3 ms·

I think one could make a not-entirely-unreasonable argument that by streaming the DVD you're making an unauthorized copy of the data on it. What are they doing

by hugh3 16y ago

I think one could make a not-entirely-unreasonable argument that by streaming the DVD you're making an unauthorized copy of the data on it. What are they doing, after all? They read bits off the DVD, make another set of bits which contains essentially the same information compressed, and transmit it to a remote location. Sounds like making a copy to me.

cma 16y ago
How do you play a DVD on a modern TV? HDMI. Same exact type of "copy". If you "rent" the player from them as well as the movie, then it is the same fair use that allows you to play a DVD on your tv. HDMI, or whatever--even via analog makes up to 5+ copies just to get out of a modern TV (D->A from your player, A->D to your TV, several copies and augmented copies into a buffer handling picture processing, scaling, and motion smoothing, and then pixel elements in an active matrix LCD store their values in embedded transitors, and the physical twist of the liquid crystals is another copy, not to mention the light travelling through the air, the copy your retina makes as it scans the TV, the persisted gradually degrading copy that makes it into your mind)).
- hugh3 16y ago
  The difference being that those copies are authorized by the copyright holder and this one is not. You're right in that that's an obvious counterargument. I don't know how it would play out in court. I don't wish to argue that my "this is a copy" argument is undefeatable, but I think it's sufficiently plausible that this is what the copyright holders will argue when it comes to trial.
axod 16y ago
Scenario 1: Your DVD player is connected to your TV with a cable. Scenario 2: A DVD player is connected to your TV via several cables (The internet). I don't see a great difference there, other than the length of the cable.
- hugh3 16y ago
  And this is why geeks make bad lawyers. "Surely," they say, "if A is allowed, and if by a set of trivial extensions we can turn A into B, then B must also be allowed". But the law looks at A and B and sees two very different things, draws a hard boundary which might not make any particular sense, and doesn't care about careful analytic arguments. Here's another copyright problem. If I have a party and screen a DVD to ten people, that's fine. If I have a party and screen a DVD to twenty people, that's fine. But if I have a party and screen a DVD to five hundred people, I'm holding a public screening and it's not allowed under the terms of my DVD license. How can this be? It just is.
  - axod 16y ago
    That's a separate issue though. Screening a single physical DVD to a party of people simultaneously is illegal. But me connecting a really long cable to a DVD player and connecting it to my TV. There's no way that can be illegal. There is no A and B in your argument. There is 'A'. Connecting a DVD player to a TV using a cable.

by hugh3 16y ago

cma 16y ago

How do you play a DVD on a modern TV? HDMI. Same exact type of "copy". If you "rent" the player from them as well as the movie, then it is the same fair use that allows you to play a DVD on your tv. HDMI, or whatever--even via analog makes up to 5+ copies just to get out of a modern TV (D->A from your player, A->D to your TV, several copies and augmented copies into a buffer handling picture processing, scaling, and motion smoothing, and then pixel elements in an active matrix LCD store their values in embedded transitors, and the physical twist of the liquid crystals is another copy, not to mention the light travelling through the air, the copy your retina makes as it scans the TV, the persisted gradually degrading copy that makes it into your mind)).

hugh3 16y ago
The difference being that those copies are authorized by the copyright holder and this one is not. You're right in that that's an obvious counterargument. I don't know how it would play out in court. I don't wish to argue that my "this is a copy" argument is undefeatable, but I think it's sufficiently plausible that this is what the copyright holders will argue when it comes to trial.

axod 16y ago

Scenario 1: Your DVD player is connected to your TV with a cable. Scenario 2: A DVD player is connected to your TV via several cables (The internet). I don't see a great difference there, other than the length of the cable.

hugh3 16y ago
And this is why geeks make bad lawyers. "Surely," they say, "if A is allowed, and if by a set of trivial extensions we can turn A into B, then B must also be allowed". But the law looks at A and B and sees two very different things, draws a hard boundary which might not make any particular sense, and doesn't care about careful analytic arguments. Here's another copyright problem. If I have a party and screen a DVD to ten people, that's fine. If I have a party and screen a DVD to twenty people, that's fine. But if I have a party and screen a DVD to five hundred people, I'm holding a public screening and it's not allowed under the terms of my DVD license. How can this be? It just is.
- axod 16y ago
  That's a separate issue though. Screening a single physical DVD to a party of people simultaneously is illegal. But me connecting a really long cable to a DVD player and connecting it to my TV. There's no way that can be illegal. There is no A and B in your argument. There is 'A'. Connecting a DVD player to a TV using a cable.