[opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
- From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:03:34 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
damn, you are 1)dumb and 2)verbose and 3)bullheaded.
It they want you to hold your left nut and call them on a special 900-telephone
number before they permit you to record something, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT. You
have the "right" to select programs that are available to you.
Rights are granted by God (or, Satan, which actually means man, in the absence
of God) these are called human rights. And, rights are granted by constitution
or law by civil authorities. Please point out where the "rights" of which you
speak are granted following either of the cases outlined in this paragraph.
You are, quite simply a malignant narcissist who, when you think something
might affect you, complain about your rights, particularly when you have none.
Come to think of it, since you are using a boeing email account, you are
probably also a malingerer. Boeing, the great briber of defense procurement
(Druyan, Mel Paisley, etc) that wants to start over when it loses a fair
competition. (tanker contract.)
And, you can't hew to a topic or understand plain English if your life depended
on it.
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jun 26, 2008 5:58 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
>
>Adam Goldberg wrote:
>
>> The 2000 Order (FCC 00-341) is so completely not on point
>> that I don't know how to argue with you. Can you point to
>> specific paragraphs?
>
>Yes. All I can do is repeat my previous response to Dan, which I did
>below.
>
>> As to the Supreme Court, is it your contention that every
>> CE product must always have every feature which is possible,
>> because any device with substantial non-infringing uses is
>> lawful? The Betamax decision does not beckon obsequiousness,
>> it merely permits (indeed, is the underpinning of)
>> innovation.
>
>My contention is very simple. When I set up a DVDR and see FOTA material
>not being copied, i.e. COPY PROT appeating on the display of the box,
>and copying terminated, I see a case of either the broadcaster or the CE
>vendor, or more likely both, taking control of something that they have
>no right to do. As I said, even if the broadcaster transmits "copy
>never" FOTA, which broadcasters should not do, the CE vendor has no
>right to honor that flag, for FOTA material at the very least.
>
>(Attached is the FCC 00-341 post.)
>
>Bert
>
>------------------------------------------
>Dan Grimes wrote:
>
>> Wasn't that the result of the VHS suit oh so long ago? Or was
>> that just for programming received OTA and not an MVPD?
>
>The latter.
>
>The Betamax decision and its effect on MVPDs, and security devices used
>by MVPDs, are described in FCC 00-341:
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-341A1.txt
>
>22. [ ... ] HRCC Reply Comments, citing Sony Corp. of America v.
>Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ("Betamax") (Recording
>programs for later viewing in the privacy of the user's home is a
>noncommercial use permitted under the fair use doctrine).
>
>Conversely, other commenters contend that the Betamax decision concerned
>only certain limited-purpose, private home recordings of free,
>unencrypted, over-the-air broadcast television programs in an analog
>environment.
>
>[ ... ]
>
>28. [ ... ] In this regard, we note that MPAA has stated that the 5C
>technology will not be used to prohibit most home recording.
>
>Home recording of retransmitted broadcast programs and single copies of
>basic and extended basic programs and pay television will not be
>inhibited by [5C].
>
>Home recording of pay-per-view and video-on-demand will be subject to
>the copyright owner's permission.
>
>[ ... ]
>
>Based on the record in this proceeding, no evidence has been presented
>that the evolving copy protection licenses and technology discussed
>herein would preclude reasonable home recording of such content. It
>should be noted, however, that our ruling is not based on this aspect of
>the record; we cite such evidence simply to rebut the notion that our
>ruling will lead to inevitable restrictions on consumers' ability to
>copy digital material.
>
>29. We decline to resolve the question of the nature and scope of any
>copy protection systems or rights.
>------------------------------------------------
>
>In short, MVPDs can do whatever they like, but the FCC is trusting the
>MPAA when they say that they will let their subscribers do time shift
>recording of programs that are also transmitted FOTA.
>
>My own hangup is, that trust did not translate properly with respect to
>the CGMS and its effect on recording devices, thanks to the poor
>combined handling of the issue by the broadcasters and by (some of) the
>CE vendors. The FCC, of the people, by the people, and for the people,
>should address this reality directly.
>
>And the CGMS abuse occurs in ana analog environment, so the excuse that
>digital "is different" doesn't even work. The trust was blatantly
>abused.
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>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:
