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!

Bush Signs a New Fair-Use Bill

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the small-steps dept.

Media 134

BostonGunNut writes "Today President Bush signed a bill that gives legal protection to companies that provide software that can automatically filter specific content from DVDs for personal use. This bill, called the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, allows companies to provide filtering software without being sued into oblivion by Hollywood. The legislation also allows the Library of Congress to save and protect old movies and home videos that might otherwise be lost."

cancel ×

134 comments

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

Wish these were rights I want, or could agree with (2, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363396)

Kind of makes sense: A form of fair use where, if you use it, you end up with less than you started, and you insult the artists who produced the content for you. We can have more freedom, as long as we're asking for the freedom to be restricted?

I'm not overly impressed by this, as you can probably tell. Can we at least do the decent thing, and require that companies that provide such "filtering" solutions rename the films they edit, and take the makers of that film off the credits, if they so wish? This basic right would be afforded to the movie creators by a studio that forces edits upon a movie before release. Why shouldn't it apply to those selling edits of a film against those same artists' wishes?

I guess, if it's on Dubya's desk for signing right now, then the answer is "No. We don't want to do this because we hate artists, either because we're right wing pseudo-moralists, or certain types of technie freeloaders."

I'm curious to know if the editing of movies or the editing on moral grounds is the only thing allowed by the bill, or if the "right" to edit goes further. If it does, we may have a massive loophole that allows people to alter anything they can redistribute. Ship a GPL'd app, for example, and include proprietary "edits" to the binaries. *shudder*

BTW, on the home movies thing, are they serious? Exactly when did private, deliberately unpublished, material become something to be preserved for future generations? Is this a poor write-up by the article submitter?

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

black mariah (654971) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363663)

Exactly when did private, deliberately unpublished, material become something to be preserved for future generations?
Ever see films of Hitler at home? Churchill? Important historical figures make home movies too.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364709)

1) I'm not an important historical figure, dispite what my ego may tell me. So why should the LoC have access to and permission to archive and make public anything I create?

2) George W. Bush is an important historical figure. Will we see every little thing he produced in the LoC? I doubt it. If we ever see any of it, it will be what GWB wishes us to see at the GWB Presidential Library. The LoC won't see any of his personal, private stuff. Given that, why should it be allowed to possess anyone else's, then?

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

black mariah (654971) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364809)

1) I'm not an important historical figure, dispite what my ego may tell me. So why should the LoC have access to and permission to archive and make public anything I create?
From the article, which I know you didn't read:
The legislation also reauthorizes a Library of Congress program dedicated to saving rare, culturally significant works, such as home movies, silent-era films and other works that are unlikely to be protected by the big studios.

The videos of you egging your neighbor's house on Halloween aren't significant. Videos of Hitler having a barbecue with Rommel are. The Zapruder film is. Home videos of 9/11 are. You see where this is going?

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (0, Flamebait)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365088)

Yes, I see where this is going. The USA Patriot Act gives the Gummint the "right" to take my stuff without telling me, and now the LoC has the "right" to archive whatever the Gummint takes.

Seriously, you say this is for "culturally significant works." Who decides if my home movies are or are not culturally significant? More to the point, how can they make this decision without first seeing my home movies? I'll bet this law gives them the right to accquire anything they want, then later decide what to keep. This opinion is based not on my reading the law but rather my perceptions of those who make our laws.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (0, Flamebait)

black mariah (654971) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365459)

You're a fucking idiot, dude. If you honestly have to ask ANY of those questions you seriously need to shut your computer off and go outside.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12365162)

Ever notice that the ones that complain most about their freedoms are the ones that rarely go outside and USE THEM?
Ever notice that whenever you try to solve a problem, it's always the last thing you try that works, if anything works at all?

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (2, Funny)

Phillup (317168) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365399)

culturally significant

Like the Paris Hilton video?

I think that qualifies as a "home movie"...

;-)

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 9 years ago | (#12366409)

Unfortunately things have gotten to the point where it is culturally significant.

Overrated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12363806)

How sad. You knew it wasn't a troll or flamebait, but you modded it down anyway.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

Goyuix (698012) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363865)

While it is clear you don't like this example of our lawmakers working hard (or hardly)... your comparison to the GPL isn't entirely well founded, and neither is my critique - but hey, this is /. .....

Basically if you were to change a GPL'd work you would still have to adibe by the license, you are redistributing it - not changing the license.

The folks who edit a movie and resell it (ignoring DMCA / encryption breaking laws) are realistically no different to selling old CD's (or buying them) from a CD exchange. First Sale is a very important thing to me. CD's are generally scratched to some degree from these places - thus altering the data, intentionally or not - are they evil too? Besides, most places are very upgront about the media being edited, as well as making available lists of what they do edit.

Now for software that does this on the fly, or rentals ... well I think that is a bit more of a gray area. I haven't fully fleshed out what I think is right or wrong there, but personally I don't have a problem with these methods - but then again I am the kind of person who definitely prefers the "airplane version" or a film to the theatrical/DVD edition of the film.

Of course, I haven't read the article or the bill itself, nor I am even a lawyer so my comments are nothing more than karma burning / whoring.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364073)

I wasn't making a comparison with the GPL, I was asking if the the GPL might be less enforceable under these circumstances.

The GPL gives me a right to redistribute as long as I redistribute source, including of any modifications. Now, if I do indeed find a way of getting a GPL'd program onto a user's computer (which may not involve redistribution on my part), and independently release a binary equivalent of a "diff" file, the question I have is whether this law now makes this legal? After all, the GPLs power relies upon my agreeing to it. If I don't agree to it, all I have are "fair use" rights such as the one discussed. If I can edit something I don't personally distribute (or find a way of getting a judge to agree my distribution is seperate from my providing of an edit - and that's a question) then do I have a loophole?

This is a question, not a statement. I don't know how the law is worded. The law may explicitly be talking about DVDs, or more widely about movies, or more widely about any copyrighted material. It may only exempt edits made for "moral" reasons. It may only exempt edits that remove rather than add material. ALl of these would invalidate what I'm concerned about.

