My god! The worst news ever!

[TetsuoShima]

Okay, I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this.

 

Read and weep:

 

 

US Congress bill to criminalise commercial fast-forwarding

 

Up until now, as long as you purchased or rented a movie from a legal source such as a Video rental store, you may think you've not done anything wrong. Well if you pop that disc into your player, and grab the remote to fast-forward through the commercials you're not interested in, this upcoming bill would class you as a criminal, just like those who pirate movies.

 

This bill is known as the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2004 and includes other changes to copyright law that further restrict "Fair use" of copyright material as well as help target file-sharing piracy. The MPAA claim that skipping commercials costs them too much in lost revenue and want to class commercial skipping as a crime. On the other hand, the Consumer Advocacy is fighting to protect the consumer’s right to not watch commercials if they do not want to.

 

So far, the bill has been amended to protect the ability to fast forward or bypass objectionable/violent scenes such as that to allow parents to show films to their children while being able to skip unsuitable scenes. However the bill will exclude the right to bypass commercial content. This is also likely to affect PVR's such as the ability to fast-forward through Ads in programmes recorded on a TiVo, ReplayTV or any other video recorder.

 

THE US CONGRESS is considering making fast forwarding through video advertisements a crime. Lawmakers in the land of the free have decided that it is costing their chums in the movie industry far too much money and want video fast-forwarders placed in the same league as pirates.

 

According to NBC news the new law allows families to use new DVD technology self censor explicit scenes of sex and violence but forbids them to edit out advertisements.

 

Consumer advocacy group, Public Knowledge is fighting the bill saying that it is ever American's right not to watch advertisements if they don't want. It claims that the movie industry is leaning on its tame senators to prevent the loss of revenue.

 

However the Motion Picture Association has been fighting hard to prevent people using the latest DVD technology to allow users to skip the advertisements.

 

It added that it supports other parts of the act, "particularly those provisions that will help combat the theft of motion pictures". If you can see how the two things are connected we would love to know how.

 

With the current DVD standard, it is possible to place flags that prevent skipping content such as commercials, much like how most DVD’s have a flag to prevent the viewer from skipping the initial Copyright warning. However, what this bill would likely do is make it illegal to tamper with a DVD player (or PC software) to unlock the DVD playback limitations.

 

In my opinion, if a person is willing to go out to pay for a movie or rental, then they should be entitled to watch it in any way they like and not be forced to watch specific content. While some consumers may be happy to watch commercials on new releases, having to watch out-of-date commercials on older releases will be enough to aggravate many viewers. This is a very bad move to put on paying customers.

 

The most likely thing that would happen if DVDs forced this measure is the way consumers prepare to start watching their movie. First pop in the disc, press play and then go out to the kitchen and prepare a big bowl of pop-corn. Then, hopefully by the time the viewer returns to to their living room the movie would be just starting. Unless another bill mandates security cameras or dial-in phone lines watching on consumer’s viewing habits or police doing spot checking on homes of those who purchase movies, enforcing this bill is not going to be as easy as the MPAA think.

 

 

 

That was the first part. Second part is about the technology involved.

 

 

Microsoft patent to cover penalising users who skip TV Ads

 

Just when one thought it was bad enough to try and introduce a bill to criminalise the skipping of commercials, apparently Microsoft has filed a patent where a user's subscription or rental fee on viewing content can be based on the user's viewing habits. For example, this would allow users to be charged fees for fast forwarding through or otherwise skipping over the commercials on TV, whether it is a recording on DVD, video-on-demand service or even a programme on TV/Cable/Satellite. On the other hand, the patent covers the rewarding of discounts for watching commercial advertising.

 

As advertisers are losing interest in delivering paid advertising to users just for them to skip over the ads, Microsoft’s patent aims to solve this issue for media content providers by charging users based on their viewing habits, such as to penalise those who skip all the commercials or to reward those who watch them all. For example, this approach would essentially allow advertisers to only be charged for ads that are actually rendered. Microsoft's patent covers content on devices such as PVR's, DVDs video-on-demand set-top boxes, PCs, TV/Satellite/Cable recording devices or other equipment where users can skip over content.

 

"In addition to the revenue obtained from viewers for monthly content subscriptions and pay-per-view purchases, these advertisements for products and services are a large source of revenue for a provider of the media content," the patent application reads. "However, advertisers will be increasingly unwilling to have their advertising messages communicated with media content that a viewer can navigate to skip over the advertisements.

 

"Accordingly, media content providers need to provide alternate advertisement revenue models so that advertisers will continue to sponsor advertising messages being delivered with media content for consumer viewing."

