3 ms·

No, it is copyright law that is "silly." When we need to build antenna arrays just to get around ludicrously outdated restrictions, the problem is the restrict

No, it is copyright law that is "silly." When we need to build antenna arrays just to get around ludicrously outdated restrictions, the problem is the restrictions. What makes copyright worse is that the restrictions it imposes on our use of modern technology have not remained in place because the wheels of politics are slow, but because our politicians would rather protect anachronistic business models than push society into a new age.

rayiner 14y ago
The restrictions in this context have nothing to do with politicians or the statute. They come from a loophole in the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network,_LP_v._CSC_Holdings,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network,_LP_v._CSC_Hold.... The case made a big deal about the fact that Cablevision was streaming separate streams to each user, and therefore it wasn't a public performance. The correct answer would've been: IP unicast is never a public performance.
- betterunix 14y ago
  None of that would have been an issue if we simply did away with copyright and created a new system that made more sense in this day and age. We do not need a system that relies on huge, centralized monoliths to distribute our entertainment anymore, we made something better and are desperately hoping the law will catch up.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Last I checked, the law didn't do anything to keep consenting content creators and content consumers from using P2P or Youtube or whatever "something better" you're referring to. Absolutely nothing is stopping anyone from creating and using this whole alternative, 21st century system, and leaving those big bad media conglomerates in the dust. Other than the fact that people just want to watch House, or SNL, or a Sony BMG produced music video. It's not copyright law that gives NBC, Viacom, etc, their power. It's the fact that people really want their products and aren't willing to settle for alternatives. All copyright does is keep the Youtubes of the world from cashing in on that demand by inserting themselves in the middle and trying to profit from the popularity of the big media products.
Wingman4l7 14y ago
Reminds me of the DVD-streaming service Zediva that got legally badgered into shutting down; they were also trying to exploit a copyright "loophole" through clever use of hardware (the customer would rent an actual DVD that was played in an actual DVD player, and the content was then streamed to them): http://www.wired.com/business/2011/08/zediva-preliminary-injunction/ http://www.wired.com/business/2011/08/zediva-preliminary-inj...

rayiner 14y ago

The restrictions in this context have nothing to do with politicians or the statute. They come from a loophole in the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network,_LP_v._CSC_Holdings,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network,_LP_v._CSC_Hold.... The case made a big deal about the fact that Cablevision was streaming separate streams to each user, and therefore it wasn't a public performance. The correct answer would've been: IP unicast is never a public performance.

betterunix 14y ago
None of that would have been an issue if we simply did away with copyright and created a new system that made more sense in this day and age. We do not need a system that relies on huge, centralized monoliths to distribute our entertainment anymore, we made something better and are desperately hoping the law will catch up.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Last I checked, the law didn't do anything to keep consenting content creators and content consumers from using P2P or Youtube or whatever "something better" you're referring to. Absolutely nothing is stopping anyone from creating and using this whole alternative, 21st century system, and leaving those big bad media conglomerates in the dust. Other than the fact that people just want to watch House, or SNL, or a Sony BMG produced music video. It's not copyright law that gives NBC, Viacom, etc, their power. It's the fact that people really want their products and aren't willing to settle for alternatives. All copyright does is keep the Youtubes of the world from cashing in on that demand by inserting themselves in the middle and trying to profit from the popularity of the big media products.

Wingman4l7 14y ago

Reminds me of the DVD-streaming service Zediva that got legally badgered into shutting down; they were also trying to exploit a copyright "loophole" through clever use of hardware (the customer would rent an actual DVD that was played in an actual DVD player, and the content was then streamed to them): http://www.wired.com/business/2011/08/zediva-preliminary-injunction/ http://www.wired.com/business/2011/08/zediva-preliminary-inj...