[opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
- From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:09:41 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
Wikipedia is only as good as the last person who edited the entry. Here's a
simple example:
"The case was a boon to the home video market as it created a legal safe haven
for the technology, which also significantly benefited the entertainment
industry through the sale of pre-recorded movies."
patently false. VCPs (no recording possible) would have still been permitted
even if the betamax decision had gone against us.) Betamax addressed
recording, not playback. Without the (seldom used) recording function,
arguably the pre-recorded market might have been larger (no recording possible)
or less (fewer electronic units sold). It did not create a legal safe haven
for playback of pre-recorded movies.
The Cornell Law School's web site has a good repository of IPR articles, and
findlaw is a good place for analysis as well.
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 6:40 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
>
>You could get much more technical or question the credibility of
>Wikipedia, but I'll go along with their summary, that says time shifting
>specifically IS fair use.
>
>- Tom
>--------------------
>from:
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.>
>
>Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417
>(1984)[1], also known as the "Betamax case", was a decision by the
>Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of
>individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of
>time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair
>use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording
>devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs (referred to as VTRs in the
>case), cannot be liable for infringement. The case was a boon to the
>home video market as it created a legal safe haven for the technology,
>which also significantly benefited the entertainment industry through
>the sale of pre-recorded movies.
>...
>
>
>John Willkie wrote:
>> I've already addressed where fair use helps, so I won't repeat that.
>>
>> As for your question, the issue "is in play" and I don't think any court
>> of competent jurisdiction has ruled on whether time-shifting is licit or
>> illicit. I'd also offer that no consumer should bring such a case,
>> because they would lose what they already have.
>>
>> Yes, a content owner/distributor can signal that you cannot record
>> content, and many devices will not do this when CGMS-A signals such.
>>
>> Think of "fair use" as the IPR equivalent of an "entrapment" defense.
>> It might work at trial, but it won't keep you out of court.
>>
>> John Willkie
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Jun 26, 2008 8:44 AM
>> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some
>> movies
>>
>> I guess I'm getting my history and laws mixed up. I was under the
>> impression that there is an element of "fair use" when it comes to
>> media, no matter which delivery platform (OTA, MVPD, physical) the
>> media is received. I realize there is no specific law that provides
>> this "fair use" but there are plenty of court cases that have upheld
>> this philosophy. Perhaps it is very complicated since there is no
>> particular law out there that defines fair use. Certainly, there are
>> laws as to what it means to hold copyright and if that is being
>> infringed upon. Many court cases have attempted to provide the line
>> between copyright and fair use.
>>
>> So, one question is, does the ability to time-shift a movie (i.e.
>> record on a DVR) that is received through an MVPD violate copyright?
>> I would argue not, but certainly the MVPD wants to control the
>> ability for the populous to record, thus protect, it's material.
>>
>> The other question is, can the owner of media prevent you from
>> recording t he media; in other words, does this violate fair use?\
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> Inactive hide details for "Adam Goldberg" <adam_g@xxxxxxxxx>"Adam
>> Goldberg" <adam_g@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>> *"Adam Goldberg" <adam_g@xxxxxxxxx>*
>> Sent by: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> 06/26/2008 06:43 AM
>> Please respond to
>> opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>> To
>>
>> <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> cc
>>
>>
>> Subject
>>
>> [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Whether there’s a right or not gets down to lots of things, but
>> among them is Fair Use, which is an element of the first amendment.
>> Someone with more philosophy than me can determine whether that’s a
>> civil right or whatever.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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.
>
>--
>Tom Barry trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>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:
