Congress wants to outlaw fast-forwarding through commercials

We thought we lucked out when Senator Orrin Hatch stopped pushing the INDUCE Act, but the RIAA and MPAA are at again, and are trying to push another copyright bill through Congress that does a lot of the same things, like criminalizing copyright infringing file-sharing and punishing anyone who brings a video camera into a movie theatre for recording purposes with up to three years in prison. But there's another part of the Intellectual Property Protection Act that should perk up your ears (assuming they aren't already suitably perky). They want to make it illegal to use software or hardware to skip all of those commercials and previews that the studios are placing before the beginnings of movies on DVDs, something which is freaking ridiculous since it's your DVD playing on your DVD player in your home. How about making it illegal to not pay attention, too?

 

[Nick @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

That's fine by me. I'll just stop buying DVDs and start downloading the advert free versions via Bit Torrent...

[Uncle Ward @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Repeat after me: there is no connection between "contributions" these congressmen get from the entertainment industry and these great new laws that are only for our own good. Rumor has it the fast forward button on your remotes is the next target.

Remember when it was a federal crime to tamper with a mailbox so no one would even paint their mailboxes. How the world has changed... but it's so much better.

[Gordo @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Yeah thats pretty bad.

Good thing I don't live in the states.
"I pity you fools!" - Mr T

[TheZodiac @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

This is the beginning of the end of the free world. Thanks for all who voted this year! :)

[christopher wanko @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

The revolution will not be televised. It will be shared over a p2p network, with servers based in Brazil. The revolution will not be televised, because it can't be edited for content or to fit in the time allotted. The revolution will not be televised, because sponsorship is unavailable.

The revolution is going to come.

[Guttrhead @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

This will pave the way for the next bill that makes it illegal for you to get up and make a sandwich or go to the bathroom during a commercial. Then come the commercial chip implants.

[majella77 @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Amazing this knuckleheaded crap keeps using up the valuable time of our legislators. Amazing until you remember our Congress consists mostly of a coalition of the bribed.

I don't remember it too well but there's a passage in the Godfather about the going price of a U.S. Senator. It may a bit higher in today's inflated dollar terms, but these mofos still have their hands out.

[Chris @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Lemme get this straight...........I can ffwd through the smut to get to the commercial, but I'll be a criminal if I ffwd through the commercials to get to the smut? It's just not fair I tell you.

[Dave M. @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Well, if they start giving away these DVD's that can't be ffwded then fine, I'll be happy to put up with them. However, if I'm paying the usual price or more, well, I'm with the Nick! Bittorrent, here I come.

Plus, it's only a matter of time before they include TiVo and other DVR's in this category.

I would like to see them "retrofit" technology into VCR's to force them to not ffwd in the commercials. I'm sure it's possible.

[David @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Write a quick note to your congressman/senate. Unless we speak, we cannot complain. Simple quick letter....

[qrt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

So, exactly what intellectual property is being protected here? If you take the title of the proposed law seriously, they would be preventing people from stealing the commercials (hey, it could happen!), rather than forcing people to watch them. Perhaps they should rename it the RIAA/MPAA Profit Protection Act...

[Tom @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

The face of advertising is already changing. TV networks realize people aren't watching the ads, or have technology at their disposal to ignore them. Expect to see much more of the 'product placement' type of advertising, where you'll see celebs drinking/eating/driving the advertiser's wares right in the programming itself.

[henry @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

you know, when you report on legislation it'd be really nice if you included the identifying information for the bill being discussed so we can write our congresscritters and get them to do the right thing ...

[fun-tastic! @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

I can't wait to see the episode of Cops where they stake out a guy that they think is fast-forwarding through commercials... "look, he's got his finger on the remote! Go! Go! Go!"

or will this be enforced by the ATF? Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Commmercials? will I still be able to ignore billboards while I drive, or shake out all the magazine subscription cards at home?

[fun-tastic! @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

wait - I have an mp3-CD player in my car - will I still be able to use it? last time I heard the radio, there were still commercials on it...

[diggum @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

=( I wrote to my senators about this yesterday. Patty Murray's underlings haven't replied yet, but Maria Cantwell's did. The response was that the Senate already voted on this happily, and that Maria hoped this would pass the House quickly as well. She apparently supports this bill.

The problem was, the response letter sent to me commented how Copyright holders should determine the means of distribution of their work. There was no mention of fair use or anything else for the people they expect to buy it.

I agree - If the works are given away for free (such as TV or radio) then I'll sit through a fair amount of commercials to cover the costs and fair profit. If you charge me to buy it, though, then that price better be sufficient to cover your costs and I better not have to sit through a bunch of forced advertisements. Otherwise, I will find a way around it.

There are sensible laws, and then there is just stupid. I have no problem breaking stupid.

[Saudi @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

man ..
this made me laugh so hard
so they will tell you how to watch a movie that you paid for? ..

thank God I live in a Dictatorship where I can do what I want with what I pay for !!

[P.F. Bruns @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Folks, now would be a very good time to write your congresscritters.

