micklewhite said:
Well, right now fees are charged to the sub and the originator is paid royalties. This is usually the case for copyrighted materials. The question is who gets to decide when and how the material is distributed. Should it be you, the distributor or the owner?
Then what is the problem? The originators receives their royalties. Ah yes. The problem is not with the originator. The problem is that our local distributors don't want us to receive the programming from the source.
micklewhite said:
I think Greg and I understand the system very well. It has everything to do with copyright. It is in Title 17 of the United States Code. Title 17 is....drum roll please....Copyrights! You keep saying that the system is unconstitutional over and over again as if by doing so you can make it come true. It is not true. The Constitution specifically and explicitly gives Congress the power over copyright. Whatever the motivations of the copyright owner it doesn't change the law. The fact that you are peeved does not change the law. The fact that you want, want, want does not change the law. You need to grow up.
Just saying "copyright, copyright, copyright" over and over again is not gonna make this law's true underlying motivation suddenly be about copyright, anymore than saying WMD over and over made WMD the real reason for invading Iraq. It is all about a bunch of local broadcasters desperately trying to hang on to their little fiefdoms.
micklewhite said:
The physical limitations of the technology still prevents such viewing. You cannot, on your own, receive LA stations in NY. You require the assistance of a DBS company. The signals are encrypted for a reason. Otherwise you could use the appropriate FTA receiver and set up a dish without the need for E* or D*.
You're wrong twice in this paragraph. 1. I can, on my own, receive these broadcasts by using a PC or a SlingBox, and the Internet. 2. The originating broadcasts are not encrypted. The satellite carraige of those braodcasts are. That is to prevent people from using the dbs company's resources with compansating them for their work in bringing the broadcasts to you. No different than paying an ISP for carriage of digital signals from a distant PC with tuner card, or a Slingbox.
micklewhite said:
The only similarity is the concern for people using new technology to steal the property of others. If you copy tapes/CD's/DVD's/whatever in violation of the copyright law you are a thief. End of story. Why is it that someone who (we hope) would not think of shoplifting a CD has no qualms about stealing it at home? Is the locus of the crime really make a difference to you?
Wrong again. The movie industry didn't want to sell only one copy of a movie, then have a bunch of people rent that one copy, giving their money to the rental agent. They wanted everybody to pay $89.95 for a VHS copy of Porky's. But, they couldn't stop the new paradigm, finally learned to embrace it, and have reaped the benefits since.
The recording industry was dead set against MP3, as it was indeed a way to illegally distribute copyrighted content. (The same was true of cassette tape, btw) But, they have now embraced it, and are reaping the rewards through services like iTunes.
The broadcast industry was dead set against VCR's (and later, DVR's) because they wanted to control when we had to watch their programming, and, most importantly, did not want us to skip the commercials.
Nobody is arguing that theft is wrong. You are trying to twist this argument to make it seem as if that is what this is all about. Of course, it is not. It is about control.
micklewhite said:
No - because the networks do not fill the entire day. They rely on local affiliates for some part of the programming. They also need to meet their public interest charge. But even assuming that what you say is true, our elected representatives have decided that the system in place is the best choice. I suppose that could change down the line but as long as most viewers have an interest in local programming I doubt it.
It is looking more and more that the political makeup of our legislative branch will take a profound shift to those whose interests lie less with big business, as it has for about 12 years now, and towards a more consumer friendly environment. If that happens, we should see a new attitude at the FCC, and a revisiting of SHVERA in the senate and house.
And, yes, most viewers may prefer the local programming, if they had a choice. But, most viewers would probably say they would like that choice, which they are denied currently.
micklewhite said:
Both are important considerations. The goal of localism (it is a goal whether you agree or not) is protected by the mechanisms of the copyright law. That is simply fact. I understand you think a different model would be better. Work towards it but don't smear others by claiming that heartfelt convictions are a "smokescreen."
It is a smokescreen. The proponents of localism are hiding behind a valid legal protection of copyright law. They are corrupting it for their own ends. And, yes, I will do what I can to change it. I will vote, as I always do, for representatives and leaders who have the interests of their citizens in miind, and not the interests of big business, the wealthy, the shareholders, or their country club/fraternity buddies. Finally, after years of being neglected, perhaps the majority of my fellow Americans will do the same.
: 
