Skipping commercials is copyright infringement?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

That's a fine understanding of copyright, mine is probably a bit different than yours, who is right?

Between just you and me? Me I think.

Helen

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

On the one hand, yes. On the other... if it's only legal to copy or display in the format it's given to you, is it copyright infringement to fast-forward past the commercials when you're watching a recorded show with your family?

Copyright infringement doesn't have a built-in exception for "home use noncommercial purposes."

I think it does.
The right being violated is that of broadcasting/making available to the public.
Which includes the following:

To perform or display a work "publicly" means –
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

So your family watching a DVD together does not count as a public perfomance of the work. The cable company broadcasting the same film does count as a public performance.

[camiller]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

... You can try to justify skipping commercials all you want but it is piracy. ...

The logical extension of that is if I skip to the end of a boring book just to find out "whodunit" I've violated the authors copyright by skipping the intervening 15 chapters of drivel.

I don't think so.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by camiller

The logical extension of that is if I skip to the end of a boring book just to find out "whodunit" I've violated the authors copyright by skipping the intervening 15 chapters of drivel.

I don't think so.

We aren't talking about the transitory nature of legislation. We are talking about the natural right of creative compensation. By skipping commercials you are basically stealing from the creator. Yes, the creator has given you the work for free in the hopes that you will watch the commercials and possibly purchase what is being advertised, but nothing is really free. If no one watched the commercials, what would happen??

[camiller]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

We aren't talking about the transitory nature of legislation. We are talking about the natural right of creative compensation. By skipping commercials you are basically stealing from the creator. Yes, the creator has given you the work for free in the hopes that you will watch the commercials and possibly purchase what is being advertised, but nothing is really free. If no one watched the commercials, what would happen??

I understand that, and there may be something that needs to be done, although I'm not sure how you would enforce it. The only point I am making is that it is not piracy, or more precisely copyright infringement, to skip commercials. It may be something else, but it is not copyright infringement.

It is certainly a violation of the social contract that the content is free in exchange for watching the commercials, but that has absolutely no bearing in law.

There is no natural right of creative compensation. You have a right to be creative. You have a right to attempt to monetize your creative effort. You have no guaranteed right of compensation, compensation is the reward for producing something that is good and the public/customer wants.

If no one watched commercials... well, there were no commercials in the episode of Game of Thrones I watched on HBO the other day. There are no commercials in most books I read. I could see TV/video going to a pay-to-view model rather than a watch commercials to view model. People would probably tend to be more discriminating in what they watch, which would reduce the amount of crap produced...hopefully.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

We are talking about the natural right of creative compensation.

Copyright is a legal right, not a natural right.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Whose copyright is presumably being violated here?

did you read the precedents i linked to previously?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

Copyright is a legal right, not a natural right.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of compensation for your creative endeavors. It seems natural to me, we do like to be rewarded for our efforts, any legislation to enforce this reward seems unnatural to me...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

did you read the precedents i linked to previously?

They seem to be focused on whether building a more powerful transmitter counts as rebroadcasting, not on whether the commercials are-or-are-not a fixed part of the broadcast.

I repeat: whose copyright would they be infringing? Who manages copyright for the TV show with commercials, given that the show itself and the commercials have different rights holders?

You also said, "the rights holders are obligated to bring actions if they believe there is infringement," which is not true. Copyright isn't like trademarks; it doesn't go away if it's not enforced. Rights holders have the right to decide what to allow and what to forbid.

[Dulin's Books]

the cases previously linked to said as long as the CATV or cable company etc were delivering an unaltered broadcast then they were not breaching the copyright of the broadcaster. so the copyright to the entire stream belongs to the broadcaster.

the catv/cable/satellite company may only act as a conduit to bring the stream to the customers house. this case rests on whether it can be shown that the hopper commercial skipper acts prior to the consumer. if it does than its infringement if it doesnt than dish is in the clear

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

the cases previously linked to said as long as the CATV or cable company etc were delivering an unaltered broadcast then they were not breaching the copyright of the broadcaster. so the copyright to the entire stream belongs to the broadcaster.

the catv/cable/satellite company may only act as a conduit to bring the stream to the customers house. this case rests on whether it can be shown that the hopper commercial skipper acts prior to the consumer. if it does than its infringement if it doesnt than dish is in the clear

Sounds like lawyer garbage to me, all television shows make use of the broadcast spectrum, POLLUTION OF THE AIRWAVES, MENTAL AND PHYSICAL. Are you upset that these consumers of your pollution are skipping some of your precious show??

[Dulin's Books]

is that supposed to be a response to my post? if so you have failed to make a point. secondly I am not upset about anything in this thread. they arent "my consumers" any more than they are yours. some people seem to be missing the legal point. im not interested in your philosophical debate.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

is that supposed to be a response to my post? if so you have failed to make a point. secondly I am not upset about anything in this thread. they arent "my consumers" any more than they are yours. some people seem to be missing the legal point. im not interested in your philosophical debate.

What is legislation but a manifestation of an internal philosophy?

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

some people seem to be missing the legal point.

The interesting part of the legal aspects is that the modifications are actually happening on hardware on the consumers side of the cable outlet. If courts accept that as copyright infringement, I expect ad-blocking software to be targeted shortly.

[morantis]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

What a load of b....y claptrap

Could you please clarify your cussing? Lol, I am trying to figure a cuss word that ends in Y without the use of Google.