Yet another new "copyright enforcement" bill in Congress

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Modemac, Nov 16, 2004.

  1. Modemac

    Modemac Guest

    http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

    This one looks like a lumping together of all the previous ones
    they've tried to get through: It goes after peer-to-peer networks,
    people who bring video cameras to movie theaters, *and* technology
    designed to edit out or skip past objectionable scenes in videos and
    on TV. (It would allow the development of technology to skip past
    explicit scenes - but skipping past *commercials* would be
    prohibited.)
     
    Modemac, Nov 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Modemac

    ^^artnada^^ Guest

    Modemac wrote:
    || http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
    ||
    || This one looks like a lumping together of all the previous ones
    || they've tried to get through: It goes after peer-to-peer networks,
    || people who bring video cameras to movie theaters, *and* technology
    || designed to edit out or skip past objectionable scenes in videos and
    || on TV. (It would allow the development of technology to skip past
    || explicit scenes - but skipping past *commercials* would be
    || prohibited.)

    lol - what are they going to sue people who make a cup of tea during the ads
    next? F*cking assholes.
     
    ^^artnada^^, Nov 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Modemac

    RogerM Guest

    ^^artnada^^ wrote:
    >
    > Modemac wrote:
    > || http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
    > ||
    > || This one looks like a lumping together of all the previous ones
    > || they've tried to get through: It goes after peer-to-peer networks,
    > || people who bring video cameras to movie theaters, *and* technology
    > || designed to edit out or skip past objectionable scenes in videos and
    > || on TV. (It would allow the development of technology to skip past
    > || explicit scenes - but skipping past *commercials* would be
    > || prohibited.)
    >
    > lol - what are they going to sue people who make a cup of tea during the ads
    > next? F*cking assholes.


    Didn't Ted Turner say that people who don't watch the commercials are
    "stealing".

    --

    America is like a spoiled rock star. It only wants to hear that it is
    beautiful and talented.
     
    RogerM, Nov 16, 2004
    #3
  4. Modemac

    BOMOON Guest

    Your conservative "small-government" tax dollars at work.


    On 16 Nov 2004 11:43:56 -0800, (Modemac) wrote:

    >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
    >
    >This one looks like a lumping together of all the previous ones
    >they've tried to get through: It goes after peer-to-peer networks,
    >people who bring video cameras to movie theaters, *and* technology
    >designed to edit out or skip past objectionable scenes in videos and
    >on TV. (It would allow the development of technology to skip past
    >explicit scenes - but skipping past *commercials* would be
    >prohibited.)
     
    BOMOON, Nov 16, 2004
    #4
  5. Modemac

    FAQmeister Guest

    "Modemac" <> wrote in message
    news:
    >

    http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

    > people who bring video cameras to movie theaters, *


    Only 3 years in prison for that? I'm surprised they didn't want public
    execution.

    > (It would allow the development of technology to skip past
    > explicit scenes - but skipping past *commercials* would be
    > prohibited.)


    Yeah, we can't have that. :)
    --
    Buford T. Justice
    The alt.video.dvd faq is located at:
    http://aww-faq.org/dvdfaq.html
     
    FAQmeister, Nov 16, 2004
    #5
  6. Modemac

    Loco Jones Guest

    "RogerM" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ^^artnada^^ wrote:
    > >
    > > Modemac wrote:
    > > ||

    http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
    > > ||
    > > || This one looks like a lumping together of all the previous ones
    > > || they've tried to get through: It goes after peer-to-peer networks,
    > > || people who bring video cameras to movie theaters, *and* technology
    > > || designed to edit out or skip past objectionable scenes in videos and
    > > || on TV. (It would allow the development of technology to skip past
    > > || explicit scenes - but skipping past *commercials* would be
    > > || prohibited.)
    > >
    > > lol - what are they going to sue people who make a cup of tea during
    > > the ads next? F*cking assholes.

    >
    > Didn't Ted Turner say that people who don't watch the commercials
    > are "stealing".


    Close, but not quite.
    http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1113
    - still a stupid statement, regardless of who said it.

    It is, however, indicative of the complete and utter disdain this
    multi-billion dollar industry has for the consumers responsible for their
    very existence. Fair use? There's a concept in danger of being legislated
    into oblivion if self-interest trade groups get their way.

    - Loco -
    (Now Playing: Two Steps Behind - Def Leppard)
     
    Loco Jones, Nov 16, 2004
    #6
  7. Modemac

    Jim Guest

    RogerM <> wrote in
    news::

    > ^^artnada^^ wrote:
    >>
    >> Modemac wrote:
    >> || http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html?

    tw=wn_tophe
    >> || ad_2
    >> ||
    >> || This one looks like a lumping together of all the previous ones
    >> || they've tried to get through: It goes after peer-to-peer networks,
    >> || people who bring video cameras to movie theaters, *and* technology
    >> || designed to edit out or skip past objectionable scenes in videos
    >> || and on TV. (It would allow the development of technology to skip
    >> || past explicit scenes - but skipping past *commercials* would be
    >> || prohibited.)
    >>
    >> lol - what are they going to sue people who make a cup of tea during
    >> the ads next? F*cking assholes.

    >
    > Didn't Ted Turner say that people who don't watch the commercials are
    > "stealing".


    All advertising costs, including those of television ads, are passed on
    to the consumer. Anytime anyone buys any product or service that is
    advertised on TV they pay for the commercials (and therefore the
    programs they sponsor) whether they watch them or not.

    Of course, this fact is irrelevant. Corporate America now gets its way
    in Federal Government, and since it owns the media, this side of the
    arguement will either not be heard, or will be mocked.
     
    Jim, Nov 16, 2004
    #7
  8. Modemac

    luminos Guest

    "Modemac" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
    >
    > This one looks like a lumping together of all the previous ones
    > they've tried to get through: It goes after peer-to-peer networks,
    > people who bring video cameras to movie theaters, *and* technology
    > designed to edit out or skip past objectionable scenes in videos and
    > on TV. (It would allow the development of technology to skip past
    > explicit scenes - but skipping past *commercials* would be
    > prohibited.)


    See also:

    http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86D4ARO1.html
     
    luminos, Nov 16, 2004
    #8
  9. Modemac

    Zapanaz Guest

    On 16 Nov 2004 11:43:56 -0800, (Modemac) wrote:

    >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
    >
    >This one looks like a lumping together of all the previous ones
    >they've tried to get through: It goes after peer-to-peer networks,
    >people who bring video cameras to movie theaters, *and* technology
    >designed to edit out or skip past objectionable scenes in videos and
    >on TV. (It would allow the development of technology to skip past
    >explicit scenes - but skipping past *commercials* would be
    >prohibited.)


    I always said that one day there would be a law against not watching
    commercials.

    In the 80's people thought I was kidding.


    --
    Zapanaz
    International Satanic Conspiracy
    Customer Support Specialist
    http://joecosby.com/
    "Christianity is a rebellion of everything that crawls on the ground
    against that which has height: The evangel of the 'lowly' makes low."
    - Nietzsche
     
    Zapanaz, Nov 16, 2004
    #9
  10. Modemac

    Zapanaz Guest

    On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:49:13 GMT, "^^artnada^^" <>
    wrote:

    >Modemac wrote:
    >|| http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
    >||
    >|| This one looks like a lumping together of all the previous ones
    >|| they've tried to get through: It goes after peer-to-peer networks,
    >|| people who bring video cameras to movie theaters, *and* technology
    >|| designed to edit out or skip past objectionable scenes in videos and
    >|| on TV. (It would allow the development of technology to skip past
    >|| explicit scenes - but skipping past *commercials* would be
    >|| prohibited.)
    >
    >lol - what are they going to sue people who make a cup of tea during the ads
    >next? F*cking assholes.
    >


    Nah, they will just invent a video player with electrodes that give
    you an electric shock if you stop paying attention during the
    commercials.

