tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post8771651709162595818..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: The Cablevision DecisionWilliam Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-42312695861844495162008-12-21T08:42:00.000-05:002008-12-21T08:42:00.000-05:00Any attempt to dilute our freedom of privacy on th...Any attempt to dilute our freedom of privacy on the internet is a step toward big brother. This decision is ridiculus and the MPAA, 20th Century Fox and the major studios can buy a judge pretty cheap these days. They even bought the swedish police to shutdown thepiratebay.org, until lawmakers released the owners, released their computers and they were up the next day. NO INTERNET SPYING PERIOD. If the MPAA and big studios are failing it's because of cruddy movies and a bad economy in which no one can afford to pay for the trash they consider movies nowadays.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-60164872813681628382007-10-14T19:35:00.000-04:002007-10-14T19:35:00.000-04:00Here you go.http://softwarelawyer.blogspot.com/Here you go.<BR/><BR/>http://softwarelawyer.blogspot.com/Robert Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12339730650674026691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-40006549338830337112007-09-23T23:03:00.000-04:002007-09-23T23:03:00.000-04:00Robert, the case hasn't settled. It was to have be...Robert, the case hasn't settled. It was to have been argued before the Second Circuit at the beginning of September but got put off until October 24th.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-19603451863397307462007-09-23T22:45:00.000-04:002007-09-23T22:45:00.000-04:00Bill, I'd like to blog on this case myself, but I ...Bill, I'd like to blog on this case myself, but I can't find any recent information on its status. Is it still pending at the second circuit? Have respondent's filed a brief? Did it settle? Let me know if you know.Robert Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12339730650674026691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-53913482825999810582007-03-28T17:25:00.000-04:002007-03-28T17:25:00.000-04:00Anonymous said... Under Cablevision, one is "en...<I> Anonymous said...<BR/><BR/> Under Cablevision, one is "engaging in unauthorized reproductions and<BR/> transmissions" when using a "complex system that involves an ongoing relationship between Cablevision and its customers, payment of monthly fees by the customers to Cablevision, ownership of the equipment remaining with Cablevision, the use of numerous computers and other equipment located in Cablevision's private facilities, and the ongoing maintenance of the system by Cablevision personnel."<BR/><BR/> Using this standard (complexity, ongoing relationship, monthly fees, retained ownership, numerous computers, ongoing maintenance), most existing PVR systems seem to be directly infringing.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, the distinction seems to rely on the "use of numerous computers and other equipment located in Cablevision's private facilities," by which I assume the court means "the copying actually takes place at Cablevision's private facilities." I'm similarly wary, though, of the idea that the physical location where the copying occurs should be determinative, especially since the person most directly "doing" the copying (pressing the button) is the customer at home.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09632674147232196916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-75803375429243164502007-03-28T12:46:00.000-04:002007-03-28T12:46:00.000-04:00The respected legal commentator, George Carlin, on...The respected legal commentator, George Carlin, once noted, "XXXXing is legal. Selling is legal. Why isn't selling XXXXing legal?"<BR/><BR/>I'm sympathetic to the notion expressed by Abs that this decision seems to prohibit paying Cablevision for something that I could legally do myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-6742337419661869192007-03-27T15:10:00.000-04:002007-03-27T15:10:00.000-04:00Under Cablevision, one is "engaging in unauthorize...Under <I>Cablevision</I>, one is "engaging in unauthorized reproductions and<BR/>transmissions" when using a "complex system that involves an ongoing relationship between Cablevision and its customers, payment of monthly fees by the customers to Cablevision, ownership of the equipment remaining with Cablevision, the use of numerous computers and other equipment located in Cablevision's private facilities, and the ongoing maintenance of the system by Cablevision personnel."<BR/><BR/>Using this standard (complexity, ongoing relationship, monthly fees, retained ownership, numerous computers, ongoing maintenance), most existing PVR systems seem to be directly infringing.<BR/><BR/>For example, cable set-top boxes with built-in PVRs are complex, have an ongoing relationship with the cable operator, the cable operator retains ownership, require numerous computers involved, monthly fees, and ongoing maintenance.<BR/><BR/>Some I've spoken with find little problems with this decision, but I'm quite a bit more worried.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-82671945288441603002007-03-26T19:53:00.000-04:002007-03-26T19:53:00.000-04:00Chris, I'm sure you don't really expect me to comm...Chris, I'm sure you don't really expect me to comment about YouTube, but as to the other hypo, about someone making 1 copy of a single recording for 1,000 people, that is what happened in the Mp3.com case.