<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<title>Message</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle20
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->Yes,
I understand that quote. Do you?</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>You have highlighted several sections of
the opinion which give reasons why Sony is not liable. However, none of these
reasons you have highlighted say that time shifting is illegal despite your assertion
to that effect. “Sony is not liable because most copyright holders don’t
care if people time shift”. To this quote you add your own “3<sup>rd</sup>
party interpretation to server your interests”, that says that it is
still illegal but that they just don’t care. This sentence does not state
in any way that time shifting is illegal. It merely says that because the
copyright holders don’t care about time shifting, that Sony holds no liability
in this matter REGARDLESS of whether it is legal or illegal. Later you add
commentary about Disney having no right to keep people from time shifting when
the owner of the copyright allows it. This portion of your interpretation I
agree with, although it still says nothing about time shifting being illegal.
Your next commentary about not being able to ban it across the board because
there are legal uses is true as far as it goes, but I believe that you have
missed the point of the second portion of the Supreme Court’s statement.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>even the <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>unauthorized</span></b>
home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use</span></font></i></em></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>It says that even UNAUTHORIZED home
time-shifting of programs is legitimate fair use. It doesn’t matter if
the copyright holder has given you permission or not, the Supreme Court says
that it is still legitimate fair use, and therefore legal. That particular
interpretation of the law was made by the District Court originally, but the
Supreme Court backs up their findings here.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'><strong><b><font
size=2 face=Wingdings><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;
font-weight:normal'>Ø<font size=1 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></font></span></font></b></strong><strong><b><font
size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>It does not say
that you have the right to copy someone else's copyrighted material for your
own private use.</span></font></b></strong></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>No, it does not say that you can without
restriction copy someone else’s copyrighted material for your own use.
You can’t tape record a movie in the theater and take it home, but the
opinion DOES state that when done for the purposes of time-shifting you absolutely
CAN copy the copyrighted material for your own private use. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Frankly this argument is getting
ridiculous. You have stated “</span></font><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>fair use does not apply to
you unless you are a teacher”</span></font><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>, which
is just plain wrong. Your main original arguments seem to have come from </span></font><font
size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>"Guidelines
for Off-Air Recording of Broadcast Programming for Educational Purposes" </span></font><font
size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'>which have no force of law whatsoever, but are merely a set of
guidelines that educators and copyright holders have come up with for use of
copyrighted materials for educational purposes. How you get from this that fair
use only applies to teachers, I have no idea. You have accused us of pointing
only to biased 3<sup>rd</sup> party sites, and not to official sites. To which
I have responded with the original Supreme Court decision, which you obviously
interpret differently than I, do. Or apparently with the way the EFF, Stanford,
and the Harvard Law Review do as well, since they also read this Supreme Court
opinion to define unauthorized time-shifting to constitute legitimate fair use.
You have continually attacked every piece of evidence presented to you, however
you have yet to provide one shred of evidence of your own backing the assertion
that time-shifting is illegal. You have pointed out that the Supreme Court
opinion offers other reasons for not banning VCRs besides fair use. However
this does not change the fact that ONE of the reasons it gives is the fact that
UNAUTHORIZED HOME TIME-SHIFTING OF RESPONDENT’S PROGRAMS IS LEGITIMATE
FAIR USE. I don’t understand how that statement could be any clearer.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>As for your opinion that pay services are
somehow different in this regard than broadcast services, that at least could
be legitimately argued I think. I don’t agree with you on that point
either, but at least it’s worth looking at. Since the Supreme Court says
that authorization from the copyright holders is not necessary to time-shift, I
don’t think that it matters much who paid to have the shows aired matters
that much. The point is that you had the right to view it when it was
originally aired, so recording it for the purpose of time-shifting is
legitimate fair use. I don’t think that the difference between broadcast
station, cable station, or premium station really changes anything. If you’d
care to point to any actual law or court decision that says otherwise, I’d
be happy to look it over.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Shawn Asmussen</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b>
mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org [mailto:mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org] <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Tom Jaeger<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> </span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>Sunday, January
04, 2004</span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma'> </span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>6:03 PM</span></font><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> 'Discussion about mythtv'<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: [mythtv-users]
recorded shows</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><strong><b><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>Do you understand that quote???</span></font></b></strong><b><font
size=2><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'><br>
<strong><b><font face="Times New Roman">Lets break it down</font></b></strong><br>
</span></font></b><font size=2><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><br>
<em><i><font face="Times New Roman">c) The record and the District Court's
findings show</font></i></em><i><span style='font-style:italic'><br>
<em><i><font face="Times New Roman">(1) that there is a significant likelihood
that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for
broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcast
time-shifted by private viewers (i. e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner
cannot view the broadcast so that it can be watched at a later time); and</font></i></em><br>
</span></i><strong><b><font face="Times New Roman">Sony is not liable because
most copyright holders don’t care if people time shift (still illegal to
do so but like j-walking they don’t care)</font></b></strong><b><span
style='font-weight:bold'><br>
</span></b><em><i><font face="Times New Roman">(2) that there is no likelihood
that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or
the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. The VTR's are therefore capable
of substantial noninfringing uses.</font></i></em> <strong><b><font
face="Times New Roman">(sony not liable because the product can be used for
legal uses) </font></b></strong></span></font></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><em><i><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>Private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home
satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have no
right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting
for their programs, </span></font></i></em><strong><b><font size=2
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>(Disney has no right to
keep people from time shifting when the owner of the copy right allows it)</span></font></b></strong><font
size=2><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><br>
<em><i><font face="Times New Roman">and because the District Court's findings
reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs
is legitimate fair use. </font></i></em><strong><b><font face="Times New Roman">You
can do legal recording of copyrighted material under the fair use so they cant
ban it across the board) </font></b></strong></span></font></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><strong><b><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>This says that VCR's cant be banned because some
companies allow time shifting and even if the company does not authorize time
shifting there are still times under the fair use (collecting data for a school
project) that it is legal in the home.</span></font></b></strong></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><strong><b><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>It does not say that you have the right to copy
someone else's copyrighted material for your own private use.</span></font></b></strong></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><strong><b><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>Tom J</span></font></b></strong></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><em><i><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>Pp. 442-456.</span></font></i></em><strong><b><font
size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> ( </span></font></b></strong><font
size=2><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>> </span></font></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>-----Original Message-----</span></font></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>> From: mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org<br>
> [<a href="mailto:mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org">mailto:mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Shawn Asmussen<br>
> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 7:11 PM<br>
> To: 'Discussion about mythtv'<br>
> Subject: RE: [mythtv-users] recorded shows<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> >Please show me a govt link that holds your case not some<br>
> website that is<br>
> >3rd party interpretation to serve their interests.<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&co">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&co</a><br>
> urt=us&vol=464<br>
> &page=417#417<br>
><br>
><br>
> Although findlaw is not technically a government site, all of<br>
> the official<br>
> US government sites that archive the Supreme Court opinions<br>
> that I could<br>
> find only had the opinions up to 1975. However, this link is not to an<br>
> article stating a 3rd party interpretation. It is a link to<br>
> an archive of<br>
> the actual Supreme Court opinion.<br>
><br>
> Here is a direct quote from the Supreme Court opinion:<br>
><br>
> (c) The record and the District Court's findings show (1)<br>
> that there is a<br>
> significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright<br>
> holders who<br>
> license their works for broadcast on free television would<br>
> not object to<br>
> having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.<br>
> e., recorded at a<br>
> time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so that it<br>
> can be watched<br>
> at a later time); and (2) that there is no likelihood that<br>
> time-shifting<br>
> would cause nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or<br>
> the value of,<br>
> respondents' copyrighted works. The VTR's are therefore capable of<br>
> substantial noninfringing uses. Private, noncommercial<br>
> time-shifting in the<br>
> home satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both<br>
> because respondents<br>
> have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such<br>
> time-shifting for their programs, and because the District<br>
> Court's findings<br>
> reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents'<br>
> programs is legitimate fair use. Pp. 442-456.<br>
><br>
> In particular, note the last portion of the last sentence.<br>
> "THE DISTRICT<br>
> COURT'S FINDINGS REVEAL THAT EVEN THE UNAUTHORIZED HOME<br>
> TIME-SHIFTING OF<br>
> RESPONDENTS' PROGRAMS IS LEGITIMATE FAIR USE"<br>
><br>
> Now, that is not a 3rd party interpretation of anything. That<br>
> is a direct<br>
> quote from the Supreme Court decision. Is that good enough?<br>
><br>
> Shawn Asmussen<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org<br>
> [<a href="mailto:mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org">mailto:mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Tom Jaeger<br>
> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 4:24 PM<br>
> To: 'Discussion about mythtv'<br>
> Subject: RE: [mythtv-users] recorded shows<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html">http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html</a><br>
> This covers fair use and is straight from the source.<br>
> "Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the<br>
> reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such
as<br>
> criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,<br>
> and research.<br>
> Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining<br>
> whether or not a particular use is fair"<br>
><br>
> Fair use does not protect home users from copyright infringement.<br>
><br>
> Your statement "This is different from the "fair use"
that<br>
> most people<br>
> refer to when they talk<br>
> about this subject." Is disproved by my link above to the govt page
on<br>
> fair use and proves your statement wrong<br>
><br>
> My previous mention of the fair use is because it was mentioned as a<br>
> defense for making a copy ... I was saying that it does not apply<br>
> because I/we are not using it for educational purposes. The supreme<br>
> court was not ruling as to if it was legal for a person to record a TV<br>
> show but they were ruling as to if a company could<br>
> manufacture a product<br>
> that was made to record a show.<br>
><br>
> Please show me a govt link that holds your case not some<br>
> website that is<br>
> 3rd party interpretation to serve their interests.<br>
><br>
> Tom J<br>
><br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org<br>
> > [<a href="mailto:mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org">mailto:mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Jeff Monks<br>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 5:03 PM<br>
> > To: Discussion about mythtv<br>
> > Subject: RE: [mythtv-users] recorded shows<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > > Fair use guidelines are offially known as "Guidelines for
Off-Air<br>
> > > Recording of Broadcast Programming for Educational Purposes"<br>
> > > So fair use does not apply to you unless you are a teacher<br>
> > and then does<br>
> > > not apply to HBO or other special services.<br>
> > > I have included a link for info on Fair use below.<br>
> > > Tom J<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > <a
href="http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/94F153">http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/94F153</a><br>
> 9D-B61C-41<br>
> > 5B-BE3ED4F8BFE7F1F3/catID/2EB060FE-5A4B-4D81-883B0E540CC4CB1E<br>
><br>
> >From the page you link to:<br>
><br>
> "These guidelines (known officially as "Guidelines for<br>
> Off-Air Recording<br>
><br>
> of Broadcast Programming for Educational Purposes") do not have the<br>
> force<br>
> of law and have never been tested in the courts."<br>
><br>
> They're just guidelines for non-commercial, educational use<br>
> of recorded<br>
> copyrighted programs, agreed to by teachers and media companies.
This<br>
> is<br>
> different from the "fair use" that most people refer to when<br>
> they talk<br>
> about this subject.<br>
><br>
> Generic "fair use" exemptions in the 1976 Copyright Act were<br>
> held by the<br>
><br>
> Supreme Court to encompass personal non-commercial recording devices<br>
> (originally the VCR, but presumably also DVRs) in 1984. The<br>
> ruling in<br>
> that case includes the statement:<br>
><br>
> "One may search the Copyright Act in vain for any sign that the<br>
> elected representatives of the millions of people who watch<br>
> television<br>
> every day have made it unlawful to copy a program for later<br>
> viewing at<br>
> home, or have enacted a flat prohibition against the sale of machines<br>
> that<br>
> make such copying possible."<br>
><br>
> In other words, the Copyright Act does not make it illegal to make or<br>
> use<br>
> such devices for noncommercial, personal recordings.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> </span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>