You know, kind of like recording your albums and giving your friends the tapes?srbond said:
We are trying to help you understand the law. Yes, unauthorized duplication and distribution are against the law.
Dish Network: Distant Networks
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 644
- Views 91K
We are trying to help you understand the law. Yes, unauthorized duplication and distribution are against the law.
Greg Bimson said:
To be a bit more precise, some use of copyrighted material (to include duplication and distribution) is perfectly legal under the concept of "fair use." What constitutes fair use can be a complicated question and the "rules of thumb" that some people set forth (e.g. one song from an album is ok) are invariably wrong. What is clear that wholesale, commercial infringement is not fair use and may be criminal infringement. Timeshifting, educational and research use, private study are typically ok. I doubt that many of us have situtation that fall into a gray area. We tend to know intuitively if something is right or wrong. The question usually is knowing that, how do we behave.
Ok, here's an actual scenario:
A friend of mine has asked me to DVR a paintball championship game for his son and then either dump it to tape or DVD for his son. They don't have cable or satellite. Just an antenna to get locals. This program isn't on a local station.
So, if I do that and since the program isn't terribly likely to show up on DVD, then am I breaking some law in doing that? It's one program and after I've dumped it to DVD, I'm not going to be keeping it on my DVR as I'm not into paintball anyway.
I don't feel like I'm breaking any law (but I bet some law person would tell me otherwise). I feel like I'm doing something nice for my friend's son. I'm not charging him for any time I spend doing this and he'll probably give me a blank DVD to replace the one I use, though I've not even asked for a replacement.
So, how many laws will I violate when I do this?
A friend of mine has asked me to DVR a paintball championship game for his son and then either dump it to tape or DVD for his son. They don't have cable or satellite. Just an antenna to get locals. This program isn't on a local station.
So, if I do that and since the program isn't terribly likely to show up on DVD, then am I breaking some law in doing that? It's one program and after I've dumped it to DVD, I'm not going to be keeping it on my DVR as I'm not into paintball anyway.
I don't feel like I'm breaking any law (but I bet some law person would tell me otherwise). I feel like I'm doing something nice for my friend's son. I'm not charging him for any time I spend doing this and he'll probably give me a blank DVD to replace the one I use, though I've not even asked for a replacement.
So, how many laws will I violate when I do this?
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinc....htm?source=rss&channel=twincities_televisionsrbond said:
I just wanted to add that The Closer, the top rated cable show, doesn't even crack the Top 20 with their 6 million viewers (which is 2-10x more than most cable shows, and the networks are broadcasting reruns). Based on the ratings, I would have to say the broadcasters are changing way too little for carriage on pay TV services like Comcast, DirecTV, etc.
Whether the show is currently avaalable on DVD is not relevant under the law. Maybe it should be but it si not. there is no law about skipping commercials.
FIW here is a link to a site that ries to expalin it all.
http://www.pbs.org/teachersource/copyright/copyright_fairuse.shtm
FIW here is a link to a site that ries to expalin it all.
http://www.pbs.org/teachersource/copyright/copyright_fairuse.shtm
What about the "Beta-Max Decision"? Didn't that extend the right to making copies for personal use? I thought it was legal to record from OTA, satellite or cable for one's own personal use and also to make "backup" copies of purchased media (assuming you have the technology to bypass copy protection).
The rules for educational videotaping are different than the scenario proposed above (recording a program for a friend). Recording a show fr your own personal use is legal per the Betamax ruling. Giving it to someone else, especially someone who does not purchase the programming source would probably not be legal, much like making a copy of a DVD or CD for a friend is illegal. Are you likely going to be hauled to court over it? Probably not. That would be more likely if you were selling them on eBay or a the local flea market.
The educational videotaping rules are different, because it is a public performnace, and not your home. Normally, you have to purchase a public performance license to show movies or music in a public place. Educators are given some freedom from this as long as they legally obtain the copy and are using it for instructional purposes. There are some limits to protect the market for educational films and video. So, if you want to show Macbeth in English class, an instructor can rent it at the local video store or check it out from the library (but can't use a pirated copy from Bittorrent). However if the Student Council wants to hold a movie night fundraiser, they legally must buy public rights to the movie (a company called Swank handles this).
