Seems to me, Cliff, that you should be willing to pay more for the viewing at home than going out to the venue.  Have you ever noticed that milk is more expensive at the convenient neighborhood store than the (generally) more distant mega-supermarket?

Some people travel miles for the very cheap gasoline.  Most just select from the best price (or convenience) available nearby.

John Willkie

-----Original Message-----
From: Cliff Benham
Sent: Jun 27, 2008 9:03 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies

David Broberg wrote:

Wow, this discussion has gone off the deep end.

 

To bring it back consider the contract you make with your local theater when you go in to see a move, concert or play. When you pay for that ticket, you agree to follow the rules set by the distributor (the local theater), which are in turn dictated to them by the studios or rights owners. These rules typically include an outright prohibition on recording devices in the theater. These rules are often enforced by private security guards or even local police.  The terms associated with you seeing that performance, include a limitation on your ability to record or copy it in any way – even what might be defensible under fair-use doctrine.  If you don’t want to abide by those rules, you don’t by the ticket and don’t go in – it is a voluntary contract.  

 

What MPAA seems to be proposing is exactly the same as what you already have, but with an electronic distribution direct to the home. You still have the option to enter the contract or not (buy the ticket). Nobody is trying to force those movies on you, and they are not coming into your home “free and clear”. If you chose to buy the ticket, you’ll have to agree to the same terms as those entering the theater – no recording devices.

 

This is not about taking away recording rights at all. This is about expanding distribution to a new and more convenient form of service. Granted that service may not appeal to everyone, but for those it does, why should the government forbid it?

 

-David Broberg

Dear Mr. Broburg:

There is a vast difference between putting on evening clothes, going out to dinner and then to the theater to enjoy the performance
of a play, a film or an opera for which I have purchased tickets, voluntarily entering into an 'agreement' to observe the 'willing suspension of disbelief' and enjoying the performance... 
AND---
Sitting at home in shorts and a t-shirt enjoying the recording of a play or an opera or a film I have purchased for my own enjoyment at my convenience, pausing the show for bathroom, food and drink breaks, repeating scenes and watching it more than once if I see fit to do so.

The former theatrical experience is completely at the behest of the producers and I must willingly abide by the conventions applicable to such performances.

However,

The later is a completely different experience, is completely at MY behest and convenience since I have paid for the ability to watch or not, when and if I see fit, as many times as I wish, without further interference from the seller of the program or recording.

Laying down rules in an attempt to tell me when and how I can watch something in my own home is an invasion of privacy which I will not abide.

Cliff Benham