 

So the solution, according to Microsoft's patent application, is to charge people when they skip these commercials and possibly charge them less in monthly fees when they do watch the advertisements.

 

The full text patent can be viewed here.

 

If content providers start making use of this patent,the worst affected will be those who insist on skipping all commercials as this would mean having to pay the full price. As consumers don’t pay for terrestrial TV in the US, then if these content providers take on this technology, it will be interesting to see how they will go about charging consumers for skipping over their commercials, especially since their programmes are mostly paid for through advertising.

 

For pay-per-view content such as sporting events and movies, chances are that content providers will charge a higher fee for their content and then offer rebates based on how many commercials the user has watched during the programmes. I would not be keen on seeing DVDs take this on as it would mean having to purchase a new DVD player to support the user’s viewing habits or otherwise be excluded from discounts.

 

 

 

So if and broadcastflag and obligated commercial viewing get through. We're screwed big time and the fellas with the big bucks get even richer!!! I think it's time for a revolution or something. This is just plain rediculous. And the worst of it al is: IT'S TRUE! This story is not made up! F#ck that! We really need to vote some people who we can trust in congress!!!

[Beawulf]

wow that's some essay you have there :P

 

I think it is going too far. I agree that if you have bought the product you shouldnt have to watch ANY commercials. Crap like this is going to make more people want to send them a message by not buying the products. The industry is clearly not adapting to the change in demands, they should be providing a convenient reasonably priced internet based distribution system if they want to discourage downloading illegaly. They are going in completely the opposite direction.

 

I wonder how rules like that passed in the US will affect people in other countries. Maybe any movie make over there will have these restrictions imposed.

 

I wonder if Bollywood is making any sci fi films ;)

[quosego]

That's totally stupid...... I knew American law was weird but this really is the most stupendous law ever.... So soon you guys will have to watch commercials.... you can't go to the toilet????

 

I wish you guys good luck.... With the MPAA controlling your country, you will have a tough time ahead of you.

 

 

[TFMF]

What a load of crap!!! - I mean i'm in the UK so it won't effect me.....yet anyway. This really make me ANGRY!!!! - i agree with quosego - really is the worst law they could have invented - i think they just got bored and wanted to make a new law.......

[Annika]

 

[quosego]

hahahahahahahaha That's one awesome pic !!!!!!!!!

 

Good one Annika

[RagenWrongly]

american government better not let this pass. I hope there are some smart people up there that actually pay attention to what they sign. Cause if they don't not only will everyone hate them, but they won't even get to fast forward thru their own comecials.

[reddragon86]

i wouldnt worry theres no way to enforce it over a country, and if ur worried about breaking pointless laws u shouldnt really be on this forum

[StitchInTime]

I think it is going too far. I agree that if you have bought the product you shouldnt have to watch ANY commercials.

That's right. You've already paid. I feel the same way about cable tv--one of the reasons I don't have it. The first time I saw it at my parents place, I was shocked to learn they were paying for this and getting even more commercials on the cable stations than they had without.

 

Crap like this is going to make more people want to send them a message by not buying the products.

And, I'll be at the front of that line. I'd rather do without than watch commericals. I detest advertising. What happened to the idea of allowing people to chose which commericals they want to watch from a menu?

 

The industry is clearly not adapting to the change in demands, they should be providing a convenient reasonably priced internet based distribution system if they want to discourage downloading illegaly. They are going in completely the opposite direction.

Yes, it's amazing, when the law makes people feel like breaking the law.

 

How are they going to tell whether or not people are watching these commercials? What are they going to do, put video cams on everybody's televisions; so, they can see what people are doing? Here comes big brother.

 

I remember before the fast forwarding option, I used to just turn the volume down when the commericals came on and read a book during those three minute intervals. I used to get a lot of my reading for school done that way, without having to miss my favourite shows. :rolleyes:

[Prototype]

I loled. They can't enforce something like this. Any hardware made compliant with this stupidity won't sell, and the moment a VCR which prevents people from fastforwarding hits the market, the crackers and hackers will have a modchip built within a week. Just like the whole DRM thing, if you go by Revision3, aka Revision3, you will find an episode on how to make your own cheap DRM free DVR(digital video recorder RE:Tivo like machine minus the stupidity). It runs a free distro of Linux, only requires a little bit of setup, and will let you record whatever off of cable, then do whatever you wish with it.

 

Tivo is already on the way down for going along with the stupidity and greed of the **AA's, so the ever benevolent hack community has stepped up to the plate and provided us with fully fuctional alternatives. I suspect the same will happen if this law passes.

 

And them complaining about losing money from people not watching comercials? Talk about a blatant lie, seeing as they get paid for broadcasting the commercial, regardless if anyone watches it.

