how-to block ads
|
WileEC
mindtaker, macky cat, etc.
join:2002-02-07
Yonkers, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Tzale
Re: I must side with cablevision here
you make it sound as if "the law" is perfect and infallible, when we all know that is not true. yes, it may not be the job of judges to legislate from the bench, but in fact they do it all the time. This is a case where the law isn't being interpreted properly, in the spirit of how and why the law was written. This is a bunch of massively, obscenely paid entertainment industry lawyers siting specific clauses in decades old code and the judge, who's limited understanding of the technology and/or the purpose of it, agreeing with their arguments wholesale. It's a bad decision. It's crap. All it does is further limit our choices as consumers. And if you think that the entertainment industry doesn't have their own profit-making angle on this, you're nuts. They'll be all for it as soon as they figure out how to exploit this for their own gain.
By the way, personally I would never use such a system as I know in part that it would inevitably be used to track my viewing preferences for the purpose of even greater, more intrusive, targeted marketing.
--
Experience one of the most beautiful women on earth at PetraCentral! | |
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
| said by WileEC  :you make it sound as if "the law" is perfect and infallible, when we all know that is not true. yes, it may not be the job of judges to legislate from the bench, but in fact they do it all the time. This is a case where the law isn't being interpreted properly, in the spirit of how and why the law was written. This is a bunch of massively, obscenely paid entertainment industry lawyers siting specific clauses in decades old code and the judge, who's limited understanding of the technology and/or the purpose of it, agreeing with their arguments wholesale. It's a bad decision. It's crap. All it does is further limit our choices as consumers. And if you think that the entertainment industry doesn't have their own profit-making angle on this, you're nuts. They'll be all for it as soon as they figure out how to exploit this for their own gain. By the way, personally I would never use such a system as I know in part that it would inevitably be used to track my viewing preferences for the purpose of even greater, more intrusive, targeted marketing. The Judge follows the rule of law. So, you are expecting him to legislate from the bench, which is illegal. Sorry, the Judge was right...
You do know that if you have Digital cable that the cable company knows what you are watching? They have been doing that for years, it's all anonymous though... It's for reporting statistics.
-Tzale
--
-Virtual Pirate- | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to WileEC
said by WileEC :es, it may not be the job of judges to legislate from the bench, but in fact they do it all the time. I hate to cry foul here, but "legislating from the bench" is an invention of the Right Wing Wacko group in this country.
Legislating from the bench = "we are in power in the house, senate, and presidency.. who are you (the judge) to rule against us?"
Judges do have to pass judgment - that's their job. However, they sometimes get it wrong, as in this case. This is why we have a few layers of legal protection. It's only when the supreme court is wrongly influenced is where this country has the most potential to melt down.
It's often said that the supreme court has the most power with out a military.
The remote DVR issues is complete bunk. There is NOTHING that can be shown to damage any copyright holder.. there is NOTHING to show this violates the copyright itself. They are just hosing the equipment in a network data center.
Laywers should know this. They have email service they use daily. MANY of them use a 3rd party host to house that email. That email is attorney client priveledge. For THAT, they will allow a 3rd party to house that confidential material, right? Ok, now one can argue that the Lawyer has authorized the ISP to house the confidential email, right? but what about the client? did they? It's acceptable to trust a data center to house data.. that's all this is.. it's data. Until it reaches the home, it's information.. and since the network is only allowing those that have specifically flagged the content to view it and not others, and because they are not selling the videos.. it's not a violation.
I this was the case,a DVR would be a violation itself. The end user doesn't own or have ultimate control over the DVR.. the operator does. The operator can disable or delete the DVR at anytime. The operator can retrieve the DVR upon demand and take the content. Some people have received DVRs with old content from previous customers... so what's the difference? The RIAA/MPAA should be happy over this.
My prediction - Fox, Universal, MPAA, et all, is going to find out what it is to loose money in court as this will ultimately get over turned along the way of the Beta max argument, the VHS argument, the CD Rom argument, .. this is just the next in line. They have really only have about 1 more year as their puppet president (which laid this ground for tyranny of the corporate word to thrive) will be gone.
**also***
Network DVR/Home Based DVR.. they already know Cable box in the home.. the already know. I could care less if I'm a number in a crowd and they know what is being watched. I actually don't mind. I want them to know what's good and bad.. they react to that and use that data to end shows that are failing.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown | |
kballs
@comcast.net
|  reply to Tzale
CHECKS AND BALANCES.
"Legislate from the bench" is a bogus misleading term coined by a bunch of whining republicans who were trying to pull the wool over.
The executive, judicial, and legislative branches are supposed to act as a dampening mechanism. Each branch is there to prevent the other 2 branches from doing things that are unconstitutional (favoring the side of not making any new laws - in order for laws to go into place and stay there long term all 3 branches have to continue to agree they are valid).
If the legislature puts some bogus law into place, either the president can veto the bill or the judicial branch can declare it unconstitutional.
So it is the job of the judicial branches of government to interpret the law. It is the police's job to enforce the letter of the law. In this case it is the judge's job to decide the merits of both positions and decide a resolution. There is always the right of appeal on both sides (up to the supreme court).
IMO what Cablevision was trying to do isn't much different from what Comcast already does with VoD... except that each subscriber on Cablevision would select which shows they wanted to "record" beforehand whereas Comcast simply chooses what to archive without the subscriber's choice (and hence there isn't that much selection of VoD content on Comcast).
I believe the future is something like IPTV with every season of every show archived in all-you-can-eat VoD (kindof like what Rhapsody does with music now). Live broadcasts (news, sports, etc.) would probably have a relatively short lifetime unless somebody "saves" one by request in their account storage space.
This would actually be a lot more secure since the content would be on the server side and the customer would need to stream it (should make the studios happier than the current DVR box scenario). | |
|
