H.R. 2391: Losing the Right to Ignore Commercials?! WTF!!?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-11-16 12:42pm

Slashdot link

Wired News link

Well that does it: Washington DC has only the Corporations in mind, not the People.

FUCK 'EM ALL! WE WANT AMERICA BACK!

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-11-16 12:45pm

Haha stop people from fast fowarding ads? This is total bullshit and will not pass.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-11-16 12:50pm

We need Howard Dean back.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-11-16 12:57pm

BoredShirtless wrote:Haha stop people from fast fowarding ads? This is total bullshit and will not pass.

Think again.

Bush got reelected, remember? DMCA passed, PATRIOT passed, anything is possible, especially when we have giganto-conglomerated multinational corporations diverting huge amounts of money directly into OUR representatives' bank accounts just so they can be represented at OUR EXPENSE!

We pay twice to get fucked over: Once with taxes, and again when we buy the products in those goddamn stupid commercials ceaselessly barraging our homes like some twisted Psychological Warfare operation with no end. Make that THREE TIMES, when we see the damn Psy-War commercial bombs themselves explode all over our TV screens by the millions!

What do we get? Our government that we elected, bought, and paid for, stolen from us by the multinationals.

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-11-16 12:58pm

Ugh. This makes my head hurt. >.<

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-16 01:14pm

This is why I rarely turn on my T.V.

Bastards.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-16 01:20pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:Haha stop people from fast fowarding ads? This is total bullshit and will not pass.
Think again.

Bush got reelected, remember? DMCA passed, PATRIOT passed, anything is possible, especially when we have giganto-conglomerated multinational corporations diverting huge amounts of money directly into OUR representatives' bank accounts just so they can be represented at OUR EXPENSE!

We pay twice to get fucked over: Once with taxes, and again when we buy the products in those goddamn stupid commercials ceaselessly barraging our homes like some twisted Psychological Warfare operation with no end. Make that THREE TIMES, when we see the damn Psy-War commercial bombs themselves explode all over our TV screens by the millions!

What do we get? Our government that we elected, bought, and paid for, stolen from us by the multinationals.

Jesus Christ Einey, if you took out all of the melodramatic horseshit your post would be a single sentence.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2004-11-16 01:21pm

Is this a joke of somekind?

Wired wrote:However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited.

What do you call a nation run by corporations?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-16 01:22pm

Just wrote both my senators with this:

I wrote:Sen. Durbin, I am writing with regards to bill HR2391, which is now in the Senate after being passed in the House. I urge you to vote against this bill. Its goal is to lump several controversial copyright bills into one bill for quick passage in a lame-duck Senate session, which smacks of malicious intent by the entertainment industry.

I am all for protecting the rights of copyright owners, but I believe that bills like this are the wrong way to do it. This bill would have the Justice Department filing civil suits against infringers. The United States Justice Department is not the errand boy of the RIAA or MPAA. It is not the USJD's place to file a civil suit with tax payer dollars on behalf of these organizations. These cartels have billions of dollars gained through illegal price fixing and mass production of low-grade entertainment; they can afford filing the suits themselves.

There are also some inherent contradictions in the bill. It would outlaw technologies which would allow viewers to skip over commercials, but would legalize technologies which allow viewers to skip over "objectionable content," like sexually-themed or violent scenes. But there are many commercials which would fall into these categories. Many commercials are for violent videogames and movies and/or contain sexual innuendo that parents may not want their children seeing. Under this bill, parents would not have that option.

It is not the government's job to decide what its citizens should and should not listen to or watch on TV. That is the job of parents and the citizens themselves.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-11-16 01:22pm

It looks like you can still skip commercials---as long as you don't use "technology" (I assume that means things like TiVos) to do it.

Nobody has the right to hold back history to preserve their profits. It's not like they're entitled to get money.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-11-16 01:22pm

oh and did you not notice the fact that the American Conservatives Union is among the many groups fighting this tooth and nail, so you can take your OMG T3H EV1L R3PUBL1C4NZZZ! and shove it up your ass.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-11-16 01:23pm

This reminds me of a Futurama episode where Fry was told that dreams were not considered private and that corporations had the right to beam advertisements into your dreams.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2004-11-16 01:26pm

Hmmm. Gory/sexually explicit scenes permissible to skip; commercial advertising not? I wonder which takes precedence if there is commercial product placement going on? Say KY paid to have their product feature in a sex scene, or DeWalt paid to have their power-tools used in a massacre scene?

bohemianfey · Post by **bohemianfey** » 2004-11-16 01:27pm

Durandal wrote:Just wrote both my senators with this:

I wrote:Sen. Durbin, I am writing with regards to bill HR2391, which is now in the Senate after being passed in the House. I urge you to vote against this bill. Its goal is to lump several controversial copyright bills into one bill for quick passage in a lame-duck Senate session, which smacks of malicious intent by the entertainment industry.

