Court: TV commercial-skipping is copyright infringement
Thanatos
copyright violation. First and foremost, in order to have violated
copyright law, you have to have actually *copied* something. Here the
device just changes the channel on the TV while the authorized
commercials are playing, then changes it back when they are over. No
copying involved at all.
And unless the plaintiffs are willing to argue that it's illegal for the
average viewer to channel surf during commercial breaks (or read a book
or get up and make a snack or whatever), then I can't see how having a
machine do it for you would turn an otherwise legal act into an illegal
one.
Is It Copyright Infringement To Skip Commercials?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071018/023426.shtml
A little over a year ago, we wrote about a lawsuit where a bunch of
media companies were suing Flying J, the operator of a number of truck
stops. Apparently, Flying J had installed a neat little bit of
technology that would recognize when commercials came on TV and replace
them with its own ads (which Flying J had sold to advertisers who wanted
to target truckers). As we said at the time, it actually makes perfectly
good sense to show targeted ads to truck drives, and it wasn't entirely
clear what argument the broadcasters could make. After all, commercial
skipping is legal (even if the entertainment industry doesn't want to
believe it). Unfortunately, a judge disagreed and has ruled against
Flying J, saying that the act of skipping commercials is copyright
infringement. Copyright expert William Patry can't figure out how that
could logically make sense.
(http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/10/when-not-performing-is-performi
ng.html)
After all, Flying J had paid for a license to show TV at its
establishments. So that's legal. If it had just been showing TV without
the ad insertion technology (called the segOne) then it would have been
perfectly legal. You could even take the argument one step further and
say that if Flying J employees turned off the TV whenever commercials
were on (or, more realistically, changed the channel), it would still be
perfectly legal. The only thing that seems to have somehow made this
illegal is the introduction of the automated device, which doesn't even
do anything to the broadcasters' content (which, again, has already been
paid for). It's just blocking third party content, but that third party
isn't a part of the case. So it's difficult to see how this is copyright
infringement at all.
Agent Smith
news:atropos-209F05...@news.giganews.com:
> mi ng.html)
>
> After all, Flying J had paid for a license to show TV at its
> establishments. So that's legal. If it had just been showing TV
> without the ad insertion technology (called the segOne) then it would
> have been perfectly legal. You could even take the argument one step
> further and say that if Flying J employees turned off the TV whenever
> commercials were on (or, more realistically, changed the channel), it
> would still be perfectly legal. The only thing that seems to have
> somehow made this illegal is the introduction of the automated device,
> which doesn't even do anything to the broadcasters' content (which,
> again, has already been paid for). It's just blocking third party
> content, but that third party isn't a part of the case. So it's
> difficult to see how this is copyright infringement at all.
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.
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.
Tony Calguire
>
> And unless the plaintiffs are willing to argue that it's illegal for the
> average viewer to channel surf during commercial breaks (or read a book
> or get up and make a snack or whatever), then I can't see how having a
> machine do it for you would turn an otherwise legal act into an illegal
> one.
>
The legality of recording and commercial skipping has always been based on
private, in-home use. The rules have always been different for TVs in
public places like bars and restaurants.
Thanatos
Tony Calguire <calg...@tcfreenet.invalid> wrote:
So if the bartender switched channels manually when the commercials came
on, or if they turned the TVs off and switched to a live
DJ/entertainment (as many do during Superbowl events), that's somehow a
violation of copyright?
And that still doesn't explain how it violates copyright law without
making copies.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Tony Calguire <calg...@tcfreenet.invalid> wrote:
legality has little do with the actual constitution clause
there used to be a first amendment that was balanced against that clause
but we are doing away with pesky bill of rights
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconsciousness of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
Thanatos
Agent Smith <agent...@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
But the bar wasn't even doing that. It wasn't deleting anything. All the
device did was switch the channel on the TV when the commercials came on
to a private in-house channel with directed ads, then switched the
channel back again a few minutes later.
The judge here is essentially saying that changing channels during a
commercial break (or even turning the TV off) is a copyright violation.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
mass...@newsguy.com (Neill Massello) wrote:
> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > I gotta agree with the article below that this can't logically be a
> > copyright violation. First and foremost, in order to have violated
> > copyright law, you have to have actually *copied* something. Here the
> > device just changes the channel on the TV while the authorized
> > commercials are playing, then changes it back when they are over. No
> > copying involved at all.
>
> Copyright covers more than just copying.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries;
Sookie St. James
I would point out a number of years ago AOL hinted that if
you have a TIVO device and you skipped the commercials they would
prosecute you for theft.
Thanatos
Well, the Supreme Court did more than hint that copyright infringement
(even if not watching commercials can be considered such) is not the
same thing as theft.
Thanatos
> Thanatos <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > I gotta agree with the article below that this can't logically be a
> > copyright violation. First and foremost, in order to have violated
> > copyright law, you have to have actually *copied* something. Here the
> > device just changes the channel on the TV while the authorized
> > commercials are playing, then changes it back when they are over. No
> > copying involved at all.
>
> Copyright covers more than just copying.
Not according to the statute. In order to infringe, one has to make a
copy of some kind.
Of course, there could be all sorts of things in the statute that judges
can see but are invisible to us mere mortals. Like the right to privacy
in the Constitution. I've read the thing cover-to-cover and can't seem
to find that.
> > And unless the plaintiffs are willing to argue that it's illegal for the
> > average viewer to channel surf during commercial breaks (or read a book
> > or get up and make a snack or whatever), then I can't see how having a
> > machine do it for you would turn an otherwise legal act into an illegal
> > one.
>
> The plaintiffs may be relying on the fact that the defendant in this
> case, a truck stop chain, is hardly an "average viewer" but is
> essentially operating a CATV system by reselling edited versions of the
> signals from their satellite dish to their customers, something not
> necessarily covered by the defendant's agreement with the satellite
> company nor by the satellite company's agreement with the plaintiffs.
Then the proper remedy would be sue for breach of contract, not
copyright infringement.
Stan Brown
> A little over a year ago, we wrote about a lawsuit where a bunch of
> media companies were suing Flying J, the operator of a number of truck
> stops. Apparently, Flying J had installed a neat little bit of
> technology that would recognize when commercials came on TV and replace
> them with its own ads (which Flying J had sold to advertisers who wanted
> to target truckers). As we said at the time, it actually makes perfectly
> good sense to show targeted ads to truck drives, and it wasn't entirely
> clear what argument the broadcasters could make.
Of course it's clear. The *programs* are copyright, and showing them
in public performance (with or without the associated commercials) is
a copyright violation.
It would probably be a harmless one, but Flying J splices in its own
commercials. So it is making money out of the copyright material of
others. That's a large no-no.
--
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/
Rowan Hawthorn
> Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:47:35 -0400 from Thanatos <atr...@mac.com>:
>> A little over a year ago, we wrote about a lawsuit where a bunch of
>> media companies were suing Flying J, the operator of a number of truck
>> stops. Apparently, Flying J had installed a neat little bit of
>> technology that would recognize when commercials came on TV and replace
>> them with its own ads (which Flying J had sold to advertisers who wanted
>> to target truckers). As we said at the time, it actually makes perfectly
>> good sense to show targeted ads to truck drives, and it wasn't entirely
>> clear what argument the broadcasters could make.
>
> Of course it's clear. The *programs* are copyright, and showing them
> in public performance (with or without the associated commercials) is
> a copyright violation.
Won't wash. If *that* were the argument, then every bar, doctor's
office, or hair salon in the US would have been in danger of being sued
since the 1950s - and the practice of setting up TVs in such places
would have been much easier to stamp out before it got so widespread.
(Also, it's not like the programs are recorded and displayed at the
businesses' convenience, they play at their normal broadcast time.) As
long as the networks were getting their audience bumped up, they seemed
perfectly fine with the practice until sponsors started bitching. I
don't remember *ever* hearing of any such lawsuit until the technology
evolved to allow people to avoid commercials by means other than simply
changing channels or leaving the room.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
Thanatos
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:47:35 -0400 from Thanatos <atr...@mac.com>:
> > A little over a year ago, we wrote about a lawsuit where a bunch of
> > media companies were suing Flying J, the operator of a number of truck
> > stops. Apparently, Flying J had installed a neat little bit of
> > technology that would recognize when commercials came on TV and replace
> > them with its own ads (which Flying J had sold to advertisers who wanted
> > to target truckers). As we said at the time, it actually makes perfectly
> > good sense to show targeted ads to truck drives, and it wasn't entirely
> > clear what argument the broadcasters could make.
>
> Of course it's clear. The *programs* are copyright, and showing them
> in public performance (with or without the associated commercials) is
> a copyright violation.
>
> It would probably be a harmless one, but Flying J splices in its own
> commercials. So it is making money out of the copyright material of
> others. That's a large no-no.
So if Flying J had a device that just turned off the TV during the
commercials, that would be a copyright violation? Where are the
unauthorized copies? I don't dispute that it might be a violation of the
licensing contract but turning off one's own TV is not a violation of
statute.
The Undertaker
>> > media companies were suing Flying J, the operator of a number of truck
>> > stops. Apparently, Flying J had installed a neat little bit of
>> > technology that would recognize when commercials came on TV and replace
>> > them with its own ads (which Flying J had sold to advertisers who wanted
>> > to target truckers). As we said at the time, it actually makes perfectly
>> > good sense to show targeted ads to truck drives, and it wasn't entirely
>> > clear what argument the broadcasters could make.
was editing out objectionable scenes from movies (sex, etc.) and the
courts ruled it was copyrigth infringement. So maybe that is the
extension they are using to go after Flying J for taking out the
commercials.