As for the CD scratches comparison, that's a random and unintended modification of data of the type the artist would know goes with the territory, not an intentional modification of the artist's work designed to change the actual meaning of what the artist was trying to say. (And, yes, no matter how gratuitous, those sex scenes and swear words the censorship mob are always trying to cut do make a difference to the overall meaning of a movie. That applies as much to removing Mr Pink beating a driver whose car he wants to hijack in Reservoir Dogs as it does Aileen Wournos being raped in Monster. The removal of either affects how we see the character. The latter's removal would render the entire message of the movie at odds with the maker's intentions. An ink blot that appears fleetingly on the 35mm film, however, wouldn't.)

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364385)

Ignore the first part of the parent. I've just read the bill [govtrack.us] , and it's explicit about only covering audio and video. No problems with the GPL, unless you try to license your next blockbuster under the GPL.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (3, Insightful)

david duncan scott (206421) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363909)

Exactly when did private, deliberately unpublished, material become something to be preserved for future generations?

The day that historians found useful and interesting material in things like diaries and letters, that's when.

As for "deliberately unpublished", well, I would imagine that most people just never really thought about it one way or the other.

Picture this: you find an 8mm movie in the attic of an old house. None of the people are identified, and the previous owners, who bought the house in 1965, don't know anything about it. The movies show interesting glimpses of life on the home front during WW II -- Rosie the Riveter at the company picnic, recruits doing the Lindy Hop before they ship out. At the time, this wasn't history, it was just life, and seemed interesting only to those involved, and even they put it away and forgot about it. Now it might be fascinating, but wait -- who holds copyright? Under the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act , the answer was, of course, Walt Disney, but now perhaps that's changed, and for the better.

Of course, now that I've actually read the article, it looks like all it does is fund the LoC's efforts to preserve and restore old images, a good thing but not a copyright issue at all.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364205)

Of course, now that I've actually read the article, it looks like all it does is fund the LoC's efforts to preserve and restore old images, a good thing but not a copyright issue at all.
Rereading the article, I see what you mean, and withdraw my concerns. To respond to the other part, I agree that film might be fascinating, but it strikes me that distributing it without the copyright holder's consent is an invasion of their privacy, whether what appears is apparently innoculous or not. In time, of course, it will fall into the public domain, and we at least keep a decent space of time between someone's death and this fall to ensure most reasonable concerns about privacy are addressed.

I would suggest two ways around this: a program encouraging people to submit their diaries and other personal materials for public archival, and a program encouraging those who have found materials belonging to someone else to have it stored, with a release date - assuming the copyright holder is never found - set to at least 100 years from the best estimate available of when the material was made, and at least 50 from now, and with the material on-view but not copyable immediately (unless the rights holder is found.)

Both ensure an archive available to historians, while protecting the legitimate privacy interests of those who made the materials. We're not talking about materials ever intended for public consumption, we shouldn't treat them the same way.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (2, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364366)

Can we at least do the decent thing, and require that companies that provide such "filtering" solutions rename the films they edit, and take the makers of that film off the credits, if they so wish? This basic right would be afforded to the movie creators by a studio that forces edits upon a movie before release.

No, and IIRC, it actually takes care to avoid such a possibility arising. I'd have to poke around with the effects on federal trademark law and preemption of state laws. It hasn't been the part of the bill that I've been most concerned with, and I've been kind of busy as of late.

I'm curious to know if the editing of movies or the editing on moral grounds is the only thing allowed by the bill, or if the "right" to edit goes further.

Morality is not a factor. You can render imperceptable whatever you want. If you don't like the mushy parts of the latest star wars film, but like the fight scenes, you can make an appropriate EDL.

And no, it only applies to motion pictures (which includes TV, given the way the law is written). Not other kinds of works, like books or software, or whatever.

Although I don't see what's wrong with cutting out parts of books for one's own consumption, if that's how you get your kicks, or selling the same, if you're upfront about it. It's not as though the original artist is harmed or is unable to compete.

BTW, on the home movies thing, are they serious? Exactly when did private, deliberately unpublished, material become something to be preserved for future generations? Is this a poor write-up by the article submitter?

There's some funding for the National Film Preservation Board, or whatever it's called, but it's not as though they can march in and make you hand stuff over. They just get to buy things and preserve them. Maybe preserve deposit copies at the LoC too. You can probably calm down.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364553)

Although I don't see what's wrong with cutting out parts of books for one's own consumption, if that's how you get your kicks, or selling the same, if you're upfront about it. It's not as though the original artist is harmed or is unable to compete.
Doing so for yourself is entirely different to doing so for other people. I don't have a problem with most personal uses of copyrighted-by-other's material, but when it comes to saying "Hey everyone, do you want to watch a cleaned up version of XYZ?", and selling edits and presenting the film as a merely sanatized version of the original that's fundamentally the same only without the material-it-would-be-morally-wrong-to-even-view, then, yes, I have a big problem with it. I think it's misrepresenting the original artist to put, under their name, something that clearly they wouldn't say represents what they were trying to do and say at all.

That's why I asked whether, at the very least, an artist could at least have their name removed from an "edited" version if they didn't consent to the edits. It strikes me as remarkably abusive of the artists to not do so, and is actively misrepresenting them and their works.

That a law would be passed not only allowing this, but actually encouraging it and doing everything possible to prevent an artist disassociating themselves in any practical way from an edit, I find very sad.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (3, Insightful)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365215)

Doing so for yourself is entirely different to doing so for other people. I don't have a problem with most personal uses of copyrighted-by-other's material, but when it comes to saying "Hey everyone, do you want to watch a cleaned up version of XYZ?", and selling edits and presenting the film as a merely sanatized version of the original that's fundamentally the same only without the material-it-would-be-morally-wrong-to-even-view, then, yes, I have a big problem with it. I think it's misrepresenting the original artist to put, under their name, something that clearly they wouldn't say represents what they were trying to do and say at all.