Wow... we are really getting off-topic from distant locals.
The educational videotaping rules are different, because it is a public performnace, and not your home. Normally, you have to purchase a public performance license to show movies or music in a public place. Educators are given some freedom from this as long as they legally obtain the copy and are using it for instructional purposes. There are some limits to protect the market for educational films and video. So, if you want to show Macbeth in English class, an instructor can rent it at the local video store or check it out from the library (but can't use a pirated copy from Bittorrent). However if the Student Council wants to hold a movie night fundraiser, they legally must buy public rights to the movie (a company called Swank handles this).
Wow... we are really getting off-topic from distant locals.
Yea, Back OT.
Well, I finally got sick of the worry and with the season premier of "House" starting tonight, I didn't want to take any chances. I went on the Dish website and added my locals back. So far I still have both but expect they'll pull the distants any time.
I, like many, had been forced to choose last year between locals and distants and since I knew once I gave up dns, I'd never get them back, I chose distants. Now, with the possibility of loosing them at any time, I decided it just wasn't worth the stress.
Needless to say 5 minutes after I did it, I was reminded why I chose distants over locals in the first place. 3 out of the 4 Vermont affiliate networks were running "paid-fu*king-programming" instead of the regular network programming that was being shown on the NY stations. You know - the commercials that go on for hours about friut based cleaners or the latest wonder pill and such.
This is a glaring example of why some (many) local affiliates need to be retired or at the very least, no longer provided the monopolistic protection they've been receiving for decades.
It's worth mentioning that these stations are still not transmitting digital either. They formed a cozy little coalition and managed to exploit enough environmental technicalities to stall their conversion. They are (as we speak) erecting new towers on Mt Mansfield and word has it they will start low power testing sometime this Fall. Trouble is, once the first snowflake is spotted up there, they'll be able to stall until next Spring.
Anyway, I digress. Basically I just wanted to point out what I and millions of others throughout rural America are faced with in regards to distants and why we sometimes get a little passionate about it.
I know I probably should've held out to the last minute but I figured when they (dns) do go dark, it'll be all of a sudden and it's likely Dish lines will be inaccessible for a while. If that caused us to miss "House" or "Lost", I'd have a minor rebellion on my hands here.
Besides, that would make me cranky as hell and I'd likely come on here a spew for days about it.
Well, I finally got sick of the worry and with the season premier of "House" starting tonight, I didn't want to take any chances. I went on the Dish website and added my locals back. So far I still have both but expect they'll pull the distants any time.
I, like many, had been forced to choose last year between locals and distants and since I knew once I gave up dns, I'd never get them back, I chose distants. Now, with the possibility of loosing them at any time, I decided it just wasn't worth the stress.
Needless to say 5 minutes after I did it, I was reminded why I chose distants over locals in the first place. 3 out of the 4 Vermont affiliate networks were running "paid-fu*king-programming" instead of the regular network programming that was being shown on the NY stations. You know - the commercials that go on for hours about friut based cleaners or the latest wonder pill and such.
This is a glaring example of why some (many) local affiliates need to be retired or at the very least, no longer provided the monopolistic protection they've been receiving for decades.
It's worth mentioning that these stations are still not transmitting digital either. They formed a cozy little coalition and managed to exploit enough environmental technicalities to stall their conversion. They are (as we speak) erecting new towers on Mt Mansfield and word has it they will start low power testing sometime this Fall. Trouble is, once the first snowflake is spotted up there, they'll be able to stall until next Spring.
Anyway, I digress. Basically I just wanted to point out what I and millions of others throughout rural America are faced with in regards to distants and why we sometimes get a little passionate about it.
I know I probably should've held out to the last minute but I figured when they (dns) do go dark, it'll be all of a sudden and it's likely Dish lines will be inaccessible for a while. If that caused us to miss "House" or "Lost", I'd have a minor rebellion on my hands here.
