AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
653 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
 http://news.com.com/2100-1027-998363.html?tag=fd_top


Since this is only a lower court it is not the end of this at all, but at least it indicates that some judges are starting to get it.


This could have huge implications for services like Replay Show sharing as well.


Discuss :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
Technically, the judge said that there are legitimate non-infringing uses for file-swapping programs just as there are such uses for VCRs and copy machines. The fact that there are also illegitimate infringing uses is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for banning such programs. At first glance this would seem to support the RTV Internet show sharing feature, but let's not all jump to conclusions just yet.


Happily, with this ruling the world is a little more balanced today than it was yesterday. Sadly, we're still closer to the beginning of the litigation than to the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
Funny how judges in the same building don't feel like innovative platforms can have non-infringing uses.


By the way, a citizen's panel is reviewing ol' Judge Eick (the one who wanted SB to spy on all of us) for reappointment and needs our opinion regarding his conduct. Deadline is May 5. Maybe the first step is to make sure judges sitting on benches understand that whole 4th amendment thingie?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
Bump -- I'd like to know why this thread hasn't had more play. Is it because it runs against the incorrect but bizarrely passionate view of many people on this forum (you know who you are) that any company that facilitates the sharing of copyrighted material will go to jail?


Nice to see a judge agree with those of us who think that the law is not nearly so monolithicly for the entertainment industry and against technological advance. Just because technology can be used to infringe copyright doesn't mean the technology itself is illegal, and I continue to maintain that typical replay show sharing (e.g. sharing an isolated over the air show with a specific person who could have recorded it himself but inadvertently missed it) does not cross the line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
452 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by asinshesq
Bump -- I'd like to know why this thread hasn't had more play. Is it because it runs against the incorrect but bizarrely passionate view of many people on this forum (you know who you are) that any company that facilitates the sharing of copyrighted material will go to jail?
It's because most of the discussion is occuring in the thread linked in my previous post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
Well, actually, no, scochran. That other thread is exactly 7 posts long as I type and hasn't been added to since yesterday afternoon, so it is pretty dead too (and it hasn't been joined by most of the people who insisted that there was 0% chance that ISS could survive attack).


But looking at your last post in that thread, schochran, where you say:


"Don't misunderstand me - I think ISS is great. I think it _should_ be legal. But this decision does nothing to further the ISS cause, and the chances of sucessfully pursuing the case to the end (Supreme Court) are slim at best."


I continue to think that kind of attitude is bizarre (there's that word again). Is the law murky on these topics? Of course. That's exactly why statements asserting that chances of sucess are 'slim at best' make absolutely no sense.


On the substance, you claim in the other thread that the new decision is irrelevant since in that case the technology has substantial noninfringing uses while you say that ISS does not (I gather because everything we record over the air or from cable is copyrighted). But you seem utterly blind to the argument that so many of us have been making (professionals as well as layman) that sharing an isolated over the air show with a specific person who could have recorded it himself but inadvertently missed it is not a copyright infringement -- it is part of fair use. Can reasonable people disagree with that point? Yup. But that does not make it a slam dunk loser! Why pretend that it is?


I am not one that argues that a company should be permitted to make things that have no legitimate use, but I think the vast majority of the replay users that have ever used ISS (a small number to begin with) use it in a responsible fashion that we believe we are in the right in doing. For example I would never -- never -- share a show with someone who says 'I don't get HBO so could someone send me show X'. I think that would be wrong, and I don't do it. But I am comfortable as a moral matter that if someone says "Hey, I missed last nights 60 Minutes on CBS, could you please send it to me?" I can comply with that request.


Now I'm going to stop posting in this thread and take your advice about confining this discussion to the other thread ( http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...08#post2149708 ).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
653 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by MasterK
I created this thread first didn't I? :D
That proves it -- you are Lizard_boy, right?
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top