 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to cramer
Re: So... said by cramer:Really? I wasn't aware the link between my DVD and TV was IP. Mine's actually component video -- so analog. (if I use the PS3, it's HDMI.)
You are, again, COMPLETELY. MISSING. THE. POINT. With Netflix and Blockbuster, you have physical possession of the media.
So I pay someone to go to blockbuster for me to pick up my DVD, and pay them to insert the DVD into a DVD player for me. Then I have that DVD player connected by a several mile wire to my TV and my remote control.
I hit play.
So am doing something illegal? no.
All you are doing with Zediva is renting a DVD and a DVD player then paying someone to load the DVD player for you and connect that rented DVD player to your TV.
Nothing different is happening compared to any normal physical DVD rental except paying someone to do the work for you.
1 customer has possession of the 1 DVD and it is not shared by anyone.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | ... Then I have that DVD player connected by a several mile wire to my TV ...
So am doing something illegal? no.
They are adding a device to digitize and encode the output of the DVD player. That data is then sent to you via an IP connection over the internet. (which is "streaming".) What they were doing is fundamentally no different than setting a webcam in front of a TV connected to the DVD player. Or are you going to say that's not streaming either.
Before you ask is FTP streaming? No, it is a precisely choreographed sequence of packets. There's a fixed beginning and end, and you receive the entire contents completely intact; if a packet is lost or damaged, it's resent and the sequence resumes from that point. With audio/video data streaming, you get what you get; there's no complex interactive system to make sure you receive all the data intact and in order. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to r81984
check out my topic "Long cord? No." for a comprehensive explanation of why it's not legally like renting a DVD from Blockbuster. The key is physical transfer of the DVD vs. streaming the DVD content without physical transfer. One is legal, the other is (apparently) not. |
|
 Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | said by MyDogHsFleas:check out my topic "Long cord? No." for a comprehensive explanation of why it's not legally like renting a DVD from Blockbuster. The key is physical transfer of the DVD vs. streaming the DVD content without physical transfer. One is legal, the other is (apparently) not.
Renting 1 physical DVD to 1 customer at a time is the same regardless if you do it through mail (netflix), a store/car (blockbuster), or through the internet (Zediva). All use a 1 physical DVD per customer.
Just because people are using the internet to replace mail or driving in the car does not change you are renting a physical DVD.
In the case of Zediva, you are renting the physical DVD, the DVD player, and paying someone to load the DVD player for you, and for them to connect that DVD player to your TV over the internet.
Zediva is not doing the kind of "streaming" that requires a license - 1 file on the server that gets streamed to multiple people.
If Zediva is illegal then any physical DVD service is illegal like netflix by mail or blockbuster. |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| well, all I can say is the court disagrees with you. You can rent a physical DVD but you can't rent the contents without a license to do that (like a video streaming license). Despite Zediva's posturing that they were actually renting DVDs, the judge ruled that that was essentially a sham, and it was no different than a video streaming service, since it was the content that was being tendered to the "renter", not the actual DVD itself.
Until and unless it's overturned on appeal (which I doubt it will be, personally), that is the established precedent now.
You are essentially asserting Zediva's argument that what they did is the same as what Netflix and Blockbuster do. That assertion was shredded by the court. |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | reply to Oh_No
It's not an issue of a 1:1 DVD:Person ratio. It's the simple fact one cannot "possess" a DVD over the internet. When you go to the video store, you walk out with the physical disc; legally equivalent to going to walmart and buying it out-right... the media license is tied to physical possession of the disc. Their legal problem was not with renting a DVD player, or renting a disc; it lays squarely on the part of accessing it over the internet. There's simply no way to do that without "streaming" or "downloading", both run afoul of copyright law. (you need a license for streaming or distribution.)
And for the record, Zediva does nothing at all to "connect ... to your TV". How it gets to your TV (if at all) is the customer's problem. |
|
Oh_NoTrogglus normalus
join:2011-05-21
Chicago, IL | reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:well, all I can say is the court disagrees with you. You can rent a physical DVD but you can't rent the contents without a license to do that (like a video streaming license). Despite Zediva's posturing that they were actually renting DVDs, the judge ruled that that was essentially a sham, and it was no different than a video streaming service, since it was the content that was being tendered to the "renter", not the actual DVD itself.
Until and unless it's overturned on appeal (which I doubt it will be, personally), that is the established precedent now.
You are essentially asserting Zediva's argument that what they did is the same as what Netflix and Blockbuster do. That assertion was shredded by the court.
The court is obviously non-technical as they fail to see the difference from what Zediva was doing with a physical DVD and what a "Streaming" service does with a file on their server.
Zediva is no where near the same thing as netflix, amazon, itunes streaming.
It is a joke that they cant see the huge difference.
They are setting a very, very bad precedent that anything done over the internet automatically makes it different in the eyes of the law. |
|
| Let's not do the same thing in two topics. |
|
