I can't tell if you are just having us on or if you really mean it. Either way, thanks for the comic relief. If FF was illegal, we would have little labels on all home electronics that are capable of it. The labels would say "Don't steal music and movies and don't FF through commercials. If you need more proof, consider this. Apple has not been sued for it yet. Neither has Microsoft, Comcast, Tivo, or any of the VCR manufacturers out there. I don't know if you are from around these parts. But if it was illegal, someone would have cashed in on it by now.
Are you the court? No. So your opinion on the legality of this business means little.
Cite the case that arrived at this foolish conclusion.
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
You continue to mistake me for the source of this litigation, or at least as a supporter of it.
Actually, no I don't. But since you haven't cited any sources for the position you have asserted (and as "fact" I might add)...I have no choice but to assume that you are using this dubious reasoning ("derivative work") as the basis for the illegality of fast forwardng through commercials.
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
it's me telling you the facts
And not supporting them with any citations.
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
The issue is whether an American court found that fast-forwarding can at times be a violation of copyright law. So I suggest that you do that research instead of blathering inconsequentially.
On a more positive note, if they start flagging commercials, it is only a matter of time before PVR's like MythTV detect and automatically remove them. (More accurately than today)
Ages ago we had an early Sony Trinitron 'portable'... just like this one
Aside from being a damn fine TV even 20 years later, this set seemed to pick up a few dozen pixels of broadcast signal outside of the normal "tv safe" crop of most sets. Blame the clever engineers, or the electron gun creeping out onto the slight curve at the edge of the picture tube, or...
The net effect was that in the extreme top right corner of the screen, where most televisions (including our other tv) weren't picking up (but network centres and affiliate rebroadcasters were), we could see a flashing white cursor which appeared between 5 to 10 seconds before a break. This signal is for the network or affiliate to prep their commercials for insertion.
We would always know when the suspense was about to be held, or a fluids break was pending. A broadcast component of the medium was informing us when a commercial was due, enabling avoidance of their sponsor, for anyone whose set scanned outside of the tv safe zone and could detect the edit cues.
Most networks have predictable clocks with set ad breaks. Does knowledge of the break between 21 and 23 past the hour mean they are complicit in or aiding and abetting us in skipping commercials?
You seem to revel in the idea of a pissing contest. You can thank me later.
Enjoy. Once you click the link, maybe you'll realize why I said that I don't want to spend a long time doing your homework for you: legalese. If I were actually a lawyer, or had any amount of law school training, I might be able to do a better job deciphering.
Footnote 6 shows what a copyright owner can do, and inversely what someone who doesn't own a copyright can't do. Somewhere in there (command-F for "fast-forward") there's a bit regarding the decision, as it was found, that the "VTR" does not sufficiently violate the derivative work as long as fast-forwarding through advertisements isn't a very exact practice (which it's not). Advancing has slipped through the cracks, I suppose, since you technically still see the ads.
There's a great deal of gray area in the whole verdict, but at the end of the day it's illegal to bypass advertising on copyrighted television programs.
You seem to revel in the idea of a pissing contest.
Not really. But if someone asserts something as "fact"...I revel in calling them on it until they prove it. In my view they have an obligation to in fact. Sorry if you don't like being called on such things and expect everyone to just accept what you claim as the un-challenged truth.
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
You can thank me later.
Thanks (for doing what you should/could have done like 5 posts ago).
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
as it was found, that the "VTR" does not sufficiently violate the derivative work as long as fast-forwarding through advertisements isn't a very exact practice (which it's not). Advancing has slipped through the cracks, I suppose, since you technically still see the ads.
I'll read through it when I have some time.
However, what I basically hear you saying is that you were wrong about the supposed "fact" of the illegality of fast forwarding through commercials because it created a "derivative work".
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
There's a great deal of gray area in the whole verdict, but at the end of the day it's illegal to bypass advertising on copyrighted television programs.
Do you guys think that TV "should be free"? It costs like a million dollars just to film a half hour program, before you pay the actors. Do you think they just do that so you can enjoy it, or is like every other business on earth where they want to make money?
I realize that you have already paid your cable bill, but each station gets like 10 cents from your cable bill for the whole month. Most of your bill goes to the cable company for providing a communications service, much like your phone bill costs around $30
It's true that you have never before been told "You MUST watch these commercials" but that is only because it wasn't necessary before. Most people were watching the commercials anyway, but with recorders the situation has changed.
This ain't a commie country. If you want to watch Law and Order, you have to pay the people who created it and produced it. They don't have some obligation to make it for you cause you think it's really cool. You have to follow whatever agreement they ask of you. If you don't want to watch the commercials, then pay $1 to download it from iTunes.
If you want to watch Law and Order, you have to pay the people who created it and produced it. They don't have some obligation to make it for you cause you think it's really cool. You have to follow whatever agreement they ask of you. If you don't want to watch the commercials, then pay $1 to download it from iTunes.
Are you suggesting (assuming I don't have the technology to fast-forward through commercials) that I ought to even be compelled to sit on my couch and watch them...not leave the room to get a snack or use the washroom...because well...it is my obligation for having the audacity to watch the program (broadcast over the public airwaves) in the first place?
Well, actually yes I am. I am suggesting that you take into account that they make television programs in return for pay. That pay depends on you watching the commercials. So you should reasonably be expected to watch, say, 50% of commercials as naturally happens. You should NOT click a button to skip past the commercials.
Yes, absolutely. If the company that makes the television program says that "The way you pay for this product is by watching the commercials.", then you should only watch THEIR program that THEY made that belongs to THEM and NOT YOU, after you meet that agreement. An honorable person doesn't take something off someone else's hands without meeting the agreement that they ask.
You have never been required to watch EVERY commercial, because as I said, they were satisfied that you were naturally going to watch a high percentage anyway. But if they had said "You MUST watch these commercials, at some point in time, maybe later after the program if you don't have the time now.", then yes.
Unless you can prove that television stations have some kind of monopoly or way around competition and they are extorting unfair prices or agreements out of you, then you should honor the agreement that they ask.
Oh and also the fact that they are "public airwaves" or even cable that you paid for is irrelevant. That is just a delivery mechanism. The product is the television show and that needs to be paid for.
Well, actually yes I am. I am suggesting that you take into account that they make television programs in return for pay. That pay depends on you watching the commercials. So you should reasonably be expected to watch, say, 50% of commercials as naturally happens. You should NOT click a button to skip past the commercials.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Yes, absolutely. If the company that makes the television program says that "The way you pay for this product is by watching the commercials.", then you should only watch THEIR program that THEY made that belongs to THEM and NOT YOU, after you meet that agreement. An honorable person doesn't take something off someone else's hands without meeting the agreement that they ask.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Unless you can prove that television stations have some kind of monopoly or way around competition and they are extorting unfair prices or agreements out of you, then you should honor the agreement that they ask.
Well...they are using the public air waves.
Second...the risk broadcasters take (as part of their business model) is that I won't watch any of their ads and will still watch the show.
This has nothing to do with my (or anyone else's) "honorable" conduct in some sort of implied contract with the broadcaster.
You didn't really provide any sort of response for what I wrote. You just selfishly scoffed at the idea that you would be required to do anything in return for what you were getting.
You didn't really provide any sort of response for what I wrote. You just selfishly scoffed at the idea that you would be required to do anything in return for what you were getting.
Not really. The idea that anyone should be compelled to watch any portion of something that they would choose not to as plainly laughable. I was just succinct in saying that.
And...you must have missed this:
Quote:
Second...the risk broadcasters take (as part of their business model) is that I won't watch any of their ads and will still watch the show.
In other threads, you seem to be a reasonable fellow, and you claim to be interested in morality, and every serious person knows that morality is about following rules and being fair. So let's take this from the top.
First of all, the fact that you are USED TO being able to change the channel or skip the commercials is irrelevant to what is right.
Let me give you an example. I lived in a house where seven people split the electricity evenly seven ways. Then one guy started doing like seven times as much laundry as it had something to do with his hobby. When we suggested that he pay more, he said "But we've always just split the bill, even though we never used EXACTLY the same amount of electricity.
Splitting the bill evenly was based on the assumption that people would use about the same electricity, but times changed, invalidating the basis of the old way.
Not being REQUIRED to watch the television commercials was based on the fact when there was only seven channels and no remote that you would wind up watching a good amount of commercials anyway.
Once you have a technology that can completely skip past the commercials, this invalidates the assumption that the whole thing was based on.
You never, ever, ever, had some inherent and inalienable right to watch a television program that cost money to make for free, with no responsibilities. It just worked out that way based on the natural tendency to watch commercials anyway.
And by the way, you seem to talk about right and wrong in so many other threads. Well let's go over some right and wrong. There is NO difference between a physical object, like a potato or a pizza, and someone's ideas, like the song they created.
