Quote:
Originally Posted by sortie
Ok, you just convinced me that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Copyright also controls broadcast rights. I can't re-broadcast a feed of
the lastest sitcoms from a high-jacked signal without violating the
broadcasting rights of the sitcoms themselves.
The sitcom owns the copyright which allows them to sell broadcasting rights
to the cable company. The sitcom didn't sell me broadcasting rights so
they can sue for copyright infringement if I broadcast it.
If this were not true then why all the fuss over youtube.
Users are just high-jacking tv signals and broadcasting them on youtube and
according to you, that's not copyright infringement.
If you are a lawyer then I advise you to quit.
|
Signal theft and copyright are two different things.
There are lots of people who steal a satellite signal for their personal use. Some of them are getting sued by the satellite companies for this. But none are getting sued by the television networks.
Copyright is the right to copy. When you steal a signal, it is already being broadcast, and you are providing them with the means to decrypt it. You haven't copied anything. Some people don't have cable television because they don't pay for it, but the signal is still coming through the wires to their house. It's still being broadcast. They just don't have permission to view it.
You say that "
Users are just high-jacking (sic) tv signals and broadcasting them on youtube (sic) ." Well, actually I can't go to YouTube and watch a live television broadcast of anything. So do you mean to tell me that if somebody legitimately purchased cable service and made a copy of a show and posted it on YouTube, that would be okay? And Viacom is only suing YouTube because people are broadcasting CBS live 24/7 on YouTube?
And if this is the case, why aren't cable companies suing YouTube?
Have you even been to YouTube?