Bill to make skipping ads on DVD's illegal?!? (1 Viewer)

[Jeff_CusBlues]

Sorry my link expired. If you want to read the legislation, go to www.house.gov and finding a bill is pretty easy. The bill to search for is HR2391 and Section 212 is the section in question. To completely understand the added paragraph (11), you need to read the current US Code Title 17, Section 110. A simple search will lead you to the US Code.

I know this can be difficult and time consuming, but unless you read it all, you can't understand the exact intention.

Here is a link to the Wired article

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html

This paragraph is the one in question.



In my opinion, it is a poorly worded interpretation of the bill's language and leads you to believe the bill says that it will be illegal to skip commercials on DVDs. IMO, this is not the case. As always, read the legislation and decided.

 

[Scott Kimball]

The problem with the legislation, and recently passed copyright laws, are multi-fold.

First, they expand the term of copyright and limit fair use to extents that far exceed that originally intended in the Constution (yes - Constitution... while Copyright Law is its own entity, it is the Constitution (in the U.S.) that grants Congress the right to impose limited copyrights. If Mickey Mouse is still protected by copyright, then the law has gone beyond any reasonable "limit" as originally intended.

Second, "fair use" is taken out of the hands of the law and put into the hands of the content provider through Digital Rights Management. Before the DMCA, a content provider had no right under the law to dictate how I use content within the bounds of the law. They could only sue me if I violate their copyright. Now, I can't legally buy a Region 1 DVD in the U.S., move to Europe and copy that DVD into an un-coded form for my own use. In effect, the content providers can dictate where and when I can view content that I pay for.

There are a multitude of other issues as well, all of which have a chilling effect on culture and creativity. This is contrary to the original intent set forth in the Constitution.

Don't get me wrong... I support the idea that artists should get protection of their works. I do not support people who steal music or video on the net. The problem is, the law has become so pervasive, it makes it difficult for creators to create new things, because of the derivate aspects of many works. Think of all the DVDs that have rediculous music rights issues. Think of the poor documentary filmmaker who can't release a film because of "environmental content" covered by copyright. Even if said filmmaker is within his rights, the threat of a lawsuit, founded or not, will stop him.

For decades, copyright law went essentially unchanged. In the last twenty years or so, it seems the law is becoming more restrictive and protective every year. That's not necessarily a good thing.

 

[Vader]

OK, as for the amount of say the lawyers have on my watching habits at home….

“Behind Door#1 we have an interesting number that has been debated in philosophy since time began: is it an actual quantity, or simply the absence of such: it is the number ZERO.

Behind Door#2, we have a PC package that is sure to have the decimal-inclined dancing in the isles: it is the number ZERO-POINT-ZERO.

And finally, we have a special treat for the scientifically inclined behind Door#3, complete with a salute to Avogadro: it is ZERO-POINT-ZERO times 10^23.”

When commercials are forced on DVD, I will simply stop buying them, and enjoy the films I have. And as for the few OPTIONAL commercials currently on titles in my collection, I would pay real money to see the lawyers try to force me to not skip over them. This makes me all the more glad that my HT is completely closed-circuit: no external connections. These constant attempts to extend control over people’s private viewing habits are getting real old…

 

[DeathStar1]

Although, with DVD companies like Paramount out there, who already have unskippable logos, and warning and such at the start of a DVD, do they even need a law? It takes 2 minutes from the time you put in some Paramount DVDs to even get to the opening menu. Very frustrating.
>>

Agreed. One of the reasons why I love my Power DVD Player. It gives you an option to resume from the scene last played. So if you cut a movie off at the end credits, you can go back to the end credits and skip all the unskipable stuff.

Perfect for watching the Star Trek movies with unskipable logos...

 

[Dick]

It would be nice to believe this would happen, but historically people grow to accept infringments on their personal rights in small increments, never quite noticing what is happening as far as the Big Picture is concerned(i.e. the FCC proposing to allow larger ownership of radio stations by smaller numbers of corporations such as Clear Channel; elements of the Patriot Act, etc.).