Before you take THEIR product from them, you have to meet the agreement they ask of you. With a potato or a pizza, since it is a physical object, you can make sure it can't get out the door and pay policemen to make sure no one runs out the door with it.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE with a song or television show. Just because there is no way to hire a policeman to follow the songs around, that doesn't mean that each person shouldn't pay what is required.
Now you talk about morality alot. Now how about this: An honorable person doesn't take something off someone else's hand unless they meet the agreement. If U2 says "You can have these front row seats for $30, but they are only for you and not to be sold for profit.", then you should only buy them if you are willing to meet the agreement.
The only exception is a monopoly, like someone charging you $1000 for a glass of water because your car broke down in the middle of the desert.
"Not really. The idea that anyone should be compelled to watch any portion of something that they would choose not to as plainly laughable. I was just succinct in saying that."
A person must be COMPELLED to pay for the product they are using. If you don't want to have to watch commercials, that's OK, pay like 15 cents or something for the advertising dollars that would have been made.
You enjoyed the episode of The Simpsons for the 20 minutes of programming. Why shouldn't you be compelled to pay the people who created it?
"Second...the risk broadcasters take (as part of their business model) is that I won't watch any of their ads and will still watch the show."
Why does anyone have to take any "risk" for you because you want to get something for free without paying for it? Why shouldn't the people who made a great show like the Simpsons get paid for it when you watch it? Once again, they have a reasonable right to expect that when you watch The Simpsons for twenty minutes, that you pay for it in some way. THIS IS NOT COMMUNISM. EACH PERSON PAYS FOR HIS OWN THING. This is not some kind of collective "Someone else will pay for it and it will all even out somehow."
You watched a show. You pay for it.
Again, it all worked out BEFORE because on average we all wound up paying enough for it by watching commercials. But when people intentionally cut out the commercials, the thing that pays for it, they are skipping out of their obligations.
In other threads, you seem to be a reasonable fellow, and you claim to be interested in morality, and every serious person knows that morality is about following rules and being fair.
Let's stop right there. I do follow the "rules" as they exist on this subject. As I mentioned, there is a risk that broadcasters take for using the public airwaves to tell their product. I am doing nothing illegal or even immoral.
Quote:
Originally posted by spindler
Before you take THEIR product from them, you have to meet the agreement they ask of you.
a) If it being broadcast over the public airwaves, I do.
b) They've never "asked" anything at all. They have simply provided some programming (over the public airwaves, for free) and hoped I'll watch some of the commercials (and those advertisers hope I'll buy some of their product).
If any of your analogies were relevant, I'd address them. Since they aren't, I won't.
P.S. Broadcasters effectively DO have a (government granted and protected) monopoly. Cable operators too.
Comments
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Are you the court? No. So your opinion on the legality of this business means little.
Cite the case that arrived at this foolish conclusion.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
You continue to mistake me for the source of this litigation, or at least as a supporter of it.
Actually, no I don't. But since you haven't cited any sources for the position you have asserted (and as "fact" I might add)...I have no choice but to assume that you are using this dubious reasoning ("derivative work") as the basis for the illegality of fast forwardng through commercials.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
it's me telling you the facts
And not supporting them with any citations.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
The issue is whether an American court found that fast-forwarding can at times be a violation of copyright law. So I suggest that you do that research instead of blathering inconsequentially.
You asserted. You back it up. Simple.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I can't tell if you are just having us on or if you really mean it.
He's hand-waving...and hoping we'll buy it. At this point he has given us no reason to.
Aside from being a damn fine TV even 20 years later, this set seemed to pick up a few dozen pixels of broadcast signal outside of the normal "tv safe" crop of most sets. Blame the clever engineers, or the electron gun creeping out onto the slight curve at the edge of the picture tube, or...
The net effect was that in the extreme top right corner of the screen, where most televisions (including our other tv) weren't picking up (but network centres and affiliate rebroadcasters were), we could see a flashing white cursor which appeared between 5 to 10 seconds before a break. This signal is for the network or affiliate to prep their commercials for insertion.
We would always know when the suspense was about to be held, or a fluids break was pending. A broadcast component of the medium was informing us when a commercial was due, enabling avoidance of their sponsor, for anyone whose set scanned outside of the tv safe zone and could detect the edit cues.
Most networks have predictable clocks with set ad breaks. Does knowledge of the break between 21 and 23 past the hour mean they are complicit in or aiding and abetting us in skipping commercials?
You seem to revel in the idea of a pissing contest. You can thank me later.
Enjoy. Once you click the link, maybe you'll realize why I said that I don't want to spend a long time doing your homework for you: legalese. If I were actually a lawyer, or had any amount of law school training, I might be able to do a better job deciphering.
Footnote 6 shows what a copyright owner can do, and inversely what someone who doesn't own a copyright can't do. Somewhere in there (command-F for "fast-forward") there's a bit regarding the decision, as it was found, that the "VTR" does not sufficiently violate the derivative work as long as fast-forwarding through advertisements isn't a very exact practice (which it's not). Advancing has slipped through the cracks, I suppose, since you technically still see the ads.
There's a great deal of gray area in the whole verdict, but at the end of the day it's illegal to bypass advertising on copyrighted television programs.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC
See. That wasn't so hard.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
You seem to revel in the idea of a pissing contest.
Not really. But if someone asserts something as "fact"...I revel in calling them on it until they prove it. In my view they have an obligation to in fact. Sorry if you don't like being called on such things and expect everyone to just accept what you claim as the un-challenged truth.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
You can thank me later.
Thanks (for doing what you should/could have done like 5 posts ago).
Originally posted by Splinemodel
as it was found, that the "VTR" does not sufficiently violate the derivative work as long as fast-forwarding through advertisements isn't a very exact practice (which it's not). Advancing has slipped through the cracks, I suppose, since you technically still see the ads.
I'll read through it when I have some time.
However, what I basically hear you saying is that you were wrong about the supposed "fact" of the illegality of fast forwarding through commercials because it created a "derivative work".
Originally posted by Splinemodel
There's a great deal of gray area in the whole verdict, but at the end of the day it's illegal to bypass advertising on copyrighted television programs.
We'll see.
I realize that you have already paid your cable bill, but each station gets like 10 cents from your cable bill for the whole month. Most of your bill goes to the cable company for providing a communications service, much like your phone bill costs around $30
It's true that you have never before been told "You MUST watch these commercials" but that is only because it wasn't necessary before. Most people were watching the commercials anyway, but with recorders the situation has changed.
This ain't a commie country. If you want to watch Law and Order, you have to pay the people who created it and produced it. They don't have some obligation to make it for you cause you think it's really cool. You have to follow whatever agreement they ask of you. If you don't want to watch the commercials, then pay $1 to download it from iTunes.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
but at the end of the day it's illegal to bypass advertising on copyrighted television programs.
I don't see that conclusion clearly expressed at all in the document you posted. In fact, nothing even close.
Originally posted by spindler
If you want to watch Law and Order, you have to pay the people who created it and produced it. They don't have some obligation to make it for you cause you think it's really cool. You have to follow whatever agreement they ask of you. If you don't want to watch the commercials, then pay $1 to download it from iTunes.
Are you suggesting (assuming I don't have the technology to fast-forward through commercials) that I ought to even be compelled to sit on my couch and watch them...not leave the room to get a snack or use the washroom...because well...it is my obligation for having the audacity to watch the program (broadcast over the public airwaves) in the first place?
Yes, absolutely. If the company that makes the television program says that "The way you pay for this product is by watching the commercials.", then you should only watch THEIR program that THEY made that belongs to THEM and NOT YOU, after you meet that agreement. An honorable person doesn't take something off someone else's hands without meeting the agreement that they ask.
You have never been required to watch EVERY commercial, because as I said, they were satisfied that you were naturally going to watch a high percentage anyway. But if they had said "You MUST watch these commercials, at some point in time, maybe later after the program if you don't have the time now.", then yes.
Unless you can prove that television stations have some kind of monopoly or way around competition and they are extorting unfair prices or agreements out of you, then you should honor the agreement that they ask.
Originally posted by spindler
Well, actually yes I am. I am suggesting that you take into account that they make television programs in return for pay. That pay depends on you watching the commercials. So you should reasonably be expected to watch, say, 50% of commercials as naturally happens. You should NOT click a button to skip past the commercials.
Originally posted by spindler
Yes, absolutely. If the company that makes the television program says that "The way you pay for this product is by watching the commercials.", then you should only watch THEIR program that THEY made that belongs to THEM and NOT YOU, after you meet that agreement. An honorable person doesn't take something off someone else's hands without meeting the agreement that they ask.
Originally posted by spindler
Unless you can prove that television stations have some kind of monopoly or way around competition and they are extorting unfair prices or agreements out of you, then you should honor the agreement that they ask.
