Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny
VCR defense doesn't hold up.
Didn't work for Napster doesn't work here.
I didn't read this thread - but just in case the VCR thing comes up I just want everyone to know that it doesn't hold water.
"Legal experts think Napster's 'VCR defense' will not hold up because the fair use doctrine only applies to personal use of copyrighted materials within a household."
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/11648.html |
so an opinion made from an expert not involved in the trial trumps an actual ruling by the courts
you really need to hire a better lawyer kenny
or at least look at the transcripts of the case
napster lost that case because of the centralized control issues, and their direct involvement in the transaction, not because the vcr arguement failed.
the fair use arguement was not even considered.
That being said when a court case did come along where the issue was considered.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud
Quote:
Twenty-four years ago in the Sony Betamax case, the Supreme Court declared that using a VCR to "time-shift" ? to record a television program for viewing at a later time ? was a fair use. Today, the Second Circuit rejected [PDF] an attempt by the content industry to change the rules of the game if your video recorder is stored "in the cloud" on the Internet.
Although the district court agreed with the plaintiffs, the appellate court today resoundingly sided with Cablevision, EFF, and the other amici that supported Cablevision:
|
timeshifting in a cloud is a fact of law now, the opinion from an old case is about as valueable as used toliet paper.