So would you object to it, so long as it was clear that the edits were Alice's Edits of Bob's Movie? Just because Alice has made an EDL doesn't totally divorce it from Bob. Now they're both involved. So long as everyone is clear and up front about it, I don't see a big problem. Alice is not putting it forward as entirely her own work, and Bob is not having it put forward as entirely his either. Frankly, for Bob to disassociate himself from it would be misleading -- he is associated with it to some degree.

Importantly though, I don't give a crap about artistic integrity. I just don't want the audience to be confused or misled about what it is that they're buying or watching. If they're fully informed, I'm happy.

And looking through the relevant part of the law, it appears that 1) there are no federal trademark remedies against the 110 editors, 2) they do have to include a conspicious notice as to the fact that it's edited, 3) I'd still have to investigate as to state causes of action, but I think that Congress' intent is fairly clear.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12367975)

So would you object to it, so long as it was clear that the edits were Alice's Edits of Bob's Movie?
If Bob objects, and as far as he's concerned, this isn't his movie any more, then, yes, I'd object to it. Of course, regardless of what should be done, we know what is being done: these types of editors are being marketed as "clean" versions of named movies. Not different movies using footage from named movies, but essentially the same thing, only cleaner. We already know how the names of the artists concerned are to be abused.

If you make a different movie, one that an artist whose work you "based it upon" wants no part in, then why name it after the original work, and why include the artist's name? Answer: because you're still wanting to trade off those names, you want people to assume what you're producing is actually some form of the real deal. And it isn't. If the relevent politicians and lobbyests were being honest and respectful, they wouldn't have spent this amount of effort trying to avoid movie houses from invoking trademarks. They're being dishonest here. Blatently. I don't care how reasonable a "standard disclaimer", doubtless added to the hundred or so already attached to every movie, might look.

Importantly though, I don't give a crap about artistic integrity.
I never accused you of anything of the sort. You made it clear in the GGP that as far as you're concerned, it's all about the money:

It's not as though the original artist is harmed or is unable to compete.

Ah. Yes. If people are watching some bullshit you didn't do that nonetheless has your name on it, you're not harmed. Because you can still make money. Right. I just wish this kind of crappy souless materialism wasn't so common these days. Your values are definitely not my values.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12368358)

If you make a different movie, one that an artist whose work you "based it upon" wants no part in, then why name it after the original work, and why include the artist's name? Answer: because you're still wanting to trade off those names, you want people to assume what you're producing is actually some form of the real deal.

Not necessarily. As I said, it's a fact. If I buy a car, rice it out, and sell it, the fact that it's been modified doesn't change that consumers are best informed knowing what it originally was; if I just said it was a car, then how can people make a careful buying decision not knowing if I started with a sports car or a compact? Also, trademarks are only source identifiers, never good identifiers. Usually the titles of individual works cannot be a trademark, since this a) doesn't tell buyers where it comes from, and b) would interfere in uses of the work not covered under the copyright monopoly. If I reprint a public domain work, I'm allowed to use the name of the author and the work in doing so, as long as I don't mislead people.

You made it clear in the GGP that as far as you're concerned, it's all about the money

No, as far as copyright law and policy should be concerned, it's all about the public interest, and with regards to what aspect of authors we use in incentivizing them to create, we use their greed.

Copyright is utilitarian; it's economic. It's inappropriate to entertain silly notions of some sort of romanticized kind of authorship.

This is because the objective of copyright is to slake the public's unquenchable thirst for works and freedom with respect to those works, as much as possible. That's it. It's a noble goal, but one that should be approached pragmatically. It certainly doesn't involve caring about artists, only caring about how to exploit artists just as a farmer exploits his milk cows, or whatever.

This has always been the way copyright works, and it's a good system. We're just screwing it up lately, in no small part due to people with attitudes like your own, who can't treat it rationally.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (4, Funny)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364619)

I sympathize with you, but look on the bright side...

We can finally watch Episode 1 without Jar Jar in it!

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364773)

Does this law make The Phantom Edit legal? Anyone know where I can get a copy?

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (3, Informative)

troyboy (9890) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364925)

The law does not allow you to make or distribute a copy of the modified work with teh deleted scenes. It only allows you to sell and use technology that removes segments to create the modified work. So, it would be legal to distribute a device that transforms The Phantom Menace into The Phantom Edit, but not to distribute The Phantom Edit by itself. It seems to me that this would be tricky to accomplish with a DVD player unless it is specifically designed for it, but would be easier with software on a computer (but would DeCSS be required?!?).

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364895)

Heh.

Actually, I recall Lucas has always been fairly liberal with the whole people setting things in his universes thing, and initially didn't have a problem with The Phantom Edit until it blew up into a thing that looked like would take sales away from the real thing.

I can imagine he'd be relatively happy with a technology that allows people to buy Star Wars DVDs and view edits of them. A rare case.

Re:Wish these were rights I want, or could agree w (1)

BostonGunNut (851395) | more than 9 years ago | (#12367835)

Is this a poor write-up by the article submitter?

Why don't you RTFA and find out?

Perfect! (1)

kenthorvath (225950) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363423)

Doesn't dvdshrink have the ability to cut chapters from the disc that it copies? If this were advertised as a feature for removing material that one finds objectionable, wouldn't that make dvdshrink legal as well?

Re:Perfect! (1)

j0e_average (611151) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363574)

That would be gopchop [sourceforge.net] for the non-MS crowd. Works pretty well, too!

Does it also allow one to sell "juicy additions"? (1)

PaulBu (473180) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363757)

... just for the balance... If one can sell a "family friendly" add-on to a DVD movie to block "bad" scenes (which, IMHO, is fair -- one can always skip through scenes with a remote control, a little automation of that process should not be illegal) -- can one sell additional footage to turn a family friendly movie into a "frathouse-friendly" version with simulated actors engaging in, hmm, unexpected acts? It might even fall under the parody clause of the fair use...

Paul B.

Re:Does it also allow one to sell "juicy additions (1)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364461)


This is a good point. What about editing the film so _only_ the nudity, sex, and violence are left? In "preserving" "fair use" rights, do they preserve equal rights?

