3 ms·

> You have that right for what you purchased. I'm pretty sure that US copyright law makes no such distinction.

• dogma1138 8y ago
  Not only does it make that distinction (broadcasting and streaming vs owned copies) but the entire premise is false. You may use fair use as a protection against a copyright claim but in not wa shape or form is anyone compelled to facilitate the fair use of their content.
  • falcolas 8y ago
    Fair use is a positive right - it's a right given to individuals by the same Act in which copyright is created. Companies are restricting that right through the use of DRM and the laws which prohibit breaking DRM. This is poor behavior, and against the spirit of US law that carved out those exceptions, if not the letter.
    • dogma1138 8y ago
      No it’s not, you don’t understand the law. Fair use (in the US) it’s a protection of the first amendment however no one is obligated to facilitate that right what it means is that the courts cannot be used to subdue your right to use the content under fair use. I don’t have to sell you to content in the first place, I don’t have to make it available for easy copy, I mean just 40 years ago we didn’t even really had home video on VHS, was I obliged to give you a copy of the film and a telecine machine so you can make a copy? What about paintings? Am I obligated to allow you to take a photograph? Well you better call the police on like every gallery and museum out there... Heck live events specifically have rules against filming, go into the movies or many shows with a camera and see how receptive they’ll be to that.