Sun, 21 Oct 2007 09:57:37 -0500 from Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_hawth...@hotmail.com>:
> *I'm* being disingenuous?
The alternative is that you're unable to comprehend the difference. I don't think that's the case, though I suppose I could be wrong.
> Sorry, but there's a very real difference > involved between changing channels and actually changing the content of > the network's broadcast.
Of course there is. The latter is technically quite difficult and quite illegal. It's also a straw man, in this context.
You are overlooking (willfully or blindly -- you be the judge) that this is a PUBLIC PERFORMANCE. It doesn't matter whether the broadcast signals are changed for the rest of the world, Flying J is changing them for its patrons. What's so hard to understand about that?
-- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ "You may be the Universe's butt puppet, but I'm its right- hand fist of fate." -- /Wonderfalls/
<the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote: >Of course there is. The latter is technically quite difficult and >quite illegal. It's also a straw man, in this context.
>You are overlooking (willfully or blindly -- you be the judge) that >this is a PUBLIC PERFORMANCE. It doesn't matter whether the broadcast >signals are changed for the rest of the world, Flying J is changing >them for its patrons. What's so hard to understand about that?
I would wager in this case the issue is not the changing/splicing of the content but the blocking of the original ads, original ads that were a source of revenue for the originator of the content.
Also toss in to this if Flying J replaces the ads with their own ads are the originators of the program forced to make good on ads that didn't run at the Flying J?
In article <0r0nh39i0ugoelnth48l9m165ueai4h...@4ax.com>, Snakes on a plane <sent to usenet newsgroup> wrote:
>Also toss in to this if Flying J replaces the ads with their >own ads are the originators of the program forced to >make good on ads that didn't run at the Flying J?
Of course not. Make-goods are done when the company playing the commercial screws up. If a local TV station forgets to air an ad, or a cable system doesn't insert a local spot as specified, they're the ones who need to run a make-good. What happens after the signal leaves their facility is not their problem.
Here's the point, I think: Advertisers paid good money to the networks to be included as advertisers in these programs. That's what advertising is all about: Because people want to watch the program, they also sometimes end up watching the ads.
By inserting their own commercials, Flying J deprives those advertisers of what they paid for and shares nothing of what it makes with the networks.
So, Flying J derives benefit (both in real money and in providing entertainment that makes their restaurants and facilities more attractive to customers) from the artistic work of others without paying anything to the advertisers and networks who are providing the benefits.
In a strictly legalistic sense, it may be hard to see this as unlawful copying, but if I took a book you wrote and cut your name out of it and inserted mine as the author, I think you'd agree that I infringed on your copyright.
In article <1192998631.182733.227...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
torr...@aol.com wrote: > Here's the point, I think: Advertisers paid good money to the networks > to be included as advertisers in these programs. That's what > advertising is all about: Because people want to watch the program, > they also sometimes end up watching the ads.
> By inserting their own commercials, Flying J deprives those > advertisers of what they paid for and shares nothing of what it makes > with the networks.
> So, Flying J derives benefit (both in real money and in providing > entertainment that makes their restaurants and facilities more > attractive to customers) from the artistic work of others without > paying anything to the advertisers and networks who are providing the > benefits.
Yep, and all that would fall under contract and licensing agreements. Not copyright.
Stan Brown wrote: > Sun, 21 Oct 2007 09:57:37 -0500 from Rowan Hawthorn > <rowan_hawth...@hotmail.com>: >> *I'm* being disingenuous?
> The alternative is that you're unable to comprehend the difference. I > don't think that's the case, though I suppose I could be wrong.
I comprehend the difference very well - in fact, I'm beginning to suspect, better than people like yourself, who took the first opportunity to take personal potshots instead of just talking about the case.
>> Sorry, but there's a very real difference >> involved between changing channels and actually changing the content of >> the network's broadcast.
> Of course there is. The latter is technically quite difficult and > quite illegal. It's also a straw man, in this context.
I'm not the one who brought up "splicing" in an incorrect usage.
> You are overlooking (willfully or blindly -- you be the judge) that > this is a PUBLIC PERFORMANCE. It doesn't matter whether the broadcast > signals are changed for the rest of the world, Flying J is changing > them for its patrons. What's so hard to understand about that?
All I was doing was discussing the case and attempting to use accurate terminology to do so. If you have a problem with that, or can't do that without resorting to smart-mouth personalities, then you can fuck right the hell off.
-- Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Rowan Hawthorn wrote: > David Samuel Barr wrote: >> Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
>>> Supposedly, there's only a certain percentage of commercial time that's >>> available for local advertising, no matter *who* does the replacing. >>> What I find strange is that local cable providers do this replacement >>> all the time, and have been doing it for years - lots of their engineers >>> aren't nearly good enough to do it without it being obvious (you can >>> nearly always see the beginning or end of the ad they're replacing, and >>> often they're off on their timing when returning to the program.)
>> The local cable systems aren't "replacing" anything. As you rightly >> point out, there are certain minutes in a broadcast hour which are >> designated by the originating network for use by local systems. >> However, recognising that not all systems can or will fill all those >> minutes, rather than running dead air during those minutes the networks >> will fill them with program promos, PSAs or, if they can book them, >> alternative paid commercials (usually for a per-inquiry product, since >> they can't guarantee an audience to a regular advertiser). The same >> has always been true for all the regular broadcast networks as well, >> though for some reason most local broadcast stations usually have been >> able to achieve better integration of their inserts with the network >> signals than one tends to see with cable systems.
> Do you know how many minutes are available? It's been several years > since I saw the numbers and I've forgotten, but the local cable system > seems to have an awful *lot* of these "jumps". At one time, you could > see one nearly every commercial break, although I haven't really noticed > it so much lately.
I haven't seen the numbers in a while either, and of course it varies by network, but the last time I checked most of the networks were giving the local systems 1-2 minutes in each half-hour, usually in the :28 and :58 blocks, but I'm sure that at least the positioning has changed with the move in recent years to eliminate the commercial gaps between shows.
In rec.arts.tv Agent Smith <agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
> Apparently the judge thinks that it's time on the the open broadcast > channel that you're buying, and not the content that streams through > that channel. Thus, if you delete the content and put something new > onto the channel, you have illegally copied something onto a channel > owned by someone else.
I think you are getting close. As someone else has pointed out, this is a "public performance" and the rules are somewhat different than for a private home recording or viewing. I am guessing that the network is claiming an overall copyright on the broadcast, which means everything including the commercials.
In book publishing it is firmly established that you can't copyright a list of ingredients in a recipe, but that the overall presentation of that recipe, with accompanying text, can be copyrighted. So, it is a violation of copyright for a teacher to make photocopies of a recipe book page, even if he inserts some of his own text aftward, and distribute it to a class. He must obtain permission of the copyright holder for that book. If the teacher were to type up the list of ingredients and rewrite the instructions, then it's not a violation. Likewise, the network holds the copyright for the entire presentation of a show, including the commercials, and Flying-J inserting their own content into the public presentation would violate that overall copyright.
I am not a lawyer, but that's my guess as to the argument being made.
> That's the only rationale that I can imagine for this decision, and > please don't argue with me about this. I didn't say that I > agreed with this, but only that I think this may be what the judge > believes.
I'm not trying to argue it with you, per se, and I'm not sure I agree with it either, just offering an alternate speculation on the legal reasoning.
> In rec.arts.tv Agent Smith <agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> > wrote:
>> Apparently the judge thinks that it's time on the the open broadcast >> channel that you're buying, and not the content that streams through >> that channel. Thus, if you delete the content and put something new >> onto the channel, you have illegally copied something onto a channel >> owned by someone else.
> I think you are getting close. As someone else has pointed out, this > is a "public performance" and the rules are somewhat different than > for a private home recording or viewing. I am guessing that the > network is claiming an overall copyright on the broadcast, which means > everything including the commercials.
> In book publishing it is firmly established that you can't copyright > a list of ingredients in a recipe, but that the overall presentation > of that recipe, with accompanying text, can be copyrighted. So, it > is a violation of copyright for a teacher to make photocopies of > a recipe book page, even if he inserts some of his own text aftward, > and distribute it to a class. He must obtain permission of the > copyright holder for that book. If the teacher were to type up > the list of ingredients and rewrite the instructions, then it's > not a violation. Likewise, the network holds the > copyright for the entire presentation of a show, including the > commercials, and Flying-J inserting their own content into the > public presentation would violate that overall copyright.
> I am not a lawyer, but that's my guess as to the argument being > made.
>> That's the only rationale that I can imagine for this decision, and >> please don't argue with me about this. I didn't say that I >> agreed with this, but only that I think this may be what the judge >> believes.
> I'm not trying to argue it with you, per se, and > I'm not sure I agree with it either, just offering an alternate > speculation on the legal reasoning.
Hey, I appreciate your input, although it doesn't stand up to that other guy's argument that they were just changing the channels during commercials. I'm all in favor of people taking my idea and piggybacking their own thoughts onto it, because that's what brainstorming is all about.
I was just trying to head off a cynical reply by an anticipated pedant who would misinterpret my post as supporting the judge's decision. That was definitely not you, and creative replies are always greatly welcomed. :)
