3 ms·

> Which Betamax case Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Time shifting a video is a protected fair use. > temporary basis ...which can be

by pdkl95 10y ago

> Which Betamax case Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Time shifting a video is a protected fair use. > temporary basis ...which can be time shifted without violating copyright. > explicitly agreed As for any contract that may exist, that's separate from copyright. It isn't Google's job to enforce terms to a contract between two other unrelated parties.

Silhouette 10y ago
Time shifting a video is a protected fair use. (a) Time-shifting doesn't imply a permanent copy that can be rewatched multiple times. (b) Not everywhere has the same legal framework for copyright as the United States. As for any contract that may exist, that's separate from copyright. No, it isn't. The default position in most jurisdictions is that any copy of a protected work is infringing unless an explicit licence has been granted by the rightsholder. Lacking such a licence, there might be an argument about some implicit permission, or there might be some affirmative defence or the equivalent depending on your legal jurisdiction, but typically that only becomes relevant when the act of copying was infringing by default.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > Time-shifting doesn't imply a permanent copy Such as a video tape? Perhaps in Sony Betamax format? That's exactly what "time shifting" means. > that can be rewatched multiple times Yes, tools can be used in improper ways. > Not everywhere has the same legal framework for copyright as the United States. You can assume my comments are limited to US jurisdiction. I make no claim about other jurisdictions that are outside my knowledge, experience, and legal liability.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    That's exactly what "time shifting" means. Technically, you might be entitled to retain that copy only for long enough to watch the programme at a different time, after which keeping it would be an infringement. I haven't checked whether US law follows that pattern, but it's essentially what a lot of jurisdictions seem to have settled on for that particular case. Yes, tools can be used in improper ways. Yes, and doing so may be illegal, and Google's actions here actively invited people to do so. Do you see the problem now? You can assume my comments are limited to US jurisdiction. OK, but even in the US it's not clear that Google's actions here were legal.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      > Yes, and doing so may be illegal, and Google's actions here actively invited people to do so. Do you see the problem now? A Betamax machine shows you a record button at all times. This invites people to record. This does not invite people to perform illegal actions. I don't see the problem.
      - Silhouette 10y ago
        Actually it probably did invite people to perform actions that were illegal in some places, but at that time I doubt the law anywhere was settled in that respect and presumably broadcasters or whoever held the rights didn't feel like bringing a case. The current situation is different anyway because Google suddenly added this new button where it wasn't there before. In practice, this demonstrably left a lot of users assuming that it was a new feature of the sites they were using and not realising that it was their browser updating that had caused the difference. And that in turn meant users thinking it was now OK to download and keep stuff where previously it hadn't been. I have personally seen messages from users that demonstrate this, and if you look at the numerous comments on the browser issues that were raised, it's clear that many others have observed that result as well. I don't blame the users for having that reaction. Most of them probably have no idea how to tell the difference between what their browser does and what a site does, and many probably don't even realise that Chrome updates itself without telling them in the first place. Google, on the other hand, should have known better. The consequences of doing this were predictable, and unlike users it's not as if the Chrome dev team don't know how online video serving works. It's bad enough for web developers that there is little consistency among browsers in how video controls appear and the browsers keep moving them around in updates, but adding something like this was obviously going to lead to confusion and be a concern for a lot of sites serving video content.
        pdkl95 10y ago
        > perform actions that were illegal First, copyright is a civil issue, not a crime. While recent law may[1] have made specific types of mass infringement a crime, in general copyright infringement isn't "illegal". It only makes you liable for actual and statutory civil damages. I suspect this is even true in most jurisdictions. > it probably did invite people [...] This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright aw and how the Betamax case affected it. The case wasn't about "inviting" improper actions. There was no disagreement that people could use Betamax to violate copyright. Just like how you believe Google should be guilty of something[2], the movie industry believed Sony should be guilt of copyright infringement. The allegation was that they had a right to effective protection of their copyright monopoly which video tape technology could undermine. However the court disagreed after Sony proved there were "significant non-infringing uses" for a Betamax tape recorder. From the majority opinion: >> "The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses ... one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home. It does so both (A) because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs, and (B) because the District Court's factual findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use..." The fact that some people might use technology (Betamax, Google's button) to infringe copyright or break a contract isn't relevant, because that was not the primary, intended purpose of the technology. Because other, legitimate uses exist, the manufacturer of that technology is not liable. I strongly suggest educating yourself a lot more about copyright and contract law actually work, because your arguments demonstrate a lot of misconceptions about copyright and fundamental errors about law in general. > Google, on the other hand, should have known better The only people that "should have known better" are the people that design their businesses to fundamentally rely on products they do no control or even have any contractual influence. Google will always be changing Chrome; expect that or find a way to remove that dependency. [1] I'm not sure if it has been tested in court. [2] Also, adding a save button to videos isn't tortious interference of a contract about renting videos either. Adding that button wasn't a tort ("wrongful act"), nor was it intended to affect a video rental business.

by pdkl95 10y ago

Silhouette 10y ago

Time shifting a video is a protected fair use. (a) Time-shifting doesn't imply a permanent copy that can be rewatched multiple times. (b) Not everywhere has the same legal framework for copyright as the United States. As for any contract that may exist, that's separate from copyright. No, it isn't. The default position in most jurisdictions is that any copy of a protected work is infringing unless an explicit licence has been granted by the rightsholder. Lacking such a licence, there might be an argument about some implicit permission, or there might be some affirmative defence or the equivalent depending on your legal jurisdiction, but typically that only becomes relevant when the act of copying was infringing by default.

pdkl95 10y ago
> Time-shifting doesn't imply a permanent copy Such as a video tape? Perhaps in Sony Betamax format? That's exactly what "time shifting" means. > that can be rewatched multiple times Yes, tools can be used in improper ways. > Not everywhere has the same legal framework for copyright as the United States. You can assume my comments are limited to US jurisdiction. I make no claim about other jurisdictions that are outside my knowledge, experience, and legal liability.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  That's exactly what "time shifting" means. Technically, you might be entitled to retain that copy only for long enough to watch the programme at a different time, after which keeping it would be an infringement. I haven't checked whether US law follows that pattern, but it's essentially what a lot of jurisdictions seem to have settled on for that particular case. Yes, tools can be used in improper ways. Yes, and doing so may be illegal, and Google's actions here actively invited people to do so. Do you see the problem now? You can assume my comments are limited to US jurisdiction. OK, but even in the US it's not clear that Google's actions here were legal.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    > Yes, and doing so may be illegal, and Google's actions here actively invited people to do so. Do you see the problem now? A Betamax machine shows you a record button at all times. This invites people to record. This does not invite people to perform illegal actions. I don't see the problem.
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      Actually it probably did invite people to perform actions that were illegal in some places, but at that time I doubt the law anywhere was settled in that respect and presumably broadcasters or whoever held the rights didn't feel like bringing a case. The current situation is different anyway because Google suddenly added this new button where it wasn't there before. In practice, this demonstrably left a lot of users assuming that it was a new feature of the sites they were using and not realising that it was their browser updating that had caused the difference. And that in turn meant users thinking it was now OK to download and keep stuff where previously it hadn't been. I have personally seen messages from users that demonstrate this, and if you look at the numerous comments on the browser issues that were raised, it's clear that many others have observed that result as well. I don't blame the users for having that reaction. Most of them probably have no idea how to tell the difference between what their browser does and what a site does, and many probably don't even realise that Chrome updates itself without telling them in the first place. Google, on the other hand, should have known better. The consequences of doing this were predictable, and unlike users it's not as if the Chrome dev team don't know how online video serving works. It's bad enough for web developers that there is little consistency among browsers in how video controls appear and the browsers keep moving them around in updates, but adding something like this was obviously going to lead to confusion and be a concern for a lot of sites serving video content.
      - pdkl95 10y ago
        > perform actions that were illegal First, copyright is a civil issue, not a crime. While recent law may[1] have made specific types of mass infringement a crime, in general copyright infringement isn't "illegal". It only makes you liable for actual and statutory civil damages. I suspect this is even true in most jurisdictions. > it probably did invite people [...] This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright aw and how the Betamax case affected it. The case wasn't about "inviting" improper actions. There was no disagreement that people could use Betamax to violate copyright. Just like how you believe Google should be guilty of something[2], the movie industry believed Sony should be guilt of copyright infringement. The allegation was that they had a right to effective protection of their copyright monopoly which video tape technology could undermine. However the court disagreed after Sony proved there were "significant non-infringing uses" for a Betamax tape recorder. From the majority opinion: >> "The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses ... one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home. It does so both (A) because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs, and (B) because the District Court's factual findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use..." The fact that some people might use technology (Betamax, Google's button) to infringe copyright or break a contract isn't relevant, because that was not the primary, intended purpose of the technology. Because other, legitimate uses exist, the manufacturer of that technology is not liable. I strongly suggest educating yourself a lot more about copyright and contract law actually work, because your arguments demonstrate a lot of misconceptions about copyright and fundamental errors about law in general. > Google, on the other hand, should have known better The only people that "should have known better" are the people that design their businesses to fundamentally rely on products they do no control or even have any contractual influence. Google will always be changing Chrome; expect that or find a way to remove that dependency. [1] I'm not sure if it has been tested in court. [2] Also, adding a save button to videos isn't tortious interference of a contract about renting videos either. Adding that button wasn't a tort ("wrongful act"), nor was it intended to affect a video rental business.