New US law: piracy and censorship (no spam)

[fable]

Just found this up on the BBC's website. What's particularly interesting to me is the latter part of the article, which receives such offhand treatment:

People who "pirate" music and movies on the internet in the US face up to three years in jail under a new law signed by President Bush on Wednesday. The bill targets file-sharers who put copies of new songs and films online before their commercial release. It also introduces tough new penalties for anyone caught in a cinema filming a movie with a video camera.

The movie and music industries both complain that hi-tech piracy stops fans paying for their products. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) said 90% of pirated films were "stolen" by people in cinemas with camcorders taping films to put online or on DVDs. They will also now face up to three years in jail. MPAA president Dan Glickman said: "There is evidence that criminal gangs use this kind of theft to support and expand their criminal enterprises."

The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act also makes it easier for parents to prevent children seeing and hearing sex, violence and bad language on DVDs. It protects companies such as ClearPlay, who provide "filters" to mute or skip offensive parts of films. Film-makers had complained that such alterations violated their copyright - but the bill has made the companies exempt from copyright law.

Your thoughts?

[Luis Antonio]

I guess its important stuff. In suma.

Because its one of those not controled, money washing kind of business that harms far more in the background than in the frontline. Regarding movies, I think that the horrible taste of having a video camera to film inside a movie, and the act of seeing it is just strange. You got a blockbuster or similar near your house, move your bum butt out of the couch when its released. And keep it on the couch till it is released.

Intelectual property is really vulnerable, and any measure to prevent it is ok with me.

[Cuchulain82]

I heard about this law briefly on NPR, but they gave it a slightly different treatment. The way it was portrayed there didn't make it sound like it was aimed at internet users, but rather at bootleg movie makers (as your post mentions).

There was also another provision that didn't get passed, right Fable? Do you know anything about it?

[stormcloud]

For the most part it doesnt affect me.. im not a bigtime bootlegger. I do feel that if i buy a cd i should be able to rip a mp3 for my friends tho. i mean i just shelled out 14.99 for this cd! and personally i feel its only worth about 7.99 tops... grumble!!!

[fable]

And what about the last part of that short article, Stormcloud? Can you see no manner in which that might possibly affect you?

[stormcloud]

well that part kind of sucks. when i go to see a film, i want to see it in all its violence and artistic glory. i dont want these idjuts censoring stuff.

now just personally, im not a sex/blood/violence hound but i do my research and i feel if the particular director (who i like) does something for a certain effect, i want to get the full experience, not disney land.

so, hmm, i guess the censorship aspect sucks. i do think if parents want to block their children from it, thats their right. i dont know if they need to have a blanket clause for everyone though.

[Denethorn]

Entertainment should be free to trade in my view. Profit by piracy, however, is something I disagree with.

I think these laws aim to target those that profit by stealing/copying material, which I am in support of.

That Clearplay part sounds like nonsense. I am in the UK, which is actually very lenient on offensive content in films. Nevertheless, I feel it is a parental duty to screen sex and violence, and other peoples' work should not be censored and tampered with so easily.

Generally I feel the MPAA and RIAA overhype the effects of piracy to no end (in terms of non-profit internet sharing). It is something that could be labled a victimless crime; the top executives of film distributors loosing a little on their 6-figure bonuses rather than it actually "jeopardising future film production". The actual original directors/creators don't seem to loose out (I remember Quentin Tarantino and Michael Moore almost endorsing piracy of their movies).

Movies and entertainment medium will always be purchased: nothing beats original quality. Any movie I like, I buy. I attribute the cost of DVDs and music (which are considerably higher in the UK) for the reason of piracy... which consequently can be blamed for the prices of DVDs and music. Quirky that ain't it

[giles337]

Quote:

Generally I feel the MPAA and RIAA overhype the effects of piracy to no end (in terms of non-profit internet sharing). It is something that could be labled a victimless crime; the top executives of film distributors loosing a little on their 6-figure bonuses rather than it actually "jeopardising future film production". The actual original directors/creators don't seem to loose out (I remember Quentin Tarantino and Michael Moore almost endorsing piracy of their movies).

You should read the disclaimer on the back of Choking Victim's "No Gods/No Managers" album

Quote:

Unauthorised duplication is celebrated, and even worshipped in some third world countries, and it is the expressed opinion of Choking V that it is in fact 'Punk' to bootleg records and the fact that it is looked down upon as 'Illegal' makes it all the more exciting, so by all means, do whatcha want and make a copy for a more disadvantaged music lover

[Magrus]

I can see that if I stop buying movies and cd's and everyone in my town does too, music stores and video stores will lose business and will have to shut down, creating unemployment. I understand, those movie and music stars want their 30 million a year, and if people don't buy their stuff, they might only get 10 million.

However, when I used to go out and buy cd's because I heard something on the radio I liked, brought it home to listen to it and found that was the ONLY song I liked I would get really, really irritated. I don't buy a cd unless I've listened to the whole thing for a few days. If I TRULY feel it is worth what they are charging for it, I'll buy it. Otherwise, well I can get most things free somewhere to try them.

Everything costs too much, and still average people don't have enough money. That's a problem. If things cost less, and the average joe person could have a bigger budget for luxuries, then there would be an increase in sales. However, that's not the case. Most people I know are struggling just to pay bills and rarely buy such things because, hey, 1 cd or dvd for $20 is just $5 under my budget for groceries for a week. If I buy a new cd, I don't eat for 5 days out of that week. Why should I go get one in that case?

Edit: @ Giles, there's an underground metal/hardcore circuit locally near me. The bands reject contracts and record labels and play local shows until they save up enough money to do it on their own. They record in a studio, pay for the time there, pay for cd's to be made and sell them for like $5-$10 a piece at their shows to pay back the costs. A few bands toss cd's out to the crowd if they sell a certain amount of them during a show with the message "hand those out to your friends who couldn't come tonight".

