|
|
Posted by Rick Merrill on 02/02/07 01:45
PTravel wrote:
> "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]
>
>
Whatever happened to the "Mission Impossible" self destructing tapes?-)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|