Nanny State Redux

[Pei]

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html

So basically you will be legally required to watch commercials?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Pei
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html

So basically you will be legally required to watch commercials?

how so?

[Nash]

Regarding "nanny states" and seeing as you're from Australia... maybe you can shed some light on this:

"Hard hats may not be the cowboy way in Alberta, but Down Under, helmets are the new fashion statement. The protective gear has become compulsory for Australians working with horses in the state of New South Wales in the wake of the 2001 death of 23-year-old Daniel Croker.

Croker suffered massive head injuries after being trampled in a fall from a horse while rounding up bulls.

As a result, the New South Wales state government brought charges against the ranch owner, which resulted in a conviction for breaches of safety.

"I can't believe those Australian cowboys wouldn't tell (the lawmakers) to get stuffed," said Jim Nevada, a 40-year-old Alberta cowboy and retired professional chuckwagon driver.

"You can only protect people from themselves so much," added Sterling Clayton, a long-time farmer west of Airdrie.

"Why can't people be responsible for their own actions?"

[Pei]

Originally posted by Nash
Regarding "nanny states" and seeing as you're from Australia... maybe you can shed some light on this:

"Hard hats may not be the cowboy way in Alberta, but Down Under, helmets are the new fashion statement. The protective gear has become compulsory for Australians working with horses in the state of New South Wales in the wake of the 2001 death of 23-year-old Daniel Croker.

Croker suffered massive head injuries after being trampled in a fall from a horse while rounding up bulls.

As a result, the New South Wales state government brought charges against the ranch owner, which resulted in a conviction for breaches of safety.

"I can't believe those Australian cowboys wouldn't tell (the lawmakers) to get stuffed," said Jim Nevada, a 40-year-old Alberta cowboy and retired professional chuckwagon driver.

"You can only protect people from themselves so much," added Sterling Clayton, a long-time farmer west of Airdrie.

"Why can't people be responsible for their own actions?"

I'm not from Australia, I merely live here.

[DieAz]

Originally posted by Pei
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html

So basically you will be legally required to watch commercials?

LOL would love to see someone try to stop me from going to the bathroom.

guess what gonna happen to them

[Pei]

Originally posted by NUKE
how so?

Basically one of the bills states that while it is legal to use technology to skip offensive, violent or sexual content in a broadcast it will not be legal to use technology to skip commercials or promotional messages in a broadcast. So the state is trying to interfere to prevent a perfectly legal use of technology in order to shore up the bottom line of the broadcasting companies.

Shouldn't companies be adapting to new technologies rather than relying on the government to restrict them?

[Nash]

Whatever... This can't be for real can it? Was in today's paper. Did you hear about it?

[NUKE]

so where does it say that people are legally required  to view comercials?

[Pei]

Originally posted by NUKE
so where does it say that people are legally required  to view comercials?

"The bill would also permit people to use technology to skip objectionable content -- like a gory or sexually explicit scene -- in films, a right that consumers already have. However, under the proposed language, viewers would not be allowed to use software or devices to skip commericals or promotional announcements "that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture," like the previews on a DVD."

[NUKE]

In other words, your whole premis that people are being legally required to view commercials is easily dismissed as false, so you simply ignore it.

[Pei]

Originally posted by NUKE
In other words, your whole premis that people are being legally required to view commercials is easily dismissed as false, so you simply ignore it.

"viewers would not be allowed to use software or devices to skip commericals or promotional announcements "

Seems pretty clear to me: you won't be legally allowed to use your TiVo (or similar) to skip commercials. Of course you can turn off the TV or walk out of the room which is what makes this proposed law so ridiculous: why should the state be regulating what I do and do not watch in the privacy of my own home.

[NUKE]

Pei, I have been hearing about similar measure for years and years and nothing has ever come of them.

One good reason to not allow automatic or systematic blocking of commercials would be to protect the advertisers who help bring you the programming in the first place.

You think add companies are going to buy time if they know everyone is just blocking them? No commercials, no free TV.

Commercials are the price we pay for having the most diverse and talented entertainment industry on the planet.

[Pei]

Originally posted by NUKE

One good reason to not allow automatic or systematic blocking of commercials would be to protect the advertisers who help bring you the programming in the first place.

You think add companies are going to buy time if they know everyone is just blocking them? No commercials, no free TV.


Commercials are the price we pay for having the most diverse and talented enterainment industry on the planet.

So if new technology destroys a business model it is the State's job to restrict the technology rather than the company's job to find a new business model (or if it can't then collapse)?

So the Henry Ford should have been kept out of business to protect Horse-breeders and trainers?

If new technology or business models threaten my job is it the State's job to restrict them so I can keep on getting paid rather than having to find a new job?

It all sounds so... socialist to me.

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by Pei

If new technology or business models threaten my job is it the State's job to restrict them so I can keep on getting paid rather than having to find a new job?

Depends, how good are your lobbyists?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Pei
So if new technology destroys a business model it is the State's job to restrict the technology rather than the company's job to find a new business model (or if it can't then collapse)?

So the Henry Ford should have been kept out of business to protect Horse-breeders and trainers?

If new technology or business models threaten my job is it the State's job to restrict them so I can keep on getting paid rather than having to find a new job?

It all sounds so... socialist to me.

nobody is being kept out of business and no one is being forced to view the commercials. ( which is what you claimed)