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.
Ok if you want to be spoonfed. I am talking about the entity - whatever called that OWNS THE RIGHTS TO THE PROGRAMMING. It may be the artist, it may be the network affiliate, it may be somebody else, it may be a combination of these BUT IT SURE AS HELL AIN'T YOU!
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.
Good grief man, are you this dense? I said that the motivation doesn't matter. The law is the law.
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.
I'm beginning to think you are stupid. We are NOT talking about sending programming THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED to yourself at another location. Slingbox/video tape/DVD is IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. You cannot acquire an LA network signal, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, by yourself unless you are in OTA range.
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.
WRONG! You do not understand the difference between the broadcast done locally and the feed provided to DBS, which is by fiber optic, microwave link, etc. Such a feed is protected against 3rd parties unless and until they subscribe to DBS service.
No different than paying an ISP for carriage of digital signals from a distant PC with tuner card, or a Slingbox.
Completely different. But I have neither the time nor inclination to explain it to you. Perhaps someone else will.
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.
Do you think Blockbuster ever rented movies without permission and paying the owner? The copyright owner may have had a change in position but it was his choice, not yours.
The recording industry ion?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.
You still don't understand the difference between wholesale larceny (Kazaa/Napster) and licensed distribution.
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.
You are going off on a tangent. Focus, focus....
Nobody is arguing that theft is wrong.
That's the problem. Perhaps you meant .. theft is NOT wrong...If so I say
Huh? Go back and read the numerous "DNS is my constitutional right and I will get it no matter what E*/FCC/courts/NAB say" posts and tell me that with a straight face.
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.
Control over private property. What do you call it when one person takes control of property from the rightful owner.....insert Jeopardy music here...yes the question is "What is theft?"!
Ahh your comments aren't worth any more effort...
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.
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.
