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.