Posted by Bill Vermillion on 10/07/05 03:45

In article <5j1bk1589en75s2vjqdug22g4fsnbpq2el@4ax.com>,
NunYa Bidness <nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:25:01 GMT, bv@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) Gave
>us:
>
>>In article <64s1k1lkt9qegu0588364beegr8gi7bqt1@4ax.com>,
>>Impmon <impmon@digi.mon> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:59:19 -0700, "Alpha" <none@none.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>By 2008 everything will shut down gradually on recording.
>>>>
>>>>You keep insisting that 'something' will make it possible. Only for
>>>>lawbreakers.
>>>
>>>There's another way: class action lawsuit. I believe the old ruling
>>>that allowed time shifting when lawsuit was filed against VCR by big
>>>name studios some 20 years ago.

> Try 30 years. It was filed in 1976.

I didn't say 20 - the OP did that.

It wasn't settled until 1979. Two years after I got my Beta.
And then the appeals court reversed that ruling. And the Supreme
Court reversed the appeals decision in 1984. So the OP was pretty
close to being right at 20 years - as it's now just 22 years.

>> The right to record anything for
>>>later viewing remained and I'm sure it still remains today.

> That depends on the source medium.

Which is waht I indicated. The ruling made it legal to record
programs broadcast on the public airwaves without charge to the
viewer.

>>That was the Betamax case. Disney vs Sony [actually a user who had
>>a Betamax].

> It was Universal Studios, as well as Disney, and it was on behalf of
>ALL the Hollywood majors.

>>The ruling was that it was legal to record anything that was
>>>>BROADCAST<< and does not apply to such things as cable networks
>>or satellite networks.

> I didn't see that. It was related to time shifted recording. Cable
>was in it's infancy then and Satellite certainly was. I doubt it was
>even discussed at the time, though it may have been since or in the
>appeals.

At that time cable was in the infancy and it really did relate only
to broadcast. However many cable companies would note some late
night movies as 'great for recording for later viewing' - so they
encouraged recording from their pay channels - such as HBO - which
wasn't covered by the decision - but could have legal consequences
if some company tried to sue and the printed newspaper ads showing
this were entered into evidence.

But the original ruling related only to program on 'public
airwaves' and the other operative words had to do with 'free to the
viewer'.

>>The idea was that since it was free for viewing by anyone who had a
>>receiver it was legal to record it.

>>I do remember when I was filling out some logs for Nielsen and I
>>asked them something like "how do I put things down that I record
>>and watch later".

>>They said they'd call me back. They said I should log those as
>>being watched.

>>At that time there were only between 50,000 and 75,000 VCRs in US
>>homes, and mine was a Sony 7200 - 1 hour on $18.00 tapes.

> Actually, in 1976, there were 30,000 machines PER YEAR sold. By
>1981, it was 1.4 million PER YEAR.

My Sony was purchased in February or March fo 1977 and Nielson
called a month or so later. So two months into 1977 the figure of
50,000 would probably be very close.

>>Technology seems to sneak up on companies like Nielsen when they
>>weren't paying attention.

> It ain't just Nielsen.

You've noticed that too? :-)



))))
))))
:::: ))))
:::: ))))
---- ))))
---- ))))
:::: ))))
:::: ))))
))))
))))


Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

[Back to original message]