You could be subject to prosecution.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?cnn=yes

I'm just gonna put that there, and let y'all comment on it. I'd offer my opinion, but I fear that the V-chip I had installed in my brain would probably melt down under the onslaught and subject y'all to language that would render an aircraft carrier full of sailors shamefaced.

Spotted?

These copyright laws are just getting out of hand. I could ramble on and froth out of the mouth about this for ages. These "content providers" are getting it in their heads that can control all aspects of the individual's "consumption of content". To H-E double hockey sticks with 'em.

Because the public pays wads of money to these "content providers", they have the resources to buy off politicians and laywers to their enforcers. How I wish the public would just, even for a month, stop buying their crap.

That would do more to humble these SOBs down than anything else.

-Richard

A strong consumers' union would be useful. If the union's leaders could arrange for a few million people to boycott a product then better arrangements could be negotiated. Such a union would be weak against providers of necessities such as food and clothing but people can live indefinitely without professional entertainment.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Yes, it would be nice if the entertainment industry realized that their products, in the grand scheme of things, are useless. The trouble is there is demand for their products and that inflates their sense of importance and power in their minds.

Something like a large natural disaster would do the trick of showing them how worthless their products really are in the grand scheme. If getting food, clothing, and shelter became an uncertainty for many people, they wouldn't have too much time or truck for the entertainment industry, would they?

A natural disaster of course would *force* the public to concentrate on what's really important. It would be nice if they would voluntarily show the entertainment industry what's really important.

That industry increasingly sees its own customers as its enemy, but an enemy they nonetheless own. They should see be thankful to the customer who is willing to pay money for something that is essentially worthless.

Nothing makes me madder than buying a piece of hardware, and have that hardware have stuff built in that is antagonistic to me, its owner, because the "content providers" want to control how I use that hardware.

I'm in a vast minority, but Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry aren'tt going to get one more red cent out of me. I'm not buying their products any more. No more DVDs, CDs, or anything, including going to movies. Not one more red cent. And oh how wish many more would do the same.

-Richard

I'll add this: A personification of what I think of the "content provider" and entertainment might help. Paris Hilton would fit that bill pretty good. She's an utterly idiotic dingbat heiress living off the fruits of her grandparents' labor. There's an old saying, "shirt-tail to shirt-tail in three generations", that describes a family empire phenomemon. One generation makes it, the second generation maintains the status quo, but the third generation looses it all. The third generation, raised in the lap of luxury, never learns the traits and values that allowed the first generation to rise up.

However, when that first generation mangages to amass a large enough fortune, worthless 3rd and later generations can be supported indefinitely, basically just off the interest. There's so much there they can't blow it all no matter how reckless they are.

Anway, the entertainment industry is in the worthless 3rd generation phase now. A bunch of Paris Hiltons running around acting stupid, and with some slimy crooked reptile lawyers acting as their enforcers. If Paris were to loose her money, those reptiles would just turn on her in a second.


-Richard

No problem.

I'm going to tune in to Super Bowl XLI.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Churches do that all the time. Use their status and membership to circumvent restriction. Want to get together with a bunch of friends and buy shares in a vacation ranch tax free? Do it through a church. However, all sorts of businesses pipe unauthorized and unpaid radio feed through their phone system for on-hold background music--technically, they're supposed to have paid for the privilege.

publius, you should probably thank the stars that the public is not so organized--probably the first worthless thing that they'd boycott is experimental physics.

If it would get rid of Hollywood along with the likes of Britney Spears and that bunch, I'd consider it a fair price, indeed.


-Richard

Easy now...2006 income was $7M .

I think that price would be too steep.
Let the idiots run around in circles
As long as Physics and knowledge progresses too.

I won't watch the Super Bowl regardless. But I got a huge stack of movies from the library today, so it's not like I'm lacking for things to watch.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Yeah, but it checked out on replay, so it's all good.

__________________
In Fallout 3, 'happiness' is a warm junkyard dog and a loaded gun. It's mostly the loaded gun.
- Moose's one-line review.

"your going to regret that one. You are now a colonoscope...
- Chrissy, corrupting PraedSt's wish.

Not enough evidence to overturn the call?

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Is there really a law that specifies the size of the TV screen?

I could see protecting themselves from the recording and selling, or maybe even from people charging admission - but a free real-time viewing of broadcast signals does not seem to be within their jurisdiction.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Can anyone find out what they are interpreting in the law?

a) I always thought that the fair use was meant to limit the amount or type of profit being gained from the use. Churches (being non-profit) do not fit this.
b) According to this: there are 4 factors
1) purpose: although not educational... a church is not commercial; yet they will let sports bars profit.
2) nature: a tv broadcast is meant to expose the public to advertising... this is happening. I believe it is their problem that they limit themselves to Nielson ratings for thier economics.
3) Not sure how this one applies..
4) Effect on the market... The same people are still watching the commercials.

c) According to this
Thus, it would be a violation of the public performance right in a motion picture to rent a video and to show it in a public park or theater without obtaining a license from the copyright holder. In contrast, the performance of the video on a home TV where friends and family are gathered would not be considered a "public" performance and would not be prohibited under the Copyright Act.
Churches fall somewhere in the middle here, but my own opinion is that a church is more of "friends" than public.

d) 55 inch? where the heck does that come from?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Only one church, and that's with a capital F

Beats the stuffing out of me, NEO, but damned if that doesn't make criminals out of their biggest fans, though, doesn't it?