[Z @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Are these idiots in government ever going to pull their wide heads out of their narrow hoo-has?

Gimme a break. Einstein was right.

[Falcon @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

So much for the land of the free eh.
I didn't realize America was so perfect as to not require more important considerations for their legislature than this.
I personally find this current political wish to exert further control deplorable. One _may_ make a case regarding smoking considering potential health impacts, but I strongly resent anybody saying that I should not exercise my free will to not wish adverts should I wish so to do. Advertisers have the PRIVELEGE to present their materials before me, this is not a RIGHT. If I elect to ignore advertisers, that is my free choice so to make.
I would personally boycott purchase of any materials that had such innate impositions. Whatever's next? Compulsory adverts telling you to vote republican? Laws to ban spitting in the street? Social workers telling you what colour wallpaper you must have in order to keep your children?
Defend free choice. Canvas your congressman now.

[Terrie @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

America the free ???? Sure the land I love is slowly become a monster ,taking away rights of every American... What I do in my house is going to be spied on , so they are going arrest me if I fast forward ... What if my children fast forward? If I am not watching them who gets in trouble ? Me for neglect ...
Our have leaders became power hungry people?? I think they could find better things to do like keep an eye out on the drugs companies making dangerous medicine that kill people....
I believe they are making us go to digital tvs for the purpose of them being able to spy on us like our cell phones all now have GPS.... Excuse me but am I the only American seeing something wrong here , I am sure I am not the only one ....

[Robert @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

This is communist crap!!!! What the F*** is happening to our world????
I guess you Republicans will think this is a good Idea, just like the friggin' patriot act.
This is enough to make Hitler jealous.
We need to get that stupid chimp faced so-called president out of the White House. He will back these companies. Anything for the rich you knopw. This makes me sick!!!!!!!!!

[Ian @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

I called my Senators (this already passed the House). I think that I struck a chord with the staffers when I asked if they'd ever fast forwarded through previews on their videos and they said yes. So, hopefully Sarbanes and Mikulski will vote against this crap.

The bad part is that this is stealthily being rammed through Congress during the lame duck session instead of being discussed openly and honestly. Keith Olberman will be covering this topic on Countdown tomorrow night.

[Jake @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

What's next? Cameras in homes?
This is way too much.

[pyius @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

This is crap. I don't understand this anymore. When we get arrested for pushing a button in our own homes? Who doesn't FFWD occasionally through a movie's commercials. Business go out of business, but people will still own the DVD's with their commercials. Must we still watch them even then? VHS movies from the 90's which i've seen commercials for hundreds of time, and still have to watch those? So many people fall to media, and succumb their decisions based on false models. What about ads now? Will they start getting more and more descript and telling us what to do, but we will have to watch or we will be arrested. As someone said above, will we have to start watching billboards?

Brainwash, i tell you. Brainwash...


--pyius

[Erik @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

"Expect to see much more of the 'product placement' type of advertising, where you'll see celebs drinking/eating/driving the advertiser's wares right in the programming itself."

This was common practice in films but few know that this is a relatively recent phenomenon in American broadcast television. The reason for this is that the networks broadcasting the show see *none* of the sponsorship money from the product placement (it goes directly to the studio that produced the show), so there have been occasions where these "ads" have even been blurred out of the show (witness MTV's liberal blurring of fashion labels in music videos).

This is going to change; there will need to be some collaboration between the networks doing the broadcasting and the studios producing the content. In many places it already has. For instance, back in the 90s, many episodes of "Seinfeld" were in fact about a specific product (a Snickers bar and a Saab car come to mind), and because it wasn't just an incidental "product placement" but rather the whole focus of the episode, the networks couldn't really blur the content out. In fact, they were livid and demanded that the studio stop doing this, but they couldn't argue with the most popular show on television (at the time) -- to lose that show would have been financial suicide.

Incidentally, I don't see the difference between a law saying we can't fast forward through DVD previews and a law saying we can't play DVDs on "unofficial" players (i.e. linux boxen that don't have licensed decoders), and this has been the law for what, seven years now? Fundamentally, the push for DVD technology was sold to us on "better quality video/audio" and "special features", but it was sold to the industry on promises of greater control over how we use the medium. I don't think it's right that there are such laws, only that it's too bad that only now people are realizing how much control we give up if we agree to use DVDs without breaking the laws surrounding *how* we can use them. Remember, you're not buying a DVD, you're basically buying a license to watch it, and that means you agree to the terms of the license.

[rednose @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

did april came early *next* year's or somehow cronos slipped a cog?

what the h3ll is the matter with 'congress' now? there are thousands of things to pass that are much more important than making everyone, including your 99+grandma who aint got much time left but must watch the next installment of jason vs freddy XXXIV before she kicks the bucket, criminals in their own homes? is this a sketch from national lampoon? or snl?

everyone skip ads. on tv everyone flip channels when commercials pops. on the internet you are definitely encourage to kill pop-up ads. what now? legalised DVD-spam?

i'm not american and this is another reason to be glad not to be one. land of the free home of the brave? huh? this is sure democracy runing amuck. not that i;m very proud where i'm from. but lunacy is lunacy. will the dvds be sold with a warning lable: if you pay for this you must absolutely watch - don't you dare even blink- the first XXX minutes of adverts or you'll be fined for $YYY or do jailtime? if you are a repeat offender - god help you - you are going to the gulac for re-education. or was it eradication? or irradiation??? isn't there some other law against hijacking/kidnapping someone? in this case it is just a complete waste of time multiple by millions of viewers? countless man-years wasted, energy wasted. the environment and energy, food, agriculture fellows who worry about such things should seriously object.

there are so many rules, laws, regulations, by-laws, what-nots, i think y'all better teach law in the 3rd grade so all citizens would pass the bar by 13 years of age.

what can you do? well, there's a quaint american saying which goes: money talks and bullshit walks. boycott. boycott. boycott. are you 'paying' to watch the ads or the movie. just turn it around. advertisers/dvd people should pay *us* the consumers to watch their ads. when *did* it happened that the customers stopped being right?

[sks @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

I looked at the actual text of HR 2391 and could not find any provision of the proposed legislation that would outlaw fast-forwarding through commercials. The one provision of the proposed law that involves commercials relates to a provision of the law that makes it clear that it is not a copyright infringement for companies to "make images imperceptible". One of the conditions of non-liability is that in making images imperceptible, any commercials must be left intact.

Unless I missed something, I think the controversy regarding the alleged outlawing of fast-forwarding is unwarranted because it is based upon faulty/incomplete information.

[rednose @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

that's one way of reading it. suppose a law says: "you are lawful if you keep the thingamagig on and the video black and the audio off and you are playing an original copy*"

*every DVD,VCD,VHS,CD-rom _is_ a copy of an "original/master"

let's say it is not the "authorised" copy of the original but a *backup* copy and you fiddled with the bits you don't like - backyard-self-censorship if you like - like oh, the shower-scenes, the chainsaw bits, all that bloody-action, the annoying commercials, then?

why not a law that says....you can pay for and own a car i make but you cannot tint the windows or repaint in or remove the logo?

but digital stuff is different?

what this is about is control control control. someone out there are control-freaks and it is big-brothers, the faceless megalomanic corporations that not only want the $$$ in your pockets, they want to put *you* - the humble consumer - in *their* little gilded cages.

what happened to protecting the powerless consumers *from* the powerful corporations? we are many they are few but they make and break the "laws" we have to live with? make people jump thru hoops? shouldn't there be balance and equal protection?

are too many or too few laws? what are laws for? so you can say the law says...and you done broke it? or you can say the law says...and it didn't say that so it aint broken?

why is there a law for this in the first place?

[Gary Fender @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

I personally hate DVD's that don't allow me to skip the previews and get right to the main menu.

But there is hope. Because for every technology they make, there will always be break. Thank God for hackers and crackers who bring back freedom to customers! Thank God for DC++.

[shawn @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

i cant turn on the tv without a program coming from a break, going into or in a break.its really rediculous.in the '80s a typical sit-com didnt take the 1st break until 15 after start,now its 5,10 and even15 after all in the same show on some programs,not including the "pop-up" ads in the corner of the tv before and after a break.with all the studys being done,why isnt there a commercial study made pulic?who really watches them?why cant there be an all commercial channel?there is a do not call list,why cant there be a no ad list? i pay $50 month for cable,i didnt ask for 12 minutes of commercials per half hour.but we all know why there is no public study...i have done a home study...a local pro football game had 27 commercial breaks at about 1:35 per break.the flow of the game was stuttered and choppy due to the high volume of ads.the players must get"cold" waiting for the breaks--ohh wait, im sure they dont care,they get paid wether they play or not...whats next..."this 3rd and goal brought to you by"... is it all about the money? how sad

[JR @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

This is total crap. We can raise money for Firefox why don't we raise money to buy congressman or at least fund out own canidate. These anti information/progression laws must stop. we will have a revolution and it will be their armagedon.

[Non-hypocrite @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

It kills me to see so many of you expressing your outrage at this most recent infringement of our rights, and then say "oh but it's ok to regulate smoking because it's bad for your health" or "I think they could find better things to do like keep an eye out on the drugs companies making dangerous medicine that kill people." Another good one from post 22: "Anything for the rich..."
If you're going to bitch and moan about regulation and pine for FREEDOM and RIGHTS, be consistent. Any and all regulation that infringes on your rights for someone else's private interests is WRONG. Smoking regulations in privately-owned businesses:WRONG. Costly regulation of drugs, prolonging the time to reach market:WRONG. Prejudice against "rich" people for no reason other than their success & wealth: WRONG!!!
As annoying as this garbage fast-forwarding law is, you'll still have the option of not buying them, or opting to buy the version that doesn't include annoying ad content. Try taking an economics class before you think you're qualified to make broad statements on public policy.
And to "A Saudi man" from post 17: You're kidding me, right? I'll bet the Saudi woman isn't as happy about that dictatorship.

[IronLizard @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Truly, we have no rights. We're just a market after all.