D*RM is here for all to feast on

[redhot47fl]

nvrfgt: That also was my question and I think/hope you are right.

Perhaps we can use the RECORD option to store the movie on our DVRs and at some later point - beyond 24 hours - use the BUY/WATCH option to watch it at our convenience (though we'd have to finish watching it within 24 hours of employing that BUY/WATCH option).

That would explain the difference between those two options, which previously had seemed redundant.

 

[bertbarndoor]

Why not just order the movie when you want to actually watch it ?
Most movies are on for a month or so at a time.
Jimbo

That's not the point. Obviously a movie can be ordered when you are ready to watch it, but why should your viewing of it be so rigid? what if you fall asleep? What if something comes up and you have to go out? The point is that it isn't a huge stretch to think of a few situations where the flexibility to watch a movie over a 2-3 day span could be required/ideal. The fact that you would be asked to pay twice in that time-frame is offensive.

 

[shibby191]

nvrfgt: That also was my question and I think/hope you are right.

Perhaps we can use the RECORD option to store the movie on our DVRs and at some later point - beyond 24 hours - use the BUY/WATCH option to watch it at our convenience (though we'd have to finish watching it within 24 hours of employing that BUY/WATCH option).

That would explain the difference between those two options, which previously had seemed redundant.

That's exactly how the modern (non-Tivo) DirecTV DVRs work. You can record a dozen PPVs if you want, they don't cost you a dime. You only pay once you start watching it and that is when the 24 hours kicks in. Thus you can record a PPV and have it sit there for 3 weeks before you get around to watching it and then the 24hr clock starts.

 

[SMG]

^ thats the way it should work.
they will find that people will download movies from the net, and play they back in numerous ways. much like what happened with MP3s. companies cannot rule the consumer with an iron fist.

 

[cariera]

The fact that you would be asked to pay twice in that time-frame is offensive.

I guess that's why it's called Pay Per View

and not

Pay Per Unlimited Views

 

[knode89]

Its not surprising they are doing this. With the ability that you have now with a number of DVRs, not sure with Direct's system as I haven't had a chance to mess with mine yet, you can install additional hard drives to increase your storage. My personal PC is a Media Center with the pull hard drive system and I have 5 of the 200 GIG drives that I have all my DVR stuff on from the past 5 years. I have copies of most all of the shows we enjoy watching and instead of buying the DVD, I have the hard drive version I can watch on my HD just fine.

I am sure there will be another way to get around this eventually just like with other electronic contermeasures that are installed. I would guess more of this sort of thing will occur as we move forward. But its not Direct's fault it is the studios who control the licensing of the product.

 

[Tyralak]

Its not surprising they are doing this. With the ability that you have now with a number of DVRs, not sure with Direct's system as I haven't had a chance to mess with mine yet, you can install additional hard drives to increase your storage. My personal PC is a Media Center with the pull hard drive system and I have 5 of the 200 GIG drives that I have all my DVR stuff on from the past 5 years. I have copies of most all of the shows we enjoy watching and instead of buying the DVD, I have the hard drive version I can watch on my HD just fine.

I am sure there will be another way to get around this eventually just like with other electronic contermeasures that are installed. I would guess more of this sort of thing will occur as we move forward. But its not Direct's fault it is the studios who control the licensing of the product.

And when the greedy bastards at the studios find out that their scheme to elmiminate fair use has backfired, and their PPV revenues drop through the floor, they may change their tune.

 

[DWDYEM2001]

Tyralak,

Why do you have that in yur signatre "Tesla was robbed"?

 

[Eric_C]

Lack of conveinance + DRM = Piracy.

They just don't get it. Everytime they do stuff like this I start to care less where I get my content from, or if I pay for it or not.

 

[Tyralak]

Tyralak,

Why do you have that in yur signatre "Tesla was robbed"?

The Edison and Marconi situations. Marconi in particular. Tesla invented the radio, and published diagrams for it in a magazine. Marconi took those diagrams, built a radio using Tesla's patents, and pawned it off as his own, claiming to be the inventor of the radio, to which is is widely given credit for to this day. Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the patents properly belonged to Tesla as the inventor of the radio, and smacked down Marconi, Marconi is still taught in schools as the "inventor" of the radio, with scant mention of Tesla. Without Tesla, we wouldn't have any type of modern electronics. Every piece of electronics uses high frequency coils which make them possible. Without his work pioneering the use of radio frequency, we wouldn't have any type of wireless communications. We wouldn't have florecsent lights either. He developed so many things, and had such revolutionary concepts for his time, that he scared the living sh*t out of most people. Yet, with his massive contributions to science and technology, he's hardly mentioned in science textbooks. He's barely given any credit in school science classes. I've always been a big fan of his work, and am impressed with how frighteningly revolutionary his ideas were. As a matter of fact, I recently read a news article about how some computer companies are developing wireless chargers and power systems for small devices like laptops, iPods and cell phones. They talked about it like it was new. This was technology Tesla pioneered and patented 100 years ago! Yet, no mention of him in the article. That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Pepper]

You know, up until right now, the only other mention of Tesla I can recall is in the Command and Conquer games, a "Tesla Coil" was a cool weapon you could deploy to fry enemy soldiers. At least the game authors must have heard of him and decided to give him credit for something.

