[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Networks sue over Replay 4000
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Networks sue over Replay 4000
- From: "Kroll, Dave" <Dave_Kroll(at)cargilldow.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 11:22:03 -0600
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Good point. I guess I saw that networks were bringing suit and stopped
thinking.
David Kroll
-----Original Message-----
From: steve bryan [mailto:steve_bryan@mac.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 11:07 AM
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Networks sue over Replay 4000
At 6:13 am -0600 11/1/01, Kroll, Dave wrote:
>We're still talking about broadcast, unencrypted signals, right? What is
>this supposed to mean?
Don't these sort of devices work for cable channels if you have a
cable subscription? I realize they already think they have a case but
even I can see the added issue if the signal is a premium service
like HBO. It isn't as though one could not already share a video
taped copy of a movie with a friend who does not subscribe to the
premium service it appeared on. But with this device getting ready to
ship they must be having sleepless nights.
--