Besides, that would make me cranky as hell and I'd likely come on here a spew for days about it.
Walt,
I remember THOSE locals!!!! Ugghh...
And when the finally start broadcasting digitally (no one says they have to broadcast in real HD), most likely they will be like the locals on the western slope of Colorado. Most of the time never in real 16:9; with NO DD5.1 sound; indeed, sometimes sound that really bites.
I feel for ya!
Can you pick up anything decent out of Montreal, or are you too far away?
I remember THOSE locals!!!! Ugghh...
And when the finally start broadcasting digitally (no one says they have to broadcast in real HD), most likely they will be like the locals on the western slope of Colorado. Most of the time never in real 16:9; with NO DD5.1 sound; indeed, sometimes sound that really bites.
I feel for ya!
Can you pick up anything decent out of Montreal, or are you too far away?
Now let's get to the heart of the matter...waltinvt said:
The protections aren't in the form of a law. If ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX owned your local affiliates, do you believe they'd throw infomercials up? I believe they'd show the network programming if your stations are O&O...
But CBS and FOX couldn't buy your stations. They don't have room under the FCC's ownership cap rule, which is to promote localism. As a matter of fact, decades ago, the FCC setup ways to try and stop networks from becoming so powerful. So, in any network-affiliate contract, the affiliate has the right to pre-empt quite a few shows.
So, now we are back to square one. The FCC wants to promote localism and keep local network affiliates from becoming a chain of network repeaters. However, most of the people that want distant networks are those that either want timeshifting abilities, access to different sports broadcasts or to have an alternate to crappy affiliates; these all being points against localism.
It is the agents of the NAB, which is mainly comprised of the non-O&O network affiliates, that are willing to settle for $100 million and a requalification of everyone. It is this party that keeps the station ownership caps in check, by reminding those in Congress that they exemplify the localism mandate.
They exemplify the localism mandate by having three of the four network stations show infomercials during the network schedule.
waltinvt said:
My wife is from Westfield in the Northeast Kingdom. She grew up on a dairy farm with a large maple syrup operation. I grew up in Albany, NY, but I am also a graduate of Saint Michael's College in Colchester. Vermont is one of my favorite places. I get back about once every other year. We came to Colorado in 1995.
Eagle/Vail is a great place to be a wildlife photographer!
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/S...?m=tm&bn=5222&tid=63924&mid=63924&tof=1&frt=2
AP
Senators Seek Satellite TV Probe
Tuesday September 5, 8:22 pm ET
By John Dunbar, Associated Press Writer
Senators Seek Probe of Dispute Involving Dominant Satellite Television Companies
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Colorado's two senators have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to look into an escalating dispute involving the nation's two dominant satellite television companies.
Sens. Wayne Allard, a Republican, and Ken Salazar, a Democrat, asked the committee in a letter last Friday to examine whether The DirecTV Group Inc., controlled by global media giant News Corp., "has engaged in behavior that would threaten the viablity of the satellite TV market."
A Judiciary Committee aide said the committee is "looking into the situation and urging all parties to settle this matter to ensure uninterrupted service to consumers."
The dispute involves a long-running legal battle over the re-transmission of "distant network" channels.
Satellite customers in some small markets that are not home to local network affiliates receive their network programming from network stations in distant markets.
The networks filed a lawsuit in 1998 accusing satellite companies of offering distant network signals to customers in areas that weren't supposed to get them.
Since that suit was filed, EchoStar has continued to fight in court. In May, a federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled on the side of the networks.
Last week, EchoStar and affiliates of ABC, NBC and CBS, as well as affiliates of the Fox Network, agreed to a $100 million settlement that would allow the company to continue transmitting their signals.
Stations that air the Fox network but are not owned by Fox agreed to the settlement. But the 25 stations that are owned by Fox -- a subsidiary of News Corp. -- did not go along. News Corp. also owns a controlling interest in DirecTV.
Instead, Fox filed a request for an injunction that would prevent EchoStar from transmitting the signals from any of the four networks.
At the same time, DirecTV began running ads in some affected markets in an attempt to pick up EchoStar customers.
Critics of Fox say the broadcaster and its parent are using the court case to take away customers from EchoStar.
A newspaper ad in Lafayette, La., for example, says "Attention Dish Network customers -- you're about to lose NBC." It goes on to say "Dish Network is being forced to turn off certain network stations as a result of their illegal activity" and to "Switch to DirecTV today."
The two senators from Colorado in their letter say Fox's rejection of the settlement "raises serious questions about whether the News Corporation, using Fox Network and DirecTV, has engaged in behavior that would threaten the viability of the satellite TV market. These developments merit diligent oversight by the Judiciary Committee."
The senators wrote they want to "ensure that Fox's decision to pull out of negotiations was not motivated by a desire to ensure that DirecTV wins the market share that will be abandoned should EchoStar be forced to turn off its distant signals."
Fox spokesman Andrew Butcher said his company proved its case in court and has done nothing wrong.
"We've had to fight this company's egregious misbehavior for eight years and now that we've won, they've gone crying to Congress," he said.
AP
Senators Seek Satellite TV Probe
Tuesday September 5, 8:22 pm ET
By John Dunbar, Associated Press Writer
Senators Seek Probe of Dispute Involving Dominant Satellite Television Companies
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Colorado's two senators have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to look into an escalating dispute involving the nation's two dominant satellite television companies.
Sens. Wayne Allard, a Republican, and Ken Salazar, a Democrat, asked the committee in a letter last Friday to examine whether The DirecTV Group Inc., controlled by global media giant News Corp., "has engaged in behavior that would threaten the viablity of the satellite TV market."
A Judiciary Committee aide said the committee is "looking into the situation and urging all parties to settle this matter to ensure uninterrupted service to consumers."
The dispute involves a long-running legal battle over the re-transmission of "distant network" channels.
Satellite customers in some small markets that are not home to local network affiliates receive their network programming from network stations in distant markets.
The networks filed a lawsuit in 1998 accusing satellite companies of offering distant network signals to customers in areas that weren't supposed to get them.
Since that suit was filed, EchoStar has continued to fight in court. In May, a federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled on the side of the networks.
Last week, EchoStar and affiliates of ABC, NBC and CBS, as well as affiliates of the Fox Network, agreed to a $100 million settlement that would allow the company to continue transmitting their signals.
Stations that air the Fox network but are not owned by Fox agreed to the settlement. But the 25 stations that are owned by Fox -- a subsidiary of News Corp. -- did not go along. News Corp. also owns a controlling interest in DirecTV.
Instead, Fox filed a request for an injunction that would prevent EchoStar from transmitting the signals from any of the four networks.
At the same time, DirecTV began running ads in some affected markets in an attempt to pick up EchoStar customers.
Critics of Fox say the broadcaster and its parent are using the court case to take away customers from EchoStar.
A newspaper ad in Lafayette, La., for example, says "Attention Dish Network customers -- you're about to lose NBC." It goes on to say "Dish Network is being forced to turn off certain network stations as a result of their illegal activity" and to "Switch to DirecTV today."
The two senators from Colorado in their letter say Fox's rejection of the settlement "raises serious questions about whether the News Corporation, using Fox Network and DirecTV, has engaged in behavior that would threaten the viability of the satellite TV market. These developments merit diligent oversight by the Judiciary Committee."
The senators wrote they want to "ensure that Fox's decision to pull out of negotiations was not motivated by a desire to ensure that DirecTV wins the market share that will be abandoned should EchoStar be forced to turn off its distant signals."
Fox spokesman Andrew Butcher said his company proved its case in court and has done nothing wrong.
"We've had to fight this company's egregious misbehavior for eight years and now that we've won, they've gone crying to Congress," he said.
cebbigh said:
Cool. My senators are finally doing something worthwhile
But seriously, I am glad that the issue might get some attention from Congress.
