Gates shows off Vista in CES keynote

TalkBack 40 of 189:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Again, rights versus ownership of an object

---Your argument actually goes to disprove your point about content ownership. If your painting is stolen, can you reproduce the contents onto another canvas because you "owned" that instance? Of course not. As you own references have repeatedly stated, ownership of the copy confers no ownership as to the contents.---

As I've repeatedly said, you don't own reproduction rights, you own that one physical instance. If it's stolen, that physical instance is gone. But you do own that one physical set of the contents. You keep claiming that I want copyright over the contents, which I've never asked for.

---You do understand the difference between "reproduction" and "reference" right? ---

Citing a reference does not mean you can not reproduce large swathes of text. Any literary criticism contains large amounts of the text it is discussing.

---You misunderstand "scholary work" here. They are referring to academic studies of intellectual property. A dissertation on Hamlet or a thesis on "Madonna" for example. Once again, they are making a reference to the original source, not a reproduction of it. If you can cite a counter example to prove me wrong, go for it.---

I can write an article for the newspaper or a classroom that quotes large passages from a book I'm discussing, or quotes liberally from a movie. The amount allowed is, of course, up to individual interpretation by a judge. Reproducing the entire thing would probably be frowned upon, but large sections are certainly allowed.

---And what makes you think I would want to drive my car after removing the catalyic converter? I simply stated that you COULD do it, I never stated that you could drive on the streets afterwards ---

So your comment was on your physical ability to do so, but not your legal ability to do so and still use the object in question? I can run off 6,000 copies of the cd I just bought, I never stated that I could give them all away in my store.

---Sure, and find the law that proves me wrong. The point is, the ruling on this is unclear and the only "precedent" (which is not legally binding) is SonicBlue who folded!---

Sorry, you made the claim, not me. It's up to you to prove it, as proving a negative is nearly impossible. Find the law or admit it's a falsehood. Go back and read the references on the case I gave you already:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020509_sprigman.html
Skipping Commercials is Not Copyright Infringement

SonicBlue cannot be liable for contributory or vicarious copyright infringement unless ad skipping also creates direct infringement liability for ReplayTV users. As noted above, the whole theory of contributory and vicarious infringement is that viewers are infringing, and the company is either helping them to, or infringing itself through their actions.

However, if skipping an ad with Replay is infringement, then skipping one with a VCR is too. For an even more direct parallel, note also that there are VCRs on the market today that, like Replay TV, include an automatic commercial skip feature. Moreover, virtually all VCRs allow either one-touch 30-second skipping or conventional fast-forwarding - both of which are perfectly serviceable methods for skipping through ads.

Plaintiffs argue that they did not "authorize" Replay users (or VCR users, for that matter) to make copies of programs and then skip the ads when viewing those copies. But home recording of television programs for the purpose of "time-shifting" - that is, recording a program for viewing at a more convenient time - has already been considered and pronounced upon by the Supreme Court.

In Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the Court held this practice to be permissible when it was challenged in the context of VCRs. Time-shifting, the Court ruled, was acceptable under the fair use doctrine - despite the obvious possibility that viewers might fast-forward through ads while watching time-shifted programs on their VCRs. (The "fair use" doctrine creates a number of exceptions to the copyright law; if a use fits into an exception, an infringement suit cannot succeed.)

The fact that ReplayTV's commercial skip feature operates automatically - rather than requiring a user to press one button, or to press a button and hold it for a few seconds - is a meaningless distinction from the facts before the Court in Sony. The devices are the same in their purpose and effect, and thus should be treated the same under the law. Sony's precedent is thus directly applicable in the ReplayTV case.

As a result, as a copyright infringement claim, plaintiffs' complaint about ad-skipping falls flat. The claim is not really about protecting copyrighted works at all. Rather, it's about protecting the plaintiffs' particular business model - feeding ads to passive viewers. That is not a proper role for copyright.

---No, they cite examples, not precedent. You understand what "precedent" means right? In our (US) court system, precedent is an establishment of fact finding.---

Yep, which is why I agreed with you that it's a grey area, but one which is likely to be legal, given the precedent already set.

---You are violating the copyright law by making a backup or ripping a CD, but these likely fall into what has been considered "fair use" category. Previous rulings (such as in Betamax) are narrow and restricted. They likely apply to new forums, formats, mediums, and exchanges, but no actual precedent has been set. That's a very important legal distinction.---

Funny, if there's no legal precedent, why are you assuming guilt. Don't we consider someone innocent until proven guilty? You've already convicted me of lawbreaking for ripping an mp3 from a purchased cd when you yourself admit there is no such law on the books. Why so prosecutorial?

---And which one says it is?---

This one:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020509_sprigman.html

---here is an important LEGAL distinction between time shift and actually skipping. One is backed by precedent, the other has none. Thus again, even though it is technologically possibly to entirely skip commericials, not a single DVR company has dared risk this infraction by attempting to do so. Not after SonicBlue anyway.---

Nope, again you're making things up. Plenty of VCRs are produced that skip commercials. From my reference:
"For an even more direct parallel, note also that there are VCRs on the market today that, like Replay TV, include an automatic commercial skip feature. Moreover, virtually all VCRs allow either one-touch 30-second skipping or conventional fast-forwarding - both of which are perfectly serviceable methods for skipping through ads."

Posted by: tic swayback   Posted on: 01/05/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now