Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. Your Rights Online

Top Ten New Copyright Crimes 43

Posted by michael from the not-a-laughing-matter dept.
jeffy124 writes "In response to the Turner CEO's PVR ad-skips are theft comments, Yale's LawMeme has posted a short list of other new forms of theft and crime that will soon appear in our daily lives."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Top Ten New Copyright Crimes More

Top Ten New Copyright Crimes

Comments Filter:

  • On justice: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by samoverton ( 253101 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @08:15AM (#3456481)
    "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest."

    as Thrasymachus said,
    "I declare justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger" - Republic 338c

  • Potty Breaks (Score:5, Funny)

    by pheonix ( 14223 ) <slashdot@i b l o v iate.org> on Friday May 03, 2002 @08:22AM (#3456501) Homepage

    The best part of this whole article is this dweeb's take on the bathroom break. Any human that has gone this far down the greed path isn't doing his company any favors by spouting off and making the whole company sound like a crew of imbeciles...

    I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom.


    Some tolerance? SOME F-ING TOLERANCE? Sorry, that just struck me as funny.

    • Gosh, what about all the people who don't watch his network at all? Or those who can't because it isn't carried on their cable system? Or those whose TVs are broken? Or those who blink during the commercials?

      They're stealing! Stealing, I tell you!

      So when did the nation's business schools merge with the medical schools to give free lobotomies to CEO's and other execs?

      Gotta go. The commercials are coming back on...

    • The best part of this whole article is this dweeb's take on the bathroom break.

      Actually, it's kinda amusing. During Six Feet Under, a hour long, commercial free show on HBO, I will often have to go to the bathroom halfway through (not everytime, just if it's been awhile, ya know?). I've taken to making sure I've peed recently before I watch the show.

      Heh - I had gone to dinner before Fellowship of the Rings, and we got there just in time (with prebought tickets), and about an hour in, I started reviewing scenes in the book, looking for a moment when I could dart out. My father's nearly 60 year old bladder lasted the entire three hours. Ah, well. At least LotR (my fav series of books) has been translated to screen better than Dune (his fav series of books). I wonder what the last movie to have a non-spoof intermission was (Quest for the Holy Grail or anything by Mel Brooks doesn't count).

      Ah, DVD pause... no damage to the media, and you don't have that "finality" feeling of stop. I gotta get me a Tivo.

      --
      Evan

    • I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom.


      Good thing, since they advertise (and thus expect the viewer to consume) beer and caffinated drinks.

  • Cable used to be commercial free (Score:4, Insightful)

    by peter hoffman ( 2017 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @08:31AM (#3456528) Homepage

    I remember when cable TV (at least in my area) was commercial free. That was the main point of cable: free over-the-air TV needed commercials to pay for the programming but if you paid for cable then you had bought your way out of watching the commercials.

    What we are faced with here (as always) is the golden rule: the one with the gold makes the rules. The only solution I see (and it's not 100%) is to systematically vote against the incumbant in every election.

    Because elected officials who have served mutliple terms have more influence than newly elected officials, the voters represented by new officials get less representation than other voters. This situation is inherently unfair and should be challenged somehow.

    • I saw we challenge the system by...

      GOING TO THE BATHROOM AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE

      We will bring their commercialist regime crashing down around their necks....

    • I think it hit me that something was seriously fucked up in this business when I had to sit through Pepsi and Ford commercials at the local cinema just after paying $8 to see the movie.
    • The flaw with this argument, although I support the spirit of it, is that these policies are not created by individuals. There is a whole system to create candidates from both of the major parties who are almost exactly identical after the elections. If we want to avoid having the corporation led government completely corrupt the law and communications systems we need to act at a much more fundamental level.

      By not voting for the incumbent you risk the chance of voting for the lesser of 2 evils, or the most evil of 2 evils. It's continuous spiral downward.

      I think that something along the lines of a national write-in campaign or a similar movement to completely reform the elections system. Ignore the candidates altogether.

      We need public financing of elections. We need instant run-off elections so those that want to vote for 3rd or 4th party candidates don't have to feel like their wasting their votes. We need to abolish the electoral college. In other words we need to take the election process from top to bottom out of the hands of the rich and corporate "elite".
  • I'm sorry, but what the fuck do you *expect* these people to say? "PVRs are cool, ads are fucking lame"? You see, there's this little thing could 'business'. Yeah, sometimes it makes people into self-centred, self-righteous cunts that don't care about anything but themselves, but at the same time it creates jobs for average, working-class chumps like me and billions of other people around the world. It's nice to have this type of idealism, but you need to realise that there are far more important things in this world than being able to watch Voyager or browse pr0n without those pesky little ads everywhere.
    • Ads don't create jobs for people. Technically capital doesn't even create jobs for people. Need and ability creates jobs. The idea that a system that perverts labor and content so that those in control can benefit as parasites is needed for jobs to be created is an oft repeated fallacy.

