Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker
The decision of the Court of Appeals (which the Supreme Court implicitly ratified by refusing to take the case) was very technical. It basically found three problems with the claim that Remote DVRs was a violation of copyright protection. First, the courts said that buffering does not count as copyright violation. Buffering is used regardless of whether the programming is being watched immediately or not. Moreover, the nature of a buffer explicitly contradicts one of the requirement to prove violation, i.e., that the so-called copy is permanent for more than just a "transitory duration".
Second, the courts said that the actual "copy" being made is made by the subscriber, just like a person who has their own VCR or DVR is the person who makes the "copy" stored via those technologies (and of course, prior precedents hold that individual people can make temporary copies for playback later).
Third, the courts made it clear that this technology does not constitute a public performance of what was copied. [07-1480-cv(L)]
That's it. That's what was decided this week. |
That should have been an easy decision. Some of the arguements from networks were absolutely without merit. If they're really concerned for the sake of sponsors, I'm sure they'll find some creative ways to advertise.
