Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:13:10 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I think it could be legally argued that since the technology didn't
>>> erase- upon-playback that it was implied that the content might/could
>>> be viewed more than once.
>> Um, it's Sony's device playing back, not the copyright holder's device.
>> The fact that Sony didn't make it erase doesn't allow Sony to make
>> copies of someone *else's* video.
> 
> But the question was about watching a time-shifted programme more than 
> once...
> 
> At least that was what I understood the question to be.  Was I wrong?

I'm still failing to see the relevance.

The court ruled that you were allowed to record the live broadcast for the 
purpose of playing it back once at a later time.

There was no decision about playing it back more than once.

Since there is a valid and legal use for Sony's recording technology, Sony 
is not engaging in contributory copyright violation. (I.e., just like the 
Xerox photocopier decision.)

I don't see how whether Sony's machine erases the content after you watch it 
has anything to do with whether it's legal to watch it more than once, any 
more than the fact the photocopier doesn't ever check for copyright notices 
makes photocopying copyrighted textbooks universally legal.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message