to write the studio to let them know why I didn't buy it. And they wonder why people are downloading movies from file sharing networks. Hey, the pirate version has no forced anything.

Re:DVDs with forced previews (1)

bmf033069 (149738) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831861)

"Its like forcing a purchaser of a RAP album, to listen to a promo for the dixie chicks with no way to skip it."

Please don't give them any more ideas!

loophole (2, Funny)

r00t (33219) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831788)

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?!?? (2, Interesting)

Sebby (238625) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831798)

" 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.

Do something about it (1)

narsiman (67024) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831800)

You can respond online by following this link [capwiz.com]

Re:Do something about it (1)

narsiman (67024) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831909)

or here [congress.org]

Bill Summary and Status (2, Informative)

sp00 (639381) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831801)

...can be found here [loc.gov] .

cc2005 - you must look (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831803)

More US authoritarian consumer mandates? (reminds me of US' AMA and nutrient medicine like Europe's Codex) Another warning, time to leave, if you can... Seig Heil.

loophole? (1)

djocyko (214429) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831804)

...with reckless disregard...

What if I do it will full, contemplated disregard? That'd be alright?

I am guessing they mean the legal sense for reckless...

Re:loophole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831851)

Take a first year legislation class at law school, and then you'll learn how stupid congress can be when drafting laws.

Usually statements like that make their way in because everyone voting on it assumes it means something that it may or may not to the public. They also like to throw in fancy words that they probably don't even realize what they really mean.

This seems fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831805)

Just because they're Canadian doesn't mean they shouldn't get paid.

they don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831807)

my g/f's dad is the chief of staff for my congressman...trust me, they don't care. They are more concerned with special intrest groups (i.e church groups). I've talked many times with him. When I was in college, we even wrote a letter about the DMCA and I was told he didn't care.

sucks, but this is the truth.

Obligatory Max Headroom Quote (4, Interesting)

Doktor Memory (237313) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831809)

"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 (4, Insightful)

igaborf (69869) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831810)

...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:To skip or not to skip (1)

bmf033069 (149738) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831894)

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

Does this imply that they will no longer be using sex or violence to sell their products?

Well... (4, Insightful)

rnelsonee (98732) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831841)

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.

Superman is trapped!!! (1)

jeff13 (255285) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831844)

... Superman is trapped in a copywrite law!

Now that the government has added kryptonite to the copywrite law, Superman is doomed... (to remain a mere corporate product used to sell molded plastic toxins to fat, rich, diabetic, American, candy suckers... and thier ignorant adolecent fanboy slashdot fathers) FOREVER!

The end?

Fuggin' right it is.

Just to clarify... (4, Informative)

syphax (189065) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831845)

The Senate bill is S.2192 [loc.gov]

The House bill is H.R.2391 [loc.gov]

See the S is for Senate, the H in H.R. is for House...

Republicans take back your party! (4, Informative)

JavaLord (680960) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831853)

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

*My* Senators? Who here really has a Senator? (1)

Cid Highwind (9258) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831854)

If any of this worries you please contact your Senators and Representatives and voice your consern."

You're preaching to the wrong crowd here. If anyone on slashdot owned a Senator, this bill would never have been introduced.

Restating rights we already have (3, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831856)

...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?

Why not (0, Troll)

moxiez (765428) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831857)

just stop stealing and then you don't have to worry about it? I just don't understand why people get so upset over these proposed laws??? I mean, wow, my neighbor drives a Porsche that I'd love to have, but that doesn't mean I go steel it! Wake up people. If you're upset about this then you are doing something that is illegal. Face it. I'm not Trolling, just trying to get people to face the music (pun intended). :)

Downfall of video media (1)

ciphertext (633581) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831865)

Well, I have no doubt that this legislation will not pass. It is diametrically opposed to the "features" we want, like the ability to *NOT* record commercials (which is currently not provided). In fact, if they flag the commercials so that Tivo's and other systems like them do not allow skipping, my PVR *WILL* be able to skip commercials (with some modifications of course).

I foresee the rising up, of the print media to its once great state. You can take it with you where ever you go, and even use it when no electricity is available. Best of all....if you really don't like the advertisements, you can tear them out and use them to wipe your butt in the absence of toilet paper. Just be careful to not receive a paper-cut.

Uh... (1)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831867)

Since when does the Senate pass HR bills?

Great... (1)

Avyakata (825132) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831870)

"If any of this worries you please contact your Senators and Representatives and voice your consern."

It sounds like if we did, they'd take us away in handcuffs....

One question... (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831882)

"If any of this worries you please contact your Senators and Representatives and voice your consern."

Why?

Re:One question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831903)

You're one stupid rocket scientist.

Some good (2, Interesting)

mr_z_beeblebrox (591077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831888)

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)

but... (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831892)

although I don't like the sounds of this bill, I'm not sure how far I'd get writing to my rep/senator as I didn't vote for them...never have (yet, she's still there). To make things worse, my senator who I did not vote for is one of those politicians with their hands in the R/MIAA-fia's pockets.

At least my rep is very technically up-to-date and she even tried to pass laws favorable to the consumer and to try to protect the fair balance between copyright holders and copyright users.

We just need Arnold to call them "girlie losers" and we are home-free.

must. buy. more. pepsi. (1)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831898)

Sure, the advertisers have a right to try to get me to watch their ads but I also have the right to ignore them... apparently I shouldn't, thinks Congress. It's getting to the point where it's hard to ignore them, what with the AOL First Down Marker, Verizon Wireless Amphitheater, Viagra Checkout Line, Giant Telco Hat Trick... and now they want to force them on me. Is there no resipte?

Writing Hatch does no good. (1)

DrJonesAC2 (652108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831901)

I (unfortunately) live in Utah and I have been writing Hatch about this for the past year. every time I write a letter to him all I get in response is some generic auto-response letter. I'm not talking about email I'm talking about an actual letter sent to me by snail-mail. In addition, this letter usually arrives two to three months after I sent the original letter.
It goes on to say something about how he is working with 'The Leaders in the Computer Industry' to 'Single Out a Few Bad Apples' or something to that effect. I have lost all faith in writing to him or any public official higher up than the Mayor.
What's the use when his votes come from the Disney addicted Mormons who would love to be able to censor content and eat up commercials like they are gospel.
This will pass.

Have phun in US! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10831904)

Have phun in US. I think i'll stay here in EUrope. I love to hear from more and more harsh laws in US, but of course I oppose them in EUrope. It's at least four more years there =)

Oh, yeah! (0, Offtopic)

YU Nicks NE Way (129084) | more than 9 years ago | (#10831905)

Quoth the sum-bitter:
a bill which lumps many other compyright bills
Perhaps you and the /. editors should start by taking a spelling-right course. Or maybe, you could just run ispell inside emacs? It's M-x $ on my key bindings.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>