Comments on: A Copyrighted Future http://demockracy.com/a-copyrighted-future/ Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:24:57 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Mark http://demockracy.com/a-copyrighted-future/comment-page-1/#comment-530 Mark Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:35:06 +0000 http://demockracy.com/?p=3566#comment-530 I don't see how the court could rule that Cablevision is infringing on copyright simply by storing content on hard drives at their headquarters. Individual users store content on their DVR hard drives, so if you want to go after Cablevision, you'd have to go after every other DVR user and risk outlawing DVRs altogether. Unfortunately, given the ruling from twenty-five years ago, that's not possible; time-shifting is legal and <i>stare decisis</i> prevents the Supreme Court from reneging on itself if the facts of the case are the same. Blu-Ray <i>was</i> the better technology in this case. It offered greater capacity than HD-DVD, which is really all one should be concerned about when it comes to DVDs. Another funny thing about this story: 25 years ago, Sony was the device manufacturer. Were the case to appear before the court today, Sony would probably be on the content providers' side, since it owns so many media companies now. I don’t see how the court could rule that Cablevision is infringing on copyright simply by storing content on hard drives at their headquarters. Individual users store content on their DVR hard drives, so if you want to go after Cablevision, you’d have to go after every other DVR user and risk outlawing DVRs altogether. Unfortunately, given the ruling from twenty-five years ago, that’s not possible; time-shifting is legal and stare decisis prevents the Supreme Court from reneging on itself if the facts of the case are the same.

Blu-Ray was the better technology in this case. It offered greater capacity than HD-DVD, which is really all one should be concerned about when it comes to DVDs.

Another funny thing about this story: 25 years ago, Sony was the device manufacturer. Were the case to appear before the court today, Sony would probably be on the content providers’ side, since it owns so many media companies now.

]]> By: Kevin Van Dyke, Editor http://demockracy.com/a-copyrighted-future/comment-page-1/#comment-526 Kevin Van Dyke, Editor Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:17:42 +0000 http://demockracy.com/?p=3566#comment-526 Very informative, Mark. The funny thing about Betamax is that it is often used as the classic example of a superior technology that got beat out by an inferior technology (the VCR). This analogy is then sometimes extended to demonstrate the concept of path dependency. I thought the same thing would happen with BlueRay, but apparently it has prevailed over HD-DVDs. I also find it amusing that CNN is the plaintiff. How many people go home and say, "man, I'm going to watch the program I TiVo'ed on CNN"? On the contents of the case, what is your take on how the court will rule? I see Stevens wrote the opinion for the Sony case. If you count him for Cablevision (I'm not sure if this is transferable or not), I assume that means they need 3 more votes (out of 7 with the two W appointees out of the game). Very informative, Mark. The funny thing about Betamax is that it is often used as the classic example of a superior technology that got beat out by an inferior technology (the VCR). This analogy is then sometimes extended to demonstrate the concept of path dependency. I thought the same thing would happen with BlueRay, but apparently it has prevailed over HD-DVDs.

I also find it amusing that CNN is the plaintiff. How many people go home and say, “man, I’m going to watch the program I TiVo’ed on CNN”?

On the contents of the case, what is your take on how the court will rule? I see Stevens wrote the opinion for the Sony case. If you count him for Cablevision (I’m not sure if this is transferable or not), I assume that means they need 3 more votes (out of 7 with the two W appointees out of the game).

]]>