[opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
- From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:50:02 -0400 (EDT)
it that helps you feel better, okay. You're not providing me any new
information, and in the grand scheme of things, you are drawing a distinction
without a difference.
However, YOUR RIGHTS and MINE are non-existent in this context, at least as
regards copyrights held by others.
"Fair use" isn't a right; it's a legal defense to a claim of copyright
infringement. Copyrights are a right that comes DIRECTLY from the constitution.
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jun 28, 2008 10:10 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
>
>The Constitution granted Congress the ability to pass laws that in turn
> granted IP holders limited time monopolies. The Constitution did not
>in itself grant any of those monopolies to IP rights holders. That was
>left to Congress to do and the courts to interpret.
>
>Let's not get carried away here.
>
>- Tom
>
>John Willkie wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Enter the Zune-A-Day Giveaway for your chance to win — day after day after
>>> day
>>> http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/ZuneADay/?locale=en-US&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Mobile_Zune_V1
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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.
Other related posts:
