it's a miracle, Bert that you don't crash into bridge abutments to prove a
point.
I'll me minimalist, since this won't help you in any way.
Section 8 of the U.S. constituion provides for the powers of Congress, including
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times
to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries;"
Nothing in the damn Betamax decision trumps that. (Indeed, it was the very
copyright that extends from this clause that Universal was attempting to extend
to the home.)
So, authors (content owners) have the EXCLUSIVE right to their respective
writings and discoveries.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS! THEY HAVE THEM ALL! You have the liberty to watch tv, and they can
grant you limited rights of viewing or whatever. THEY CAN ENFORCE THEIR COPYRIGHTS IN
ANY WAY THAT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR FEDERAL LAW, INCLUDING REQUIRING
YOU TO DANCE NUDE IN YOUR HOME WHILE SINGING "THE INTERNATIONALE" IN RUSSIAN
OVER THE PHONE BEFORE THEY PERMIT YOU TO WATCH EACH 30-SECOND SEGMENTS OF THEIR CONTENT.
I suspect such a requirement would tend to decrease the market value of their content,
but they can impose such a requirement, and you are s-o-l, since no court of competent
jurisdiction can grant you a work-around.
They can, even limit your ability to view or record, or even playback content via any electronic means. EXCLUSIVE MEANS EXCLUSIVE.
If they sue you for recording content that was delivered over the air, you have an
"affirmative defense" by using the Betamax decision, as long as you meet all
the tests. However, that only grants limited benefits to you. You want to extend that
to whole new fields, without a SHRED of a HINT of a court- or constituionally-granted
right.
And, it's unfair to say that the Betamax decision granted a right to make home
recordings. It actually ONLY found (in this context) that private,
non-commerical time shifting recording (not multiple playbacks; another aspect
of your foolishness) was a substantially non-infringing use.
Once the copyright runs out -- which Craig points out, the terms of which have been extended several times, including (in my opinion) doing so at least one time in violation of the U.S. Constitution, you have the liberty, but not the right, to make use of their content. It's what we call "public domain" content.
Now, I suspect you are foolish enough to try to say that a law or a court
decision trumps the U.S. Constitution, which can be found in hyperlink here
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html. But, informed readers know otherwise.
It will be "childishly amusing" to see what thin reed you hang your next
misbegotten argument upon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Jun 28, 2008 4:04 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
The only restriction on FTA broadcasts is that they be
delivered in the free and clear. The Betamax decision did
not say that copy protection is not allowed, only that using
the VCRfor time shifting was a non infringing use.
Yes, I totally agree. But Adam introduced another document, 17 USC 1201, which
actually went further and did say that copy protection was not allowed in FOTA
transmissions.
Can you show me anything that says that broadcasters
CANNOT invoke a regimen that restricts copying of a program?
The Betamax decision of 1984 made it plain that, at the at the very least for
programming transmitted FOTA, consumers have the right to record for their own,
personal, use. Even multiple viewings. If you read the actual decision, I could
not find any words in the arguments they used that suggested any difference
should even apply to MVPDs, although a brief mention of FOTA was made at the
start.
That 1984 decision applies to the "source side," meaning content owners and/or
the broadcast station, seems clear to me.
If it's not clear to others, then thankfully Adam brought up 1201, of 1999,
which stated it much more explicitly.
But you are absolutely right. *If* OTA broadcasters introduce conditional
access transmissions, *then* they would most certainly be allowed to prevent
copying of their transmissions by consumers. And with DTT, OTA broadcasters are
allowed to introduce CA on any of their subchannels, as long as they include
one SD (minimum) FOTA channel.
The real issue is whether they can force the manufacturers
of downstream devices to honor any attempts to restrict
copying. They tried with the Broadcast Flag, but lost because
the courts ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to
regulate how devices that are used to view broadcasts deal
with this issue..
That's one issue. My continued position is the opposite side of that, i.e. recording
devices that allow the source side to do illegal things. Also, the ATSC redistribution
control mechanism is, in principle, a lot more fine-grained than just binary
"redistribution control" flag. I very much doubt that in its simplest binary
incarnation, or even in a more complete version, the FCC or the courts would have allowed
this flag to overturn the 1984 Betamax decision.
Well, in fact, the courts made this absolutely plain, didn't they. They threw
out the whole stinking mess. So now there's no debating any of it.
But you made another point in a previous posting. The 1984 decision clearly
allows for recording devices to have a fast forward control. It does not say
anything about out and out ad skipping.
And in this regard, my long-standing position has been that as far as I'm
concerned, if the FCC forbids ad skipping per se, I'd have no beef with that
decision.
Bert
