Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| Re: Networks being inconsistent I agree I just don't see what the difference is between having a box that records at my TV vs moving the 'box' to a virutal 'box' that exists at the head end. Heck if anything it acutally reduces the ability to grab the copyrighted material by the end user. | |
|
 Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| Re: Networks being inconsistent said by Neyland  :I agree I just don't see what the difference is between having a box that records at my TV vs moving the 'box' to a virutal 'box' that exists at the head end. The difference is the content providers want the for profit cable companies to have to obtain their permission. | |
|
 |
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| Re: Networks being inconsistent Is this a matter of 10 people record 'LOST' so the network DVR records it once and grants all 10 people that had prior requests to recording access so this is considered a
rebroadcast?
It seems to me that this could be easily argued that because I as the end user are in control of both the record request and the playback, and I'm viewing for my private enjoyment in my home that the cable company is in fact not rebroadcasting, but rather simply acting as a storage median. | |
|
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| Re: Networks being inconsistent said by Neyland :It seems to me that this could be easily argued that because I as the end user are in control of both the record request and the playback, and I'm viewing for my private enjoyment in my home that the cable company is in fact not rebroadcasting, but rather simply acting as a storage median. It could be argued that if I receive a broadcast station from the cable headend for my private enjoyment that the cable company is simply acting as my antenna. Whether I like it or not (and if retransmission consent agreements increase my bill I don't) the content providers ultimately won their argument against that in court. | |
|
|
|
|
