[opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
- From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:54:50 -0400 (EDT)
disputing -- nay, ignoring -- all evidence to the contrary, and offering
nothing except his own commentary in support of his "position," the fool
persists. An all too-familiar pattern.
Now, it's the law professors whom he has arguments with, and the courts. I
wonder if he feels that his Quixotic mission would be better served by "trial
by ordeal" or just "summary execution."
I suspect not; I am of the impression that he is not physically brave in
meatspace, and merely bold and foolish in cyberspace.
Now, I will return to reading Scalia's discourse on the Second Amendment in
District of Columbia et al v. Heller.
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jun 29, 2008 6:43 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
>
>Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
>> The original intent of those who wrote the Constitution would
>> tend to favor fair use over the rights of the creator of the
>> intellectual property. The framers were concerned about the
>> ability of content owners to use the power of government to
>> protect their rights to the detriment of society.They believed,
>> as I do today, that the rapid proliferation of new ideas and
>> the ability for "the people" to use these ideas and build upon
>> them trumps the rights of the creators to protect and benefit
>> from them into perpetuity. Thus the Constitution was framed in
>> a manner to limit the rights of the creators of intellectual
>> property fo that give them exclusive r the benefit of the
>> entire country.
>>
>> There is a simple bargain in this. The power of the government
>> can be used to protect the LIMITED rights of the creators of
>> intellectual property via the granting of copyrights and
>> patents that give them exclusive control of the intellectual
>> property for a LIMITED time, after which the ideas are to be
>> pushed into the public domain. Patents were intended to speed
>> up the proliferation of new ideas by using the force of
>> government to enforce licenses for those patents.
>
>The law profession, and by extension their wannabe surrogates, get a bad
>reputation precisely because they are more interested in listening to
>their own turns of phrase than in cutting to the chase. It is, after
>all, what keeps so many of them employed, isn't it.
>
>What you say above may well be accurate, but it's not necessary in this
>case. I refrained from indulging in any personal opinions or long-winded
>logical exercises because, in this thread, they are not necessary.
>
>The Betamax decision says that recording TV programs transmitted over
>the public airwaves is fair use, and specifically they also mentioned
>libraries of recorded programs, without making any exception for these.
>
>A few years later, thank you Adam, 17 USC 1201(k)(2) states very
>plainly:
>
>"No person shall apply the automatic gain control copy control
>technology or colorstripe copy control technology to prevent or limit
>consumer copying except such copying [transmissions which are only
>available for a fee, transmissions over pay networks, or content from
>prerecorded media]."
>
>Therefore, there is no need to even discuss what the framers intended.
>The intent of the courts today is clear. Broadcasters cannot apply copy
>prevention mechanisms to their FOTA transmissions. They can only apply
>those copy prevention mechanisms in cases very explicitly listed in that
>paragraph. Which means in practice, anything they transmit encrypted.
>
>And, OTA broadcasters must provide at least one unencrypted SDTV channel
>over their publically-owned RF channel, through other FCC rulings. Their
>option being, DON'T USE THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
>
>Transmissions over cable systems, or DBS, or the Internet, being
>networks that one connects to for a fee, are instead free incorporate
>copy protection. And FCC 00-341 confirms this, by refusing to put any
>limits on MVPD copy protection.
>
>It's really so simple. Amazing to see that this creates so much
>long-winded BS.
>
>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:
