[opendtv] Re: Is 'Fair Use' in Peril?
- From: johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:14:00 -0800 (PST)
PROVE IT. If you think that 2% of either the viewership or 2% of viewing
time is via VCRs or Tivo-like devices (the only way one can fast forward
through commercials), just prove it. There are ample Nielsen and other
data that tend to "disprove" your point.
Have you, for example, EVER used a VCR to watch TV programs? I gave up on
it in the late 1970's; after I had seen every Mary Tyler Moore program,
and once I had a job that permitted me to work and watch Tomorrow, I found
it was too much effort.
For your argument to work, the legions of folks with blinking "12:00" on
their VCR's (which requires about 30 seconds of effort to fix, but most
blink that way for years), will spend the time and effort to switch
between TV and VCR modes (and back again at the end), place a tape in the
machine, fix that blinking clock, rewind the tape at the end, then watch
the program by fast forwarding through the spots.
VCRs are used almost exclusively for viewing pre-recorded video tapes.
After the fun of doing the above routine wears off, of course.
You missed an obvious point. If congress spent the time to pass the
budget in this lame duck session, they wouldn't have time to debate this
foolishness, let alone pass it. What would be lost? A clear mandate that
permits fast forwarding through commercials? (YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT!
It was just a John McCain observation of a speaker's point that even
raised that this WAS NOT LEGAL! Once again, it's time to get a life.)
Maybe I'm missing something, but if they didn't pass the proposed
legislation, if would be something you SHOULD be in favor of.
Oh, that's the point that repulicans want to address, specifically Orrin
Hatch & Company: they want a clear law that the "no sex/violence" gear
available to neuterize Hollywood's sexy/violent content on the fly is
legal.
I'm sorry, but this is not a real issue; let's let the courts rule in
light of the Betamax decision, and make a new law if the courts rule
badly. Last time I checked, this issue hadn't even gotten to a federal
court of appeals.
Mormons can just watch Bollywood films like the folks in China and Africa
who don't care much for Hollywood's sex and violins. By raising this
non-issue, they just give hollywood the opportunity to get their issues
before Congress.
By the way Hollywood, China and Africa are large untapped markets; just
tone down the sex and remove the violence.
John Willkie
> John -
>
> Get your own life, and grip. My post started with the words "If this
> passes" so obviously we'd considered that one.
>
> Second, there are probably more than 2% of folks FF'ing thru commercials
> even if you only count VCR's. And unless it is made illegal probably
> everyone will be in the future simply because inexpensive enabling
> technology is here and they will see everyone else doing it.
>
> As far as it being less important than the budget I maybe can't agree.
> But by that token maybe they should consider it later. And it really is
> important to me because of eroding rights.
>
> Lastly, I'm not really a Democrat, just not a Bush groupie. But I
> consider the election over and we can get on with our lives if there are
> no hard feelings left over. ;-)
>
> - Tom
>
>
> johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Time to get a grip, Tom & Cliff. "Big Brother" had power because the TV
>> was two way, you could not turn it off, and it was in every room of the
>> house, save the smallest room.
>>
>> Just because bills are proposed does not mean that they will pass. Just
>> because they were proposed with one set of language does not mean that
>> they will pass with that language. Just because they pass does not mean
>> that they are signed into law by the President.
>>
>> Only a small percentage of Americans fast forward through commercials.
>> Maybe as MUCH as 2% of the population. Probably much smaller.
>>
>>
> If this passes, few people will notice anything new or different.
>>
>> And, I trust that it will not pass in the lame-duck session of Congress,
>> between the holidays. The f*****s have yet to pass 9 of the 13 spending
>> bills for the fiscal year that began October 1. Not to mention the bad
>> language they did pass last week (that will require a voice vote)
>> permitting appropriations committee heads and their staff to look at tax
>> returns.
>>
>> Yeah, this stuff is more important than the government having a budget.
>> Also, aren't these bills favored by Democrats?
>>
>> Time to get a life guys.
>>
>> John Willkie
>>
>>
>>>Here is a warning to Congress.
>>>
>>>If this passes, every moment a viewer spends watching commercials will
>>>be a testimonial and obvious reminder to the public of how much our
>>>legislators are controlled by special interests without the public good
>>>in mind. The issue will become a joke and a topic of conversation to
>>>drown out those commercials. It will be a ubiquitous and perpetual
>>>public nuisance until this very bad law is repealed.
>>>
>>>Imagine how many times per day this issue will be brought right into
>>>viewers living rooms by those same advertisers that are asking for it.
>>>
>>>- Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>cbenham@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>>>Would it also be illegal to change channels to avoid commercials?
>>>>Would it be illegal to use the mute button on your remote control?
>>>>Would it be illegal to turn off your TV for 2 minutes to avoid
>>>>commercials?
>>>>Would it be illegal to go to the bathroom during commercials?
>>>>Would it illegal to discuss the football game during the commercials?
>>>>If the power goes off can you be fined for missing a commercial?
>>>>
>>>>Just really wondering how much big brother control these silly asses
>>>>think the public will put up with?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>URL:
>>>>>http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/11/wo_hellweg111904.asp?p=1
>>>>>[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]
>>>>>
>>>>>Is 'Fair Use' in Peril?
>>>>>The far-reaching Intellectual Property Protection Act would deny
>>>>>consumers many
>>>>>of the freed
>>>
>>>oms they take for granted.
>>>
>>>>>By Eric Hellweg
>>>>>November 19, 2004
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you like fast-forwarding through commercials on a television
>>>>> program
>>>>>you've
>>>>>recorded? How much do you like it? Enough to go to jail if you're
>>>>> caught
>>>>>doing
>>>>>it? If a new copyright and intellectual property omnibus bill sitting
>>>>> on
>>>>>Congress's desk passes, that may be the choice you'll face.
>>>>>
>>>>>How can this be possible? Because language that makes fast-forwarding
>>>>>through
>>>>>commercials illegal -- no doubt inserted at the behest of lobbyists
>>>>> for
>>>>>the
>>>>>advertising industry -- was inserted into a bill that would allow
>>>>> people
>>>>>to fast
>>>>>forward past objectionable sections of a recorded movie (and I bet you
>>>>>already
>>>>>thought that was OK). And that's but one, albeit scary, scenario that
>>>>>may come
>>>>>to pass if the Intellectual Property Protection Act is enacted into
>>>>> law.
>>>>>Deliberations on this legislation will be one of the tasks for the
>>>>>lame-duck
>>>>>Congress that commenced this week.
>>>>>
>>>>>In a statement last month, Senator John McCain stated his opposition
>>>>> to
>>>>>this
>>>>>bill, and specifically cited the anti-commercial skipping feature:
>>>>>"Americans
>>>>>have been recording TV shows and fast-forwarding through commercials
>>>>> for
>>>>>30
>>>>>years," he said. "Do we really expect to throw people in jail in 2004
>>>>>for
>>>>>behavior they've been engaged in for more than a quarter century?"
>>>>>
>>>>>Included in the legislation are eight separate bills, five of which
>>>>> have
>>>>>already
>>>>>passed one branch of Congress, one of which was approved by the Senate
>>>>>Judiciary
>>>>>Committee, and two of which have merely been proposed. By lumping all
>>>>>the bills
>>>>>together and pushing the package through both houses of Congress,
>>>>>proponents
>>>>>hope to score an enormous victory for Hollywood and some content
>>>>>industries.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's more of what's included: a provision that would make it a
>>>>> felony
>>>>>to
>>>>>record a movie in a theater for future distribution on a peer-to-peer
>>>>>network.
>>>>>IPPA would also criminalize the currently legal act of using the
>>>>> sharing
>>>>>capacity of iTunes, Apple's popular music software program; the
>>>>>legislation
>>>>>equates that act with the indiscriminate file sharing on popular
>>>>>peer-to-peer
>>>>>programs. Currently, with iTunes, users can opt to share a playlist
>>>>> with
>>>>>others
>>>>>on their network. IPPA doesn't differentiate this innocuous -- and
>>>>> Apple
>>>>>sanctioned -- act from the promiscuous sharing that happens when
>>>>> someone
>>>>>makes a
>>>>>music collection available to five million strangers on Kazaa or
>>>>>Grokster.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not surprisingly, the bill has become a focal point for very vocal
>>>>>parties. In
>>>>>favor of the legislation are groups such as the Recording Industry
>>>>>Association
>>>>>of America, the Motion Picture Association of America, and various
>>>>>songwriter,
>>>>>actor, and director organizations. "We certainly support it," says
>>>>>Jonathan
>>>>>Lamy, spokesperson for the RIAA. "It includes a number of things to
>>>>>strengthen
>>>>>the hand of law enforcement to combat piracy. Intellectual property
>>>>>theft is a
>>>>>national security crime. It's appropriate that the fed dedicate
>>>>>resources to
>>>>>deter and prosecute IP theft."
>>>>>
>>>>>Against the bill stand a number of technology lobbying groups and
>>>>>public-interest organizations. "[IPPA] is a cobbled-together package
>>>>> to
>>>>>which
>>>>>Congress has given inadequate attention. It is another step in
>>>>> Hollywood
>>>>>and the
>>>>>recording industry's campaign to exert more control over content,"
>>>>> says
>>>>>Gigi
>>>>>Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a Washington, DC-based public
>>>>>interest
>>>>>group that aims to alert the public to fair use and consumer rights
>>>>>infringements, and fight those perceived infringements in Washington.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyone attuned to the machinations of Congress the last two years
>>>>> likely
>>>>>has
>>>>>become numb to the often overblown rhetoric on this issue. Both sides
>>>>>use
>>>>>hyperbole -- usually in the form of calling a piece of legislation the
>>>>>death of
>>>>>an industry or the death of individual rights. The 1982 statement to a
>>>>>congressional committee by Jack Valenti, then head of the MPAA, that
>>>>> the
>>>>>VCR is
>>>>>to Hollywood what the Boston Strangler was to a woman alone still
>>>>> stands
>>>>>as the
>>>>>ne plus ultra of exaggerated claims. And civil libertarians haven't
>>>>> met
>>>>>an
>>>>>affront that didn't equal a stake through the heart of individual
>>>>>rights. But
>>>>>IPPA demands attention not just from Hill watchers, but from regular
>>>>>individuals. In part because IPPA is such a broad, encompassing bill
>>>>>that could
>>>>>affect things as pedestrian as fast-forwarding a commercial, but also
>>>>>because
>>>>>with Senator Orrin Hatch -- a very Hollywood-friendly pol -- on his
>>>>> way
>>>>>out as
>>>>>the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to be replaced possibly
>>>>> by
>>>>>Arlen
>>>>>Specter, many in the Hollywood community see this as an important,
>>>>> last
>>>>>chance
>>>>>to get their demands made into law.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Eric Hellweg is a technology writer based in Cambridge, MA.
>>>>>
>>>>>Copyright 2004 Technology Review, Inc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>>>>>
>>>>>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>>>>>FreeLists.org
>>>>>
>>>>>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>>>>>unsubscribe in the subject line.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>>>>
>>>>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>>>>FreeLists.org
>>>>
>>>>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>>>>unsubscribe in the subject line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>>>
>>>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>>>FreeLists.org
>>>
>>>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>>>unsubscribe in the subject line.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>>
>> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>> FreeLists.org
>>
>> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>>
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
> FreeLists.org
>
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
