3 ms·

>In fact, copyright holders cannot impose restrictions on my right to view their work. I don't think there's such a thing as a "right" to view someone's work,

>In fact, copyright holders cannot impose restrictions on my right to view their work. I don't think there's such a thing as a "right" to view someone's work, unless it's granted by the copyright holder. (Where else would you get such a right?) >A very long time ago, geographic restrictions made sense... It doesn't matter if they make sense or not; I don't think there's anything in copyright law that says the terms of a license have to make sense to any particular person (and who would get to decide that, if there were?) Also, it doesn't seem like geographic restrictions have anything (yet) to do with this; from what I've read, Aereo only works inside the normal broadcasting range of the channels it re-transmits. >...an obsolete industry was trying to impose restrictions on the use of a new technology... That would be a good explanation for the lawsuit, if it had been started by manufacturers of portable TVs who wanted it to be impractical for people to use their non-TV devices as though they were TVs. In this case, it's about a group of companies who hold public performance rights to certain works, trying to assert those rights. As it happens, a court has ruled that Aereo is not infringing those rights. So there's nothing in this whole story to justify stripping content creators and copyright holders of any of their rights.

betterunix 14y ago
"I don't think there's such a thing as a "right" to view someone's work" You do not think you have the right to use your eyes without first asking someone's permission? You have that right, and you are also free to listen to almost any radio transmission your equipment receives (the exceptions to this are not copyright related; it is more like restrictions on RADAR detectors). "It doesn't matter if they make sense or not; I don't think there's anything in copyright law that says the terms of a license have to make sense to any particular person" There are limits to what we allow licenses to cover. There is no reason we should still allow licenses to cover geographic regions in this day and age (but there is also no reason to continue clinging to copyright either). "Also, it doesn't seem like geographic restrictions have anything (yet) to do with this; from what I've read, Aereo only works inside the normal broadcasting range of the channels it re-transmits." They do that because of the law, because the law is so dangerously out of date. It is not as though someone sat down and said, "The Internet allows us to send streams to anyone in the world. Let's limit our service to New York City, and not take advantage of the technology available to us!" This was a decision that was motivated by a backwards, anachronistic legal framework. "if it had been started by manufacturers of portable TVs who wanted it to be impractical for people to use their non-TV devices" You seem to have missed the point: Broadcasting is the obsolete industry. We do not need centralized broadcasters with technology that cannot send video more than a couple hundred miles, because we have a decentralized system that can send video anywhere in the world. "So there's nothing in this whole story to justify stripping content creators and copyright holders of any of their rights." You don't think there is something wrong with having to build an individual antenna for every user of Aereo's service? You don't think there is something wrong with telling someone in rural Texas that they are not allowed to use Aereo's service because they live in the wrong place? Aereo's technology solves an artificial problem, one that results from a legal framework that now serves only to keep powerful corporations in power. You speak of copyright as though it was handed down by God. Perhaps you should take a look at its history, before assuming that there is some moral imperative for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166...

betterunix 14y ago

"I don't think there's such a thing as a "right" to view someone's work" You do not think you have the right to use your eyes without first asking someone's permission? You have that right, and you are also free to listen to almost any radio transmission your equipment receives (the exceptions to this are not copyright related; it is more like restrictions on RADAR detectors). "It doesn't matter if they make sense or not; I don't think there's anything in copyright law that says the terms of a license have to make sense to any particular person" There are limits to what we allow licenses to cover. There is no reason we should still allow licenses to cover geographic regions in this day and age (but there is also no reason to continue clinging to copyright either). "Also, it doesn't seem like geographic restrictions have anything (yet) to do with this; from what I've read, Aereo only works inside the normal broadcasting range of the channels it re-transmits." They do that because of the law, because the law is so dangerously out of date. It is not as though someone sat down and said, "The Internet allows us to send streams to anyone in the world. Let's limit our service to New York City, and not take advantage of the technology available to us!" This was a decision that was motivated by a backwards, anachronistic legal framework. "if it had been started by manufacturers of portable TVs who wanted it to be impractical for people to use their non-TV devices" You seem to have missed the point: Broadcasting is the obsolete industry. We do not need centralized broadcasters with technology that cannot send video more than a couple hundred miles, because we have a decentralized system that can send video anywhere in the world. "So there's nothing in this whole story to justify stripping content creators and copyright holders of any of their rights." You don't think there is something wrong with having to build an individual antenna for every user of Aereo's service? You don't think there is something wrong with telling someone in rural Texas that they are not allowed to use Aereo's service because they live in the wrong place? Aereo's technology solves an artificial problem, one that results from a legal framework that now serves only to keep powerful corporations in power. You speak of copyright as though it was handed down by God. Perhaps you should take a look at its history, before assuming that there is some moral imperative for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166...