Re:Does it also allow one to sell "juicy additions (1)

MacJedi (173) | more than 9 years ago | (#12366108)

In that case you might be interested in NWA - Straight Outa Compton - Explict Content ONLY version. [parsons.edu]

Re:Does it also allow one to sell "juicy additions (1)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12366884)


No, this is about _editing_, not just renaming the same thing...

Re:Perfect! (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364218)

No.

It only allows making portions of an authorized copy imperceptable, without fixing the imperceptabilities.

So you can't this exemption to create a new disc. Only to black out the screen or something, when playing an otherwise ordinary commercially released disc.

There's a great idea... (4, Insightful)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363456)

Getting parents, who are less tech-savvy than their kids, to use technology in order to prevent their teens from viewing gratuitous scenes.

Here's a crazy idea, and it'll save you the hassle of learning how to set the DVD-player's clock: teach them right from wrong, y'know, as parents are supposed to do.

Yes, it sounds crazy, but it just might be crazy enough to work.

Re:There's a great idea... (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364131)

it just might be crazy enough to work
People have been doing that for millennia. It works fairly well but it's not 100% reliable. This is well known. It's hardly a crazy idea and given its lack of reliability it seems reasonable to use other methods of education too.

Re:There's a great idea... (2, Insightful)

avi33 (116048) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364487)

Why do you assume it's the teens that need protection?

My kids are small (under 6) and I have hand edited music files to remove curse words, so they can listen to decent music without growing their vocabularies in unsavory ways (hint: not damn or hell). They should be exposed to great music, not Kidz Bop Volume 37. If .0007% of that music is inappropriate, I just scrubbed it out. Big apologies to the artist, but wtf, I'm not publishing it. It's time consuming and a little sloppy, so I don't do it to all of my music, just when I'm making a mix for them.

It's a little hypocritical when everyone gets all bent out of shape over the artist's rights in this case, when those rights get stomped everywhere else. When a music label publishes explicit and clean versions of music, it's accepted. When a movie is shown on TV, in most cases it's censored (unless it's saving Private Ryan). Plus, it's censored by some archaic standard where "damn" is ok, but "god damn" is not, and who knows what criteria they use for violence or sex these days. Wouldn't you rather control your own media? There are a bunch of movies that I think my kids should see, but I just don't want them to hear a handful of words.

In some video games (SoF comes to mind), you can pre-install the level of gore (you need a password to see the 'explicit' versions). Why can't I do that with media? I'd like to put a filtered CD player in my kids' rooms, and give them access to all of my music, knowing that clean versions would come out the speakers. Sure, it would sound a little ridiculous in spots, but so do 'clean' versions of music, and censored movies on TV. I'm not going to run every bit of media through a G-rated transmogrifyer and expect it to keep them doe-eyed and naive for the next 10 years.

I don't pretend that I can shelter them from language (or anything else) forever, I think that they should be exposed to cool movies and music, and I should be the one with my finger on the censorship button, for now at least. I realize that by the age of ten, they'll probably figure out how to deactiviate it anyway.

I don't think that one company should be the benefactor for a special law, but maybe other hardware manufacturers can make this a little more achievable.

I think last time this came up on /. I got some flame similar to the post above, like 'be a parent and teach them right from wrong' or 'watch/listen with them and explain why' but little kids don't work like that.

Re:There's a great idea... (1)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364535)

"learning how to set the DVD-player's clock"
Most DVD players I've seen in retail outlets don't have clocks.

Family Entertainment and Copyright Act Legislation (4, Funny)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363483)

Glad to see Congress is finally being a bit more honest about their backronyms.

"family values" (4, Insightful)

Zork the Almighty (599344) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363523)

It seems like you can get anything done if you make it sound like a Christian issue. All this time we have been whining about the DMCA, the freedom to reverse engineer, etc. and nothing was done until this. If we framed the fair-use issue in terms of a personal right to censor the vile bile spewed by atheist Hollywood we would have won. Prehaps the Bible endorses file sharing. Someone should look.

Re:"family values" (1)

DustMagnet (453493) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363996)

Prehaps the Bible endorses file sharing. Someone should look.

I'm pretty sure that after Moses came down from the mountain and read The Ten Commandments, he verbally granted everyone a license to redistribute the text. He must have or else everyone violated the one about stealing his ideas.

Re:"family values" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12364072)

Deuteronomy 17:18-19 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life...

Re:"family values" (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364080)

Prehaps the Bible endorses file sharing.
Ecclesiastes 11:1 Cast your bread on the waters; for you shall find it after many days.
Since it says it will take "many days" the scripture obviously refers to a very low-bandwidth bread connection. Nevertheless it is quite clear that file sharing is a good christian family value and only liberal scum in league with the UN and the forces of evil would ever say otherwise.

Re:"family values" (1)

Evro (18923) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364909)

"Be fruitful and multiply."

Pretty easy to multiply music files, right?

Re:"family values" (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365450)

"Be fruitful and multiply."

The first part sounds like endorsement of gay marriage to me. But I guess it only applies to gay mathematicians.

Questions, Please (4, Interesting)

4of12 (97621) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363564)


allows companies to provide filtering software

So of course this was done to permit commercial entities to provide filtering software to slice out "objectionable" parts of a copyrighted work before it gets passed to a viewer.

Will it protect individual citizens from doing the same thing - that is, providing filtering software - supposing that my criterion for obscenity includes what others call "advertisements"?

Re:Questions, Please (2, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364174)

Obscenity isn't a factor. You can just filter out whatever you want, whatever you consider it to be, provided you otherwise comply with the exemption (or of course, some other exemption).

It does refer to 'limited portions' but given recent caselaw, presumably that can apply to a lot. ;)

Odd bedfellows--pro and anti-nudity unite. (2, Interesting)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365082)

Modulo any clauses I haven't read closely enough, I see this new law as possibly serving two audiences -- it can be used to allow hiding certain scenes in movies, be they scenes that contain nudity, foul language, violence, or anything else deemed objectionable. It can also be used to hide scenes that *do not* contain these things. So we have an odd bedfellows situation: both those who, for instance, want to keep views of women's breasts off of their TVs and those who only want to see women's breasts are served by the same law and the same list of indices describing where one can find such images.

nice (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12363594)

I'm glad to see that already in the first 5 posts we have people trying to reconcile their "OMG BUSH IS TEH EVIL!!11" 'opinions' with their pro-fair-use opinions.

