Yes, Sony did defend the VCR, but at the time they were not a member of the MPAA or the RIAA. They joined the *AA only after they purchased Hollywood studios.
And it's a quibble, but there is no "fair use" provision in US law. "Fair use" is a defense...the law doesn't mention it at all...A defendant basically claims "fair use" when accused of violating copyright and relies on the judge or jury to say that, yeah, the infringement was fair. (Bascially, there is no loophole allowing fair use.)
And, while I can't find a citation of the *AAs attacking someone for time shifting, they have taken action against users who shared content they owned. There was just recently a case of the RIAA suing a grandfather whose granddaughter had used P2P networks to share music that she owned (ie, she downloaded CDs that she also owned). Yes, the software also re-shared those CDs, but it isn't entirely black and white.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting post, but was it factually accurate?
Yes, Sony did defend the VCR, but at the time they were not a member of the MPAA or the RIAA. They joined the *AA only after they purchased Hollywood studios.
And it's a quibble, but there is no "fair use" provision in US law. "Fair use" is a defense...the law doesn't mention it at all...A defendant basically claims "fair use" when accused of violating copyright and relies on the judge or jury to say that, yeah, the infringement was fair. (Bascially, there is no loophole allowing fair use.)
And, while I can't find a citation of the *AAs attacking someone for time shifting, they have taken action against users who shared content they owned. There was just recently a case of the RIAA suing a grandfather whose granddaughter had used P2P networks to share music that she owned (ie, she downloaded CDs that she also owned). Yes, the software also re-shared those CDs, but it isn't entirely black and white.