      There are already plenty of things in the world that need to be done without ads creating illusory need and demand. Even after all our needs and luxuries are met, the idea that there isn't enough work for everyone is ridiculous and dangerous. Rather than people working 50 hour weeks people could work 32 hour weeks and let the unemployed and underemployed take up the rest of the slack. This way, they can contribute to society, and the rest of us can spend more time with our families and enjoying life.

      There is no natural law that says that people need to work 40-60 work weeks. It's detrimental to our society but it benefits the corporate class. By having a sizable unemployed and underemployed population they create enough competition among workers to keep wages stagnant and benefits slim. Wages, adjusted for inflation, have not risen since 1970, while many in the corporate class have gone on to become millionaires and billionaires.
    • They could have just opted not to say anything.

  • content is the hook not the product (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bart van der Ouderaa ( 32503 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @09:16AM (#3456707)
    I get the notion that he has it backwards:

    [Ad skips are] theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots

    Which is not true. There is content to hook people to watch the commercials. Broadcasters make money of the commercials so it's in their best interest to create the content needed to hook the the viewers to their station. Because they are in competition for viewers (who can choose which channel to watch and when) they better have good content (which also includes commercials!). At no time is there a contract between the viewer and the broadcaster for the broadcaster to deliver good content and the viewer to watch the commercials(like there is no contract between a viewer of a billboard and that billboard).

    That some broadcasters choose to not use commercials but use a subscription system does not change this fact. The only thing a viewer does in this case is pay to be able to watch that channel.

    For a Contract to exist I would have to have put a signature somewhere and there should be some place to view that contract.
    • For a Contract to exist I would have to have put a signature somewhere and there should be some place to view that contract.

      Sounds like shrinkwrap and click-through EULAs have made Kellner jealous, and he wants something equivalent for television broadcasts.

      There's probably something hidden on a text feed channel that says something like "by receiving these broadcasts, you are agreeing to watch all advertisements, no matter how inane, annoying, or offensive; start singing their jingles in public, even if it makes your friends avoid you; buy their products regularly and in preference to all competitors, no matter how useless they are; etc. To disgree, you must destroy your television."

    • While I generally agree that there is no contract to view commercials, I take exception to your statement, For a Contract to exist I would have to have put a signature somewhere and there should be some place to view that contract.

      Now, IANAL, but, for a contract to exist, there must be several things:

      0) Offer and Acceptance. Well, DUHH!, though many forget that without acceptance there is no contract. On the other hand, once there is acceptance, the contract is binding on both parties.

      1) Consideration. Someone must give something.

      2) Performance. Something must be done: property given, access granted, etc.

      3) Duration. Contracts have to be met in a specified time. You have to tell when the contract is over, rather than just "pending". This is more important with leases and licenses than with sales, but even here, a "time to perform" (i.e. transfer the property) forms part of the contract.

      4) And this is most important, A meeting of minds. All parties must have understood the contract and agreed to it.

      Now, (4) is generally established by a signature, or other form of agreement. Contracts can be verbal, or symbolic: agreements don't have to be in writing, and I can buy a candy bar without ever saying a word, just taking the candy bar, and offering the right amout of money. The cashier's presentation of a receipt or a handwave establishes the meeting of minds.

      Of course, enforcing such contracts at law is iffy at best because of the difficulty of establishing that a meeting of minds took place. For many contracts to be enforcable at law, certain other conditions have to be met, i.e. be "in writing". So, the wise person will contract for anything of significance in writing.

      Many jurisdictions explicitly disallow (by statute) enforcement of "frivolous" contracts. So, If I offer you $10 for your house, and you say, "Sure!", such a contract is not enforcable at law. Similarly, without consideration, there is no contract: if I offer you a candy bar (or something of minor value) for free, and you accept, I can still change my mind because the lack of consideration means there was no contract to begin with. This is why often consideration is "silly". Real estate contracts in Illinois generally provide for the transfer of title to immovables within the home (smoke detectors, appliances, etc.) for consideration of $10, which is never (in practice) demanded (the price of the house, of course, is adjusted accordingly). People in Quebec, Canada, will often demand $1 from new appartment tennants when vacating: the dollar is for any improvements that the tennant may have made that are impractical to remove: carpetting, window blinds, etc. This way, the new tennant owns the improvements and the landlord can not demand that the old tennant remove them (they're now the "problem" of the new tennant). (Oh, and you generally don't want to transfer ownership of your improvements to your landlord, without significant consideration, because then he can raise your rent for the improvements!)