They won't sell out to a company, and they want to play, just to play. They work a job, and play their music at night. A few have made it out and on their own without the help of anyone and become somewhat famous bands.

They encourage people to copy their cd's. If one person buys one of their cd's, and copies it 100 times to hand out to other people, that person just saved them the cost of producing those 100 cd's for advertising that album they made. Granted you have those bands that play for fame and fortune, but these guys I truly respect. They do it for the music.

The laws, I think will have the same reaction as to those of people who smoke pot. People will seek better ways to hide what they do, because it makes more sense to them to do that and keep doing what they want rather than follow the laws. I don't see it doing anything but costing law enforcement and prison's more money to catch and hold those who break those laws. People just aren't afraid of police and laws, at least where I am.

[Cuchulain82]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stormcloud well that part kind of sucks. when i go to see a film, i want to see it in all its violence and artistic glory. i dont want these idjuts censoring stuff.

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denethorn That Clearplay part sounds like nonsense. I am in the UK, which is actually very lenient on offensive content in films. Nevertheless, I feel it is a parental duty to screen sex and violence, and other peoples' work should not be censored and tampered with so easily.

The Clearplay censoring only has to do with at home DVD's, and is totally optional. It is a device that uses a special DVD player with special programming for a given movie. The special player skips over content that is excessively violent, sexual, etc. You have to choose to use the thing, and there is no alteration of the physical content on the DVD.

[Denethorn]

Even so... should the movie be so easily edited by a third party? And more importantly, should children be watching these films, even minus the violence, sex, bad language etc.

I present two examples:
With a movie like Scarface, you can redubb all the foul language (all 300 uses of it ) the rampant drug abuse, and extreme violence. But at it's soul it is still a movie wholey unsuitable for a young audience; the backdrop of corruption, greed and deceit are still there.

A movie like the Shawshank Redemption... a beautiful film, which contains some shocking images of prison standards at the time. These can be removed using this "Clearplay" and leaving behind a film that I think would be suitable for a young audiene. However, I think the violence and dark onlook onto the savage prison life is an essential part of the film, and something which the director wanted us to see and experiance. So should it be simply removed based on the judgements of a few individuals on the board of "inappropriate content" at Clearplay.

It is something to be careful about, it could lead to over-censorship on a multitude of other entertainment forms. And possibly beyond entertainment...?

(Btw, what does Clearplay do with Michael Moore's films? Are they censored for extreme/radical politics? Dangerous opinions? Shocking imagery? All something to consider)

[Brynn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act also makes it easier for parents to prevent children seeing and hearing sex, violence and bad language on DVDs. It protects companies such as ClearPlay, who provide "filters" to mute or skip offensive parts of films. Film-makers had complained that such alterations violated their copyright - but the bill has made the companies exempt from copyright law. [/color] Your thoughts?

I don't understand why the film-makers complain, as I take it it's an option to blank the offensive parts, right? I can watch it if I want, but if a child's around I can turn this filter on. Excellent solution! (I would love a TV like that, where I could use a filter for ads...)

[Rob-hin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable MPAA president Dan Glickman said: "There is evidence that criminal gangs use this kind of theft to support and expand their criminal enterprises."

And that concludes our "How to manipulate the public that what you do is right?" cource.

Anyhow, the last part of the texst.
Naturally it can't affect me as I'm not from the USA.

First of all, I'm glad it's not done by the government as I grow tired of their intervention into people's lives. Second, if people want to potect their kids; let them. I don't think it's necissary but other might. I think that the law will be wisely put together to exclude piracy.

[Magrus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob-hin And that concludes our "How to manipulate the public that what you do is right?" cource.

I agree there, if they shut down everything "evil groups" had ties to which funded their activities they'd shut down quite a bit of the country. Gang's selling dvd's and cd's which have been bootlegged are not on my top 10 list of things which is wrong with this country.

As far as the editing thing. That was included in there just as a bonus for conservatives which the government now bends over backwards to please. The rating system is sufficient as a guideline as to how to decide who should be viewing what IMO.

Another thing, sending someone who's selling dvd's on the street to jail for 3 years, isn't there more important police work to be done out there? Murder, rape, assualt, stuff like that the police should be worried about before attacking bootlegger's? I heard through my friends' mother who owns a liqour store they are cracking down on people who sell liqour without a license now too. A friend of mine just last fall pressed charges on a rape case, and it was botched through inept dectective work on the part of NY state police. The detective refused to share the information we gave him with country police and shut down the investigation. Yet, he's more interested in people selling booze out of a car than a group of four young men, who we pointed out that went after a young girl.

If they want to crack down on such nonsense, put them to work rather than put them in jail. Community service for three years. That would make more sense to me.

[Cuchulain82]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denethorn Even so... should the movie be so easily edited by a third party? And more importantly, should children be watching these films, even minus the violence, sex, bad language etc.

I understand what you are saying, but I think it is kind of a moot point. You yourself ask if the movie should be edited- what Clearplay does is allow people to make that decision. Whether or not it is right to change someone's artistic vision is not more important than whether or not it is right to expose children to sex, violence, or other potentially harmful influences. The point is that Clearplay allows everyone a 3rd party answer to the question of what should happen.

I don't know what happens with Michael Moore movies. It is a business, not a right-wing conspiracy.

FYI- there is also apparently a lawsuit against Clearplay right now by another company that says Clearplay has stolen their idea. This company says they created technology that allow people to edit out all the violent/sex/adult scenes, but also allows people to only view those scenes, with the vanilla aspects (like "plot" and "development of characters") edited out as well.