    I mean you don't HAVE to buy one, after all.


    --
    Zapanaz
    International Satanic Conspiracy
    Customer Support Specialist
    http://joecosby.com/
    The Lesser Key of Solomon crashes my print demon.
     
    Zapanaz, Nov 16, 2004
    #10
  11. BOMOON <> wrote:

    > Your conservative "small-government" tax dollars at work.


    It's usually best to read the articles cited in posts before you pop
    off:

    "Hollywood's involvement has even irked the American Conservative Union,
    which holds considerable sway with conservative Republicans in Congress.
    The ACU plans a major print ad campaign this week to oppose the bill,
    mainly because some provisions would require the Justice Department to
    file civil copyright lawsuits on behalf of the entertainment industry.

    "It's just plain wrong to make the Department of Justice Hollywood's
    law firm," said Stacie Rumenap, ACU's deputy director."
     
    Neill Massello, Nov 16, 2004
    #11
  12. Neill Massello, Nov 16, 2004
    #12
  13. Modemac

    Modemac Guest

    Modemac, Nov 17, 2004
    #13
  14. Modemac

    luminos Guest

    luminos, Nov 17, 2004
    #14
  15. luminos wrote:
    > "Modemac" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:18:35 -0800, "luminos" <> wrote:
    >>>> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
    >>>See also:
    >>>http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86D4ARO1.html

    >>
    >> Thanks for the link. This is interesting:
    >>
    >> "The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that
    >> sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any
    >> installed file sharing programs."
    >>

    >
    > 1984 :)


    SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX CRIME! SEX CRIME!
     
    Cardinal Vertigo, Nov 17, 2004
    #15
  16. Modemac

    Biz Guest

    "Modemac" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
    >
    > This one looks like a lumping together of all the previous ones
    > they've tried to get through: It goes after peer-to-peer networks,
    > people who bring video cameras to movie theaters, *and* technology
    > designed to edit out or skip past objectionable scenes in videos and
    > on TV. (It would allow the development of technology to skip past
    > explicit scenes - but skipping past *commercials* would be
    > prohibited.)


    Lets face it, enforcement of existing copyright laws would go a long way to
    helping the situation. Laws do absolutely no good if they dont get
    enforced. If people know a law will not be enforced, in my experience, they
    just ignore it.
     
    Biz, Nov 17, 2004
    #16
  17. Modemac

    Eric R. Guest

    Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote in message news:<>...

    > I always said that one day there would be a law against not watching
    > commercials.
    >
    > In the 80's people thought I was kidding.


    You obviously never watched "Max Headroom." It took place in a future
    where even "off" switches on TV's were illegal.

    -Eric
     
    Eric R., Nov 17, 2004
    #17
  18. Modemac

    Eric R. Guest

    "Biz" <> wrote in message news:<vvzmd.27994$>...

    > Laws do absolutely no good if they dont get
    > enforced. If people know a law will not be enforced, in my experience, they
    > just ignore it.


    Not if they're manufacturers or software developers. What are you
    going to do when the "Fast Forward" button disappears from your Tivo?
    When Manufacturers do the same for DVD players? You going to build
    your own DVD player out of spare parts?

    -Eric
     
    Eric R., Nov 17, 2004
    #18
  19. Modemac

    defacto Guest

    Modemac <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:18:35 -0800, "luminos" <> wrote:
    > >> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

    > >See also:
    > >http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041116/D86D4ARO1.html

    >
    > Thanks for the link. This is interesting:
    >
    > "The MPAA said it would also make available a computer program that
    > sniffs out movie and music files on a user's computer as well as any
    > installed file sharing programs."