I suspect that, before the next four years are up, we're all going to be in a deep quagmire and many will be scratching their heads and wondering how it could have hapened.

 

[Max Knight]

If you feel strongly about this, as many appear to, you can go here:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/action/IPPA2391

and easily tell your representatives how you feel.

These issues affect how all of us enjoy our favorite hobby. I hate non-skippable adds in my DVDs, and I hate to think how many more we will see if this bill passes.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

The problem is that the vast majority of people are not operating within the bounds of the law. Also, it is not Fair Use that affects one's exemption from prosecution (it isn't a right) for copying material in whole, it is the Home Recording Act. The internet has created a wealth of misinformation about what you are actually allowed to do with other people's intellectual property.

I would reiterate that there is nothing in the current legislation that makes it illegal to skip commercials on DVD. There MAY be implications for devices like Tivo, but from the wording, it looks like the intent is to prohibit commercial alteration of other people's IP, especially without clear labelling that it has been altered.

The problem facing traditional TV broadcasters is that if everyone goes out and buys devices that allow them to easily skip the advertising that pays to put that programming on the air in the first place, the business model will collapse. This is not beneficial to the public, as the result would be that in order to watch ANY form of over the air broadcast, you would be forced to pay in order of magnitude higher. If a broadcaster can't make the hundreds of millions it costs to get broadcast rights to their programming from advertisers, there will be no alternative but to get it directly from the audience. Would you be willing to pay $200 (or more) per night to watch TV? Not many people would, but this is exactly what will happen if advertisers feel that they aren't able to get their message across by buying ad space. The same holds true for radio programming.

While the Constitution may have outlined the concepts behind copyright, there was no way for the founding fathers to envision a world where 600,000,000 people have downloaded software that allows them to infringe on people's rights, or where the commercial base surrounding the legal exploitation of works would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars in direct and subsidiary enterprise. Allowing these industries to fail due to holes in the law would be highly negligent, to put it mildly.

 

[Robert Anthony]

A pared down version of this thing JUST passed the senate today. The commercials part of it was omitted, but THIS part of it was eye-opening:

 

[Jeff_HR]

I'd expect more of this from Congress. This may push me to drastically increase my purchase of DVDs from regions other than R1.

 

[Scott Kimball]

But, take Disney, for example. This company has seen billions in profits from derivative works over the years - because in the old days, a copyright had an expiration date. Now, with virtually unlimited (not to mention untraceable) copyright, an artist cannot ever benefit from making a derivative work, because in all likelihood, the copyright will never expire. Not only that, but it can be nearly impossible to find a copyright holder to ask permission to use a work, since copyrights don't need to be registered, anymore.

There is a fundamental difference in the ways that posters here are looking at copyright legislation. Some look at the laws, and see that they make sense - offering protection to the creator. Others see the effect the laws have on our culture, and the chilling effect it can have on artistic expression.

There are enough teeth in copyright law as it stands. In fact, I would submit that it would make sense to soften legislation in a way that is of little detriment to authors/artists, and a tremendous benefit to people at large.

1. Reintroduce the requirement to register a work for copyright. This makes it possible to find out who owns a work.

2. Do away with AUTOMATIC extensions of copyright. Require the artist/author or his estate to request a renewal every 14 years. This way, when those who own the copyright to a work are no longer interested in holding it, the work will enter the public domain - something that just ain't gonna happen any more with recent changes to the law.

This is far off the original topic of skipping ads, something that should be of far less interest to people than the constant reshaping of copyright that we are seeing, where nothing enters the public domain, and where artists of today are at a severe disadvantage compared to the artists of a couple of decades ago.

 

[DeathStar1]

The same holds true for radio programming.
>>

I dunno if I'm the only one, but I find listening to commercials on the radio a bit more interesting and fun than watching them on TV. Most probably because most of them are rather humorous.. But TV commercials I almost always skip over..

