[opendtv] Re: Is 'Fair Use' in Peril?

  • From: Cliff Benham <cbenham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:48:56 -0500

Yep, it's full moon again...
johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>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.
>
>
>  
>


 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: