Skipping commercials is copyright infringement?

[BeccaPrice]

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?

[kennyc]

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.....

[Kirtai]

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.

[Shaggy]

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.

[BeccaPrice]

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.

[Shaggy]

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.

[Dulin's Books]

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.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

yes. the entire broadcast is protected by copyright. they have for many years made this very noticeable announcements prior to sports programs and others

The copyright holder claiming that doing something they don't like is copyright infringement, doesn't mean that it actually is copyright infringement.

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.

Assuming that skipping parts of the content during playback counts as "altering the broadcast" and/or "rebroadcasting", which I'm a bit skeptical of.

[carpetmojo]

What a load of b....y claptrap

[wizwor]

Q: What do you call 5,000,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
A: A good start.

[plib]

Originally Posted by wizwor

Q: What do you call 5,000,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
A: A good start.

Yup. But you'll still have Greenpeace after you for marine pollution.

[RainingLemur]

Originally Posted by wizwor

Q: What do you call 5,000,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
A: A good start.

I was going to say "An environmental hazard," but Plib kinda beat me to the punch.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Assuming that skipping parts of the content during playback counts as "altering the broadcast" and/or "rebroadcasting", which I'm a bit skeptical of.

several times in the precedents i posted that link above to, the judgements reads something like "Broadcasters select the programs to be viewed; CATV systems simply carry, without editing, whatever programs they receive."

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.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

several times in the precedents i posted that link above to, the judgements reads something like "Broadcasters select the programs to be viewed; CATV systems simply carry, without editing, whatever programs they receive."

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.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

several times in the precedents i posted that link above to, the judgements reads something like "Broadcasters select the programs to be viewed; CATV systems simply carry, without editing, whatever programs they receive."

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.

I wonder how that ineracts with the fact that most cable companies insert their own advertising on at least some channels.