|
|
Posted by PTravel on 02/02/07 00:20
"Larry in AZ" <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98CAA1AB5F4A9thefrogprince@69.28.173.184...
> Waiving the right to remain silent, "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com>
> said:
>
>> "Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:CI2dnZiCM5MA2V_YnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> PTravel wrote:
>>>> "timepixdc" <timepixdc@aol.comx> wrote in message
>>>> news:timepixdc-20C2B5.09481501022007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
>>>>> In article <1170203953.011518.323160@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> ptravel@travelersvideo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Copying a DVD to a computer to watch on a plane is _probably_ fair
>>>>>> use . Not in the USA.
>>>>
>>>> Really, counselor? Why do you think that?
>>> DVD == media
>>> computer != media
>>
>> Media shifting has already been held to be fair use in the context of
>> music. Though I'm not aware of any decisions addressing it, the
>> rationale with respect to video should be the same.
>
> Didn't Disney vs. Sony (Betamax) settle that similarly..?
Kind of. The Betamax case involved time-shifting, rather than
medium-shifting, though the underlying rationale is certainly applicable.
The interesting thing about the Betamax case, though, was that the holding
was based on a factual premise that, has since, been proven faulty: the
court indicated that its decision was based, in part, on the assumption that
people would not use VCRs to amass a permanent library of protected
material; the assumption was that any such recordings would be, essentially,
ephemeral. I really wonder how the case would be decided today in light of
significant real-world experience that contradicts this assumption.
>
> --
> Larry Jandro
> Video Engineering & Equipment Rentals
> Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
> [Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to reply]
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|