[opendtv] Re: Is 'Fair Use' in Peril?
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:33:09 -0500
Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> If OTA and ad-assisted programming is truly on the way
> out, I'm sure it will die a natural death. This doesn't
> mean that govt should look the other way when folks out
> there unfairly help the industry in its demise. The
> govt should not be in bed with umbillical service
> providers.
I guess the operative word here is 'unfairly'. I do not feel the Govt
is necessarily in bed with anyone just for failing to pass special
interest legislation. And I do not see using technology to fast foward
or skip over commercials and less fair than using a spam filter on my
email. Specifically, I do not feel there is any implied contract by
consumers to watch the ads. I have been skipping over them for years.
The fact that a fast (60x) forward command like the Tivo is sufficient
for me is not really a reason I'd feel comfortable with legislation
saying I cannot legally do anything else. This is especially true when
those sorts of efforts seem to come with certification and robustness
requirements these days that can be used (like the BF or macrovision) in
restraint of trade.
- Tom
> Tom Barry wrote:
>
> I had written:
>
>>>If Congress allowed CE manufacturers to completely
>>>hide ads, then Congress would be unfairly doing the
>>>bidding of the umbillical services companies. Because,
>>>of course, advertizers would put less and less money
>>>into TV shows as recording devices become more common.
>>>Which, for FTA TV especially, would be the kiss of
>>>death.
>>
>>Sorry, but that does not compute. Most anything is
>>allowed just by the default action of Congress not
>>having done anything about it yet. And rightly so.
>
>
> I agree with the general principle of anything goes
> unless forbidden.
>
> I assume, then, that the CE industry should also be
> allowed to market boxes that I can buy openly, allowing
> me to receive cable and DBS, including premium programs,
> without having to pay the cable and DBS companies?
>
>
>>Now obviously, if Congress were to allow the
>>manufacture of automobiles the buggy whip
>>manufacturers might suffer a bit.
>
>
> Let's use this example, although analogies don't often
> work well.
>
> We will agree that the buggy whip lost its role in the
> marketplace when cars replaced horses and carts. But
> does that mean that looting of buggy whip stores should
> have been allowed? After all, Craig would say, buggy
> whips were on the way out regardless.
>
> If OTA and ad-assisted programming is truly on the way
> out, I'm sure it will die a natural death. This doesn't
> mean that govt should look the other way when folks out
> there unfairly help the industry in its demise. The
> govt should not be in bed with umbillical service
> providers.
>
> Bert
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
> FreeLists.org
>
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
