http://ostatic.com/170826-blog/linux-users-on-nbcs-olympics-videos-we-
dont-get-no-respect

That would be copies of media they own not that they stream and do not
own. This is not broadcast either, which has a different set of rules.


Wouldya throw some pronouns in there? The BBC, for example, doesn't
own media which it streams? Well, why should I care, as the customer?
That cannot infringe on my right to make a personal copy.

You don't have such a right.

This has nothing to do with who does piracy, this is why you can get
DRM video on linux.

Admittedly, it's a complex issue. However, your tone is to blame Linux
users for knowing their rights and, I can't think of a better way to
say, but for exercising and using those rights.

You don't have the rights you assume. If you did have the rights you
assume then you could walk into a library and copy a book or walk into a
record store and copy a CD. After all its for personal use.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:48:42 +0100, dennis at (no spam) home wrote:

That would be copies of media they own not that they stream and do not
own. This is not broadcast either, which has a different set of rules.


Wouldya throw some pronouns in there? The BBC, for example, doesn't
own media which it streams? Well, why should I care, as the customer?
That cannot infringe on my right to make a personal copy.

You don't have such a right.


Leaving aside jurisdiction for the moment, there is such a right, it
stems from VCR's. AFAIK every western country has such rights for their
citizens.

-Thufir

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:47:48 +0100, dennis at (no spam) home wrote:

This has nothing to do with who does piracy, this is why you can get
DRM video on linux.

Admittedly, it's a complex issue. However, your tone is to blame Linux
users for knowing their rights and, I can't think of a better way to
say, but for exercising and using those rights.

You don't have the rights you assume. If you did have the rights you
assume then you could walk into a library and copy a book or walk into a
record store and copy a CD. After all its for personal use.


If you *own* the book, yeah, you can photocopy it, AFAIK, for personal
use. If you *own* the cd, yeah, you can create make tapes. etc, etc.

-Thufir

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:20:21 +0100, dennis at (no spam) home wrote:

You don't own the streams you are copying. You don't have the right
to make copies for personal use.

Wouldn't it depend on the use? Time shifting, for example, I'd expect
to be legal, for the same reasons it is legal for broadcast material.
[...]
"Streaming media face complex requirements detailing what constitutes a
non-interactive transmission eligible for a statutory license under
section 114 of the Copyright Act."

Maybe you should read section 114?

Why don't you back up your assertion with something beyond "go [find] and
read this cite"? I see no reason why copyrighted media broadcast to tv's
should differ from copyrighted media broadcast (streamed) through the
internet.

Remember broadcast is non interactive and streamed is interactive. You
already have the ability to pause, etc. streamed video so copying is not
required.
You can access the media for as long as the provider wants you to.

Again, how is the principle of time shifting, personal use, etc,
invalidated? Just on your say so? You cite section 114, but only in a
general way, and give no argument as to how that trumps a supreme court
decision.

In article <b7spk.186412$gc5.3601 at (no spam) pd7urf2no>,
thufir <hawat.thufir at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:20:21 +0100, dennis at (no spam) home wrote:

You don't own the streams you are copying. You don't have the right
to make copies for personal use.

Wouldn't it depend on the use? Time shifting, for example, I'd expect
to be legal, for the same reasons it is legal for broadcast material.
[...]
"Streaming media face complex requirements detailing what constitutes a
non-interactive transmission eligible for a statutory license under
section 114 of the Copyright Act."

Maybe you should read section 114?

Why don't you back up your assertion with something beyond "go [find] and
read this cite"? I see no reason why copyrighted media broadcast to tv's
should differ from copyrighted media broadcast (streamed) through the
internet.

Section 114 concerns various exceptions for assorted transmissions. I
too don't see how it is relevant here, as time shifting does not rely on
any of those statutory exceptions, if I recall the Betamax case
correctly.

Remember broadcast is non interactive and streamed is interactive. You
already have the ability to pause, etc. streamed video so copying is not
required.
You can access the media for as long as the provider wants you to.

Again, how is the principle of time shifting, personal use, etc,
invalidated? Just on your say so? You cite section 114, but only in a
general way, and give no argument as to how that trumps a supreme court
decision.

Note, just as a matter of general information, that a statute can in
fact trump the Supreme Court. There are, in broad terms, two kinds of
Supreme Court decisions.

(1) Decisions they base on the Constitution.

(2) Decisions they do not base on the Constitution.

An example of the former would be Feist vs. Rural Telephone. That is
the case where they said that a telephone book consisting of an
alphabetical listing of all names in a given service area was not
subject to copyright. They said that the Constitution's grant of power
to Congress to establish a copyright system requires that copyright be
for works of authorship, and that for something to be such a work, there
is a certain level of creativity involved.

If Congress disagreed with that, and wanted alphabetical comprehensive
telephone books to be subject to copyright, Congress would be out of
luck. They can only override that Supreme Court decision by a
Constitutional amendment.

An example of the second kind of decision would be something like the
Supreme Court deciding on the scope of the fair use provision in the
Copyright Act. That's pretty much whatever Congress wants it to be.
Supreme Court decisions in that area, therefore, are just the Supreme
Court trying to figure out what Congress meant. If Congress decides
they want it to be something else, they just have to pass a new statute.

I believe the Betamax case was mostly in this second category, so if
Congress wanted to, Congress could prohibit time shifting. (In fact,
Congress was lobbied to make such a change, and considered it, but by
then it was several years after the Betamax decision, and a lot of
people had VCRs and were time shifting. Congress decided that giving in
to the studios would piss off way too many consumers, so did not).

I believe the Betamax case was mostly in this second category, so if
Congress wanted to, Congress could prohibit time shifting. (In fact,
Congress was lobbied to make such a change, and considered it, but by
then it was several years after the Betamax decision, and a lot of
people had VCRs and were time shifting. Congress decided that giving in
to the studios would piss off way too many consumers, so did not).