    Well, far be it from me to support the MPAA - I do my own share of
    "sharing", but I don't know why anyone would want a copy of a movie
    that has been videotaped in a theatre. If I want to see the back of
    someone's head or watch some schmuck go for popcorn I'll just go and
    see the movie at the theatre. If you ask me - don't charge them with
    a crime, just smash their (CAM)! .xvid.divx.avi.mpg.CD1.WHATEVER!
     
    defacto, Nov 17, 2004
    #19
  20. Modemac

    BOMOON Guest

    On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:11:05 GMT, (Neill
    Massello) wrote:

    >BOMOON <> wrote:
    >
    >> Your conservative "small-government" tax dollars at work.

    >
    >It's usually best to read the articles cited in posts before you pop
    >off:
    >
    >"Hollywood's involvement has even irked the American Conservative Union,
    >which holds considerable sway with conservative Republicans in Congress.
    >The ACU plans a major print ad campaign this week to oppose the bill,
    >mainly because some provisions would require the Justice Department to
    >file civil copyright lawsuits on behalf of the entertainment industry.
    >
    > "It's just plain wrong to make the Department of Justice Hollywood's
    >law firm," said Stacie Rumenap, ACU's deputy director."


    ********************************************************************************

    Neither the American Conservative Union nor the ACLU is the
    government. The current regime is run by "small-government"
    conservatives, who are betraying their own ideology by:

    1. Engaging in "Big-Government" pork-barrel spending.
    2, Allowing liberal Hollywood lobbyists to influence the conservative
    majority in the legistalture.

    Thanks for pointing out the second betrayal of the conservative
    ideology by the Republikaners. I hadn't even noticed it, though I
    fail to see what your response concerning the ACU and ACLU has to do
    with my posting about the government. It was run by
    "small-government" conservatives before your posting, and it still is.
    So what was your point?

    "Perhaps it's best to keep things in context before you pop off," said
    Tom reflectively.

    But hey !!! I can do that too !!!!

    So how about those guys, the ACU and the ACLU, working together?
    Haven't seen this much ideological flip-flopping since the neo-cons
    tried to suppress the story about the ACLU helping Rush with his drug
    addiction legal issues in FL.

    That is, until the Republikaners moved to protect DeLay from himself
    by trying to change committee eligibility rules - not that he's been
    convicted of anything yet, or even indicted like his business partners
    were - but just in case.

    Besides, it can only help the "small-government" conservative
    Republikaners in the future if they ease up on all those messy
    restrictions on felons. What the hell - if we don't coddle felons by
    letting them run legislative committees, they won't be able to vote
    anywhere!!!!

    WOW !!! Faster than a speeding Democrat !!! More powerful than a
    Statistician !!! Able to leap tall faiths in a single bound !!!

    Look !!! Down in the shithole !!! It's a turd! It's a wad !!!

    It's....

    REPUBLIKANERMANN !!!

    Yes, REPUBLIKANERMANN !!! Strange visitor from another schizoid
    reality with powers and abilities far beyond his own control !!!

    REPUBLIKANERMANN !!! Who can bend rules with his bare hands !!!
    Change the course of mighty factual histories !!!!

    And who, disguised as a vile-mannered legislator working for a huge,
    overpowered federal government, works

    TO DESTROY TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY !!!

    And now, another episode in the amazing adventures of

    REPUBLIKANERMANN !!!!

    (Scene fades, replaced by shot of RepublikanerMann leaping out
    of context window)

    ****************************************************
    BOMOON

    And of course, don't forget to...

    DUMP THE PSYCHICS !!!!
     
    BOMOON, Nov 17, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rick
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    874
    Consultant
    Oct 14, 2003
  2. Riffraff
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    870
    Codswallop
    Nov 11, 2003
  3. Imhotep

    Congress readies broad new digital copyright bill

    Imhotep, Apr 26, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    1,691
  4. Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    400
  5. Gary Roach
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    499
Loading...

Share This Page