3 ms·
I remember reading about this. Even from the "intention of the law" perspective though, I still didn't get the argument of the MPAA. How is it that a private in
by xhrpost 13y ago
I remember reading about this. Even from the "intention of the law" perspective though, I still didn't get the argument of the MPAA. How is it that a private individual choosing a title to watch for themselves constitute as a "public" display of the work? They were renting their own DVD player and legit movie disc, something anyone can do physically if they so choose by going to a couple stores.
- CamperBob2 13y agoBecause the MPAA rents its own US Senators, that's why.
- EGreg 13y agoNot supreme court justices though
- danielweber 13y agoBecause the company is doing the performance to the public, even if they did a little dog-and-pony show to try and make it seem like it wasn't. I think there are distinctions with the Aereo case, though. I could see Aereo winning despite the remote-watching-DVD case, and I was very confident in correctly predicting how the DVD case would turn out.
- paul_f 13y agoThere is no legal basis for this, which you are presenting as fact: Because the company is doing the performance to the public
- jrockway 13y agoThe MPAA's goal is to ensure that every cent that exists in the Universe is given to the motion picture industry. Why would they make an absurd argument about something? Because if it convinces someone, it moves them closer to their goal. If it fails to convince anyone, then they get no farther away from their goal. This, incidentally, is why you lose a quarter point on the SAT when you get the answer wrong.