Rob Jensen
<rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Stan Brown wrote:
>> Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:47:35 -0400 from Thanatos <atr...@mac.com>:
>>> A little over a year ago, we wrote about a lawsuit where a bunch of
>>> media companies were suing Flying J, the operator of a number of truck
>>> stops. Apparently, Flying J had installed a neat little bit of
>>> technology that would recognize when commercials came on TV and replace
>>> them with its own ads (which Flying J had sold to advertisers who wanted
>>> to target truckers). As we said at the time, it actually makes perfectly
>>> good sense to show targeted ads to truck drives, and it wasn't entirely
>>> clear what argument the broadcasters could make.
>>
>> Of course it's clear. The *programs* are copyright, and showing them
>> in public performance (with or without the associated commercials) is
>> a copyright violation.
>
>Won't wash. If *that* were the argument, then every bar, doctor's
>office, or hair salon in the US would have been in danger of being sued
>since the 1950s - and the practice of setting up TVs in such places
>would have been much easier to stamp out before it got so widespread.
Well, in all fairness, HBO did try to sue bars in a class-action
copyright infringement case for showing The Sopranos/having Sopranos
nights. But that's not really the same thing as Flying J splicing in
its own commercials. The Sopranos parties were a strong case for
copyright infringement wrt playing a not-free program in a public
place whereas Flying J was splicing in their own commercials into
over-the-air broadcasts.
It's likely that Flying J simply showing OTA shows at all is a benign
form of infringement because at least the customers would have to see
the commercials -- but really, in any case, they would really have to
pay royalties for the same reason that any public place of business
has to pay royalties (usually a flat blanket charge) to ASCAP for
playing any sort of music. Where Flying J crossed the border from
nudge-nudge-wink-wink non-enforcement was when it spliced its won
commericals into it, which, since they're being sued for it is a clear
indication that the chain was NOT licensing the broadcast from any
particular channel or service. IOW, if Flying J had licensed the
service, it would have licensed the rights to *do* the commercial
splicing in the first place and the copyright owners wouldn't be suing
them. If I were on the jury, I'd be inclined to vote with the
copyright owners even though I despise their abuse of lengthening the
duration of copyrights.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> commercials, that would be a copyright violation? Where are the
> unauthorized copies? I don't dispute that it might be a violation of the
> licensing contract but turning off one's own TV is not a violation of
> statute.
big brother is watching you
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> form of infringement because at least the customers would have to see
> the commercials -- but really, in any case, they would really have to
> pay royalties for the same reason that any public place of business
i guess the copyright police are coming for me next
when i buy a newspaper i take out all the inserts classifieds etc
and throw them unread
i thought i could choose not to read ads
Rowan Hawthorn
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:15:30 -0500, Rowan Hawthorn
> <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stan Brown wrote:
>>> Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:47:35 -0400 from Thanatos <atr...@mac.com>:
>>>> A little over a year ago, we wrote about a lawsuit where a bunch of
>>>> media companies were suing Flying J, the operator of a number of truck
>>>> stops. Apparently, Flying J had installed a neat little bit of
>>>> technology that would recognize when commercials came on TV and replace
>>>> them with its own ads (which Flying J had sold to advertisers who wanted
>>>> to target truckers). As we said at the time, it actually makes perfectly
>>>> good sense to show targeted ads to truck drives, and it wasn't entirely
>>>> clear what argument the broadcasters could make.
>>> Of course it's clear. The *programs* are copyright, and showing them
>>> in public performance (with or without the associated commercials) is
>>> a copyright violation.
>> Won't wash. If *that* were the argument, then every bar, doctor's
>> office, or hair salon in the US would have been in danger of being sued
>> since the 1950s - and the practice of setting up TVs in such places
>> would have been much easier to stamp out before it got so widespread.
>
> Well, in all fairness, HBO did try to sue bars in a class-action
> copyright infringement case for showing The Sopranos/having Sopranos
> nights.
Really? I hadn't heard about that.
> But that's not really the same thing as Flying J splicing in
> its own commercials. The Sopranos parties were a strong case for
> copyright infringement wrt playing a not-free program in a public
> place whereas Flying J was splicing in their own commercials into
> over-the-air broadcasts.
Actually, that's not the case. Flying J's device simply switches
channels to an in-house feed. There doesn't appear to be any splicing
involved. So, they're not modifying the signal feed in any way; the
result is no different than having someone pick up the remote and switch
channels whenever a commercial comes on.
