21st November 2004, 12:06 AM
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,128..._tophead_2
Here's the important bit of this...
Essentially this means that companies can actually FORCE you to watch certain parts of things. You would not be ALLOWED to not watch certain parts of things, save for objectionable content as defined above (rather than how I define that phrase, anything that mildly annoys me, and "skip over" to me is defined as wiping out an entire species, or SET of species, because ONE of them happened to create the objectionable content). Now, being "forced to" be in the PRESENCE of ads is one thing. I don't find any objection with commercials being on the TV as I can just turn the channer or just plain ignore it. However, this opens the door to not even being able to walk out of the room. Under this whole thing, that could be taken as a measure to skip the commercials, which would be illegal.
Look, I'm SORRY that commercials don't work any more. I'm sorry no one wants to actually watch them and skip them at every opportunity. However, that's YOUR problem. You beam television into our houses for free, of your OWN choice. We didn't sign any contract with you, you just came up with a method to pay for it called advertising. I respect that to the extent the law requires, but you can't actually DEMAND anything from us since I don't recall EVER actually making any deals for this. Also, I'm sorry that people don't listen but it's mainly your fault what with the insulting and downright lying stuff you call advertisements. Maybe people would pay attention to the new products you are showing if you would actually go back to the original concept of advertising, which is, as you might guess from the WORD, only supposed to make people AWARE of stuff, not really outright convince them to get it! Also, notice that I'm apologizing here? Yes, it's in a condescending "well, that's not ACTUALLY apologizing..." way, but my point is maybe sometimes YOU freaks need to admit you screwed up.
I do NOT want entertainment turned into a clockwork orange scenario. I would NOT like to live in fear of every single electronic device there is just covering my head with a pillow until it all goes away... in different ways depending on how close I hold the pillow...
I mean, of ALL the ways to adapt copyright law to modern technology, this has to be the most "if we make it unbearable it will go away" approach possible. I mean, the next step after this would be a law against... the internet, it's very existance.
SCREW the survival of companies. Seriously, despite what some laws seem to say, they are NOT living people and don't have the right to existance! LET them die if they can't evolve. When it comes to companies, the weak SHOULD be crushed under the heal of the strong.
Here's the important bit of this...
Quote: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 language, viewers would not be allowed to use software or devices to skip commericals or promotional announcements "that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture," like the previews on a DVD. 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.
Essentially this means that companies can actually FORCE you to watch certain parts of things. You would not be ALLOWED to not watch certain parts of things, save for objectionable content as defined above (rather than how I define that phrase, anything that mildly annoys me, and "skip over" to me is defined as wiping out an entire species, or SET of species, because ONE of them happened to create the objectionable content). Now, being "forced to" be in the PRESENCE of ads is one thing. I don't find any objection with commercials being on the TV as I can just turn the channer or just plain ignore it. However, this opens the door to not even being able to walk out of the room. Under this whole thing, that could be taken as a measure to skip the commercials, which would be illegal.
Look, I'm SORRY that commercials don't work any more. I'm sorry no one wants to actually watch them and skip them at every opportunity. However, that's YOUR problem. You beam television into our houses for free, of your OWN choice. We didn't sign any contract with you, you just came up with a method to pay for it called advertising. I respect that to the extent the law requires, but you can't actually DEMAND anything from us since I don't recall EVER actually making any deals for this. Also, I'm sorry that people don't listen but it's mainly your fault what with the insulting and downright lying stuff you call advertisements. Maybe people would pay attention to the new products you are showing if you would actually go back to the original concept of advertising, which is, as you might guess from the WORD, only supposed to make people AWARE of stuff, not really outright convince them to get it! Also, notice that I'm apologizing here? Yes, it's in a condescending "well, that's not ACTUALLY apologizing..." way, but my point is maybe sometimes YOU freaks need to admit you screwed up.
I do NOT want entertainment turned into a clockwork orange scenario. I would NOT like to live in fear of every single electronic device there is just covering my head with a pillow until it all goes away... in different ways depending on how close I hold the pillow...
I mean, of ALL the ways to adapt copyright law to modern technology, this has to be the most "if we make it unbearable it will go away" approach possible. I mean, the next step after this would be a law against... the internet, it's very existance.
SCREW the survival of companies. Seriously, despite what some laws seem to say, they are NOT living people and don't have the right to existance! LET them die if they can't evolve. When it comes to companies, the weak SHOULD be crushed under the heal of the strong.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)