3 ms·

Copyright Doesn't Mean Unlimited Control

63 points by dwaxe 10y ago

kazinator 10y ago
> A television set is worthless without video programming to view, and a home audio system has little purpose without music. One could argue that the commercial value of these devices derives from the copyrighted works they touch. It's said that this sort of argumentation is still needed: it is home video tape recorders all over again.
Nomentatus 10y ago
I can't help but think that in this matter EFF (which I generally support) is far off the mark - at least re what the FCC is actually doing. Here's a quote from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: "There is nothing in here that allows third parties to disaggregate cable content or sell advertising around it... It takes the same system that goes to the cable box today with the same structures and moves it through a different box requiring the same structures. As a result, existing copyrights and programming agreements are unaffected, consumer privacy is protected, emergency alerts are passed through and child protection laws are unaffected. Nothing in this proposal slows down or stops cable innovation." In other words, the current copyright aggreements don't insist on a particular box, so the FCC is able to step in to insist on more competition in that regard - thus preventing cable companies from leveraging someone else's legitimate monopoly into a different unsanctioned monopoly of their own. But could copyrightholders could be that specific? Could they insist on a particular means of reproduction (as they could with a printer.) Maybe. However note that long established law finds that after you broadcast a copyrighted work, this narrows your rights. For example, see this perhaps extreme view of a recent EU decision: https://falkvinge.net/2015/05/05/a-year-ago-the-european-supreme-court-appears-to-have-ruled-the-whole-web-is-in-the-public-domain-and-nobody-noticed/ https://falkvinge.net/2015/05/05/a-year-ago-the-european-sup...
- mcherm 10y ago
  I am not sure I understand your issue with the EFF's position. The EFF is supporting the FCC's right to require set-top-box compatibility; their article says "copyright law prohibits copying, not 'doing anything with it' so we think that as a matter of law, the cable companies telling you not to use this regulation are simply wrong". Do you disagree with this? When you say: > Could they insist on a particular means of reproduction (as they could with a printer.) Maybe. are you suggesting that you think the copyright holders have a legal right to restrict what your set-top-box can do? If so, do you think that they ALSO have a legal right to restrict what your television set can do?
ams6110 10y ago
Of course the cable companies don't want this, because they charge exhorbitant monthly fees for the use of their hideous set-top boxes. It's just a pure cash cow for them.

63 points by dwaxe 10y ago

> A television set is worthless without video programming to view, and a home audio system has little purpose without music. One could argue that the commercial value of these devices derives from the copyrighted works they touch. It's said that this sort of argumentation is still needed: it is home video tape recorders all over again.

Nomentatus 10y ago

I can't help but think that in this matter EFF (which I generally support) is far off the mark - at least re what the FCC is actually doing. Here's a quote from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: "There is nothing in here that allows third parties to disaggregate cable content or sell advertising around it... It takes the same system that goes to the cable box today with the same structures and moves it through a different box requiring the same structures. As a result, existing copyrights and programming agreements are unaffected, consumer privacy is protected, emergency alerts are passed through and child protection laws are unaffected. Nothing in this proposal slows down or stops cable innovation." In other words, the current copyright aggreements don't insist on a particular box, so the FCC is able to step in to insist on more competition in that regard - thus preventing cable companies from leveraging someone else's legitimate monopoly into a different unsanctioned monopoly of their own. But could copyrightholders could be that specific? Could they insist on a particular means of reproduction (as they could with a printer.) Maybe. However note that long established law finds that after you broadcast a copyrighted work, this narrows your rights. For example, see this perhaps extreme view of a recent EU decision: https://falkvinge.net/2015/05/05/a-year-ago-the-european-supreme-court-appears-to-have-ruled-the-whole-web-is-in-the-public-domain-and-nobody-noticed/ https://falkvinge.net/2015/05/05/a-year-ago-the-european-sup...

mcherm 10y ago
I am not sure I understand your issue with the EFF's position. The EFF is supporting the FCC's right to require set-top-box compatibility; their article says "copyright law prohibits copying, not 'doing anything with it' so we think that as a matter of law, the cable companies telling you not to use this regulation are simply wrong". Do you disagree with this? When you say: > Could they insist on a particular means of reproduction (as they could with a printer.) Maybe. are you suggesting that you think the copyright holders have a legal right to restrict what your set-top-box can do? If so, do you think that they ALSO have a legal right to restrict what your television set can do?

ams6110 10y ago

Of course the cable companies don't want this, because they charge exhorbitant monthly fees for the use of their hideous set-top boxes. It's just a pure cash cow for them.