Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Can Cable Companies Store Shows For Us?

Posted by timothy on from the which-end-of-the-wire dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Last August I reported that the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had defeated the MPAA's attempt to label as copyright infringement a cable operator's storing video for later reuse at the request of its subscribers, in Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings. The MPAA has petitioned the US Supreme Court to review that holding. According to a recent interview with Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, the High Court has not yet decided whether to grant the MPAA's petition seeking review. What I found odd about the 2nd Circuit decision (PDF) is that (a) although 'fair use' was the most logical defense to be employed in view of the Supreme Court's holding in SONY Betamax, upholding a VCR's 'time shifting' of a broadcast television show as a 'fair use,' the defendant in Cartoon Networks has stipulated to waive 'fair use,' and (b) although the easier legal theory for plaintiff to prove would have been secondary, rather than primary, copyright infringement (i.e. Cablevision's encouraging and inducing its customers to make unauthorized copies), the MPAA has stipulated to waive that line of attack. I.e. neither plaintiffs nor defendants seized the 'low hanging fruit.' In her interview, Ms. Sohn discusses the fair use defense, but I'm not sure why she does, since as I recall the defendant has waived it."

165 comments

  1. Targets that can fight back by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cable companies tend to be large media conglomerates. Surprisingly, it looks like the *AAs finally picked a target that can afford to defend itself. It'll be interesting to see how they fare when the playing field isn't asymmetric.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    1. Re:Targets that can fight back by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Time Warner is a cable company *and* an media producer. Do they need to sue themselves? (:-) Only half joking, after AOL bought TW, TW wouldn't let AOL use TW trademarked icons like Bugs Bunny and the Coyote.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    2. Re:Targets that can fight back by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I would think the *AAs don't really want any precedent set w.r.t. an end-users fair-use rights, unless it is that they don't have any.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Targets that can fight back by causality · · Score: 1

      I would think the *AAs don't really want any precedent set w.r.t. an end-users fair-use rights, unless it is that they don't have any.

      When I read your mention of end users, a somewhat cynical thought occurred to me. Supposing the cable companies win this lawsuit, it will probably be after much expenditure on lawyers and time in court etc. So the message will be, you have fair-use rights if you have the resources to go up against the *AAs in court but as a regular end user this probably does not describe you (or most of the population for that matter). I'm not a lawyer but I think I've heard it explained that fair-use is a defense; it won't prevent them from dragging you into court if they really want to. At least there is the hope that a victory for the cable companies may set a good precedent for the rest of us.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    4. Re:Targets that can fight back by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      In a situation like that, I'd imagine the media subsidiary would sue the cable subsidiary.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    5. Re:Targets that can fight back by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      IANAL. If you live in California, there are generous anti-SLAPP provisions.

      --
      $ make available
    6. Re:Targets that can fight back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cable companies should be required to play an
      entire library to their customers on demand (free).

      This should be MANDATORY to cut down on file
      sharing sharing burdens due to their refusal
      to give 'fair use' now. (5C blocking)

      jr

  2. Fair use by GrifterCC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I'm either party, and I want the Supreme Court to decide an issue for me that I think I'll win, I'm going to work with the other side to waive the legal doctrines which best protect me. I don't want them to say "fair use" or "secondary infringement." Perhaps Cablevision wants to set up a decision granting more protection to content providers, just as the MPAA wants to set up a decision expanding the definition of primary infringement to include what Cablevision did.

    With the Supremes taking so few cases, it makes sense to give them an extremely narrow legal issue, on a platter, freed, as much as possible, of its factual trappings.

    1. Re:Fair use by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I'm either party, and I want the Supreme Court to decide an issue for me that I think I'll win, I'm going to work with the other side to waive the legal doctrines which best protect me. I don't want them to say "fair use" or "secondary infringement." Perhaps Cablevision wants to set up a decision granting more protection to content providers, just as the MPAA wants to set up a decision expanding the definition of primary infringement to include what Cablevision did. With the Supremes taking so few cases, it makes sense to give them an extremely narrow legal issue, on a platter, freed, as much as possible, of its factual trappings.

      1. I'm not sure I understand your theory as to why both sides waived their best arguments. But I sure would love to have been a fly on the wall when those decisions were made.

      2. The issues were narrowed by stipulation earlier in the case, before it got to the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit had to take the case; it was an appeal as of right. So this narrowing had nothing to do with getting Supreme Court review.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:Fair use by mea37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe I don't understand the service in question, but this is an on-demand service right?

      Doesn't such a service actually decrease the need for the end-user to make a copy? i.e., with traditional scheduled programming I set my DVR to make a copy, but with on-demand scheduling I don't have to because I can just have it streamed to me when I actually want to watch it?

      I guess I'm having trouble seeing the secondary infringement angle.

      The fair use angle, on the other hand... I can see where providing a commercial service whereby I time-shift material on my customers' behalf might not get the same treatment as a costumer time-shifting for personal use; maybe the cable company just didn't want to go there?

    3. Re:Fair use by GrifterCC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      NYCL, as I understand it, the case in question doesn't even involve damages yet; it's basically a declaratory judgment action. So there's no money on the line. It's a pure question of law.

      Here's what I'm thinking: Cablevision knows that users can time-shift, under SONY Betamax. So they know that if they sell users a TiVo, it's not secondary infringement.

      If Cablevision is looking to provide this on-demand player as a value-added service without paying for it, being able to charge for that feature without having to lease out a bunch of TiVos saves them money; users will presumably pay the same amount regardless of whether there's another box in their entertainment center. So consolidating the service into a central repository is just free money for Cablevision.

      The only question left is whether the consolidation itself is infringement. Maybe not, but why take the chance, given how litigious MPAA is?

      As for the MPAA, they know they can get secondary infringement in certain situations, but probably not this one, given the end users' right to timeshift. But the MPAA may see this as an opportunity to expand "primary infringement" and secure their position, as digital timeshifting becomes more common, in future negotiations with the midstream providers.

    4. Re:Fair use by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Perhaps they've colluded in order to get the courts to arrive at a decision that is anti-consumer.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    5. Re:Fair use by PMuse · · Score: 1

      1. I'm not sure I understand your theory as to why both sides waived their best arguments. But I sure would love to have been a fly on the wall when those decisions were made.

      Almost makes you question whether the sides are truly adverse. Perhaps neither wants to advance an argument that could expand the rights of individuals/users/customers.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    6. Re:Fair use by Uberdog · · Score: 1

      The service is a "network DVR", basically moving the DVR capabilities from a box sitting in the user's home to a server at the cable company. IANAL, but from what I understand that's exactly how they won the lawsuit, by showing that it matched feature-for-feature with a home DVR.

    7. Re:Fair use by ardle · · Score: 1

      That must be it: "don't bring the customer into it". In a sense, they're only arguing about their cut of the customers' money. A cable company is a new kind of player but it's hard to argue against them: they are "distibutors", after all - and in a more literal sense than many of their companies whose content they are delivering. So why not let them do the job properly?
      It is expensive, inefficent, non-eco-friendly and - by extension ;-) - unpatriotic not to seek to minimise bandwidth. The Internet is not a pissing competition.

    8. Re:Fair use by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps they've colluded in order to get the courts to arrive at a decision that is anti-consumer.

      If so, they've done a pretty poor job. The circuit court decision is pretty good

      1) It rejects the notion that buffering a work necessarily infringes on the reproduction right. (that doctrine would make playing most digital media a reproduction, giving legal teeth to playback restrictions)
      2) It rejects (following Netcom) direct liability for the operator of a system which makes copies automatically at the request of someone else.
      3) It rejects broad readings of the "public performance" clause which says that all commercial performances are public, and that multiple performances of the a work to individuals, even if based off different copies of the same work, constitute public performance. (Remember the claims that Kindle text-to-speech constitutes public performance? This decision cuts the legs out from most such arguments)

    9. Re:Fair use by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they've colluded in order to get the courts to arrive at a decision that is anti-consumer.