<BR/><BR/>But in the Cablevision case, Cablevision would have (but for the fact that the service was enjoined before it was launched) made 1,000 different copies. All were dedicated streams for people who were entitled to see the show in the first place: Cablevision wouldn't have let people remotely store shows that were not part of their particular service plan, so I don't see why the number of people who would remotely store the same show matters.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-72541952364017317022007-03-26T19:43:00.000-04:002007-03-26T19:43:00.000-04:00Bill,Here's a slight variation: if 1,000 different...Bill,<BR/><BR/>Here's a slight variation: if 1,000 different subscribers wanted Cablevision to record a specific show, do they have to make 1,000 different recordings, all identical? Or, can they get away with one recording and let 1,000 different people access that one?<BR/><BR/>If that's fine, then how is that different than somebody putting the show up on youtube?Christopher Fulmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16543538534660568711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-42085058533604950112007-03-26T19:05:00.000-04:002007-03-26T19:05:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.abshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00452476483077661269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-2277403574045445722007-03-26T18:54:00.000-04:002007-03-26T18:54:00.000-04:00this is from the 1st anonymous poster:Yes, I agree...this is from the 1st anonymous poster:<BR/><BR/>Yes, I agree, Bill. The claim against the library should be limited to secondary liability. That's why I share your skepticism of some of the court's analysis.<BR/><BR/>I'll even concede to the court that the so-called "system" of Cablevision is more sophisticated and allows the copying selected by its users to occur more seamlessly, but I'm not sure Cablevision is any more involved in the actual copying than the library is.<BR/><BR/>Another point not discussed by the court: there may well be some copyright holders who don't object to what Cablevision is doing. If not, then the fact that Cablevision set up a system that allowed DVR copying would not even dictate that infringement would occur. It all depends on what the users select to copy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-23301869508300489042007-03-26T18:47:00.000-04:002007-03-26T18:47:00.000-04:00I have heard no end of "we'll do this, and it shou...I have heard no end of "we'll do this, and it should be copyright infringement, but because we'll be using this technology, it won't be infringement." I've always felt that was a bogus argument, because copyright infringement is a legal question, not a technical question.<BR/><BR/>So (without first reading it), I'm disappointed that this opinion seems to be based mostly around whether using technology X instead of technology Y determines if an identical act is copyright infringement. I'm really disappointed.Max Lybberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13935322217857952629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-71339404053204664592007-03-26T18:27:00.000-04:002007-03-26T18:27:00.000-04:00The hotel analogies also fall apart because the ho...The hotel analogies also fall apart because the hotel performances came from a single "public" copy (or at worse no more than a few) of the copyrighted work. The performances in this case come from "private" copies stored on the portion of the hard drive reserved to the customer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-17363813919263264122007-03-26T18:18:00.000-04:002007-03-26T18:18:00.000-04:00Dear Anonymous, in your example, wouldn't the clai...Dear Anonymous, in your example, wouldn't the claim against the library have been for secondary liability, though? The "doing" part in Cablevision takes on importance because of plaintiffs' decision to limit liabilty to direct infringement.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-8015125971341201682007-03-26T18:13:00.000-04:002007-03-26T18:13:00.000-04:00Bill, on my first reading of the opinion, I share ...Bill, on my first reading of the opinion, I share your reservations about the court's analysis of copying.<BR/><BR/>The court seemed quite taken with the distinction between the VCR as a "standalone" technology and the RS-DVR as a "complex system" and service. <BR/><BR/>But I'm not sure this changes the question of who is "doing" the copying (notwithstanding the court's emphasis on "doing"). I would have drawn an analogy to a library that housed several high-speed, high quality color copiers conveniently in the stacks for patrons to copy whatever works they chose. The library is conveniently providing its patrons with the copyrighted works, the copy machines, and the electricity. But I don't think we would say the library is actually "copying" the materials that an individual patron copies on one of the machines. Not sure Cablevision is doing anything that different here. The technology is a little more sophisticated, but not that much more compared to today's state of the art copy machines.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com