No blood for oil, right guys?

I totally have no problem posting this, but the crack-abusing mods will mod me down within minutes for daring to suggest that perhaps Bush is, you know, not evil. Anonymous it is, then.

Re:nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12363741)

You'll probably be modded down... for being an idiot. There's not a single post where anyone's trying to reconcile pro-fair use beliefs with a dislike of Bush's agenda.

This is a "fair use" right most of us don't want and never asked for. It's also one that may, ultimately, undermine the GPL and other licenses based upon control over modifications.

MOD PARENT UP!!!1!! PRO-BUSH!!!1!!!!!11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12365069)

Oh, someone did! Even though it was completely wrong (the first five messages aren't reconsiling anything, dumbass)

DeCSS (1)

RealityMogul (663835) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363612)

DeCSS could be called a "filter" I think. C'mon everybody, quit bitching and start looking for loopholes.

Loopholes and the DMCA (1)

metoc (224422) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363785)

Write a V-chip style filter for video and/or audio streams (DVDs, WMV, AAC, etc.). This would require that have a method for decoding the stream. Pretty much protects you from the DMCA, as long as YOU don't distributes copies.

Re:DeCSS (1, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363854)

You're absolutely right. As someone else mentioned, it's really sick that we've been groaning for years about erosion of fair use, and here comes a fair use expansion riding on the coattails of "family values." I'm sure any true fair use expansion is targeted, minimal, and accidental. But hey, whatever we can get.

Now we just need a buzzterm for it. Mining, Datamining, ????mining?

Re:DeCSS (2, Insightful)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364085)

That's the way politics almost always works. Things don't happen politically because they are the best ideas, they happen because some bright person adds them to a popular issue. Elected officals maximize votes, so they only care about popular issues (except in the rare case of an of an official who has a passionate pet issue). If you want to get something done politically, you have to play the game and find a more powerful ally to support your issue. The geeks just are not a large enough voting bloc to win support on a national issue by ourselves, so working with "strange bedfellows" will likely be how anything is acomplished.

Re:DeCSS (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 9 years ago | (#12367559)

And I thought it mostly worked on campaign contributions, and popularity of an issue was second. (or the popularity was bought by the contributor)

Re:DeCSS (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 9 years ago | (#12368012)

Campaign contributions are only really useful for providing resources that will [buy] votes. Campaign contributions are important but look at Steve Forbes he can spend all the money he wants, and will likely never be elected to anything, which is what his real goal is. Sure some cash greases the wheel, but if the cash comes at the cost of votes, it better buy more votes than it costs. Several hundred million for political contributions not buy NABLA much political support, but an email blast from the old moral majority or ACLU gets the wheels of government turning nine times out of 10.

Re:DeCSS (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364247)

Does DeCSS filter out Kate Winslett's breasts [celebritym...rchive.com] when you're watching Titanic with your grandkids? If not, don't expect Republican politicians to care about it.

People do have a right to control what they watch. But it's kind of sad that this kind of self-censorship gets expedited treatment, while you can still be prosecuted for circumventing the Region protection on a movie that hasn't been released in your area.

Directors rights and contracts (3, Interesting)

metoc (224422) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363627)

A number of directors have clauses in their contracts that prohibit edits, cropping, etc. of their films without their permission.

I wonder how the courts will view legislation that essentially overrules these clauses; and what the MPAA, Hollywood and the Directors Guild are going to do.

Re:Directors rights and contracts (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363760)

A number of directors have clauses in their contracts that prohibit edits, cropping, etc. of their films without their permission.

Contracts with whom? The customer? The electronics manufacturer? I don't think so. When I bought the DVD, I don't remember signing a contract that said I had to watch the whole thing from start to finish, and neither did the electronics manufacturer.

I'm glad this law was passed, but I have a hard time understanding why it was even necessary. As far as I'm concerned, this technology is nothing more than an automatic fast-forward button. How can that be a copyright violation?????

Re:Directors rights and contracts (1)

damiangerous (218679) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364259)

As far as I'm concerned, this technology is nothing more than an automatic fast-forward button. How can that be a copyright violation?????

Ask ReplayTV, who were sued into oblivion because of their automatic commercial skip.

Re:Directors rights and contracts (2, Informative)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365208)

They just didn't have the money to fight this in court. They would have won had they continued. There are plenty of VCRs that have a commercial-skip feature, and none of those manufacturers were "sued into oblivion". In fact, Sony would have had to sue itself if commercial skipping technology were really illegal.

Re:Directors rights and contracts (1)

cei (107343) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364284)

A third party is creating a derivative work without the consent of the author and profiting by doing so -- a clear copyright violation by any interpretation of the law. Until today.

Re:Directors rights and contracts (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365186)

If I fast-forward through a movie I'm watching, or press the next-chapter button, am I also creating a derivative work? Have I violated a copyright?

Re:Directors rights and contracts (1)

cei (107343) | more than 9 years ago | (#12367108)

No. But if you published a paper saying "At 0:23:48 fast-forward for 10 seconds. Then at 0:32:56 hit the next-chapter button" etc, then you ARE creating a derivative work and you are violating copyright by the nature of distributing the paper that you wrote to other parties.

Re:Directors rights and contracts (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365258)

I'm prety sure that the "Dirivative Work" would have to be in a tangible medium to be a copyright violation. Remember that copyright comes into effect when the expression of an idea is fixed in a tangible medium, paper, disc, celluliod, etc. I dont think the new law reduces or removes the prohibition of public performances and it specifically prohibits the production of copies with the "objectionable" material already removed. It simply makes it explicitly legal to do "on-the-fly" removal of "objectionable" material.