      If so, they've done a pretty poor job. The circuit court decision is pretty good 1) It rejects the notion that buffering a work necessarily infringes on the reproduction right. (that doctrine would make playing most digital media a reproduction, giving legal teeth to playback restrictions) 2) It rejects (following Netcom) direct liability for the operator of a system which makes copies automatically at the request of someone else. 3) It rejects broad readings of the "public performance" clause which says that all commercial performances are public, and that multiple performances of the a work to individuals, even if based off different copies of the same work, constitute public performance. (Remember the claims that Kindle text-to-speech constitutes public performance? This decision cuts the legs out from most such arguments)

      russotto, your posts here have been excellent!!! I hope you get modded up as you deserve!!!

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    10. Re:Fair use by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      The search function tends to suck compared to TiVo, but otherwise yes.

      --
      $ make available
    11. Re:Fair use by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      2) It rejects (following Netcom) direct liability for the operator of a system which makes copies automatically at the request of someone else.

      Hmm... let's see. So let's say I create a bittorrent "proxy"-ish client which does the following:

      1. Decide on some chunks it wants to download.
      2. Advertise (not truthfully) that "I have these chunks"
      3. When someone requests them;
        1. Request them from someone else
        2. Cache them locally
      4. Goto 1

      Then, at the request of (software controlled by) someone else, I make copies of a torrented file.

      Yes, the software is lying about which chunks it has; it has to do that---otherwise no one will ask it for those chunks and it'd be a really lame proxy.

      Let's say I use this to cache some Britney songs, and stop running the proxy once I have a complete copy of whatever was torrented. It's quite transparent what I have done.

      But the line seems fuzzy; where is it drawn? Where should it be drawn? Where can it be drawn?

    12. Re:Fair use by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      without having to lease out a bunch of TiVos saves them money

      I'm not sure if you're literally referring to Tivos, or using Tivo as a generic term for DVRs.

      While there is a "Tivo software on Comcast boxes" (which from what I've read is very buggy compared to regular standalone Tivos) situation, and I think at least one other cable company has made an agreement to do a similar thing, generally cable companies rent much inferior DVRs.

    13. Re:Fair use by russotto · · Score: 1

      By the logic of the decision, your cache would be considered a reproduction, because it isn't transient. Since you'd have had to set up the system to do the caching, it would be made at your request, so this decision wouldn't shield you from direct liability for making that copy.

      If your client downloaded each chunk, sent it on, and then erased it, then your cache might not be considered a reproduction. There is a blurry line (the court suggests that a copy of an entire work which lasts "minutes" is not transient, but a piece-by-piece copy of a work in which each part only lasts a few seconds is transient, leaving a whole area in the middle to fight over), but your scheme clearly falls to the infringing side of it.

    14. Re:Fair use by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Your cable company is no different from you. They have limited rights to use the content in question which in their case includes distribution (with certain strings attached in some cases).

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    15. Re:Fair use by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Yes... but so what? I assume you're challenging my thinking about why the cable company didn't assert fair use?

      I'm not saying that a company doesn't have fair use rights, but I am saying that (1) it is very possible that neither a company nor an individual could assert fair use to justify time-shifting on someone else's behalf, particularly on a commercial basis; and (2) the fair use criteria are complex enough that they may not apply the same way to a company as they apply to you or me.

  3. I don't see how this works at all.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Previous decisions have ruled in favor of personal time shifting.

    Cable companies are licensed distributors over their networks, this includes on demand.

    I don't get how their "case" even got this far.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:I don't see how this works at all.. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Does it really include 'on demand'? What do their distribution licneses say? You are assuming something fundamental there...

    2. Re:I don't see how this works at all.. by AmaDaden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's all business mess. Interesting note on this topic. I was talking to someone who worked for Cablevision about DVRs. He told me that they were thinking of moving storage in house so that you would not need a HD in your cable box. The obvious way to do this is to just record all channels at all times and then just keep records of what people want to watch later. They could not do this however since this would make them a broadcaster or content provider or something like that. So the current plan to implement this is to just record the same thing once per person. So if 20,000 people want to see the same episode of MythBusters they will have 20,000 copies of it on their servers.

    3. Re:I don't see how this works at all.. by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      So if 20,000 people want to see the same episode of MythBusters they will have 20,000 copies of it on their servers.

      All stored using hardlinks to the master copy so they don't take 20,000 times the space. :-P

    4. Re:I don't see how this works at all.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it may use 20,000 HD VOD slots if the people all want to see it at about the same time but not all at the exact same time.

    5. Re:I don't see how this works at all.. by bberens · · Score: 1

      I don't see the difference. 90% of the DVRs out there (which are apparently legal) are owned by the cable companies and rented to end users. All they did was move the DVR up the channel.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    6. Re:I don't see how this works at all.. by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      but it may use 20,000 HD VOD slots if the people all want to see it at about the same time but not all at the exact same time.

      Is that supposed to mean something?

      --
      $ make available
  4. they know by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They know they can win with the "fair use" defense, but they're going for an even stronger ruling. If that fails, they will appeal on fair use grounds. That's my guess, anyway.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:they know by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      Is that possible?

      My understanding of the judicial system was that you could only appeal errors of law, i.e. you couldn't expand the scope of your defense or introduce new evidence. I could be wrong, IANAL.

    2. Re:they know by mea37 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think you can say "I'm not going to use this argument" and then appeal a ruling you don't like to introduce that argument. As I understand it, appeals are to correct errors in the judicial process; you don't get to bring new arguments about the original case to the table.

      Besides, you can't appeal past the Supreme Court.

    3. Re:they know by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know in criminal courts, prosecutors often "hold things back" so that they can launch a different line of prosecution in case their primary line is defeated. I do not know if similar techniques are used in tort cases.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:they know by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Well, not through an appeal they don't. In fact, the prosecution in a criminal case doesn't get to appeal at all - that would be called "double jeopardy".

    5. Re:they know by djp928 · · Score: 1

      Prosecutors only get one shot at a conviction. If the jury returns a not guilty verdict in a criminal case, that's it--the prosecution doesn't get to try again.

      --
      Making fun of dumb people since 2009
    6. Re:they know by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Not in the US. Here, if you steal two lollipops, you can get charged with theft, trespassing, health code violations, unlicensed candy distribution, and disorderly conduct. And they might charge you with only some of those crimes or for just one lollipop. That way, they can prosecute you again if you are found not guilty the first time.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  5. To reduce this to simpler terms......... by jonnycando · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bad enough my cable company can figure out what I watch: I don't want them storing my stuff for me. Even if it's legal to do so, it is not wanted, and I am sure the cable company will figure out how to make mincemeat of privacy once I allow them to store my TV shows and movies. The more you allow others to do for you, the more you let others control you.

    1. Re:To reduce this to simpler terms......... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      Bad enough my cable company can figure out what I watch: I don't want them storing my stuff for me

      This program was totally optional. It would be you, the consumer, saving the show. If you didn't want them storing it for you it wouldn't be stored. It's only at your request.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:To reduce this to simpler terms......... by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Um.... if they can figure out what you watch (which, as you note, they can), then they can store a list of what you've watched.

      If they can store a list of what you've watched, they can - at any time without your knowledge - go reconstruct the library of what you've watched, just as if they'd been storing it.

      How is on-demand storage of the program any worse? It's not like they're storing any personal data of yours that they didn't have anyway...

    3. Re:To reduce this to simpler terms......... by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The more you allow others to do for you, the more you let others control you.

      You already surrendered by using the cable company's DVR in the first place.

      Just think of your DVR as an abstraction layer--since they already know *what* you're storing, whether it's stored locally or on a remote system, it matters not.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    4. Re:To reduce this to simpler terms......... by Madball · · Score: 1

      Bad enough my cable company can figure out what I watch: I don't want them storing my stuff for me.

      It's not "your stuff". Whether you can time-shift your consumption of it or not, it's not truly yours.

      Even if it's legal to do so, it is not wanted, and I am sure the cable company will figure out how to make mincemeat of privacy once I allow them to store my TV shows and movies.

      How is their storage of the content an additional invasion of privacy (beyond the tracking they already do)?

      The more you allow others to do for you, the more you let others control you.

      Might want to loosen the tinfoil.