Dunno why that's been the case, though.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Interesting ideas Scott:-

Another good idea, but in reality it just means the army of Disney lawyers earns even more fees overseeing and managing the intellectual property rights, and in filing the renewals. The big corporations aren't going to make any mistakes in this, whereas the smaller struggling artists, who never really make it, might lose the protection a "life+50/75/95 years" formula gives them, since if they fall on hard times they might not be able to afford the renewal.

As a compromise, how about an initial period of copyright protection, say 50 years, and you pay for a subsequent renewal if you want or need it?

But this returns us back to the old debate, was increasing protection to life+95 really warranted in the first place? Under the old 50-year period, Snow White would have entered public domain in 1987, now it's tied up until who knows when. And it's not as if Disney hasn't made potloads on Snow White, let alone recouped its initial investment on the project.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Part of the problem with the copyright renewel was mentioned in the book. If a holder has 50 films, they are all his/hers for (well, forever) for right now. One of them may be a hit, but the rest are not really marketable.

If they are not handed over to someone for restoration soon, they are going to turn into dust, as they say.

My idea is to go back to the original 26 years? (I think it was). After that, a film could get an extension for 5 years only if the holder could show that it made over a certain amount of money the year before (like $500,000., for example). If it doesn't make the cut, the film goes into public domain.

When I said 'not really marketable' I didn't mean that they are crap, because every film out there has some fans, and a restoration will find its market.

Oh, and as for 'summer' releases, that only holds for new films on the big screen, not for DVD's. We all know that. The new summer films are supposed to start Memorial Day weekend, but I think that was first broken when 'Star Wars' came out for the first time. Lucas only did that to get a head start on the competition.

Glenn

 

[Eric Kahn]

From what I have read about the Clearplay service, it does not "alter" the movie, it downloads a program into your player that just skips over the "objectionable" parts of an otherwise normal DVD, you have the option of playing the movie "unedited".
this is a pay service, sort of like the fee for Tivo
If I buy the DVD, or rent it, I should have the right to watch it in any manner I want in my own home, which would include skipping such scenes that I find objectionable

 

[Robert_Gaither]

Actually I see a very simple answer to the "DVD has unskippable commercials" and "DVD has a studio bug in the bottom right corner" and that is that every home audio forum has an additional section (similiar to off-topic) of what products are being pushed so we know what products to boycott. If we can start threads and get the attention of studioes about OAR DVD releases we can maybe make even larger waves by simply not endorsing the products that wants to intrude into our lives in a negative manner. If the unskippable ad is for a brand of car then in a forum we could post what is the manufacturer of the car and encourage others to simply not buy it (since this and similar topics are at almost every home audio forum this could make a direct impact to offending companies bottom line). Even a minor protest during a companies particular quarterly could be staged in this fashion (even if we want that particular product but boycott buying it lets say from the month of Nov-Jan) would definitely get some of companies attention.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

This is nonsense. Copyright should be perpetual. If not, then perhaps we should change inheritance laws too, so that after a generation all the assets of anyone's estate become free to the public. No one would have to work a day in their lives, just pillage the coffers built up by someone with some ingenuity in the past. I'm taking the Windsor fortune, they have some nice castles.

If I spend my life creating a body of work that has lasting value, why should it become public domain instead of being passed down to my heirs? Why should a third party, who has no talent other than to seek out and copy/take public domain work and use the work of someone else to make a living off of? Copyright, like any other form of estate benefit, should remain in the family. If there is no interest to preserve the work, then it disappears, if there is, the heirs can negotiate with whoever feels it is worth the effort.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Jeff - isn't that what I said/meant? If the holder doesn't want/no longer wants to profit from the item, it falls to the public, where someone else can (hopefully) profit from it. Your last sentence said - - "If there is no interest to preserve the work, then it disappears, if there is, the heirs can negotiate with whoever feels it is worth the effort."