Well...they are using the public air waves.
Second...the risk broadcasters take (as part of their business model) is that I won't watch any of their ads and will still watch the show.
This has nothing to do with my (or anyone else's) "honorable" conduct in some sort of implied contract with the broadcaster.
Originally posted by spindler
Oh and also the fact that they are "public airwaves" or even cable that you paid for is irrelevant.
Not really.
Originally posted by spindler
You didn't really provide any sort of response for what I wrote. You just selfishly scoffed at the idea that you would be required to do anything in return for what you were getting.
Not really. The idea that anyone should be compelled to watch any portion of something that they would choose not to as plainly laughable. I was just succinct in saying that.
And...you must have missed this:
Second...the risk broadcasters take (as part of their business model) is that I won't watch any of their ads and will still watch the show.
First of all, the fact that you are USED TO being able to change the channel or skip the commercials is irrelevant to what is right.
Let me give you an example. I lived in a house where seven people split the electricity evenly seven ways. Then one guy started doing like seven times as much laundry as it had something to do with his hobby. When we suggested that he pay more, he said "But we've always just split the bill, even though we never used EXACTLY the same amount of electricity.
Splitting the bill evenly was based on the assumption that people would use about the same electricity, but times changed, invalidating the basis of the old way.
Not being REQUIRED to watch the television commercials was based on the fact when there was only seven channels and no remote that you would wind up watching a good amount of commercials anyway.
Once you have a technology that can completely skip past the commercials, this invalidates the assumption that the whole thing was based on.
You never, ever, ever, had some inherent and inalienable right to watch a television program that cost money to make for free, with no responsibilities. It just worked out that way based on the natural tendency to watch commercials anyway.
And by the way, you seem to talk about right and wrong in so many other threads. Well let's go over some right and wrong. There is NO difference between a physical object, like a potato or a pizza, and someone's ideas, like the song they created.
Before you take THEIR product from them, you have to meet the agreement they ask of you. With a potato or a pizza, since it is a physical object, you can make sure it can't get out the door and pay policemen to make sure no one runs out the door with it.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE with a song or television show. Just because there is no way to hire a policeman to follow the songs around, that doesn't mean that each person shouldn't pay what is required.
Now you talk about morality alot. Now how about this: An honorable person doesn't take something off someone else's hand unless they meet the agreement. If U2 says "You can have these front row seats for $30, but they are only for you and not to be sold for profit.", then you should only buy them if you are willing to meet the agreement.
The only exception is a monopoly, like someone charging you $1000 for a glass of water because your car broke down in the middle of the desert.
A person must be COMPELLED to pay for the product they are using. If you don't want to have to watch commercials, that's OK, pay like 15 cents or something for the advertising dollars that would have been made.
You enjoyed the episode of The Simpsons for the 20 minutes of programming. Why shouldn't you be compelled to pay the people who created it?
"Second...the risk broadcasters take (as part of their business model) is that I won't watch any of their ads and will still watch the show."
Why does anyone have to take any "risk" for you because you want to get something for free without paying for it? Why shouldn't the people who made a great show like the Simpsons get paid for it when you watch it? Once again, they have a reasonable right to expect that when you watch The Simpsons for twenty minutes, that you pay for it in some way. THIS IS NOT COMMUNISM. EACH PERSON PAYS FOR HIS OWN THING. This is not some kind of collective "Someone else will pay for it and it will all even out somehow."
You watched a show. You pay for it.
Again, it all worked out BEFORE because on average we all wound up paying enough for it by watching commercials. But when people intentionally cut out the commercials, the thing that pays for it, they are skipping out of their obligations.
Originally posted by spindler
In other threads, you seem to be a reasonable fellow, and you claim to be interested in morality, and every serious person knows that morality is about following rules and being fair.
Let's stop right there. I do follow the "rules" as they exist on this subject. As I mentioned, there is a risk that broadcasters take for using the public airwaves to tell their product. I am doing nothing illegal or even immoral.
Originally posted by spindler
Before you take THEIR product from them, you have to meet the agreement they ask of you.
a) If it being broadcast over the public airwaves, I do.
b) They've never "asked" anything at all. They have simply provided some programming (over the public airwaves, for free) and hoped I'll watch some of the commercials (and those advertisers hope I'll buy some of their product).
If any of your analogies were relevant, I'd address them. Since they aren't, I won't.
P.S. Broadcasters effectively DO have a (government granted and protected) monopoly. Cable operators too.