I am all for protecting the rights of copyright owners, but I believe that bills like this are the wrong way to do it. This bill would have the Justice Department filing civil suits against infringers. The United States Justice Department is not the errand boy of the RIAA or MPAA. It is not the USJD's place to file a civil suit with tax payer dollars on behalf of these organizations. These cartels have billions of dollars gained through illegal price fixing and mass production of low-grade entertainment; they can afford filing the suits themselves.

There are also some inherent contradictions in the bill. It would outlaw technologies which would allow viewers to skip over commercials, but would legalize technologies which allow viewers to skip over "objectionable content," like sexually-themed or violent scenes. But there are many commercials which would fall into these categories. Many commercials are for violent videogames and movies and/or contain sexual innuendo that parents may not want their children seeing. Under this bill, parents would not have that option.

It is not the government's job to decide what its citizens should and should not listen to or watch on TV. That is the job of parents and the citizens themselves.

This is what we call actually doing something about it. As opposed to sitting and bitching about how shitty things are on webboard.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-11-16 01:28pm

For their next trick, Congress will pass a bill that makes borrowing a book from the library an offense punishable by death.

Oh, and fuck you, Orrin Hatch. The man is nothing more than a sockpuppet of the RIAA. I doubt that he's capable of independant thought anymore.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-16 01:28pm

The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed law, skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited. The proposed law also includes language from the Pirate Act (S2237), which would permit the Justice Department to file civil lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers.

Can anyone explain the logic behind the idea of letting people skip gory or sex heavy scenes and then turning around and stopping them from skipping comercials?

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-11-16 01:30pm

frigidmagi wrote:Can anyone explain the logic behind the idea of letting people skip gory or sex heavy scenes and then turning around and stopping them from skipping comercials?

Yes. There are a lot of people who will squawk if the law doesn't let them skip the sex and violence who won't care if the law just forbids automated commercial skipping. It's political logic.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-16 01:32pm

Yes. There are a lot of people who will squawk if the law doesn't let them skip the sex and violence who won't care if the law just forbids automated commercial skipping. It's political logic.

Ah I see. Thank you.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-11-16 01:52pm

I'm much more concerned about the apparent attempt to gut fair use than I am the silly provision that you can't fast forward through commercials. How in the world do they plan on enforcing that? What's next, a law that says you can't use commercial breaks to take a leak? Also alarming is the vagueness of the language making it a criminal offense to "recklessly endanger copyright", or however they put it, though that might be the rope with which the statute hangs itself, since lack of specificity is a good way to get SCOTUS to overturn a law regardless of any other constitutional issues.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-11-16 01:56pm

RedImperator wrote:I'm much more concerned about the apparent attempt to gut fair use than I am the silly provision that you can't fast forward through commercials. How in the world do they plan on enforcing that? What's next, a law that says you can't use commercial breaks to take a leak?

There are some really cool devices that will record shows and play them back with the commercials automatically removed. This would make those illegal. That's how they can enforce it.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-16 02:22pm

sketerpot wrote:
RedImperator wrote:I'm much more concerned about the apparent attempt to gut fair use than I am the silly provision that you can't fast forward through commercials. How in the world do they plan on enforcing that? What's next, a law that says you can't use commercial breaks to take a leak?
There are some really cool devices that will record shows and play them back with the commercials automatically removed. This would make those illegal. That's how they can enforce it.

I'm assuming they can enforce this law on Tivo by forcing them to remove the skip commercial feature on their product. But what about people who have other types of digital recording devices that have this feature? Will they be excluded or will the law be enforced on them which leads to the stickier question of how then would you know they're skipping commercials.

This is just fucking horrible but hopefully will have the same outcome as the early resistance to VCR's and even cassetts decks. RIAA complained about them back in the day complaining that people wouldn't buy albums if they could just tape it off the radio. Let's hope this backwards thinking doesn't take root.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-11-16 02:45pm

I just have to say this.

You get what you elect...

HA HA!

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-11-16 02:46pm

So, does that mean we won't be able to make copies of books in the library? And copy+Paste news articles to forums?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-11-16 02:54pm

Faram wrote:I just have to say this.

You get what you elect...

HA HA!

Problem is, if you look at the sponsors of such bills, it's a bipartisan fucking of the consumer.

Two of Hollywierd's biggest whores on these issues have been Sen. Orrin Hatch (Republican) and Sen. Ernest Hollings (Democrat).

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-16 02:57pm

Glocksman wrote:
Faram wrote:I just have to say this.

You get what you elect...

HA HA!
Problem is, if you look at the sponsors of such bills, it's a bipartisan fucking of the consumer.

Two of Hollywierd's biggest whores on these issues have been Sen. Orrin Hatch (Republican) and Sen. Ernest Hollings (Democrat).

If Republicans and Democrats can agree on anything, it's that the entertainment industry has a lot of money.