Re: [dvd-discuss] Felten Opp to DoJ Motion to Dismiss

[iang(at)abraham.cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg)]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0110291611170.14853-100000@sparcy.internal.lan>,
Noah silva  <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu> wrote:
>I don't think the courts have missed it, consumers have had the recognized
>right of "time shifting" (recording to watch later) and "space
>shifting" (copying from one media to another" for quite some time.

What about a different kind of "space shifting"?  It didn't occur to me
that this was an issue until I started researching stuff for my
submission to the Canadian copyright reform process.

The issue is space-shifting in the sense of moving a work from one
market to another.  This is basically what ICraveTV was doing
(rebroadcasting Toronto stations to other placed over the Internet; I
could watch CityTV (a fantastic local Toronto station) from Montreal!).
The networks shut them (a Canadian company) down (under US law, go
figure).  They didn't like the fact that their market separation was
being broken down.  They can charge a lot for the first broadcast of
some given movie in any given region of the world.  If everyone was able
to watch it earlier over the net, they lose that ability.

Here's another example: my cable service in Montreal doesn't include
any channel showing the new series "Enterprise".  So what I've been
doing is having people in other cities tape it for me, and I retrieve
the tapes from them.  I guess that's both time-shifting *and*
space-shifting.

What if someone were to hack his TiVo to *stream* the video feed to
me over the Internet (mumble bandwidth mumble)?  Then it would *just*
be space-shifting.

Legal?

   - Ian