Re:Directors rights and contracts (1)

cei (107343) | more than 9 years ago | (#12367135)

Isn't a hard-coded edit-list, downloaded from ClearPlay a tangible medium?

Re:Directors rights and contracts (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365598)

Actually, it's not clear at all. It's not clear that a derivative is being created, and it's not clear that even if one is, a preexisting exemption wouldn't cover it.

Re:Directors rights and contracts (1)

flabbergast (620919) | more than 9 years ago | (#12366123)

Mod the parent poster up. There are no "contracts" outside of the director and the producers/movie studios. The director may have a contract with the movie studio to not edit his film, but once its out in the open, does this contract mean no one can edit the film? This falls under fair use. However, distributing the film once you've recut is a legal grey area: its like sampling in hip hop. But, this is a moot point because the copies of the film in question are purchased legitimately, then either "censored" or "edited" depending on how you want to look at it.

Re:Directors rights and contracts (2, Insightful)

metoc (224422) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363917)

The clauses discuss the presentation to the end user. If the end user wants wear an eye patch and ear plugs while hanging upside down well to each his own.

Indeed the end user has ultimate control (1)

marcus (1916) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364401)

Of the presentation and always has.

Volume, balance, mute, color, brightness, contrast, pause, FF, REW, and finally... EJECT!

President Bush: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12363630)

"So that was what i signed this morning. I knew it had something to do with home theatre..."

To the Mod (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12364153)

Bush Lover!

Wow (0)

finkployd (12902) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363632)


Did two wrongs just make a right?

Won't Please Somebody Think of the Children? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12363692)

Oh, don't worry about having to program it yourself. Nope, ClearPlay (http://www.clearplay.com/) will figure out which parts are objectionable and auto-edit them out for you. Like those eeeeevil parts in the SpongeBob movie (no joke! see http://www.clearplay.com/Releases.aspx)

I have - and LIKE - ClearPlay (4, Interesting)

crimethinker (721591) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364039)

After much research, we bought one of the RCA players with "ClearPlay" functionality, and signed up for an annual membership. Don't tell me you've never seen a movie and said, "that was great except for ..." How about Kevin Costner's butt in Dances With Wolves, or Robin Hood, or any other movie he ever made. Did I need to see his pasty white cheeks? (No.)

My 2nd biggest complaint with ClearPlay is that you can't see a list of what was removed, i.e. "f*** at 23:20, brief nudity at 25:41" etc. My biggest complaint is that I can't make/modify my own filters, such as removing Hogarth's "guns are bad" speech from The Iron Giant. I love that movie (even though it's more a kids' movie), and I like to watch it with my kids, so I just hit the chapter skip button and poof - no more Hogarth railing about the evils of gun ownership. (And if guns are so bad, why did he take his BB gun with him when he went looking for the giant early in the movie?)

To sum it up, there's nothing wrong with ClearPlay. They're not forcing you to buy it, nor forcing you to use it. Much like proprietary vs. open-source, the issue is choice, or more specifically, do I have a choice at all?

-paul

Re:I have - and LIKE - ClearPlay (1)

fmaxwell (249001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364787)

They're not forcing you to buy it, nor forcing you to use it. Much like proprietary vs. open-source, the issue is choice, or more specifically, do I have a choice at all?

No, the real question is whether ClearPlay has a right to create a derivative work from a copyrighted movie. Now, apparently, they do. Whether they should have that right is another issue.

If ClearPlay has a right to filter out sexual content from a movie, do I have a right to add sexual content to copyrighted movies? What about the people who would like to watch Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves -- but would really like a group sex scene between Snow White and the dwarves? Don't they have a choice? Couldn't my firm hire animators to create and insert such scenes via a special DVD player? Would that be wrong?

Maybe I should publish a coffee table book containing colorized versions of Ansel Adams B&W photographs. If ClearPlay can create modified versions of movies, why can't I publish a book of modified Ansel Adams photographs?

At some point you have to look beyond what you want and ask whether your desire to see a modified version of a movie should override the right of a director and studio to control the artistic content and vision of their movies.

Re:I have - and LIKE - ClearPlay (1)

crimethinker (721591) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365565)

If ClearPlay can create modified versions of movies, why can't I publish a book of modified Ansel Adams photographs? (emphasis mine)

You just answered your own question. Because ClearPlay doesn't publish anything but "cut lists." It's the high-tech and highly-precise equivalent of giving the parents ta printed document that says, "at 23 minutes and 20 seconds into the film, hit Mute. Un-mute two seconds later."

the real question is whether ClearPlay has a right to create a derivative work from a copyrighted movie

They didn't before this bill, and they still don't. I am creating the derivative work in my own home for private use, using tools that ClearPlay provided. If I were to rip and alter the movie, and seed a torrent with it (or seed a torrent with an unaltered rip), then I would be in a lot of trouble. If ClearPlay did that, they'd get hammered, too.

Now, if Snow White and the dwarves getting nasty is your thing, then go ahead and make an altered version, or hire someone to do it, and view it in your own home. Call you friends to come over and see it, too, but the day you distribute it count on a lot of angry phone calls from Disney's lawyers, and if you can't mount a parody defense, YUO = 0WN3D.

P.S. search archive.org for SpaceMoose; one cartoon was called "Snow White and the Semen Dwarves."

For all the ranting and raving I see on /. about "it's my DVD, if I want to play it on linux, if I want to skip the commercials, if I want to make a backup/archival copy, I should damn well be able to," I don't see why [some] /.'ers object so much to me skipping parts that I feel are inappropriate for my kids.

-paul

Re:I have - and LIKE - ClearPlay (1)

fmaxwell (249001) | more than 9 years ago | (#12367245)

Because ClearPlay doesn't publish anything but "cut lists." It's the high-tech and highly-precise equivalent of giving the parents ta printed document that says, "at 23 minutes and 20 seconds into the film, hit Mute. Un-mute two seconds later."

That's quite different, because then you would know what was being skipped, muted, etc. The ClearPlay system leaves the viewer unable to discern whether a movie he/she just saw was confusing, lacked emotional impact, etc. because the director lacked talent or because the ClearPlay butchery "damaged" the movie.