 

[Tyralak]

You know, up until right now, the only other mention of Tesla I can recall is in the Command and Conquer games, a "Tesla Coil" was a cool weapon you could deploy to fry enemy soldiers. At least the game authors must have heard of him and decided to give him credit for something.

That's a small thing I guess but a Tesla Coil is hardly a weapon. It's a way to convert energy into very high frequency, high voltage, low amperage power. Every piece of electronics contains one. Although, Tesla was working on a weapon he referred to as a "death ray" before he died. Who knows what became of that, if anything. It is a fact that after his death, the government seized all of his research.

 

[DWDYEM2001]

There was mention of Telsa in the TV show "House" on fox and in the movie The Prestige" where Tesla was played by David Bowie...

 

[Tyralak]

There was mention of Telsa in the TV show "House" on fox and in the movie The Prestige" where Tesla was played by David Bowie...

Seen the Prestige. Don't recall the House episode, though.

 

[harshness]

Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the patents properly belonged to Tesla as the inventor of the radio, and smacked down Marconi, Marconi is still taught in schools as the "inventor" of the radio, with scant mention of Tesla.

For someone who thinks Tesla was so horribly wronged, it seems incongruous that you're so big on nullifying the intellectual property rights of movie producers under the guise of "Fair Use Doctrine".

 

[Dlycious]

The Edison and Marconi situations. Marconi in particular. Tesla invented the radio, and published diagrams for it in a magazine. Marconi took those diagrams, built a radio using Tesla's patents, and pawned it off as his own, claiming to be the inventor of the radio, to which is is widely given credit for to this day. Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the patents properly belonged to Tesla as the inventor of the radio, and smacked down Marconi, Marconi is still taught in schools as the "inventor" of the radio, with scant mention of Tesla. Without Tesla, we wouldn't have any type of modern electronics. Every piece of electronics uses high frequency coils which make them possible. Without his work pioneering the use of radio frequency, we wouldn't have any type of wireless communications. We wouldn't have florecsent lights either. He developed so many things, and had such revolutionary concepts for his time, that he scared the living sh*t out of most people. Yet, with his massive contributions to science and technology, he's hardly mentioned in science textbooks. He's barely given any credit in school science classes. I've always been a big fan of his work, and am impressed with how frighteningly revolutionary his ideas were. As a matter of fact, I recently read a news article about how some computer companies are developing wireless chargers and power systems for small devices like laptops, iPods and cell phones. They talked about it like it was new. This was technology Tesla pioneered and patented 100 years ago! Yet, no mention of him in the article. That's it in a nutshell.

"Love Song" is still one of my favorite tunes too.

 

[Tyralak]

For someone who thinks Tesla was so horribly wronged, it seems incongruous that you're so big on nullifying the intellectual property rights of movie producers under the guise of "Fair Use Doctrine".

I don't follow. Fair use is part of established law. It's hardly nullifying property rights. It's simply law which dictates the proper use of said rights. There are limits, according to law as to how you can dictate intellectual property. The fair use doctoring is a legal balance between the rights of the customer and the rights of the property holder. Just because you want the copyright holder to be able to micromanage ANY acsess whatsoever, doesn't make it legal or right. For example, record companies would love you to have to buy seperate copies of a CD for your home and car. Fair use law states you can make a copy for the car. There's nothing about that which nullifies property rights. Unless you think copyright law should be unlimited in the favor of the holder. Which is what so many in the content industry want. Why do you think that being for copyright and patent rights, and against copyright and patent abuse are mutually exclusive?

 

[harshness]

Fair use is part of established law. It's hardly nullifying property rights.

It is the misapplication of Fair Use Doctrine (section 107 of the US Copyright Act) by those who choose to twist it to meet their personal "needs" that breaches IP. In toto copies are not recommended nor facilitated by fair use except for the case of a library trying to repair/replace lost content.

Sections 106, 106a and 107 must be taken together.

 

[Tyralak]

It is the misapplication of Fair Use Doctrine (section 107 of the US Copyright Act) by those who choose to twist it to meet their personal "needs" that breaches IP. In toto copies are not recommended nor facilitated by fair use except for the case of a library trying to repair/replace lost content.

Sections 106, 106a and 107 must be taken together.

Read the Betamax decision. Time shifting and archiving for personal use, plus making a single copy as a backup to replace damaged media is fair use.

 

[harshness]

Read the Betamax decision. Time shifting and archiving for personal use, plus making a single copy as a backup to replace damaged media is fair use.

While the Betamax decision supports the "time-shifting" of certain content (it specifically names OTA) for personal use, Fair Use Doctrine remains unchanged.

The Betamax decision was a 5-4 decision and was not about people copying movies. It was about Sony being sued by Disney and Universal for offering a machine to the public that could be used in copyright infringement. The Supreme Court decision was based largely on the idea that the VTR could be used for non-infringing purposes and as such, should not be outlawed.

I'd appreciate a tip as to where in the Betamax decision it is noted what kind of copying is acceptable. It was discussed in the case, but I don't think it appears in the decision.


Guns can be used legally, but that doesn't mean that any and all uses of a gun are legal.