I said the year before because I can see heirs sitting on their butts until the last minute. A simple contract for a film's transfer would enable the holder to keep it for another five.

At any rate, it is amazing how the information about the bill got twisted and then spread like wildfire over the net.

Glenn

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Not the way I read it. Why should the rights holder have conditions or have to earn a set amount in order to maintain the rights? My point is that there should not be any mandatory forfeiture of rights. Creative people work their whole lives to develop their craft, exactly the same as the entreprenier who works in a different field to build their fortunes and then passes it on to their heirs. If one is mandated to lose the fruits of that work, then all should be. No more empires, no more money families.

There is nothing stopping companies from approaching rights holders to create new transfers or derivitive works. There is no need for "public domain." If we are talking strictly film, then perhaps a nationally funded agency can oversee the preservation of elements, but the likelihood of that is nil. It is very likely that the heirs, and even the artists themselves may be without the financial means to preserve or exploit their work.

Especially since everyone is skipping the advertising that helps pay for it.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Ah, I see what you mean now. I hadn't looked at it that way because our Constitution says different. Now I'm wondering why they mandated a limit!

As for getting the unknown - rather - not so famous films redone, they'd have to get a backer if they didn't have the money. Maybe the holder could incorparate and sell stock!

Glenn

 

[Scott Kimball]

There is a long history of copyright NOT being the same as property rights - a history that goes back hundreds of years. There are good reasons for this. See the book mentioned above.

You seem to imply, in a couple of posts, that any use of a copyrighted work by an artist is an act of laziness and infringes on the rights of others. If there were no derivative works in literature or film, we wouldn't have very many books and movies.

I reiterate that copyright is important, and should be enforceable as long as an artist wants to hold it. But, with the way the law is being reshaped, one often can't even find a copyright holder to ask permission to use a work - in even the smallest way.

New laws allow the creator of a work to maintain control over the work after it enters your private home. And in some countries, copyright holders are going after public libraries, saying they are infringing copyright by loaning books.

Some aspects of the law makes the Federal Government an agent of the copyright holder, tracking down infringers. Copyright should be a civil offense, and prosecution should come at the hands of the copyright holder.

When you have a broad interpretation of a broad law, you end up stifling innovation. THAT is why the Constitution allows for LIMITED copyright protection. A broad interpretation of the existing laws, combined with the bills now before Congress, could get Apple sued for making the iPod (and other MP3 manufacturers and their players, as well) - because they know that SOME people will use the device to infringe on someone's copyright. That's just wrong. It's like preventing the sale of baseball bats by suing Sears because SOME people might use the bats as a weapon.

The DMCA makes equipment that I (and millions of others) use in TV production technically illegal, because as a side effect of its primary function, it strips the blanking interval off of a video signal, thereby circumventing Macrovision copy protection.

A college student and computer programmer wrote a search engine a few years back that, as a side effect, made it easier for P2P users to find files. The student was sued for everything he had, even though he didn't use or create the engine for that purpose (it was developed to search for scholarly articles on a closed network).

Many consumer electronic devices are crippled at the factory to prevent unauthorized copyright infringement. Functionality is limited for millions of users, punishing the honest consumers in an effort to get the crook.

DirecTV has threatened lawsuits to people who own magnetic card readers. There are plenty of legal reasons to own one of these. But if you own one AND subscribe to DirecTV, they will assume that you are stealing service and will offer to "settle" with you for a few thousand dollars - or they will take you to court.

These are some of the reasons why the rapid changes of copyright law are so insidious. We need to clean up the provisions that exist before we add more. The law and its provisions, as written, allow for abusive prosecution on suspicion of a violation - and the looming threat of lawsuits keep electronic devices off the market, and independent films in the can. In most cases, the threatened lawsuits imply an overstepping of "Fair Use," but the only way to really test "Fair Use" is in the courts. The little guy is the victim - he can't afford to take it to court, so he'll elect not to innovate.

-Scott