how-to block ads
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
| reply to G_Poobah
Re: Yet the sites are gone
WRONG!
It is now legal to sell devices that can skip over objectionable material but it is still illegal to redistribute the content in modified or unmodified form.
I would like to see a TiVO hack that automatically classifies commercials as objectionable material and skips over them when you play back a show. | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Double WRONG AGAIN Mr. MPAA troll.
It's NOT ILLEGAL to sell the modified content! That was SPECIFICALLY addressed in the LAW if you read it, but trolls don't read the law, they just spew what their MPAA masters tell them to.
»www.cleanfilms.com/
»www.familyflix.com/
But the 'family movie' provision, championed by US Representative Lamar Smith (Republican, Texas), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee, indemnifies any company that makes prudish versions of movies available without authorization.
The ARE 100% legal until a court decides otherwise.
--
Grand Poobah | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to jjoshua
Umm as far as your Tivo comment goes.
Well, they DO have a DVR that classifies commercials as 'objectionable'. It's called the Replay 4000. I own 3 of them, and they BLOW TIVO AWAY. No commercials, ever.. It rocks.
Too bad the MPAA trolls sued the crap out of Replay TV to make them illegal now.
--
Grand Poobah | |
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to G_Poobah
Troll? Hardly. Take a deep breath and relax.
Clearly, you're allowed to edit content that you have purchased. Now you're legally allowed to buy the content and have someone perform the editing for you.
The point is that you still have to buy the content before you can edit it.
What you can't do is buy a single copy of a film, edit it, and then resell it many times as though it were your content. | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| You are correct.
But, a TV show on an over-air broadcast that you record. The million dollar question is thus "Did you 'purchase' that show when you recorded it?". Remember, they are going after TV distribution sites here, not movie sites.
The goverment 'grants the broadcasters the permission' to broadcast their vast wasteland over the public airwaves, but the other side of that implied contract is that (1) it can't be encrypted, and (2) the end users have a RIGHT to recieve it, and the thing that pisses the MPAA off, (3) the end users have a RIGHT to record/backup the show for personal use. I would argue that the act of legally recording the show on a legally owned recording device does in fact construe a 'purchase contract', and you can LEGALLY remove the crap from a show you don't like. (in fact, that's exactly what the Family Movie Act is trying to get across).
Problem is, the Family Movie act threw all of those rights into limbo, and not really by choice, by allowing 'editing of content for personal viewing'. Technically, the law was written to benefit ONE COMPANY that made the device, but the wording of the law allows other people to provide the service to a 'responsible party of a household'. So, you capture the show, legally. Then you choose to have a device remove the offensive content, or have someone do it for you. That's specifically allowed in the law.
Granted, you can't get a DVD from an over-air broadcast, you would need to purchase it, but NON-CABLE shows (NBC/etc) are broadcast over air, and in the process of recording the show, I legally 'own' the show, and can legally 'modify' the show to meet my moral standards (or have someone else do it). That's not what the MPAA wanted in the law, but hey, sucks to be the MPAA. Remember, they wanted the 'no-copy' bit for the sole purpose of preventing step 1 of this process (i.e. recording the show). If they had their way, you would pay them every time you even thought of a jingle or ad. Remember 1984, it's closer than we think.
--
Grand Poobah | |
|