>
> It's likely that Flying J simply showing OTA shows at all is a benign
> form of infringement because at least the customers would have to see
> the commercials -- but really, in any case, they would really have to
> pay royalties for the same reason that any public place of business
> has to pay royalties (usually a flat blanket charge) to ASCAP for
> playing any sort of music. Where Flying J crossed the border from
> nudge-nudge-wink-wink non-enforcement was when it spliced its won
> commericals into it, which, since they're being sued for it is a clear
> indication that the chain was NOT licensing the broadcast from any
> particular channel or service.
Dish Network, actually.
> IOW, if Flying J had licensed the
> service, it would have licensed the rights to *do* the commercial
> splicing in the first place and the copyright owners wouldn't be suing
> them.
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.)
Stan Brown
<rowan_h...@hotmail.com>:
> Stan Brown wrote:
> > Of course it's clear. The *programs* are copyright, and showing them
> > in public performance (with or without the associated commercials) is
> > a copyright violation.
>
> Won't wash. If *that* were the argument, then every bar, doctor's
> office, or hair salon in the US would have been in danger of being sued
> since the 1950s - and the practice of setting up TVs in such places
> would have been much easier to stamp out before it got so widespread.
Sheesh. In the very next paragraph I took care of that issue. Thanks
for the selective quoting!
Here's what you snipped:
Stan Brown
<rowan_h...@hotmail.com>:
> Rob Jensen wrote:
> > But that's not really the same thing as Flying J splicing in
> > its own commercials.
>
> channels to an in-house feed. There doesn't appear to be any splicing
> involved.
Don't be disingenuous. The "splicing" is from the point of view of
the restaurant patrons. It's irrelevant whether it's done
electronically or by cutting and pasting videotape.
Paul Hyett
>Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:07:15 -0500 from Rowan Hawthorn
><rowan_h...@hotmail.com>:
>> Rob Jensen wrote:
>> > But that's not really the same thing as Flying J splicing in
>> > its own commercials.
>>
>> Actually, that's not the case. Flying J's device simply switches
>> channels to an in-house feed. There doesn't appear to be any splicing
>> involved.
>
>Don't be disingenuous. The "splicing" is from the point of view of
>the restaurant patrons. It's irrelevant whether it's done
>electronically or by cutting and pasting videotape.
>
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett
David Samuel Barr
>
> 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.
ObPlug: See also http://www.amazon.com/dp/0130145319/
Thanatos
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:07:15 -0500 from Rowan Hawthorn
> <rowan_h...@hotmail.com>:
> > Rob Jensen wrote:
> > > But that's not really the same thing as Flying J
> > > splicing in its own commercials.
> >
> > Actually, that's not the case. Flying J's device
> > simply switches channels to an in-house feed. There
> > doesn't appear to be any splicing involved.
>
> Don't be disingenuous. The "splicing" is from the point
> of view of the restaurant patrons. It's irrelevant whether
> it's done electronically or by cutting and pasting videotape.
But switching channels is not against the law. Bars do it all the time,
switching between one game and another via the bartender and a remote.
No one has ever claimed *that* to be copyright infringement, so it's
hard to imagine how merely having a box do the channel switching rather
than a bartender's thumb suddenly turns this into an illegal act.
Rowan Hawthorn
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.
Rowan Hawthorn
> Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:07:15 -0500 from Rowan Hawthorn
> <rowan_h...@hotmail.com>:
>> Rob Jensen wrote:
>>> But that's not really the same thing as Flying J splicing in
>>> its own commercials.
>> Actually, that's not the case. Flying J's device simply switches
>> channels to an in-house feed. There doesn't appear to be any splicing
>> involved.
>
> Don't be disingenuous. The "splicing" is from the point of view of
> the restaurant patrons. It's irrelevant whether it's done
> electronically or by cutting and pasting videotape.
>
*I'm* being disingenuous? Sorry, but there's a very real difference
involved between changing channels and actually changing the content of
the network's broadcast. Regardless of whether it affects the
defendant's liability in this case (in fact, it would most likely leave
them open to additional claims,) or whether anyone watching the
broadcast knows the technical details of what's being done, the term
"splicing" goes back to film media; it has a real-world meaning, not
just a made-up one to fill the needs of a legal action. I'd even
suggest that one needs to be *particularly* careful of the terms one
uses in the legal arena.
Stan Brown
<rowan_h...@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?
Snakes on a plane
<the_sta...@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?
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?
Patty Winter
In article <0r0nh39i0ugoelnth...@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.
Patty
tor...@aol.com
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.
Thanatos
tor...@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.
Rowan Hawthorn
> Sun, 21 Oct 2007 09:57:37 -0500 from Rowan Hawthorn
> <rowan_h...@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.
David Samuel Barr
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.
ra...@vt.edu
> 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.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Agent Smith
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. :)