decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
???? Watching the entire show isn't "fair use"? Context Please! | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
???? Watching the entire show isn't "fair use"? Context Please!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT
At both the current complex, and previous complex i lived in, there is a trash
can next to the mail boxes marked "paper products only". People flip
though
the mail, tossing the junk mail into it,

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Exactly!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 27 2012 @ 10:41 AM EDT

But it seems the anon to which I replied does not see that as "fair":

I don't think watching the *entire* tv show should qualify as fair use.
Or reselling a magazine with all the ads blacked out with a marker.
That anon seems to be equating "providing a consumer with the capability to skip adds if the consumer wants" to "serving up the programming with the adds stripped out".

I'd agree that there's a legal question if the third-party (not the copyright holder) strips out a lot of the programming and serves up only the "meat". However, it seems the anon to which I posted didn't bother to read this part of the original article:

a DVR feature that allows viewers the chance to automatically skip over advertisements
Which is exactly why I outlined the difference between a consumer's ability to not bother to look at adds.

Thank you for all the additional examples :)

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )