In this case though, Dish is both the rebroadcaster and the manufacturer of the end user hardware.
If "Dish the Rebroadcaster" is broadcasting the entire programming content (with commercials) to the end user's DVR, but "Dish the hardware manufacturer" includes a feature that the user can enable to not display commercials on content recorded to their DVR... does that change things?
To get around, I'd imagine that as long as the recorder stores everything (but allows the user to pick a watching mode in which the ads are skipped) should not be a copyright violation.
Dish Network has had exactly this same button on their DVR remotes for at least the last 4-5 years. In fact, I believe it is unique to them and a (minor) selling point in their marketing material.
Tivo has the same button.
Dish Network has had exactly this same button on their DVR remotes for at least the last 4-5 years. In fact, I believe it is unique to them and a (minor) selling point in their marketing material.
I would guess that skipping content is either legal or illegal, and the exact algorithm used for determining how much to skip is basically irrelevant.
If it's just for personal use, then nobody will ever know you did it. Whether or not it technically violates the DMCA is pointless if the copyright cartel has no way of finding out about it.
Yes, common sense would say there should be an exception to the DMCA if no actual copyright infringement occurred. Although that provides no benefit to those who wrote the law (copyright cartel), so they didn't bother with trivial nonsense like that.
Anyone else notice that (further down in the article) they measured 6 different levels of grey between 'white' and 'black', and 4 of the levels of grey actually measured MORE of a power draw than pure white on the LCD monitor?
I've always thought the way we should look at it is the following:
1) How much profit does a work have to make in order for the average artist to be encouraged to create more art. 2) How long does it take the average successful work to make the amount of profit defined above.
That's how long copyright should be for, no more and no less.
The problem is that copyright no longer has anything to do with encouraging artists. These days it's all about corporate greed/control, and the people in a position to do something about it are motivated to serve those corporate interests above the public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
Bring Your Own Device
You absolutely can and should write fully functional, properly-tested, bug-free software.
Let me guess, you're in management.
The MPAA/RIAA are not the only ones who own copyrights.
In this case though, Dish is both the rebroadcaster and the manufacturer of the end user hardware.
If "Dish the Rebroadcaster" is broadcasting the entire programming content (with commercials) to the end user's DVR, but "Dish the hardware manufacturer" includes a feature that the user can enable to not display commercials on content recorded to their DVR... does that change things?
Is that what they're doing?
To get around, I'd imagine that as long as the recorder stores everything (but allows the user to pick a watching mode in which the ads are skipped) should not be a copyright violation.
Isn't that what AutoHop does?
I don't believe their ever was a ruling in the ReplayTV case. I thought the lawsuit was stayed because the company went bankrupt during the trial.
Dish Network has had exactly this same button on their DVR remotes for at least the last 4-5 years. In fact, I believe it is unique to them and a (minor) selling point in their marketing material.
Tivo has the same button.
Dish Network has had exactly this same button on their DVR remotes for at least the last 4-5 years. In fact, I believe it is unique to them and a (minor) selling point in their marketing material.
I would guess that skipping content is either legal or illegal, and the exact algorithm used for determining how much to skip is basically irrelevant.
And what is the likelihood they will succeed?
Who has more money?
A suitable suit suite? Sweet!
It's disabled by default in the US too, but there's a key combination you can enter into the remote that enables it again.
Engage and embrace your customers
They are. You and I are not Fox's customers. The advertisers are their customers.
I"m curious..what the grounds they're suing over?
The grounds of "we don't like it, so it must be illegal"!
It's a nice theory, but I've never heard of anyone actually being held accountable for submitting a false DMCA.
The BSA is just as bad. They usually blackmail businesses though, not individuals, so people don't complain about them as often as the RIAA/MPAA.
They'd have to look for one, in order to find it. Remind me... who is certifying/testing these backscatter machines?
I think the number you're looking for is "0".
If it's just for personal use, then nobody will ever know you did it. Whether or not it technically violates the DMCA is pointless if the copyright cartel has no way of finding out about it.
Yes, common sense would say there should be an exception to the DMCA if no actual copyright infringement occurred. Although that provides no benefit to those who wrote the law (copyright cartel), so they didn't bother with trivial nonsense like that.
Those really nice people are already doing that, DRM isn't stopping them. The only people that are effected by DRM are the legitimate customers.
Anyone else notice that (further down in the article) they measured 6 different levels of grey between 'white' and 'black', and 4 of the levels of grey actually measured MORE of a power draw than pure white on the LCD monitor?
If it was up to the RIAA/MPAA they would outlaw the internet.
That's a good idea, in theory. But standard "accounting tricks" within the industry would make measuring that relatively meaningless.
I've always thought the way we should look at it is the following:
1) How much profit does a work have to make in order for the average artist to be encouraged to create more art.
2) How long does it take the average successful work to make the amount of profit defined above.
That's how long copyright should be for, no more and no less.
The problem is that copyright no longer has anything to do with encouraging artists. These days it's all about corporate greed/control, and the people in a position to do something about it are motivated to serve those corporate interests above the public domain.
Yup, and only a matter of time before the RIAA finds another judge who isn't fed up with them...
Or buys one.
No but unless you can prove that you did not voluntarily provide your car
You have that backwards, at least in theory.
Which probably means it's going to get overturned. :(