Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul
So if they said you were guilty, you would think that you must be?
If they say the files are infringing, then they must be?
Even if you had bought these files perfectly legally, and you think you have the right to do what you are doing, there mere fact that someone else says that you don't would make you roll over?
|
I would consider that they are in a better position to determine the licensing terms of their own products than I am. If I had inadvertently mis-read the licence, and done something that I shouldn't do, then I would be grateful to have my error pointed out to me. I imagine that most people would prefer to be told that they are doing something wrong, and be given the opportunity to stop doing it, than be prosecuted for it.
Quote:
In 2001, Paramount, Disney, NCS and CBS sued a PVR manufacturer claiming that allowing users to skip commercials was enabling copyright infringement of their works.
In 2002, the Chairman and CEO of Turner said: "Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming."
|
That seems like a reasonable argument. If the advertisements are paying for the programme, and you are avoiding the advertisements, then you are indeed, in effect, taking it without paying for it. The "payment" required to watch the programme is to also watch the adverts.
However, the strong counter-argument would be that, even if this usage of the device was copyright-infringing, the device also has significant non-infringing uses, and hence was permitted to be sold. This was the judge's ruling in the "Universal Pictures v. Sony Corporation" case which tried to outlaw the sale of video recorders. I would imagine it could equally be applied here.
What was the outcome of the case? That the device had legitimate non-infringing uses, and hence was permitted to be sold? I'd be surprised if it were otherwise, even though I do sympathise with the issue being raised.