05-25-2012, 03:27 PM | #1 |
Wizard
Posts: 2,145
Karma: 11174187
Join Date: Jan 2011
Device: Sony 350, K3-3G, K4SO, KPW
|
Skipping commercials is copyright infringement?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...ingement.shtml
TV Networks File Legal Claims Saying Skipping Commercials Is Copyright Infringement Will they try to make ad-blocking software on computers illegal next? |
05-25-2012, 03:36 PM | #2 |
The Dank Side of the Moon
Posts: 35,872
Karma: 118716293
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire
|
Well how do you think those megacorporations are going to make money if they can't get other megacorporations to advertise. Who cares what the whiny consumers want.....
|
Advert | |
|
05-25-2012, 03:39 PM | #3 |
Addict
Posts: 304
Karma: 2454436
Join Date: Sep 2008
Device: PRS-505, PRS-650, iPad, Samsung Galaxy SII (JB), Google Nexus 7 (2013)
|
I was just reading a thread where people were arguing in favour of making copyright infringement a criminal offence. I wonder if they had this in mind.
|
05-25-2012, 03:54 PM | #4 |
Wizard
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
|
Fox is actually suing DISH, not individual customers. They're not saying that if you as an individual choose to skip the commercials, then that is infringement (which this article seems to be trying to spin it as). What they're saying is that they claim the entire stream (content + commercials) is copyrighted, and DISH is only an authorized distributor for the entire stream. They want to be able to say that removing the commercials from a TV show is creating a derivative work, and DISH then distributing that derivative work is where the copyright infringement comes into play.
Personally, I think it's nonsense. However, this exact same issue has already been raised with the courts. In 2001 several TV broadcasters sued ReplayTV for having a similar automatic commercial skip function, and the broadcasters won. |
05-25-2012, 04:05 PM | #5 |
Wizard
Posts: 2,145
Karma: 11174187
Join Date: Jan 2011
Device: Sony 350, K3-3G, K4SO, KPW
|
Apparently some time back in 2002 some media exec tried to make the case that not watching commercials was theft. (if anyone is interested, I can probably find the link to that article)
Also, on the Replay TV bit, wasn't it more the case that Replay ran out of money and the case was never decided? That was my impression from an article linked to the first article I listed. |
Advert | |
|
05-25-2012, 04:25 PM | #6 |
Wizard
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
|
Good point. I see you're right, the lawsuit was stayed when they ran out of money. I guess that means it was never ruled on.
Last edited by Shaggy; 05-25-2012 at 04:31 PM. |
05-25-2012, 04:59 PM | #7 |
Wizard
Posts: 2,806
Karma: 13500000
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Device: Boox PB360 etc etc etc
|
yes. the entire broadcast is protected by copyright. they have for many years made this very noticeable announcements prior to sports programs and others
"this programming is the property of XXXXXX. the broadcast– either in part or in its entirety -- may not be retransmitted, reproduced or rebroadcast without the expressed consent of blah blah blah" they are going to argue that the hopper is doing the job of rebroadcasting the program without the consent of the studio/owner etc here is some legal opinion http://chart.copyrightdata.com/c15B.html while in the most cases it may be precedent that cable and satellite providers arent infringing re-broadcasts altering the broadcast will not pass the legal test. |
05-25-2012, 05:29 PM | #8 | ||
Wizard
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
05-25-2012, 05:35 PM | #9 |
Wizard
Posts: 3,117
Karma: 9269999
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Device: Sony- T3, PRS650, 350, T1/2/3, Paperwhite, Fire 8.9,Samsung Tab S 10.5
|
What a load of b....y claptrap
|
05-25-2012, 05:50 PM | #10 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,068
Karma: 23867385
Join Date: Nov 2011
Device: kindle, fire
|
Q: What do you call 5,000,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
A: A good start. |
05-25-2012, 06:05 PM | #11 |
Guru
Posts: 777
Karma: 6356004
Join Date: Jan 2012
Device: Kobo Touch
|
|
05-25-2012, 06:08 PM | #12 |
Spork Connoisseur
Posts: 2,355
Karma: 16780603
Join Date: Mar 2011
Device: Nook Color
|
|
05-25-2012, 06:26 PM | #13 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,806
Karma: 13500000
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Device: Boox PB360 etc etc etc
|
Quote:
bold by me in this case the satellite company is altering the broadcast rather than just carrying it to the customer. or might be. it will be up to the court to decide if its in the hands of the customer or if its the carrier altering the stream. |
|
05-25-2012, 06:38 PM | #14 |
Guru
Posts: 777
Karma: 6356004
Join Date: Jan 2012
Device: Kobo Touch
|
I think if the advertisers have any sense they realize the horse has already bolted. At least 90% of TV that I watch is prerecorded and I f/fwd the commercials. Most "1 hour" shows are finished in about 40 minutes and stuff like the fluff they broadcast as local news can be done and dusted in about 15 mins.
|
05-25-2012, 07:23 PM | #15 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
Quote:
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Commercials.... | xg4bx | Lounge | 11 | 08-09-2011 12:17 AM |
RapidShare Gets 150,000 Euro Copyright Infringement Fine | mr ploppy | News | 22 | 12-07-2010 04:16 PM |
Copyright infringement terminology | pdurrant | General Discussions | 110 | 03-15-2010 03:42 PM |
Google guilty of copyright infringement in France | amjbrown | News | 0 | 12-18-2009 09:17 AM |
Rowling wins copyright infringement case | HarryT | News | 127 | 09-20-2008 04:52 AM |