|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
Contractual could very well be involved. But the claim:
CBS
explained its lawsuit as responding to a service that “takes existing network
content and modifies it in a manner than is unauthorized and illegal. We believe
this is a clear violation of copyright law and we intend to stop
it.”
That would clearly indicate a strong angle of Copyright Law
itself.
So here's the magic question which will utlimately be asked
(maybe, but should be) and maybe answered:
Can a modification of a
compilation that consists of adds + tv programming fall into the aspect of a
derivative work or will it fall into the "fair use" aspects instead?
I
would think a customers choice to be able to skip adds - much like not even
bothering to look at them in a magazine - is a fair use. But that's just me
:)
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dio gratia on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 06:20 PM EDT |
From reading through the complaints it appears DISH is a licensee for
delivering content, and pays the big four studios hundreds of millions of
dollars a year. You could note there is copyright law covering statutory
licensing (17 USC 119, 122). Separately DISH sells a DVR which has the ability
to skip over commercials automatically on playback and incidentally records all
prime time television, making it available for playback the next day. The
content is delivered to subscribers unaltered. They may choose to enable the
Hopper feature to automatically skip commercials on playback.
Some subclass
of advertising might be time sensitive and is already nonsequitar when available
for playback. The advertising concerns contract for ad display on specific
shows or viewing slots on specific dates. The content is available for playback
after those dates. The content providers have already failed to deliver to
their advertising clients.
The EFF puts the issue thus: "The Betamax case and its
descendants go to a crucial question: will innovators be forced by copyright law
to ask permission from entertainment moguls before building new
technologies?" It isn't clear DISH is doing anything infringing copyright
and have by sued for a declarative judgement to that affect.
The innovation
being offered, automatically recording prime time TV and skipping commercials.
Does innovation stop to preserve business models outdated by technology? You'd
also find where later replay is allowed for broadcast content the such as here
in New Zealand skipping the commercials is not generally an option, enforced by
clever use of technology. These content providers are seeking leverage to
maintain the apparent status quo, attempting to extend copyright to preventing
the viewer from automatically skipping commercials.
Barring any actual
copyright infringement by DISH, the studios suits appear specious. Generally,
copyright law isn't held to guarantee business models and it there isn't a crime
of 'felony business model interference'.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
In other news, buggy whip manufacturers report declining
income...
"but in the long run if the broadcast networks can't make
money they will disappear."
That doesn't give them any legal basis for prohibiting this
technology.
The courts have consistently held that it is perfectly legal
for consumers to record television programming for later
viewing ("time-shifting"). Similarly, it is perfectly legal
to skip commercials on playback. This "autohop" feature is
no more than a technical advance that makes it more
convenient.
Note that the programming is recorded with the advertising
intact, and viewers can still watch as many ads as they
want.
The networks have to adapt or cease to exist. They can't
put the toothpaste back into the tube. FWIW, I find nearly
all network programming to be rubbish anyway.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
