[opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
- From: "Adam Goldberg" <adam_g@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:38:10 -0400
Sorry, I have no idea where FCC 00-341 makes any discussion of CGMS. Can
you point to specifics? Furthermore, the only Order in the document is one
that says that Copy Protection is not part of the stuff that needs to be
Separable Security. This is completely unrelated, as I see it, to what
we're talking about.
I think it's fair enough to say that CE companies take the risk of content
industry lawsuits into account when making determinations about product
features. But that's a LONG way from being blasé or not taking account of
the Sony decision. It's fair to say that without the Sony decision, there
would be exactly zero MP-3 players in existence, for example.
Now then, I really don't understand "implementing a Supreme Court decision"
or "ignore Supreme Court decisions". Please. That doesn't make any sense.
It's not up to CE companies to "implement" a ruling which states that
products are legal for sale. CE companies are not falling down on the job
by failing to continue to push the envelope of what Sony allows.
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Manfredi, Albert E
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:31 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
Adam Goldberg wrote:
> To the contrary. Sony v. Universal ("Betamax") held precisely
> that time shifting is non-infringing. It did not (directly)
> address whether librarying is non-infringing or not, it didn't
> reach that point, as it only had to find that there was (a)
> substantial non-infringing use, and (b) devices with
> substantial non-infringing uses are perfectly legal.
But that only applied to FOTA material, yes? And the FCC deliberately
weasled out on making that same right apply to MVPDs, by saying that they
had no indication that MVPDs would PREVENT copying of that same material.
Only heaven knows whether the FCC would have made an MVPD-specific ruling
under different circumstances. A typical lawyer-like assumption is to give
all the latitude possible to the offending party.
Still, past experience has shown that CE manufacturers are blasé about any
of this. They are more interested in not offending the Hollywood studios
than they are in implementing Supreme Court decisions. Thing is, there are
quite simple ways of implementing the Betamax decision correctly.
Assume a strict interpretation of FCC 00-341, favoring the MVPDs.
1. If you set the recorder to the cable channels, CGMS applies strictly.
2. If you set the recorder to OTA freqs, CGMS codes can be interpreted at
most to mean "copy once." Even if set to "copy never."
And #2 can be further constrained, if the CE vendor feels vulnerable to
Hollywood lawsuits. For example,
a. If the recoder incorporates a hard drive, anything "copy never" (when OTA
freqs are selected) can only be sent to the HDD.
b. If the recorder does not incorporate a hard drive, anything "copy never"
will become encrypted with a key that only THAT device can decode (when OTA
freqs are selected). So for example, a DVD recorded from that machine can
only be played back from that same machine.
This way, you are preventing anything transmitted OTA, even with "copy
never," from being (easily) distributable, while at the same time, honoring
the Betamax decision.
I don't think ay of this is hard to figure out. I can't think of any valid
excuse why this wasn't done. THEREFORE, I don't trust that this new, or
renewed, MPAA request would be handled properly either.
THEREFORE, as far as I'm concerned, the studios may continue to delay the
broadcast of movies via MVPDs as they have done in the past, as an
anti-pirating measure. Rather than give more latitude to studios, CE
vendors, and broadcasters, to ignore Supreme Court decisions.
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:
