If you’re a fan of digital video recording (DVR), I’m sure you’ve heard about the recent ruling regarding “networked” DVR. Turner Broadcasting sued Cablevision over its development and trial of a DVR system that doesn’t require a DVR box in a customer’s home. Basically, the hard-drive that stores television shows is on the other end of the cable, on servers operated by Cablevision. Cablevision won. If you’re not familiar with the case, read this article from today's New York Times.
Although the basis of the lawsuit regarded the ability to fast forward through commercials, purely an advertising issue, a wider, and much larger implication may effect the way illegal file-sharing, such as music and movies, over the internet is viewed both by the courts of law and the court of public opinion.
In his ruling, Judge John M. Walker, said the technology “would not directly infringe,” on the media companies’ rights.
So the courts said I have legal access to a file produced by Hollywood that is stored on a hard drive that is not owned by me. I’m not paying for the actual file; I pay for the service of recording that file. I am not in violation of copyright laws. Remember, even without the DVR, my monthly Cablevision bill isn’t for the right to watch the television shows, it’s for the transmission of those shows.
What is the difference between file sharing between two personal computers over the Internet and the sharing of a file between Cablevision and it’s customers? In effect, there is no difference. I want to watch a movie. That movie is stored on another person’s hard drive. That other person doesn’t want to charge me, and he gives me access to that file. I now have that file.
The plaintiffs will no doubt appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The implications of this possible precedent will be very interesting.
Leave a comment, let's get a discussion going.
Posts
All Comments
