Amazon Announces Cloud Player and Cloud Drive

[Barty]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. Where the heck licensing comes into it I entirely fail to see.

I think the words mp3, internet, and service appearing together in the same article caused the RIAA computer to initiate Defcon 3, no human intervention required. Now they're just scrambling all the lawyers to figure out WTF just happened.

[HarryT]

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.

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.

[tubemonkey]

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."

So anyone who goes to the bathroom during a commercial is stealing programming?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

So anyone who goes to the bathroom during a commercial is stealing programming?

I think the argument was that this was a device whose PURPOSE was to skip the ads, and hence infringe copyright. However, as I said in my previous post, provided that was not its PRIMARY purpose, the precident set by the Universal v. Sony case would almost certainly apply.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think the argument was that this was a device whose PURPOSE was to skip the ads, and hence infringe copyright. However, as I said in my previous post, provided that was not its PRIMARY purpose, the precident set by the Universal v. Sony case would almost certainly apply.

I know you did, but I'm just extending the studios' utterly ridiculous argument to its logical conclusion. According to them, if you don't watch the commercials, you're stealing the show.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I know you did, but I'm just extending the studios' utterly ridiculous argument to its logical conclusion. According to them, if you don't watch the commercials, you're stealing the show.

That's right. You dirty thief. Take your bathroom break after the commercials are done!!

This is why there is supposed to be a balance of rights of the people vs rights of intellectual property owners. Somehow that concept is being lost over the years in favor of simple capitalism over all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I know you did, but I'm just extending the studios' utterly ridiculous argument to its logical conclusion. According to them, if you don't watch the commercials, you're stealing the show.

Is it an "utterly ridiculous argument"? American TV is paid for by advertising, isn't it? If nobody watched the ads, there would be no advertising, and hence no shows. Isn't it part of the "deal" that if you watch the show, you watch the ads? If you want ad-free programming, perhaps a model like the BBC licence fee in the UK should be charged?

This plainly ISN'T copyright infringement, but it would be commercially unsustainable if everyone were to skip the advertising.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think the argument was that this was a device whose PURPOSE was to skip the ads, and hence infringe copyright. However, as I said in my previous post, provided that was not its PRIMARY purpose, the precident set by the Universal v. Sony case would almost certainly apply.

I wouldn't have thought so, because with a VCR you would still need to watch the adverts, even if it was at a very high speed. With this one, if it is the one I'm thinking about, you just pressed a button and it skipped straight to the start of the programme.

That sounds like legalised murder to me.

[HarryT]

This happened in 2002. What was the actual outcome? I'd be very surprised if it had been judged to be copyright infringement!

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is it an "utterly ridiculous argument"? American TV is paid for by advertising, isn't it? If nobody watched the ads, there would be no advertising, and hence no shows. Isn't it part of the "deal" that if you watch the show, you watch the ads? If you want ad-free programming, perhaps a model like the BBC licence fee in the UK should be charged?

This plainly ISN'T copyright infringement, but it would be commercially unsustainable if everyone were to skip the advertising.

Yes, it is ridiculous. I don't watch ads. I skip them on recorded shows and either leave the room or mute them when watching in real time.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This happened in 2002. What was the actual outcome? I'd be very surprised if it had been judged to be copyright infringement!

Under your approach, it doesn't matter what the outcome was. The studios would accuse you of infringement, and you would accept their statement as true:

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.

[tubemonkey]

I must say, movie studios, publishers and the music industry are having a helluva time adapting to a digital world. They're all run by a bunch of idiots who don't have a clue on how to adapt to the transition.

Heaven help us!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Under your approach, it doesn't matter what the outcome was. The studios would accuse you of infringement, and you would accept their statement as true:

Perhaps you don't think it does, but I am interested to know what the outcome was. Do you know?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

You really are the ideal victim^h^h^h^h^h^h customer.
You'll just assume that their statements as to both the facts and the law are correct?
In reality, the judge in the ACS:Law case, which was exactly the situation we are talking about here of rightsholders writing to accused infringers, found that they had misrepresented both the facts and the law.
I think most people would prefer not to be told they had done something wrong when they hadn't.

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.

So by analogy, if an online news site complained to your ISP that you had viewed their articles, but their logs showed that you had not viewed their adverts, so you must be using an ad-blocker, so you are infringing their copyright, so if you continue to do so they can apply to have your connection terminated, what would your response be?
Have you ever used ad-blocking software? You dirty thief you

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Barty

I think the words mp3, internet, and service appearing together in the same article caused the RIAA computer to initiate Defcon 3, no human intervention required. Now they're just scrambling all the lawyers to figure out WTF just happened.