Can you see the cut lists? Can you see where the movie will be fast-forwarded? Do you know when a split-second mute will be applied? No, because ClearPlay didn't publish that. In fact, the so-called "cut-list" is a closely guarded secret which is not published at all. It is basically an encrypted series of commands so that ClearPlay, not you, can modify a movie on-the-fly.

Now, if Snow White and the dwarves getting nasty is your thing, then go ahead and make an altered version, or hire someone to do it, and view it in your own home.

Or, maybe I could have a PS-2 program that rendered the nasty scenes in real-time. Then, by your argument, I would not be publishing a derivative work. It would just be a set of instructions to a computer so that it could create the scenes on the fly. Sounds analogous to me.

I don't see why [some] /.'ers object so much to me skipping parts that I feel are inappropriate for my kids.

I don't object to that at all. I object to some business distributing derivative works for profit without the permission of the directors or studios. While not all to my taste, movies are art. They are an expression by actors, actresses, screenwriters, and directors. If, when filming Saving Private Ryan, Tom Hanks thought that the horrors of war needed to be shown for emotional impact, how dare ClearPlay subvert his wishes?

I also object to parents turning over the responsibility for deciding what their children should and should not see to some third party. What some group of Mormon's in Utah thinks is appropriate for children should not become your standard due to the "convenience factor" of using the ClearPlay service.

Re:I have - and LIKE - ClearPlay (1)

maxjenius22 (560382) | more than 9 years ago | (#12368417)

Tom Hanks thought that the horrors of war needed to be shown for emotional impact, how dare ClearPlay subvert his wishes?

If Tom Hanks wants us to run naked across the Mojave Desert singing camp songs, how dare we subvert his wishes?

Re:I have - and LIKE - ClearPlay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12365250)

Instead of censoring a movie, it's better to watch the parts you don't agree with, and, if your children are watching, too, then, it's an opportunity to teach them why you disagree. For example, there really is nothing wrong with gun ownership, especially in rural areas. Guns take out rabid animals, provide food if necessary, can be used defensively, are used in several sports, etc. That's all the kids need to know, really. Some dumb kids movie shouldn't be teaching them, you should.

Re:I have - and LIKE - ClearPlay (1)

EngMedic (604629) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365262)

if movies constitute art (and that's a stretch sometimes, i know), then willingly modifying the finished work constitutes an aesthetic offense of the highest order. A work of art conveys meaning, and that meaning is intentionally placed by the artist (most of the time). If you don't like the meaning, don't view the artwork at all -- don't distort it to something that it's not. I feel that this applies both to the viewers and the creator, post-creation (see george lucas..).

What you do in your own home is none of my business, really -- so if you feel like ruining a film, be my guest. Just keep that choice bit in mind.

This is not a new trend -- the victorians had a nasty habit of painting clothes onto nude paintings, and it's taken thousands of man-hours to fix the mess they left behind, just as an example.

Re:I have - and LIKE - ClearPlay (1)

crimethinker (721591) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365649)

What you do in your own home is none of my business, really -- so if you feel like ruining a film, be my guest. Just keep that choice bit in mind.

As I pointed out in another reply, [slashdot.org] that's the crux of the issue: I bought the DVD, I own it, and I will watch it in the way I see fit. If that means plopping in "Gladiator," "The Matrix," "We Were Soldiers," or "Black Hawk Down" and using the chapter skip to watch only the fight scenes, then that is my right as the owner of the disc. Some movies will still be perfectly viewable when editted, and others won't.

I seem to remember that ClearPlay had a press release a while ago, maybe at the time they joined the lobbying effort to get this bill passed, that there were some movies which just weren't amenable to filtering. Schindler's List was one they mentioned specifically, and I would have to agree. Edit out the violence, the nudity (particularly the physical exams at the train tracks with the old men and women running wind sprints to see who would live and who would die), and you've lost the entire movie.

This is not a new trend -- the victorians had a nasty habit of painting clothes onto nude paintings, and it's taken thousands of man-hours to fix the mess they left behind, just as an example.

Didn't people at one time suspect that the Mona Lisa was originally a nude? Would you be offended if the person who owned that painting before it came to the Louvre had fashioned a "mask" to hang over the painting and obscure the naughty bits? They've altered how the art is presented, but the art itself remains completely intact. Same concept with my DVD's.

-paul

Re:I have - and LIKE - ClearPlay (1)

maxjenius22 (560382) | more than 9 years ago | (#12368450)

Didn't people at one time suspect that the Mona Lisa was originally a nude? Would you be offended if the person who owned that painting before it came to the Louvre had fashioned a "mask" to hang over the painting and obscure the naughty bits? They've altered how the art is presented, but the art itself remains completely intact. Same concept with my DVD's.

That has to be the weirdest analogy I have ever seen... or will ever see.

Re:Won't Please Somebody Think of the Children? (1)

WarPresident (754535) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364428)

Like those eeeeevil parts in the SpongeBob movie (no joke! see http://www.clearplay.com/Releases.aspx

Apparently SpongeBob is polluting the mind of my nephew...

Thematic Elements and Related Content in Movie:
Revealing Clothing
Threatening Dialogue
Comical Fighting/Action
Non-Graphic Injury/Wound
Bar/Club Environment

You get that just by flicking through the commercials on TV.

Misleading headline (2, Informative)

wizarddc (105860) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363765)

This is the same legislation that make recording a movie in the theatre a felony with a potential three year jail sentence. I don't know how pro fair use it is. I don't think recording and pirating a movie like that should be legal, but it shouldn't warrant jail time.

Re:Misleading headline (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 9 years ago | (#12366135)

And forfeiture and destruction of all copies as well as of all equipment used to make them on top of that three-year sentence.

Why? Because there may be latent images inside that hardware, so to destroy all copies, one must destroy the evil technology tainted with it too?

So if you're to risk a three-year sentence, better also use cheap-ass equipment, because you ain't gettin' it back.