    • Nope, this guy is confused (even CEO's get confused), its in the contracts that the cable company will play the spots. Yep I bet that is the truth. This guy's customers are cable companies that purchase his content for a price and then ship it to my house. He and the cable company get to put ad's in the shows, which is fine by me. He has just forgotten that he is so far from the general public as a consumer that he as lost his completely perspective on reality.

      Quick lesson in business, if the advertisers won't pay as much for skipped ad's due to PVR's then charge more the the cable companies for the content to make up for the lost revenue. Then start paying everybody a less who stars in the shows to lower costs. Then start moving away from the coasts to the mid-west or south for the lower cost of doing business. If not, you go out of business. Generally calling the paying consumer a thief, and generally attempting to control their actions and limit the use of legitimate technology sounds like a good way to go out of business.

      If there is demand for good high quality content, it'll get paid for, if not it won't. Stop attempting to legislate technology, or as a corporation attempt to control it. There is no point. For $500 in equipment, you can put together a good PVR himself. If the guy was really smart he try and find a revenue stream off of this. If not, you know what if there is demand, somebody will pay for it, and somebody will make money for generating the content. If this goober isn't the guy making the money, that's not my problem and he should stop calling people theives for using commonly available items in a manner in which he doesn't like, but is completely legal. I'd really like some yahoo PVR user to sue this guy for liable. He'd lose, but it be fun to have this guy taken to court for being an ass.

      Of course if being an ass were worth having to go to court, I probably never get to leave the courthouse.

      Kirby

  • Max Headroom Future (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CyberQ ( 304799 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @09:18AM (#3456717)
    Max Headroom, the classic (late 80ies/early 90ies) show, saw it all coming: As far as I remember in the world of Network 23 it was illegal to switch off your TV. Every citizen had the right and duty to watch TV. Back then I thought this to be too grotesque, but now....

    If I remember correctly the show started with the title "A not too distant future ..." or sth. like that. Frightening, truly frightening.
  • It must be one of the "hate AOL/TW" days, since there are no new movie releases on DVD and no new .0001 milestone build of Mozilla, today is one of the days we sit back and castigate AOL/TW instead of fawning and drooling. :)
  • In broadcasting 101 we learn about the concept of "time-shifting", whereby a person can use their VCR to record something that is on earlier and watch it later, in order to accomodate their schedule.

    If I didn't have a VCR, I wouldn't be watching any TV at all, because of the unfortunate times that my favorite shows come on. Then the advertisers wouldn't be seen by me at all.

    Of course, my and your tv watching habits will never show up on the nielsens. Untrustworthy statistics, or media conspiracy? You decide.

  • Uh-oh... (Score:3, Funny)

    by DragonPup ( 302885 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @12:51PM (#3457948)
    I switched channels to PBS(that government run commie network!)during a commercial, without making a donation. That's 3 strikes, so I guess I am going to jail for a long time :-(

    -Henry
  • I'm sorry but I PAY for cable TV. I do not PAY to get adds. When I watch a showtime or hbo movie I watch it cause I can watch it WITHOUT adds and I want to watch the movie. I also get NBC and CBS and all those other network channels, which are INCLUDED in my cable bill. This is part of what the cable company calls BASIC CABLE. Yes and if you have cable you pay for all those networks. You usually can't just get HBO without basic cable. Since I am forced to get these channels and channels I don't want I cannot be forced to look at watch or view adds. What's next requireing people not to dump the add section of the Sunday paper in teh trash and requiring them to read through it all?

    Hollywood execs are getting stupider by the minute. They are actually going to turn people off from this crap. There are few really great movies released these days, most are mediocre at best and most music these days are 'flash in the pans' music. Lets face it how many bands are there today that will leave a mark on society like the Beatles did or Elvis?

    There are few good tv shows anyway. Yes the simpsons are funny and so is south park and there are a few others, but out of all the tv I watch a week there is about 3 hours of tv that I don't want to miss, and after this season and the x files disapearing it will be about 2 or less ( I like enterprise ;-) ).

    These people fail to realize that there is such a thing as add overkill. Our society is becomming immune to advertising, just like our tolerance for violence has increased over the years. When I was 13 Jaws scared me, now my 13 yo nephew wathces all the Jaws and jason flicks cause they are cool like scream. He is very desensitized as we are becomming to adds.

    If internet advertising is such a bad business model like they said in 2000-2001 (which killed many dot-coms) why is network or radio advertising any better? I can change the channel and watch picture in a picture or leave the room. These network execs need to get over themselves and be more accomidating to the end users else were going to stop buying their products. And people will ...

    • Lets face it how many bands are there today that will leave a mark on society like the Beatles did or Elvis?

