[opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
- From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:04:55 -0400 (EDT)
Cliff;
"Stop! Police" and "We're only here to help" (I saw THX-1138 in a theater in
original release.)
However, it isn't the government that enforces copyrights by and large, it's
private companies with their rights to enforce. More like the attitude of the
medicine cabinet than the police.
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
>From: Cliff Benham <flyback1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jun 28, 2008 5:45 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: MPAA wants to stop DVRs from recording some movies
>
>John,
>All this will end with the gov't giving up trying to stop every single
>legal infringement for the same reason the 'state' let THX1138 escape
>into the world above ground...
>
>"The police pursue THX up an escape ladder, but are ordered by central
>command to cease pursuit at mere steps away from capturing him, as the
>expense of his capture exceeds their pre-determined "budget"."
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THX_1138
>
>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
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>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:
