Hill comments that the ability to record TV shows via a PC and harddrive or CD-R "would cause some issues with the motion picture industry." Now I know that the MPAA and others have an ongoing history of trying to squash new technology, but why should the ability to record a TV show or movie with your PC be any different than recording with a VCR?
Say you were a group with a vested interest in banning, by legislation, internet piricy of music, movies, games, and the like. At whom do you target the legislation?
On one hand, you could go after the people who leave the files in locations where they can be accessed by others. How do you prove, though, that this was intentional, not accidental? But officer, I didn't know my ftp server allowed anonymous access!
On the other hand, you could go after the downloaders, but proving that the person downloading the file doesn't have a legitimate reason to posess the file could be difficult in some circumstances.
Finally, you could go after anyone making or using tools which could possibly be used to violate copyrights. If Napster can be held resposible for MP3 piricy, shouldn't Xerox be held responsible for copyright violations of printed material?
Slashdot Mirror
Hill comments that the ability to record TV shows via a PC and harddrive or CD-R "would cause some issues with the motion picture industry." Now I know that the MPAA and others have an ongoing history of trying to squash new technology, but why should the ability to record a TV show or movie with your PC be any different than recording with a VCR?
Say you were a group with a vested interest in banning, by legislation, internet piricy of music, movies, games, and the like. At whom do you target the legislation?
On one hand, you could go after the people who leave the files in locations where they can be accessed by others. How do you prove, though, that this was intentional, not accidental? But officer, I didn't know my ftp server allowed anonymous access!
On the other hand, you could go after the downloaders, but proving that the person downloading the file doesn't have a legitimate reason to posess the file could be difficult in some circumstances.
Finally, you could go after anyone making or using tools which could possibly be used to violate copyrights. If Napster can be held resposible for MP3 piricy, shouldn't Xerox be held responsible for copyright violations of printed material?
Just food for thought.