[OverlordQ]

What a load of crap!!! - I mean i'm in the UK so it won't effect me.....yet anyway. This really make me ANGRY!!!! - i agree with quosego - really is the worst law they could have invented - i think they just got bored and wanted to make a new law.......

 

Yea, but doesn't the UK have some retarded TV tax?

 

So basically: Handle your own shit, before you bitch about something that's not even a law yet.

 

No we do not pay a TV Tax. By law, we pay for several channels (owned by the BBC) via a license fee - because they are publicly funded these channels have NO COMERCIALS (except for upcoming programs).

 

So basically:

 

1. Get your facts correct before trying to a marshall an adult arguement.

 

2. Marshall an adult arguement rather than trying to browbeat someone.

 

3. In this forum EVERYBODY is entitled to an opinion. As long as that opinion is not offensive and likely to cause flaming.

 

4. Your post is likely to cause flaming and is borderline on trolling. Carry on in that vein and your posts will be moderated accordingly.

 

- Under Cardinal Pelladurisinchrysandathax of the Celestial Intervention Agency

[Beawulf]

OverlordQ: how rude! this is an open discussion. I don't remember seeing "US opinions only" when I came in.

 

 

To get back on topic, even though the US laws dont directly apply outside the country, it does apply to products produced there. So if this law were to pass I would expect dvds of movies made in the US to still prevent us from skipping the adverts, even though it wouldnt illegal for us to do so.

[GorunNova]

One question... Why didn't ya supply links to the original articles, TetsuoShima, or say where they came from? Bad, BAD! I wanna read these for myself (not to mention it's bad practice to quote stuff without saying where the quotes came from ^^).!

 

<- is Canadian, so also won't be affected by these laws... until the US pressures the relevant Canadian groups to try it -_-'...

[CrazyMan]

Soon we will have no rights. And soon we wont own anything, if they keep it up...

[MustHaveDS9]

I actually now live in the UK, though American-born, and I actually still don't understand the TV licence fee myself. PBS and local broadcasting channels seem to do just fine over in the US without forcing people by law to pay to fund them *shrug*

 

I love the UK, but the BBC continues to baffle me. Every year, they cut jobs and get government emergency funds, but raise licence fees. Who the heck is running that organization? Not to mention the god-awful programming most of the day..

[StitchInTime]

Who the heck is running that organization?

My suspicion would be they are the people at the top: the ones making the most money, who, naturally, want to make sure they keep on making the most money.

 

Not to mention the god-awful programming most of the day..

In view of the above, somehow I am not surprised, though I still prefer much of your 'god-awful programming' to most of North America's. Then again, perhaps we only get the good British shows.--the ones that survive the Atlantic crossing. :rolleyes:

[TetsuoShima]

One question... Why didn't ya supply links to the original articles' date=' TetsuoShima, or say where they came from? Bad, BAD! I wanna read these for myself (not to mention it's bad practice to quote stuff without saying where the quotes came from ^^).![/quote']

 

You're right, I should have done some of that. Too late now, I have a tendency when I see something like this on the net during normal browsing to just place it here if it's related to something that might interest people here. But I don't remeber where i got this from now. Sorry...

 

But I'm sure if you search for it on the net with google, you can still find the originals on the web...

[Pella]

I'm saddened that you didn't find my edit of the post appropriate. However, I was not trying to debate (which you have done admirably) the pros and cons of the licensing system. I reason I felt the need to edit in the post was to do with the poster's behaviour which I feel was obnoxious and trolling and it needed pointing out. I edited accordingly and pm'ed the poster - since I've had no reply to the PM I consider myself vindicated.

 

For example you and I disagree on something and we are having a reasonable debate. Neither of us is trying to 'get one up' or 'look better than the other.' Reasonable behaviour. I don't find the above person's behaviour reasonable.

 

But we are getting of topic. If you would like to continue this conversation please PM me and I'll be more than happy to respond to any complaints/views that you have. That goes for anyone who thinks I've acted unfairly or inapproprately.

[MustHaveDS9]

Off topic. Please PM me directly with any issues/views you may have. I am more than willing to respond to anything people have to say, however this is not the place for those discussions.

 

- Under Cardinal Pelladurisinchrysandathax of the Celestial Intervention Agency

[elderbear]

Somebody set up a poll about moderation - this is a hot-button issue.

 

On topic: It's absolutely nuts to say you can or cannot FF something. Remember, the TV stations are using the public airwaves for their product. Commercials now consume more than 33% of the American TV show. I'd rather pay $20/month and get 52 minutes of content than have to sit through endless commercials and only get 38+ minutes of content.

 

But then again, I'm not the average American.