marger aileana dalialah

[Tarja Hempton]

If so my douchie friend from across the pond, you are a shill and you drive to my mothers house every 2 days a reset her unit so she can watch movies. I bought it for her because it was supposed to be simple and I relied on the WD name.

However, yesterday afternoon while I was at work my wife called and told me that the Instant Queue was no longer available. I told her to use the Wii instead and it worked fine. I performed the reset procedure I found here and got it working again.

im having this issue as well now. i wanted to know if everyone here has blu-ray added to their netflix accounts? i just added blu-ray and now im having this issue. looking forward to the firmware update. i have no other complaints except the long startup times when the wdtv starts up. its much longer than the normal wdtv live.

another thing for those of you who are havng probelms reaching the deactivate option within wdtv. make sure you start pushing the arrow sequence once the netflix window opens up and starts to load up the queue. u should see the circular progress indicator when you push the buttons. if it reaches the queue error screen you were too slow.

This option would most likely be invoked for older and obscure movies and television shows. Lemley points out that the threat of this happening would give copyright holders an incentive to keep older works in circulation. That in itself would be a win for consumers.

These rates would be set by the government based on surveys of market rates. One way the government could determine if the rates were reasonable would be by looking at how often market participants made separate deals to license content at lower rates. If this happened a lot, that would be a sign that the standard rate was too high.

What\u2019s changed? Well, the 2006 version of Netflix shipped DVDs to peoples\u2019 homes. That service actually still exists as DVD.com, and it still has a broad selection. But it has far fewer customers than the streaming service.

Content is constantly disappearing from the modern, streaming version of Netflix. Indeed, every month publications like PCMag publish articles with headlines like \u201CEverything Leaving Netflix in October 2021.\u201D This month\u2019s list included some fairly well-known movies and television shows, including Austin Powers, The Karate Kid, and dozens of episodes of Star Trek and its various spinoffs.

PCMag writes that Netflix \u201Cneeds to make room for all the new content,\u201D but that doesn\u2019t make sense. The cost to store a digital movie is trivial for a company of Netflix\u2019s size. Rather, Netflix is likely de-listing older titles to save money on licensing costs.

Each of these older shows and movies has a copyright owner. Some may be demanding a minimum payment regardless of how many people watch a particular show. Some might have pulled content for strategic reasons\u2014for example, they wanted to move it to their own proprietary streaming service. In other cases, Netflix might just be randomly pulling some content to strengthen its hand in future bargaining sessions.

As a user, it\u2019s annoying enough for content to hop from one service to another. It\u2019s even worse if a show or movie disappears from the Internet altogether. Sometimes licensing frictions or an inability to identify the relevant copyright holder can prevent content from being offered on any streaming service.

None of this would have happened on the old, DVD-based Netflix. Once Netflix had spent the money to acquire a particular movie, it had every incentive to keep it in its vault. The law allowed Netflix to continue renting out a DVD forever\u2014there was no need to periodically re-negotiate with the copyright holder to continue using it.

The streaming revolution provides consumers with unprecedented convenience. But it has had the ironic side effect of leaving many consumers a narrower range of choices and a more fragmented marketplace. And that's not because of technological or economic constraints\u2014it's because the law gives copyright holders more control over streaming of older movies than it did over DVD rentals.

Could copyright law be tweaked to enable streaming services to have back catalogs as broad as the old Netflix did? It\u2019s possible in theory. The question is whether Congress or the courts would go along with it.

In a new paper, Stanford legal scholar Mark Lemley writes about the problem of content becoming unavailable from streaming services. And he suggests a possible solution: use copyright\u2019s fair use doctrine to allow third parties to stream videos that are no longer being streamed commercially.

Fair use is a judicially-created legal doctrine that allows re-use of copyrighted material without the permission of the original copyright holder. It\u2019s what allows me to blockquote a paragraph from someone else\u2019s article and offer my own commentary. Fair use is a flexible doctrine; courts apply general principles to new situations and technologies as they come up. In recent decades, the courts have held that fair use applied to search engines showing image thumbnails, YouTubers making reaction videos, and companies copying software interfaces to enable interoperability.

Lemley is suggesting a new way to expand the fair use principle: if a work falls out of circulation, courts could allow anyone to start publishing it free of charge. A key factor in fair use analysis is how a use affects the market for the original work. But if the copyright owner isn\u2019t publishing a work at all, it\u2019s hard to argue they\u2019re being harmed when someone else publishes the same work.

Lemley\u2019s principle might also come into play in cases where a copyright holder was deliberately holding content off the market. For example, in the 1990s, George Lucas released a new edition of the original Star Wars (complete with digitally-generated Jabba the Hut and Han shooting second) and stopped distributing the original version from 1977. Under Lemley\u2019s proposed interpretation of fair use, others could begin streaming the original version of Star Wars\u2014something that\u2019s not currently allowed.

Will this actually happen? Because fair use is a largely judge-made doctrine, they could potentially adopt Lemley\u2019s rule without any prompting from Congress. Still, courts are inherently conservative institutions, and I have trouble imagining them doing this unilaterally. It would create a lot of controversy and could embroil courts in a lot of follow-on litigation. And if Congress did take up the idea, we could expect vehement opposition from copyright holders.

I think Lemley\u2019s idea would be a step in the right direction, but it wouldn\u2019t solve all the availability problems consumers face in a streaming world. If his fair use principle became the law of the land, we can expect copyright holders to make a token effort to keep their work available for sale somewhere\u2014even if it wasn\u2019t available broadly or at reasonable prices. But video content would still be balkanized across many streaming platforms.

US law already has multiple compulsory licensing systems in the music industry. If you\u2019re a musician, you have the right to do a cover version of any song that\u2019s been recorded in the US without getting permission from the song\u2019s composer. You simply notify the composer that you\u2019re planning to record the song and then pay royalties at standard rates that are set by the federal government.

US law also offers a compulsory license for \u201CInternet radio stations\u201D\u2014music streaming services that don\u2019t allow the user to select which songs to play. Again, rather than negotiating licenses from the various record labels, Internet radio stations pay standard rates set by regulation. Weirdly, this compulsory license isn\u2019t available for interactive music streaming services that let users pick specific songs, artists, or albums they want to play.

It\u2019s easy to imagine creating a compulsory licensing regime for video streaming. If I were designing the system, I would give copyright holders full rights over their works for the first 10 or 15 years after it is published. After that, anyone would be free to stream video content at a standard per-minute rate.

\u201CI worry that the numbers will be so high as to make it uneconomic,\u201D he told me in a Twitter direct message, \u201Cparticularly for content the original distributor decided to abandon.\u201D

There\u2019s absolutely a risk that the rate could be set too high. But if it were set at a reasonable level, the result could be that every movie and television show would be readily available online. We wouldn\u2019t have to subscribe to a bunch of different streaming platforms, and we wouldn\u2019t have to worry about the menu of options constantly changing.

And while the owners of older copyrights obviously won\u2019t be thrilled with this arrangement, it should work out OK for them too. Popular older works would still generate substantial revenue. Some copyright holders might actually wind up with more revenue, as new streaming services drum up new customers for old movies.

This could also provide an elegant solution to the \u201Corphan works\u201D problem, where older works can\u2019t be distributed because no one can find their copyright holders. The fees collected for orphan works could be paid into a government-administered fund and then held in trust for any copyright holders who surfaced later. Most of these finds are likely to go uncollected, so over time the government could offer an orphan works discount for new licensees\u2014while maintaining enough reserves to compensate anyone who does show up.

90f70e40cf