Orrymain

divxhacker

The copyrights can still be maintained. This service can be treated like Youtube or hulu, the media companies can restrict access to content so that it is seen only where broadcasted. i.e. local newscasts won't be seen outside the registered user's location. Also it could be restricted to only be viewable through a device where the end user cannot record off of it.

__________________
I love Computers, but I could never eat a Whole one.

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.

Aaron62

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.

bicker

I don't think this was ever a matter pertaining to the advertisers.

Aaron62

IMHO, networks are all over this because most rented or sold DVRs today have the capability to skip past commercials.

Quoted from same story: TVNEWSDAY - VHF: Now Everything You Know Is Wrong

bicker

You're confusing broadcasters with production houses.

Aaron62

I know that production houses were in on the suit, but so were ABC, NBC, and Newscorp.

Call me crazy but the very beginning of the article mentions,

bicker

I never trust headlines or come-on's. Editors and even reporters can barely be relied on to get the meat of the stories correct; I surely don't think we can rely on throwaway lines they inject to make the story more of a blockbuster.

Besides the fact that the broadcast and cable networks produce many of their own programs, they are under contract to protect the rights of the content owners from whom they've obtained content.

If you read through the lawsuit, there is nothing in there about commercial avoidance. It is all about copyright.