[mythtv-users] Congress to Make Commercial Skipping Illegal

Lane Schwartz dowobeha at gmail.com
Tue Nov 16 16:24:11 UTC 2004


> >On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:12:09 -0600, spectro <spectro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > IANAL, IHMO sec 212
> > > (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:5:./temp/~c108pY1lnE:e35066:)
> > > seems to grant an exception to devices that allow commercial skipping.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:53:06 -0500, George Galt <george.galt at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > All:
> > > >
> > > > The House has passed HR 2391, which is being considered by the Senate
> > > > today (11/16).  Successful passage by the Senate will put this bill on
> > > > the President's desk late this year or early next.
> > > >
> > > > This bill makes it a violation of the Copyright Act to skip
> > > > commercials using a technological means (hardware or software) -- and
> > > > it makes it a violation to make the computer program that allows
> > > > people to skip commercials.  You can get information on the bill here:
> > > > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.02391:
> > > >
> > > > and you can read the Wired story on the bill here:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html
> > > >
> > > > My suggestion is call your Senators and Representatives and let them
> > > > know that it is ridiculous to make it illegal for you to skip
> > > > commercials (assuming you agree that it is).
> > > >
> > > > You can reach your Senators and Representatives through the Capitol
> > > > switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or (202) 225-3121.  Or you can email
> > > > them by going to their web sites, which you can find through
> > > > www.senate.gov or www.house.gov.
> > > >
> > > > George
> At 10:20 AM 11/16/2004 -0500, Jonathan Link wrote:
> >IANAL, either, but this is clearly outlined by the Wired article.
> >The section you site pertains to Motion Pictures, not television, and
> >is meant to allow people to skip graphic/obscene parts of a Motion
> >Picture.
> >
> >-Jonathan
> >
> >
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:55:52 -0800, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
> IAAL :)
> 
> The scene-skipping amendment goes at the end of a section that starts
> "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not
> infringements of copyright:..."
> So the literal function of the Family Movie Act is to say that skipping
> movie scenes or making the technology to do so doesn't violate copyright or
> trademark law.  Yes, Hollywood directors and studios actually claimed that
> skipping parts of movies infringed their rights (see
> <http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Huntsman_v_Soderbergh/>).
> 
> That doesn't mean you still shouldn't call your representatives -- there's
> a lot of other bad law being proposed in the so-called PIRATE Act:
> "cooperation" between ISPs and law enforcement that would bully ISPs into
> spying on their customers; authorization for the government to do the
> entertainment industry's work prosecuting civil copyright infringement
> suits; and expansion of criminal penalties for copyright infringement with
> lower thresholds that could trip up lots of average internet users.
> 
> --Wendy

Hi, Wendy! Nice to have a real lawyer enter the discussion. :) IANAL

I understand that Section 212 of this bill makes it explicit that it
is OK to skip sections of a movie. The way I am reading it, it also
seems to say that it is not OK to use a computer program to skip
commercials.

(This is also the interpretation of the Wired article:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html)

Am I incorrect in my analysis?

Lane Schwartz

-- 
"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11."
-- George W. Bush, 17 Sept 2003


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list