Re: [dvd-discuss] LA Times Article about Replay TV lawsuits

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

I think they call it "bait and switch".....You should add

E) Who hope that large portions of the audience do not switch channels, 
hit the mute button,  leave the room or even bother to pay any attention 
to the advertising whatsoever (e.g., what was the automobile maker for the 
last commercial you saw that had an SUV storming up some mountainous 
territory).

But I think you've got the technology level too high.....it's not 50s 
technology...it's 19th century when publishing was typesetting by hand or 
motion pictures on 35mm film. Now they give away software more 
sophisticated than the publishing houses used 20 yrs ago and ditto for 
image processing. The ability to do these things has gotten distributed 
but those who thrived during the times when those activities had to be 
centralized are not adapting to the change.




Ole Craig <olc@cs.umass.edu>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
02/12/02 11:27 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] LA Times Article about Replay TV lawsuits


On 02/12/02 at 08:15, 'twas brillig and Michael A Rolenz scrobe:

> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:15:19 -0800
> From: Michael A Rolenz <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org>
> Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] LA Times Article about Replay TV lawsuits
> 
> Hmm....lets see remote controls, fast forwards, the mute button, channel 

> surfing, getting up and going to the bathroom during the commercials ALL 

> must be copyright infringment and included in the lawsuits....I'd say 
that 
> the studios thought "lies between the pit of man's fears "....
> 
> The real question is if the courts can separate copyright from the 
> business models the copyright holders have....last paragraph is the best 

> soundbite.
> 
> "What difference does it make how I do it?" Wood
> said. "The dilemma is, the technology is turning
> the business model upside down. But that doesn't
> mean it's copyright infringement." 
> 
> The only thing different about digital is that there are a lot of dodos 
> out there running the studios have to learn a new word...not that they 
> ever understood what analog meant.

                 A) Broadcasters buy programming (content) and then 
                 B) broadcast it, using it as bait to 
                 C) lure audiences which they
                 D) resell to advertisers. 

                 They are now complaining because technological advances 
have
empowered audiences, enabling them to get the bait without being
exposed to the advertising, which short-circuits the above sequence at
mid-(C). The broadcasters are loudly crying copyright infringement,
hoping that no-one will notice that in fact the only transaction which
implicates copyrights takes place in (A) above, allowing the
broadcasters to do (B).

                 Why should society be constrained in its use of 
information
simply because the broadcasters are enamored of a business model
predicated upon limitations inherent in 1950s-era technology?

                                 Ole
--
Ole Craig * olc@cs.umass.edu * UNIX; postmaster, news, web; SGI martyr *
CS Computing Facility, UMass * <www.cs.umass.edu/~olc/> for public key 

perl -e 'print$i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'