it is patently false that permitting "home recording" created the market for playback of pre-recorded videocassettes. It's damn close to orthogonal, since VCRs didn't take off until after pre-recorded (porn?) cassettes became widely adopted. I was there. I owned a 3/4 umatic JVC deck and a Sony SL-7200 (the first home VCR that didn't come in furniture) in 1978. The "big argument" when VHS decks came out was that VHS decks had longer recording capability than betamax decks, but within a few years (by the early/mid 1980's) all home VCRs had blinking time clocks (useless for recording, unless you were stationed in front of the deck) and spent all their time playing back pre-recorded sets. I had a very nice home library of every episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show on Sony L-500 videocassettes in 1979. But, all my buddies came over to dub their porn movies on my Kodak VP-x (8mm/super8 sof with flying spot scanner) to U-matic and Betamax. Aside from perhaps Mark Schubin and maybe Cliff Benham, I suspect that few people had as much video electronics in their home as I had in my bathroom. (That way, I could have visitors in my small apartment without flashing my gear to door-to-door solicitors.) I actually spent most of my time listening to Pacifica's KPFK in Los Angeles on my Tandberg tuner and recording some shows there on my Tandberg reel to reel deck. Come to think of it, I still have the later device, and a stack of tapes are in the workbench in front of me. I was truly an early adopter of videocassette decks. I followed the Betamax case from the day it was filed, and my media-connected and media-using friends did as well. John Willkie -----Original Message----- >From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Jun 26, 2008 11:33 PM >To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies > >Don't be silly. Which part are you disagreeing with? > >1) The case was a boon to the home video market? > >The onslaught of VCR's created that market. > >2) It created a legal safe haven for the technology? Yes, obviously. >Thats what the Betamax case was about. > >3) also significantly benefited the entertainment industry through the >sale of pre-recorded movies? In hindsight most would agree that is also >true, first in VHS and then in DVD, maybe also BD. > >Which one is "patently false"? I allowed up front you could probably >attack Wikipedia's credibility (everybody does) but I have to admit you >are are not doing a very good job of it so far. > >- Tom > >John Willkie wrote: >> 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. >> >> > >-- >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.