    5. Re:To reduce this to simpler terms......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the cable company was acting as the consumer's agent. Since the consumer can record the show, using an agent to do something you are already allowed to do is perfectly OK here.

    6. Re:To reduce this to simpler terms......... by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      As a technical matter, I would be surprised if the cable company stored the show independently for each consumer. It would make much more sense for the cable company to store the show with a count of the number of people 'storing' it; and keep the fact that a particular customer stored it with their account data. Much less data to keep track of.

  6. tortured analysis by gravesb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We had a symposium on this issue, and a lawyer talked from the plaintiff's side. Much of their theory dealt with the length of the cable, based purely on a statutory reading. While I understand he has a duty to attempt to apply the statute in his client's best interests, his construction made little sense. Still, he had to rely on that construction to get around Sony. Essentially, it is legal for me to time shift in my house. So why can't I put my time shift device outside of my house, say in a warehouse with a lot of other time shift devices? And what if I make those time shift devices virtual devices on a single server? His point was that moving the device outside of my house was the difference-it became a transmission. He could not provide a length of cable that would trigger that definition, though. And, of course, he was speaking for his client at the time. I will be curious to see how this case works out if SCOTUS does take it. The statutes need some re-writing, honestly.

    --
    http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    1. Re:tortured analysis by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Informative

      We had a symposium on this issue, and a lawyer talked from the plaintiff's side. Much of their theory dealt with the length of the cable, based purely on a statutory reading. While I understand he has a duty to attempt to apply the statute in his client's best interests, his construction made little sense. Still, he had to rely on that construction to get around Sony. Essentially, it is legal for me to time shift in my house. So why can't I put my time shift device outside of my house, say in a warehouse with a lot of other time shift devices? And what if I make those time shift devices virtual devices on a single server? His point was that moving the device outside of my house was the difference-it became a transmission. He could not provide a length of cable that would trigger that definition, though. And, of course, he was speaking for his client at the time. I will be curious to see how this case works out if SCOTUS does take it. The statutes need some re-writing, honestly.

      Yes but the whole time-shifting issue has to do with fair use, which was taken out of the case by stipulation. Note that the 2nd Circuit decision doesn't discuss that issue at all other than to mention that the issue is not before them.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:tortured analysis by gravesb · · Score: 1

      He WASN'T talking for his client at the time. Sorry.

      --
      http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    3. Re:tortured analysis by kilgortrout · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the Second Circuit's opinion(yes, I did read it), this is not a transmission issue per se. The time shifted program was clearly transmitted within the meaning of the Copyright Act; that was not disputed. The issue is whether the that transmission was to the public as is required by the relevant provision of the Copyright Act at issue in this case. Considering the technology used by the defendant, the Court held that it was not a public transmission relying heavily on the fact that the program is recorded at the customer's direction and the customer's requested program is encoded on the server so only the customer's cable box can retrieve it. So the scenarios you spin would all seem permitted by this holding as there is no transmission to the public in any of them that I can see.

    4. Re:tortured analysis by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The length of the cord doesn't seem to be that relevant. To me, I would think the fact that the signal crosses property lines might be enough to call it broadcasting, and it's not a device that the user owns or maintains.

      I think the media industries need to lighten up on it though.

  7. MPAA incentive to limit access by Glass+Goldfish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The MPAA has every intention of limiting your access so it can sell you it bit by bit. They want to sell you a different copy for each medium you use it in. If they can sell you more than one copy in a given medium (standard edition and then 2 years later director's cut), they certainly will. They want you to pay for a movie ticket, buy it on Blu-Ray, pay for DRM protected copy for your laptop and then pay for higher resolution DRM protected copy for your next laptop. Of course different countries will have different price scales.

    It's not just piracy that threatens this, it's DRM free content. The reason they don't want the cable company to buffer content is that you should pay extra for that, preferably in a Blu-Ray box set. And then again for a DRM-protected version for portable use.

    1. Re:MPAA incentive to limit access by Gizzmonic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The MPAA has every intention of limiting your access so it can sell you it bit by bit. They want to sell you a different copy for each medium you use it in.

      If this is true, then why are almost all new movies coming out with free MPEG4 copies now?

      Sorry, I have grave concerns about the MPAA but your knee-jerk cynicism is unwarranted. DRM is already out of the equation WRT online music. I don't know if it will disappear from movies, but including a free MPEG4 with new movies is a step in the right direction.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    2. Re:MPAA incentive to limit access by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They want you to pay for a movie ticket, buy it on Blu-Ray, pay for DRM protected copy for your laptop and then pay for higher resolution DRM protected copy for your next laptop.

      Optimist. They want Blu-Ray and all physical media to become obsolete, so they can implement a strong DRM regime where you have to pay for the movie every 10 times you view it, or every 6 months just to keep it around (or both).

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    3. Re:MPAA incentive to limit access by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      The MPAA simply shoves me further and further to pirating their movies ant TV shows. I have a Mythbox with 3 tuners recording my TV. BUT, because they are being pricks, I also get several Tv shows from eztv.it on a regular basis. 90% of the time those I download are far better quality than the ones I record myself. I get Merlin in HD from eztv.it where I can only get it in fuzzy analog SD here locally. Plus there are Tv shows I cant get in any way other than downloading them.

      Top gear for instance. It kicks the crap out of the drooling moron Car tv shows we have here in the states.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:MPAA incentive to limit access by TypoNAM · · Score: 1

      If this is true, then why are almost all new movies coming out with free MPEG4 copies now?

      Umm they're not free since they're usually at least ten dollars extra for that combo edition and they're time limited licensed DRM crap that uses Microsoft's Media Player DRM at that.

      Terminator 2: Judgment Day Extreme Edition and Live Free or Die Hard are both examples that I know of that had came with an HD resolution MPEG version of the movie that had a very limited time span that you could actually watch it since the license server only ran for a year and/or valid license after the DVD release.

      After that limited time you couldn't watch your "digital copy" on your computer (funny I thought DVDs were already digital...) then those discs became virtually useless unless you figured out a way to strip the DRM from them.

      --
      This space is not for rent.
    5. Re:MPAA incentive to limit access by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

      Optimist. They want Blu-Ray and all physical media to become obsolete, so they can implement a strong DRM regime where you have to pay for the movie every 10 times you view it, or every 6 months just to keep it around (or both).

      Optimist. ... where you have to pay for the movie EVERY time you see it. And, as icing, your device tells them who watched it so they can send them marketing to get them to watch more things you have to pay for.

    6. Re:MPAA incentive to limit access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My copy of batman forever came with a code to let you unlock and keep a copy on your ipod and itunes. No expiration.

    7. Re:MPAA incentive to limit access by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      Umm they're not free since they're usually at least ten dollars extra for that combo edition and they're time limited licensed DRM crap that uses Microsoft's Media Player DRM at that.

      No. Try The Dark Knight, Wall: E and other recent releases. They all provide a free iTunes download of the movie. It uses iTunes DRM but it's quite convenient if you have an iPod or iPhone.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    8. Re:MPAA incentive to limit access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woops, The Dark Knight. Not batman forever.

    9. Re:MPAA incentive to limit access by cool_story_bro · · Score: 2, Funny

      Optimist. They want Blu-Ray and all physical media to become obsolete, so they can implement a strong DRM regime where you have to pay for the movie every 10 times you view it, or every 6 months just to keep it around (or both).

      Optimist. ... where you have to pay for the movie EVERY time you see it. And, as icing, your device tells them who watched it so they can send them marketing to get them to watch more things you have to pay for.

      Optimist... they want you to have to pay and get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in return

      --
      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
    10. Re:MPAA incentive to limit access by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

      Optimist. They want Blu-Ray and all physical media to become obsolete, so they can implement a strong DRM regime where you have to pay for the movie every 10 times you view it, or every 6 months just to keep it around (or both).

      Optimist. ... where you have to pay for the movie EVERY time you see it. And, as icing, your device tells them who watched it so they can send them marketing to get them to watch more things you have to pay for.

      Optimist... they want you to have to pay and get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in return

      Optimist... (Yeah, I'm calling myself an optimist too)... they want the government to enforce a tax on you so you pay them no matter what you do and they can give you whatever they feel like, up to and including nothing, in return.

    11. Re:MPAA incentive to limit access by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      At least some seasons of Top Gear are available on DVD.

    12. Re:MPAA incentive to limit access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are countering his claim about DRM by saying that you can get a free DRM download that is convenient if you happen to buy a specialized device that can actually play it (ipod/iphone). Wow, man for a minute there I was worried about DRM but all I need to do is buy an ipod and...oh wait.

    13. Re:MPAA incentive to limit access by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      He also falsely claimed that the editions that include the MPEG4 file were more expensive, that they contained time-limited versions, and that they used Microsoft DRM. You fail at reading comprehension.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  8. Could it be they want a definitive ruling? by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Could it be that the reason both parties have waived their most obvious arguments is that they really want to the court to address the deeper questions and create a landmark ruling? In the long run such a ruling would reduce the amount of litigation surrounding (re)distribution of movies & music.

    Could this, in fact, be a cry for help? Could both parties be saying, "Please, your Honor, give us a ruling that makes sense! Let us understand where the limits of copyright law really are!"

    Nah. Sounds too logical to be true.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Could it be they want a definitive ruling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the long run such a ruling would reduce the amount of litigation surrounding (re)distribution of movies & music.

      The lawyers would never go for that.

  9. Amicus curiae by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's too late, but I wonder what would have happened if someone had filed an Amicus curiae in this case stating either (or both) of the low hanging fruit defenses.

    1. Re:Amicus curiae by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wonder what would have happened if someone had filed an Amicus curiae in this case stating either (or both) of the low hanging fruit defenses.

      That would be out of the question. If the parties stipulated to waive certain issues, an amicus could not re-inject it.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  10. This isn't Personal USE, this is redistribution. by barfy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I save something on my DVR, that is for personal use. It is by me for me.

    When I get something from the cable company, that is distribution. If that is not distributed in the manner as the owner of the copyright desires, that is a copyright violation on face. Copyright is ABOUT distribution.

    There are grey areas, like hold and release, 5 second delay, in-between servers, but this use of a private fair-use technology as a distribution technology, is definitely worth suing over.

    It changes the value that the audience aggregator is charging the advertiser. The audience aggregator is unable to charge for another ad, and is unable to control the distribution method. When Adult Swim is on, they want you to watch Adult Swim. GO SHAKE!

  11. What is old is now new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the 90s I would trade "bootleg" music with people for free via ads in magazines where we would recycle envelopes and mail tapes to each other.

    Today, I have a Netflix subscription where I pay to mail recycled envelopes with Blue-Ray/DVDs (never underestimate the bandwith of a truck full of tapes).

    Today, I trade "bootleg" music and video via bittorent.

    Tomorrow, I'll pay for such a service.

    Personally, I find the underground method more fun, and I expect lower quality from the underground, I expect higher quality from the "above ground" methods. The quality is spotty in both avenues, and the cost is the same or actually more for the underground methods (storage, time, electricity, etc).

  12. Is this a real case? by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought the US supreme court only heard cases that were real.
    If both sides in this case waived reasonable arguments, then it sounds to me like a show trial designed specifically to get a ruling.

  13. This is why I have ~10 VCRs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    This is why over the last year, I've acquired around 10 Super VHS VCRs (total cost around $1000). Two I'm using right now, and the rest are kept as spares. I was afraid folks like the MPAA would make it impossible to time-shift our favorite shows, and this case demonstrates my fear is slowly-but-surely materializing. The old analog VCRs ar not under anyone's control but my own. They allow me to record DVD quality video directly off digital television, so that I can view my favorite shows whenever I feel like it and without restriction.

    They can take our lives but they can never take away our freedom!.....er, VCRs.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know if you were joking or not but...

      You could have used a analog capture card instead and encoded it to whatever format you wanted, and even done inverse telecine and deinterlacing to make it look really nice.

      I guess with a nickname like yours, you are nostalgic for the 80s.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by ericrost · · Score: 1

      Build a MythTV box, install boxee as well and move out of the dark ages brother!

      http://www.mythbuntu.org/
      http://www.boxee.tv/

      Recommended tuner for mythbuntu:
      http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hvr2250.html

      Recommended sound card:
      http://www.turtlebeach.com/products/riviera/home.aspx

      --
      My Babylon
    3. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      And how well do analog capture cards work when folks like the MPAA turn-on the "don't record" flag? Not at all. Plus a Media PC's not as convenient as a VCR. It's big and bulky, and hard to move. With a VCR I can grab the just-recorded tape, drive it over to my parents' or brother's house, and conveniently watch it on their TV. It's portable and universal. Oh yes, you'll probably say something like "Use DVD-R". Well my parents don't own a DVD player, and even if they did I don't feel like burning through $10 worth of blanks every week. Tapes are reusable and therefore much cheaper.

      Bottom Line: Even though I'm an electrical engineer, and I love gadgets, I don't abandon old technologies if the replacement technology is inferior. That's why I still use pencil-and-paper notebooks for my engineering lab notes instead of slow, kludgy e-pads. Same with your proposed media PC - it's inferior to the ease of use of cheap VCRs and swappable magnetic tape.

      >>>you are nostalgic for the 80s

      Wrong decade. 1975. :-)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I don't feel like burning through $10 worth of blanks every week. Tapes are reusable and therefore much cheaper.

      DVD-RW? ;-)

      I use CD-RW to make random MP3 discs every week for out in the car. Some of them are on their hundredth erase/write cycle.

    5. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by LordKazan · · Score: 4, Informative
      I was going to moderate this thread, but the egregiously wrong information in your post made me stop and comment.

      And how well do analog capture cards work when folks like the MPAA turn-on the "don't record" flag? Not at all

      WRONG. The "Broadcast Flag" was never instituted - it is a purely optional (and almost universally ignored by non-cable-company-hardware) standard. Furthermore it was digital only - so all your NTSC adapters that work with cable continue to work fine. Second no ATSC/QAM tuner i've ever seen even offered support for this hardly-implemented non-mandated anti-fair-use idea.

      My mythBox is about the size of two VCRs, has 1 TB of storage, is attached to my 100base ethernet, I can manage my recordings over the web. I can use Hulu on it. I could (and might) install Boxee (i'd prefer to use mythVodka if they ever get that plugin working well). And has numerous other abilities that your two VCRs just cannot do.... MAME anyone?

      --
      If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
    6. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by ctaranto · · Score: 1

      Not really. August, 1982.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64

    7. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Disagree. See my post above why I think Tapes are superior to Media PCs.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    8. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by ericrost · · Score: 1

      So you spent $1000 on VCRs to save $10 on buying some DVD-RW's and $40 to buy your parents a DVD player?

      --
      My Babylon
    9. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by ericrost · · Score: 1

      See my reply above to see why you're misguided. DVD players (for your parents) cost $40 now. DVD-RWs cost ~$2 apiece if you don't hunt around for cheapies. MythTV didn't obey the "broadcast flag" even the 1 time it was "accidentally" set. Its fairly obtuse to keep trying to hunt up blank tapes (that no one manufactures anymore) that wear out and degrade.

      However, you can only lead a horse to water.

      --
      My Babylon
    10. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      This is why over the last year, I've acquired around 10 Super VHS VCRs (total cost around $1000).

      Where did you find them so cheap these days? I haven't found any new much less than $300 each. D-VHS decks tend to play S-VHS tapes only at VHS quality.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    11. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by Kayden · · Score: 1

      Not only the above, but you can also fit more than a dozen tapes worth of data onto a single USB drive the size of your thumb. If you want to go crazy, you can get an external hard drive and carry around 100 more movies in a space less than a single tape. USB is a lot more universal than VHS. I believe the argument you're really trying to make is, "I'm stuck in my ways, now get off my porch."

    12. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Why stop there? How do those Deep Purple 8 tracks still sound on your quadraphonic hi-fi? ; )

      I understand not wanting to give up perfectly viable technology. But a DVR setup (your own device, not one "leased" from a cable company) with a hard drive or DVD-RWs, the cost is far less than even VCR tapes. (Which I also hope you bought a few cases of blank tapes, because in a few years they will be as expensive as Polaroid film and about as easy to find.) And you may be out of luck bringing your tapes to anybody's house but your parents - most of my friends don't have them anymore, and certainly aren't about to buy one now. My last one died back in 2000 - haven't needed to replace it and haven't looked back since. Hell, these days I don't usually bother recording anything from cable anymore. I just wait until a few hours after the broadcast and either download or stream it off the net.


      The Commodore 64 made it's debut in 1982, which is what i am guessing the other poster was referring to. (Not sure what Commodore 64 has to do with 1975. Even the Vic-20 didn't come out until 1980.) I think the PET may have come out earlier, but I think that was 1977 or 1978.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    13. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I've never had any luck with the -RW media. I think it hates me because it either refuses to record, or if it does record, I cannot play it back. Or it it does play, it only plays in the original machine not any other machines so it's not portable. I gave-up on it long ago.

      I'll stick with technology I know will work, instead of frustrating me.

      That's why I never upgraded to Vista. (zing!)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I was talking about VCRs. 1976 for VHS, 1975 for Betamax, and I believe 1970 for Umatic. 70s tech. The disco era baby. ;-)

      >>>My mythBox is about the size of two VCRs,

      And how do you play a show recorded on your Mythbox over at your parents' house? With my VCR I just carry the tape over. Easy.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    15. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      When you put it that way it sounds stupid, but your statement ignores my ~1000-tape library which I've collected over the last twenty-five years. So I really am saving money by making sure I have the VCRs to keep playing my store-bought movies and/or family home videos.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>I just wait until a few hours after the broadcast and either download or stream it off the net.

      I've been doing the same myself, however Verizon's already given me two warnings about those illegal downloads, so now I'm going back to recording the live TV. They can't monitor that and slap my wrist.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by ericrost · · Score: 1

      Which you could never digitize and burn to dvd before they degrade to unwatchable, huh?

      --
      My Babylon
    18. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by ericrost · · Score: 1

      I'll give you one guess as to why it sounds stupid "when I say it that way". (hint: Because it is)

      --
      My Babylon
    19. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by ericrost · · Score: 1

      Use encrypted connections. Then they can only complain about bandwidth unless they want to be a peer (trust me they don't). FYI, broadcast material is perfectly legal to download.

      --
      My Babylon
    20. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by ericrost · · Score: 1

      So just be honest and say "Get off my lawn, I don't want to learn anything new," rather than making these wild rationalizations about how its "better". Its not, we know its not, you know its not.

      --
      My Babylon
    21. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by jonnycando · · Score: 1

      ...I'll stick with technology I know will work, instead of frustrating me. That's why I never upgraded to Vista. (zing!)... This is why I don't do windoze!

    22. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I never should have abandoned my old Amiga and Quadra Mac machines. Instead of getting Windows machine in 1998, I should have bought a PowerPC. The only advantage was MSN* gave it to me for free, and that was a bargain I couldn't pass up. Maybe the time has come for me to return back to the Amiga/Macintosh world.

      >>>"Get off my lawn, I don't want to learn anything new,"

      Which would be a false comment. I know how to use all these new technologies like DVD-Rs, media recorders, et cetera, but I simply don't like them as much as I like magnetic tape recording. The ease of use of a VCR, and the ability to store your favorite football game or home movie with no time limit, is something no other technology has beat. Maybe someday they will, but not yet.

      *
      * Microsoft Network, 56k Dialup

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    23. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Well you are are mostly correct, but you got tow things wrong. First off, some NTSC/analog-equipped DVRs can decode the flag as part of the closed captioning signal, and they do obey it (i.e. turn off).

      Second even though it's optional, many companies like NBC and CBS have been caught turning it on, and many viewers were unable to record their favorite programs because of it. Since I still use analog tape, these "accidents" don't affect me.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    24. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Which you could never digitize and burn to dvd before they degrade to unwatchable, huh?

      Why would I want to move from a permanent storage format (analog tape) to a DVD-R format that self-erases itself after only ~5 years time? That makes absolutely no sense.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    25. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      No it isn't stupid to want to preserve my ability to playback my ~1000 tape library of movies and home family videos. What IS stupid is to lose your family memories, as many have done when they threw-away their VHS recordings. (Even those who copied VHS-to-DVD-R will soon discover those discs are unplayable after they pass the five year mark. The dye fades.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    26. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Now the argument I'm making is: "New technology is not as reliable as the old analog tape." How many files have you lost over the years due to DVD-R or hard drive failure? It's not robust enough for me to trust. With analog tape, even if it gets damaged with a wrinkle or tear, it can still be played back and enjoyed because analog is robust.

      This is why we still have Twilight Zone from forty years ago - some of the episodes only exist as analog tape, and yet they can still be enjoyed. Contrast that with Babylon 5, whose CGI scenery was stored on hard drives. That data has now been permanently lost, due to failure of the HDDs.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    27. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Ebay. Used. I also bought one new from crutchfield for around $200.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    28. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by LordKazan · · Score: 1

      i made no such error, you'll note that I said cable-company-supplied equipment sometimes respects it. it can be enabled, but there is no requirement that your tuner gives a rats about it.

      hence mythTV. mythTV doesn't listen to it, noor do any of the tuners I've ever heard of that plug into PCI or PCI Express

      --
      If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
    29. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by ericrost · · Score: 1

      Because you can store it on HDDs, flash media, dvd-rs, dvd-rws, etc. You would then have the option to back it up to backup tape if you're so concerned with it being on a media that degrades every time you use it.

      --
      My Babylon
    30. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by ericrost · · Score: 1

      http://www.dvd-recordable.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2616

      "Get off my lawn" continues.

      --
      My Babylon
    31. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by ericrost · · Score: 1

      External hard drives, flash drives, dvd-rw's, backup tape, pick your poison. You have it in a COMPLETELY mutable format, can store it on WHATEVER media you want, can copy it perfectly bit for bit infinite times, your storage doesn't degrade with use, the storage is cheaper per second/hour/program of storage, you can write it back to a portable copy that anyone can view on their player, you can watch it on your ipod, you can share it over the web, you can upload it to youtube. I'm sorry, but saying having it on analog storage that is expensive, unreliable, non portable, unsupported, and low quality is just fucking ignorant.

      Hell to back it up forever you can throw it out to carbonite, amazon's cloud, or a hosted backed up server anywhere you want.

      You don't want to learn how to use a linux based media box. You've arbitrarily decided that because you can't make a dvd-rw burn on whatever box it is you're using that its "inconvenient". You fail to see that you're locking yourself into a dying format that will very soon isolate your media so that no one else could possibly view it unless they come to your stash of vcr's. You have it in a format that is the LEAST CONVENIENT format it could POSSIBLY be in.

      --
      My Babylon
    32. Re:This is why I have ~10 VCRs by ericrost · · Score: 1

      I burn it to dvd-rw and carry that over there. Easy.

      --
      My Babylon
  14. MP3.com by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is it OK for cable companies to "store video for later use by subscribers"... but MP3.com was shut down for doing the exact same thing?

    I guess MP3.com needed better lobbyists.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    1. Re:MP3.com by mea37 · · Score: 1

      I guess MP3.com needed a distribution licensing agreement.

    2. Re:MP3.com by NoStarchPlox · · Score: 1

      Why is it OK for cable companies to "store video for later use by subscribers"... but MP3.com was shut down for doing the exact same thing?

      You mean other than the fact that cable companies actually license the content they broadcast and MP3.com didn't? Yeah, I'm sure it wasn't that at all.

    3. Re:MP3.com by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      If this is a licensing agreement issue, why isn't this a contract negotiation instead of a court case?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:MP3.com by mea37 · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

    5. Re:MP3.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, mp3.com did something fundamentally different. They pre-emptively made copies of CDs, and then provided access based on the customer providing them with information about the disk they owned.

      It was the pre-emptive copy which was the problem.

  15. So they want us to pay twice for the same content by KarlIsNotMyName · · Score: 1

    What else is new?

    All I saw was reuse and yet another way of recording something. If you've already had legal access to a TV series or whatever, you've already seen it, or at least have already paid for it in some way.

    --
    We are all God's parents.
  16. Poor Fair Use... by jimbudncl · · Score: 1

    I'd feel shunned if they didn't seize my low hanging fruit ;)

  17. My 'writings' on the subject by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    By the way, here's an article I wrote for the Journal of Internet Law, which discusses, at page 19, the main issue in the Cartoon Networks case which is "When is a copy transitory?" And here's an editorial comment I wrote for my blog after learning of the Cartoon Networks decision.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    1. Re:My 'writings' on the subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      After reading NYCL's blogspot article, I got to wondering why smaller recording studios and film production studios have not banned together to file a class action suit against the MPAA/RIAA for antitrust issues, or anti-competitve business practices?

      While I cannot cite any specific cases, I would imagine that there are at least a few studios whose business models involve using a GNU-style license to their content (i.e. produce and distribute their content freely and try to make money by encouraging participation at live events), and that the RIAA/MPAA cartel behaviors are destroying the reputations of small businesses that get lumped in with the RIAA/MPAA because of the broadly defined 'industries' these organization pretend to fully represent.

      Perhaps my thinking is incorrect on this subject, but it seems similar to a situation where 10 employees at local business, which employees 10,000 people, were to claim that they represented some sort of "employee union." Now if these 10 individuals began making deals with managemnt and filing suits on behalf of employees who never gave them authorization to do so, wouldn't those employees have some sort of recourse by which to prevent these rogue individuals from bringing down the entire company? I am sure there are laws on the books to prevent this scenario from happening, so I can't see why these same laws (or at least the logic behind them) can't also apply to an entire market/industry.

      Can anyone explain this to me?

    2. Re:My 'writings' on the subject by HBI · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ray:

      I read your article. I hope you feel good about the work you are doing in this area, because you are rendering a significant service to your fellow countrymen. You are moving the United States closer to justice on this particular issue with your efforts.

      Thank you.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  18. They do already ... by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... but the first rule won't allow me to elaborate.

    --
    +0 Meh
  19. cable == time shifter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I always thought a cable IS a time-shifter... you can even compute the data-capacity (in Gbytes contained) per unit length, by using the bandwidth, cable length, and the velocity of the signal.

  20. Fair Use? by jvkjvk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think that they probably waived fair use because they, themselves don't want to strengthen fair use case laws.

    Perhaps they have some content themselves that they don't want other people sharing [full, entire] version of their stuff through time shifting mechanisms.

    I mean, if it's fair use that a cable network can time shift stuff for you then logically other companies and individuals can also get into that game.

    And let me tell you, my friends, that way least to anarchy! Or at least a lot less profit for both cable operators as well as content holding companies.

  21. VOD vs DVR by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The situation is really pretty simple and depends entirely on contract law.

    The cableco's sign one contract to redistribute live TV. They sign another contract (possibly involving another hefty fee) to redistribute video on demand, VOD. The revenue streams are separate starting at the contract and flowing all the way through the business to the customer's bill which has separate line items for HBO and HBO-On-Demand.

    Obviously, the cableco's should want to scrap the extra contract and extra cost of the VOD contract and just give us all "virtual DVRs". Or perhaps they could scrap the VOD contract, and continue to charge the customers the same amount of money for their "DVR with infinite rewind", keeping the money that would have gone to the channel for VOD. Or perhaps, since VOD is kind of a pain, the cablecos would get to embrace and extinguish the entire product all at once by changing the numerous VOD relationships into an insourced DVR product which can later be scrapped.

    Also its a control issue. The channels want to control their product. Just because the SciFi channel used to broadcast science fiction a long time ago, does not mean they want to now. Now, they want to broadcast ghost hunters, wrestling, and horror flicks. They would not appreciate a cablecos "DVR with infinite rewind" messing up their current oh so carefully designed marketing message that they like the name, but no longer have any interest in scifi content.

    Finally its liability. If CBS had the superbowel halftime on some cableco's virtual-infinite-rewind-DVR, who is liable when its played back over and over? CBS because the cableco didn't delete it? The cableco because they're a common carrier? The local franchise because they are easier to sue? If a channel screwed up and transmitted something they didn't pay for, can they force the big corporate virtual DVRs to delete it? Or if they screwed up their perfect record of bland mediocrity and accidentally broadcast something that generated complaints, could they force the big corporate virtual DVRs to delete it to limit complaints?

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:VOD vs DVR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also its a control issue. The channels want to control their product. Just because the SciFi channel used to broadcast science fiction a long time ago, does not mean they want to now. Now, they want to broadcast ghost hunters, wrestling, and horror flicks."

      It's not what *they* want to broadcast, but what their parent company *USA* channel wants to be broadcasted on SciFi. That's why we are tortured with Wrestling on SciFi.

    2. Re:VOD vs DVR by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the cableco's should want to scrap the extra contract and extra cost of the VOD contract and just give us all "virtual DVRs". Or perhaps they could scrap the VOD contract, and continue to charge the customers the same amount of money for their "DVR with infinite rewind", keeping the money that would have gone to the channel for VOD.

      Why not drop the channel end of things? I mean, I know why. It's a money maker. But as a customer, I'd rather ditch DVR and channels and just have access to everything as VOD.

  22. It's time to RENAME copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Congress shall have the power .. 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.

    All use of digital media involves temporary buffer copies. Copies, thus the involvement of copyright law. But these copies have no impact on the purpose of copyright. Where those copies are stored, is equally irrelevant.

    Implementation of "promoting the progress of arts" that should no longer be concerned with copies. It should concentrate on preserving a monopoly for that work in the marketplace. Quit trying to fuck around with the playback technologies du juor; in the context of the goal none of that stuff matters at all. Yo, Congress, get on this.

  23. Re:This isn't Personal USE, this is redistribution by characterZer0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everybody agrees that I can have a DVR in my house. Is it okay if I move it to my garage?

    Is it okay if I buy a plot of land and get satellite and put my DVR there, and relay to my house over the Internet?

    Is it okay if I let a friend put his dish and his DVR on my plot of land?

    What if I charge some strangers to put their dishes and DVR on my land?

    What if I have 200 people, but I rent DVRs to them?

    What if I replace the hard drives in individual DVRs with a huge RAID array?

    What if I virtualize the DVRs?

    What if I sell the satellite connection to begin with?

    At what point is it no longer legal?

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  24. Hotel-related cases by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think there was at least one case on this involving hotels. Back in the early VHS era, many hotels provided VHS players for guests, and lent out tapes at the front desk. No problem there, at least in the US; that's just the "first sale" doctrine.

    Better hotels would deliver tapes via room service. This was labor-intensive. Some hotel then realized that it would easier to centralize all the VCRs, and just have someone in an office put the requested tape in the VCR when requested. This was the beginning of "video on demand".

    That was held not to be a copyright infringement, even though the hotel was in a sense "distributing" the content.

    Now, of course, there are "video on demand" systems for hotels. But they usually have contractual relationships with all their sources; they're not just buying VHS tapes at retail.

  25. Re:This isn't Personal USE, this is redistribution by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    When I save something on my DVR, that is for personal use. It is by me for me.

    When I get something from the cable company, that is distribution. If that is not distributed in the manner as the owner of the copyright desires, that is a copyright violation on face. Copyright is ABOUT distribution.

    View something "on demand" is an example of distributing video. By the way, Cartoon Network already have such agreements in place with Comcast that do not offer centralized recording of shows.

    However, this is more about moving the storage device from the subscriber's home to a central server. My understanding is the set-top box still operates as a DVR and you only have access to the shows that you asked to be recorded prior or during its broadcast. Since you contracted the cable provider to record the show for you, and you are the only one able to view the show then the cable company is TRANSPORTING your recording to you for your viewing.

    Now if the cable company recorded all the shows in anticipation that you may want to view it later (without your active participation) than that would be distribution, since they are creating a product with the intent to make available to potential viewers.

    It changes the value that the audience aggregator is charging the advertiser. The audience aggregator is unable to charge for another ad, and is unable to control the distribution method. When Adult Swim is on, they want you to watch Adult Swim. GO SHAKE!

    Not really. This is the same as you recording the show on a VCR. In fact, this helps Cartoon Network since their rating is based on your desire to record or have your television tuned to their broadcast not by you actually watching the show. Not that Cartoon Network has that much value to lose. ;)

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  26. Follow the money! by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is probably not about fair use, or rights, or anything mundane. It's about the money.

    Which is, admittedly, a facile argument. But, if these on-demand services are to thrive, they need to be more universal, and that means essentially storing all the content the cable cos can possibly identify. And that means the providers will have to sign off on viewers being able to time-shift, repeat, and edit (skip commercials). This is about money. Does the SciFi Channel get more $ per subscriber when it allows on-demand delivery? Should it? Will I pay more?

    And though this is not thought of often, the cable cos don't want us to have hard-drive-based DVRs. These things are going to become a nightmare support issue when the hard drives start failing, like every few years. And new software causes more problems, stranding weeks' worth of shows I wanted to watch, and encouraging me to bitch out my cable co rep for losing my shows... And new features make them obsolete by the many thousands. A set-top without a hard drive has many advantages. Spinning things are not desireable.

    This is all about the money, and maybe both sides think they have a good case to compel the other side to give in. We'll see, but in the end one thing is certain.

    We pay.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  27. Apparently "On Demand" isn't protected by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apparently the "On Demand" part of cable services isn't protected at this point in time. That actually makes sense, as it's a "new" service being offered by the cable cos that bypasses the whole idea of prime-time scheduling.

    I don't blame them for skipping the time shifting argument. Prior cases against web companies haven't succeeded in using that argument to justify their provisioning of torrent caps of TV shows for members to view.

    I believe the *AA wants to ensure they get another licensing slice for allowing VOD. I doubt they're actually foolish enough to want to make the practice illegal, so they're not using the "big guns" that might force the cable cos to drop the service.

    Personally I still think direct subscription to shows over the internet is the way the future will go. Rather than subscribing to a "channel", you'll subscribe to the particular show you want. Channels will only exist in the future if they provide a heavily discounted bundle of shows to be watched on demand.

    Let's face it -- with PVRs, VOD, and torrents, we're already half way there. They just need to figure out how to monetize it, and standardize the streaming services so they can be built into TVs.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Apparently "On Demand" isn't protected by Wescotte · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for direct subscriptions since we're practically doing it now by purchasing DVD season sets. The only problem is networks don't seem to care as much about DVD sales VS Nielsen ratings. We might finally be able to prevent the really great shows from going under after a single season.

  28. I'm surprised at the programmers here! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm surprised that there isn't more interest in the main issue in the case, the question of what is a "transitory" copy.... especially among you software developers out there!

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    1. Re:I'm surprised at the programmers here! by pnuema · · Score: 1
      It's the summary. I had to read half of the comments before I figured out this article was about moving DVR HD's out of the home.

      Yes, I'm a typical slashdotter. I did not read the article.

    2. Re:I'm surprised at the programmers here! by k10quaint · · Score: 1

      The law lags so far behind software development, I don't consider any of it relevant. Plus, we pay our attack dog lawyers millions of dollars to eat the people who raise issues like this. Finally, I get depressed when I am reminded that everything I get paid for is illegal (unless our congress critters "campaigns" are well funded).

    3. Re:I'm surprised at the programmers here! by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that there isn't more interest in the main issue in the case, the question of what is a "transitory" copy.... especially among you software developers out there!

      "Transitory copy" is ripe for the same logic torture that "for limited times" was in copyright duration: it can be as long as you want so long as it is not actually forever. The real burden is proving the greater economic interest is on your side.

      Yeah, I'm starting to feel burnt out on the issue. Whenever the Princes of the Plains and the Tribesmen of the Cold Hillsides do battle, it is always the Dwellers in the Forest who will come off worst.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:I'm surprised at the programmers here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the legal definition has nothing to do with the technical definition. Technically it's quite well defined and has a different meaning.

      And rarely is a piece of data completely in transit (never with TCP).

    5. Re:I'm surprised at the programmers here! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well I personally think you're all missing the point here.

      There was a bad case, the MAI Systems case -- which most lawyers knew was wrong legally, and most programmers and other tech people knew was very very wrong in the real world -- which held that even a copy which existed nowhere except in RAM was a "copy" within the meaning of the Copyright Act. In MAI

      defendant Peak Computer, Inc., performed maintenance and repairs on computers made and sold by MAI Systems. In order to service a customer's computer, a Peak employee had to operate the computer and run the computer's copyrighted operating system software. See MAI Sys., 991 F.2d at 513. The issue in MAI Systems was whether, by loading the software into the computer's RAM,1 the repairman created a "copy" as defined in 101. See id. at 517. The resolution of this issue turned on whether the software's embodiment in the computer's RAM was "fixed," within the meaning of the same section.

      The Ninth Circuit concluded, in my view unfairly, that

      by showing that Peak loads the software into the RAM and is then able to view the system error log and diagnose the problem with the computer, MAI has adequately shown that the representation created in the RAM is "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration"

      and that the RAM version was therefore a "copy" even though it existed nowhere in a fixed format.

      The Cartoon Networks case, as I read it, greatly limits the damaging effect of the MAI case. Do you disagree?

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    6. Re:I'm surprised at the programmers here! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The law lags so far behind software development, I don't consider any of it relevant.

      Well you'd find it highly relevant if you got skewered, like the defendant in MAI, because the 9th Circuit judges just didn't understand. You should be aware of the fact, and appreciate the fact, that the 2nd Circuit judges in the Cartoon Networks case took the time to be a little better informed and make a little bit more realistic assessment. Like it or not, the law is relevant to all of our lives, so we all have an interest in helping it to become as rational and fair as possible. (Unlike the MPAA and RIAA whose apparent goal in life these days is to distort the law, and make it as irrational and unfair as possible.).

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    7. Re:I'm surprised at the programmers here! by k10quaint · · Score: 1
      Courts are still resolving the issue of bundling the browser with the operating system. From a professional perspective that ship has sailed, been taken over by pirates, ransomed, returned home, made into a floating museum and finally run into budget troubles due to the county it is moored next to over investing in interest rate derivatives.

      We own the patent on skewering humans on points of law. We also patented licking stamps and sealing envelopes so step lightly sir! :)

      The 9th Circuit is probably the worst possible venue to induce me to care (about precedent). A hodgepodge of case law exists due to the size of the court and it differs substantially with the supreme court (a liberal bias, not bad just different).

      Ask RIM if their 500 million might have been better spent changing the law in congress or getting judges elected who "favor" their interpretation of the law. Not implying corruption as a business tool, just active engagement with the establishment to educate and amend.

    8. Re:I'm surprised at the programmers here! by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 1

      That's because transitory copies have been handled by the courts (for software) already.

      I remember a case where someone providing maintenance was charged with copyright infringement while running software on a customer site...

      Ah, there it is. MAI Systems Corp. v Peak Computer, Inc.

      http://www.badsoftware.com/y2ksspa.htm

      It doesn't matter who asks you to make the copy, you have to have permission to do it. That includes executing licensed software on customer premises. The act of running software creates a copy, which the person performing the execution needs to have permission to make.

      I'm not familiar with any law changes or follow-on case law, so I don't know how it stands now.

    9. Re:I'm surprised at the programmers here! by Jason+Pollock · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see MAI was gotten around by a specific exception for software repair. However, according to Wikipedia, it seems that copying a program into RAM for execution is still creating a copy for which you need a license?

    10. Re:I'm surprised at the programmers here! by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      it is always the Dwellers in the Forest who will come off worst.

      Are you saying I have pointy ears and a flair for magic and archery?

    11. Re:I'm surprised at the programmers here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose you buy (er, license) some software on a DVD. You usually are allowed to copy that onto a hard drive.

      From there it gets murky.

      Can you copy it into RAM for execution?
      Can you copy it into L2/L1 cache?
      Can you copy it into registers?

      During the execution of a program, your computer has multiple copies of parts of the program running around.

      The question of what is a "transitory copy" is something that I think most software developers don't want the Judiciary touching with a 10-foot pool.

      Can you imagine the horror if some judge demands a copy of the contents of some L2 cache for some bullshit MPAA fishing expedition?

      Granted, maybe I don't understand how far along these cases have got, but my impression is that the Judiciary is still clueless.

    12. Re:I'm surprised at the programmers here! by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      it is always the Dwellers in the Forest who will come off worst.

      Are you saying I have pointy ears and a flair for magic and archery?

      I'm saying you need to brush up on your Douglas Adams.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    13. Re:I'm surprised at the programmers here! by scribblej · · Score: 1

      Wow, so basically, if I purchase -- er, sorry -- license a copy of a game, I can't actually /play/ the game unless the license also allows me to load -- sorry, copy -- it into RAM... and furthermore that a limitation of the license that allows me to copy it into RAM /only/ for the purposes of playing is perfectly legal?

      I wonder how many EULAs I've agreed to that do /not/ grant me the right to have a copy in RAM, and I am therefore guilty of copyright infringement?

  29. Slave to the idiot box. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it disturbing you think watching pop culture kitsch is a topic so important you stockpile gear like one would for Armageddon...

  30. It's about precedent! by mattt79 · · Score: 1

    The cable company is waiving the "Fair Use" defense because they don't want to win a case that then strengthens the "Betamax" decision.

  31. I'm willing to store your shows for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just drop by your Blu-Ray collections to me. I will watch them occasionally to make sure they work.

  32. Re:This isn't Personal USE, this is redistribution by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    At what point is it no longer legal?

    Here: If I sell the satellite connection to begin with?

    When you become the actual distributor of content. In all the other cases, you're essentially an apartment landlord renting furnished apartments with TV and VCR, but requiring the renters to establish their own cable accounts.

  33. Re:This isn't Personal USE, this is redistribution by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can morph any innocuous action (politely telling somebody you can't talk to them right now) by small steps (being rude, being angry and insulting, making threats if they don't leave you alone) to stuff that's totally illegal (using force to make them go away, using deadly force...) and downright heinous (setting off a bomb that kills them and a lot of other people). It can be hard to define precisely the boundaries between legal, illegal, really illegal, and crimes against humanity — hence all the legal hairsplitting. But they do exist.

    Which is not to defend the legal abuses that owners of IP have indulged in. But that comes from legal principles based on assumptions about the technology that no longer apply. (Plus, of course, their extreme influence over the people who make and interpret the law involved.) But there's no "slippery slope" situation here.

  34. Re:This isn't Personal USE, this is redistribution by roccomaglio · · Score: 1

    We need a -1 Wrong moderation.

    I think we need a -1 factually incorrect modification and if you use use it you can be asked to back it up.

  35. I am surprised fair use was waived by maroberts · · Score: 1

    If other issues do want to be raised, then I thought the defendant could simply give multiple reasons why the action cannot succeed, and ask the court to rule on them all....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  36. Re:This isn't Personal USE, this is redistribution by noidentity · · Score: 1

    It's illegal at whatever point it increases your enjoyment, because you shouldn't get anything without paying them more.

  37. It's tricky. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    With a DVR and an external drive, I can keep a cable TV show as long as a video tape in theory.

    If a cable company can keep a digital copy of "Wolverine" indefinately, then why would I buy a copy?

    It seems reasonable to me that a cable company could save a copy of a show for a few days or a week but not indefinitely.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:It's tricky. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      If a cable company can keep a digital copy of "Wolverine" indefinately, then why would I buy a copy?

      Because their copy has ads, or otherwise(?) just isn't "as good" as a shiny disc from the publisher?

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    2. Re:It's tricky. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      No ads.

      They keep a copy forever. I can watch it on demand as part of my regular subscription for no extra charge or some really wimpy charge like 25 cents.

      I stopped buying DVD's when I got to about 1,000 of them (that's about $10k worth of DVD's btw). They just take up space. I probably rewatch under 25 of them (Moulin Rouge, Silverado, Circle of Iron, Wrath of Khan, Last Action Hero, Dark City, other's don't jump to mind but I'm sure there are others).

      A lot of movies (Usual Suspects, American Beauty, Most other star trek movies, Most action films) - I watch once and that's enough for a decade-- probably for a lifetime.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  38. Re:This isn't Personal USE, this is redistribution by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

    When I wrote "if I sell the satellite connection to begin with" my intention was to ask at what point it becomes illegal for an organization legally selling the satellite connections under contract with the media providers to perform these steps.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  39. collusion and attempt to get advisory ruling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are these stipulations against fair use defense and secondary infringement claim an attempt to bypass the "case or controversy" doctrine and get what amounts an advisory ruling from the court about a somewhat different point of law than the case would more obviously turn on? Is that a common tactic? Should the court throw out the case on account of it?

  40. some systems sent out VOD as clear qam so public by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    some systems sent out VOD as clear qam so it is public in that way

  41. Re:This isn't Personal USE, this is redistribution by cstdenis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > Everybody agrees that I can have a DVR in my house. Is it okay if I move it to my garage?
    [citation needed]

    > Is it okay if I buy a plot of land and get satellite and put my DVR there, and relay to my house over the Internet?
    MPAA: No, You need special (expensive) licensing.

    > Is it okay if I let a friend put his dish and his DVR on my plot of land?
    MPAA: No, You need special (expensive) licensing.

    > What if I charge some strangers to put their dishes and DVR on my land?
    MPAA: No, You need special (expensive) licensing.

    > What if I have 200 people, but I rent DVRs to them?
    MPAA: No, You need special (expensive) licensing.

    > What if I replace the hard drives in individual DVRs with a huge RAID array?
    MPAA: No, You need special (expensive) licensing.

    > What if I virtualize the DVRs?
    MPAA: No, You need special (expensive) licensing.

    > What if I sell the satellite connection to begin with?
    MPAA: No, You need special (expensive) licensing.

    > At what point is it no longer legal?
    MPAA: Whenever we say.

    --
    1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
  42. Re:This isn't Personal USE, this is redistribution by russotto · · Score: 1

    When I get something from the cable company, that is distribution. If that is not distributed in the manner as the owner of the copyright desires, that is a copyright violation on face. Copyright is ABOUT distribution.

    The MPAA did not assert a violation of the distribution right. It wouldn't apply anyway, because no copies were distributed. Instead, they asserted a violation of the public performance right... and got shot down as the performance wasn't public.

  43. Won't happen. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    I love it, but I doubt it will happen. Ever.

    Ever notice how all cable and satellite providers offer massive bundles, which include the one channel you need and fifty or so you don't?

    Yeah... not going to try to go through the mental contortions to why they like that, but clearly, they do. No way they'd let me subscribe to a single show at a reasonable price -- certainly not if it skips the ads, the way DVDs do.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  44. John August has an interesting perspective on this by FuckTheModerators · · Score: 1

    Here.
    And here.
    Both from a viewer's perspective and a rightsholder-who-gets-paid-when-content-plays perspective.

  45. Re:This isn't Personal USE, this is redistribution by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    When I save something on my DVR, that is for personal use.

    FYI, while time shifting was declared to be a right of the user, recording "for keeps" (which was called "librarying" in the decision) was not. It was purposefully not decided either way, so it could theoretically be declared illegal later. (There was a book about the case written many years ago.)

  46. Re:This isn't Personal USE, this is redistribution by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),x · · Score: 1
    If the recording is still for your exclusive use, then who cares what agent or where it is stored?

    tOM

    --
    Epitaph: At last! Root access!
  47. Re:This isn't Personal USE, this is redistribution by barfy · · Score: 1

    As to the advertiser question. The problem becomes one of WHEN I am going to watch the add. If I am watching it I am not watching ANOTHER ad at the same time. I may very well skip the ad, and never pay attention. I may watch the recording a thousand times and never go back to the channel. I may ONLY watch the DVR and skip it every time.

    The problem is, that an advertiser pays for an event. And the event it paid for, is not what you are doing when it is dvr'd. It is definitely not the same when it is "on-demand".

    This of course doesn't apply to Planters Peanuts during the World Series of Poker.