"MR_ED_of_Course" wrote in message
...
: in article , Richard C. at
: wrote on 1/4/04 9:37 AM:
:
:
: "MR_ED_of_Course" wrote in message
: ...
: :
: : Unless you can cite a precedent for any of this, the fact of the matter is
: : that much of this is untested in the courts.
: :
: : In regards to time-shifting a copy of a rented VHS tape, I'd really like to
: : know under what basis this would be considered illegal. Specifically where
: : do you draw the line under what constitutes time-shifting.
: :
: =====================
: "time-shifting" applies ONLY to broadcasts of TV signals.
:
: It absolutely does NOT apply ONLY to broadcasts of TV signals. I believe
: you're confusing two different arguments that Sony used in its defense.
: Sony's Akio Morita is credited with coining the phrase time-shifting and the
: court accepted it (then lost on appeal, then won in the Supreme Court). The
: two defenses we
:
: 1) Time-shifting: "The basic concept behind the home-use VCR is to free the
: public from the constraints of television scheduling, in other words, to
: allow people to watch programs at their own convenience." Note that this
: does *not* use the word broadcast. This is a very important omission
: because there is a HUGE difference between cable and broadcast and Sony
: wanted to win based on the ability to time-shift *any* content.

=================
What part of "television scheduling" do you not understand?
===============
:
: This leads to the second (less central) defense:
:
: 2) Broadcast is public domain: "The huge volume of information transmitted
: over the airwaves by television stations is in the public domain." This
: argument had been used several times in other situations and has never
: really been fully resolved...it probably never will be due to digital
: encryption make the issue moot.
:
: The fact that it *is* legal to record *cable* television is a result of Sony
: winning the case based on the first argument and not the second. Had the
: courts ruled that you could time-shift broadcast-only content because
: broadcasting it over the airwaves put it in the public domain, it would've
: meant that you could not record cable television. Not only that, but it
: would've meant that you could do whatever you wanted with any content that
: was ever broadcasted...as in make copies and sell them.
:
: In other words, the courts agreed (based on surveys) that time-shifting of
: content had no financial effect on the copyright holders, it simply
: facilitated the watching of the content. They won only on the first
: argument.
:
: This is why it is legal to time-shift any content whether it be broadcast,
: cable, satellite, Pay-Per-View, or video rental.
:
========================
That does not follow..........................