      Oh come on, I just asked a 12 year old girl, and she told me that, "like, N*Sync are just totally, like awesome! Like who's that Elvis guy anyways?"
    • Lets face it how many bands are there today that will leave a mark on society like the Beatles did or Elvis?

      I think that if he fell on society, Elvis would make quite the impression - and leave a fat, sweaty, jumpsuit-shaped mark...

      (shudder)

  • Re:Paging Captain Obvious (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Yes, I suppose we should expect business execs to lie and make outrageous statements that favor their business models. Expect the rest of us to point out the lies, and mock the outrageousness.

    If a business model is obsolete, it's time for the business to die, and for others to take its place. This is called progress. In this manner, the U.S. built the Ford Motor Company, while the British were attempting to recover from attempts to protect the carriage industry (they'd passed a law saying motorcars had to be preceded by a man on foot waving a flag). Which do you think created more jobs - Ford, or the carriage industry it replaced? Which do you think provided more benefit to the larger economy? And how long do you think the U.S. will maintain its economic and technological dominance, if it outlaws new technologies that threaten its entrenched interests?


  • Now I always record TV programs, so I can skip ALL the commercials when I play them back. I agree, this is theft, except that I would not buy the things advertised even if I did watch the commercials.

    I would gladly pay to have commercial-free TV. However, they would probably ruin the idea by charging too much. My share of the cost of a TV program is probably 10 cents, and they would probably want to charge $5.00. It is common that business people destroy their own good ideas with greed.

    Over a two year period I considered how commercials on TV had affected my buying. During that two years, I spent $6.81 because of having seen commercials.

    Have you ever noticed that the things that are advertised on TV are usually things you should not buy, if you care about spending your money wisely? For example, they're always pushing legal drugs. I don't think I really need more hair, especially if it must be surgically implanted. In the U.S., used cars provide much better value for the money.
    • This is ridiculous. I'm not going to say anything about whether it is illegal or illegal. It's a mute point and anyone with half a brain would be able to figure it out (What's that say for Hollywood?). But what bugs me is these people don't understand that things are changing. We are entering the information age. My generation wants the free flow of information. We don't want it withheld from us. Everytime it's withheld, it impedes progress. Progress does not bend to business practices. Rather, it is the other way around. Regardless of what they say and do and complain about, the fact is we are becoming stronger with out ability to obtain information for free. It's only a matter of time before they have to give in and accept it. The music industry and software industry did. Get over it CORPORATE AMERICA, your rule is coming to an end...

      • "The fact is, we are becoming stronger with our ability to obtain information for free."

        I strongly agree with this.
        • This is really interesting because I'm sure this is one faction of the attack Hollywood is making on the digital world. In case you guys haven't heard, Michael Eisner of Disney is leading a huge campaign by the movie industry to make it mandatory that all hardware and devices capable of playing audio/video have a sensor to detect a waterseal and then render the piece of hardware useless when burning or ripping. I think the whole thing is ridiculous, but I do not have faith in our system to vote it down (especially when the people who lead this attack can buy a verdict). Besides computers, they are attacking ReplayTV, MP3 Players, and memory sticks. Their point is somewhat valid, they need to make money to support what they do. But, they should also realize that their practices deprive us of these things which as everyone knows is a very important piece of our lives: art and artists. It costs me $9.00 to see a movie! Add a girl, and some food you got a $30.00 night if you skip dinner. And the movie industry makes the majority of the admissions I believe. Among other things, it has come to the point that we just plain and simple can not and will not afford these things when it is so outrageous. I still plan to enjoy it all though so I'll take every free media I can find. It isn't immoral in the least. My roommate listens to MP3s and buys the CDs of the artists he likes. CDs offer more with the music. I buy DVD's because of the rich features and quality. I took to my favorite band from MP3s and now pay for their concerts, memorabilia, etc. I have a much wider variety of taste for the arts since digital media became accessible. A long time ago, art was never associated with money. I'll be damned if I'm gonna let these people deprive me of our own human nature. Open source is such a beautiful example. And it's united and competitive at the same time. It should be applied to many more markets. Open Source scares the hell out of these people but they won't admit it. MS knows they are living on borrowed time. I predict in the future they will be forced to switch to open source (shared source is a joke). We should be nurturing an environment that allowes us to do all these things and not be limited by money. A long long rant. Sorry.
  • Given that intellectual property has become such an untouchable sacred cow, it is somewhat surprising that you don't hear about it being used to launder the proceeds of crime.

    In order to do anything to combat this, a court of law would have to create a precedent that IP rights can be forfeit as a penalty for a criminal offence - perhaps even without proof considering the state of forfeiture laws in the US. This is not likely to happen while the US government is owned by corporations with a vested interest in preserving the sanctity of their IP rights.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close