(I can't wait until the first person to undergo successful reconstructive brain surgery gets his implants seized and destroyed for trying to enter a movie theater.)

Re:Misleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12367809)

They had to do something to throw Hollywood a bone or else the law would never have been passed. This is the real world.

Great idea... (3, Funny)

Dr. Bent (533421) | more than 9 years ago | (#12363906)

Me: "Ok, so lets see if I can make a "clean" copy of this DVD..."

Software: HELLO, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO FILTER?

[ ] Sexual Content
[ ] Violence
[ ] Adult Language
[X] FBI Copyright Warning

Me: Perfect! Just the way I want it. Anyone have a blank DVD?

How to pass a bill (2, Informative)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364019)

1: write bill and pass it to freind in congress
2: name bill Family values & (for this example) Biological warfare program
3: Pay other freinds in congress to acuse people who do not support the bill of "Being Unamerican" and "not caring about the children"
4: pay off ramainder / lobby
5: celebrate your multi billion dollar contract

This bill may have some usefull atributes that could help you lot over in the states be allowed to crack the CSS restrictions which is no doubt good (if it ends up being ruled as such).
Though i do worry about how they can tack the magic "family values" on to everything and magicaly pass it with little trouble...

Interesting (1)

tadd (51292) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364076)

In reference to the "family values" comment modded troll for some reason - he was right: Actually, it does, indirectly. Unfortunately this and other issues are conveniently ignored by the "religious right", their "interpretation" of the Bible, like that of most fundamentalist movements, tends to be inductive in nature. The number of Biblical quotes taken out of context, especially by "Evangelicals" is staggering. (See war, capital punishment, capitalism, and social justice issues, care for the ill and poor, etc., etc. most of the American Religious Right's take on these issues is misinterpreted at best and blatantly false at worst to what the "Gospel" (whether you believe in it or not, not the point here) actually says.) I am both an American and a Christian though at ties I am not so proud to call myself either because of the aforementioned issues, among others.

Fuck. (4, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364116)

Don't get me wrong -- the Orphan Works and new 110 exemption are both good, if very half-assed.

But this comes with significant new civil and criminal penalties that are just apalling.

Oh, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with fair use. The new 110 exemption is a statutory exemption. It applies regardless of fairness, if the criteria it sets forth are satisfied. The title of the /. article is a huge misnomer.

You can read it here [govtrack.us] .

The breakdown is basically:

Title I -- very very bad
Title II -- good, but not as good as it could be.
Title III -- meh
Title IV -- good for rather limited uses, but also not as good as it could be

Re:Fuck. (1)

NotoriousQ (457789) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364828)

Since I know you are a layer, but not my lawer, I am asking for an opinion and not advice.

If I read this bill correctly, I may be given 3 year in jail for bringing a digital camera (yay 30 secs of crappy quicktime) into a theater, even if I am not using it, but it is visible?

Is that right?

Re:Fuck. (4, Insightful)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365132)

No.

The new 18 USC 2319B makes it an offense to, in pertinent part, knowingly use or attempt to use, a camera. Possession of one is a factor that can be looked at, but the statute actually says that mere possession of a camera isn't enough to support a conviction.

So if you bring one in, with the intent to use it, that's enough. But if you bring one in, and don't use or attempt to use it, that's not enough.

The trick is in how we determine your intent, if you get caught at an early stage. It's easy if you've set it up on a tripod, patched it into the sound system, and have your finger on the record button. It's harder earlier, but still possible.

This is unnecessary (0)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364369)


If GWB and the Republican Party really cared about the Constitution and restricted government/lower taxes, why do they keep passing bills that fit the needs of special interests--i.e., their interests?

For completeness, the Democrats are no better.

Re:This is unnecessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12366660)

Eh, you're wrong about your last sentence. You've slipped into "omg I must be fair and balanced" and gotten rid of your critical thinking skills. Congradulations, you are one of Bush'd fans.

Re:This is unnecessary (1)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#12366854)


The "Republicans" are supposed to be the party leaning toward "less government". GWB blows that out of the water: record deficits, religion-motivated legislation (wanting to re-write the Constitution, no less), complicating social security, tighter federal control of our schools, the "war on terror" game, etc.

The "Democrats" appear better, but they're not a ton better in the end: the "war on drugs" game, who knows how many more "feel good" programs they can create, nationalized health care makes me nervous, gun control makes me nervous, etc.

The only thing recently the Democrats clearly did better on was the federal budget. The graphs of the deficit over time speak for themselves. Given the unsteady economic growth, lately, I'd feel much more comfortable with the deficit brought under control. There's only so much debt foreign countries are willing to buy, and the fantasy will wear thin eventually.

I'm going to vote for third parties as much as possible in the future, regardless of the "throwing a vote away" nonsense. Especially where I live it's like 200% republican, so any votes the contrary would show up more prominently.

Cleaned up DVD (1)

mknewman (557587) | more than 9 years ago | (#12364476)

I can just see it now, "Debbie Does Dallas, Bible Belt Edition". Marc

Mmm...Chili (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12364561)


I made a really good pot of chili last night. Man, it has just the perfect balance of meat, tomatoes, chili pepper, and cumin. It's the kind of chili that eats like a fine beer, bold not-overwhelming flavor and a smooth crisp finish. Yum.

How will this affect Archive.org? (1)

Caseyscrib (728790) | more than 9 years ago | (#12365286)

Will this allow sites such as Archive.org to keep copies of movies? If I remember correctly, they fought a lawsuit to store such things under the fair-use clause but lost.

fun w/ acronyms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12365545)

So if someone sues, would it then go to the court as a Family Entertainment and Copyright Act Legal Matter, thus giving a case of FECAL Matter?

Unintended consequences? (1)

cwsulliv (522390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12366040)

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the long term. As the capability for filtering becomes universal in DVD players, I expect Hollywood to begin supplying their own filters.

Then there will be no limit to the amount of pornography and violence in the average film. Unfiltered it will be XXX. Push the appropriate button to tone it down to X, R, PG-13, G - whatever you want.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>