Yet another new "copyright enforcement" bill in Congress
Correspondent:: RogerM
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:53:34 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.
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.
Correspondent:: "FAQmeister"
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:44:37 -0800
--------
"Modemac" wrote in message
news:b71f73eb.0411161143.6e852d16@posting.google.com
>
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
Correspondent:: "Loco Jones"
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:45:18 -0500
--------
"RogerM" wrote in message
news:419A5AF0.53013228@ns.sympatico.ca...
> ^^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)
Correspondent:: Jim
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:58:46 GMT
--------
RogerM wrote in
news:419A5AF0.53013228@ns.sympatico.ca:
> ^^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.
Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:26:58 -0800
--------
On 16 Nov 2004 11:43:56 -0800, modemac@modemac.com (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
Correspondent:: elrous0@pop.uky.edu (Eric R.)
Date: 17 Nov 2004 06:17:03 -0800
--------
Zapanaz wrote in message news:<84skp0dcoorvo1588t1f4f7vq2kmcch07q@4ax.com>...
> 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
Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:30:21 -0800
--------
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.
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:30:33 GMT
--------
luminos wrote:
> "Modemac" wrote in message
> news:rq7lp01e6n8359o72ciancisti8pkkdtra@4ax.com...
>> 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!
Correspondent:: "Biz"
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:24:11 GMT
--------
"Modemac" wrote in message
news:b71f73eb.0411161143.6e852d16@posting.google.com...
> 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.
Correspondent:: defacto100@rogers.com (defacto)
Date: 17 Nov 2004 06:42:47 -0800
--------
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!