necoandjeff wrote:
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
>>necoandjeff wrote:
>>
>>>Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>necoandjeff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Paul Blay wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"necoandjeff" <spam@schrepfer.com> wrote ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bittorrent is not a hassle at all and it's completely free. And
>>>>>>>it is lightning fast, particularly if you are downloading a
>>>>>>>popular file (like a TV show shortly after it has been aired.)
>>>>>>>Within 5 to 6 hours after a show has aired it can be found on
>>>>>>>any bittorrent search service. An hour show (generally 350MB)
>>>>>>>can be downloaded in a little more than half an hour usually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Aren't you supposed to say "or so I have heard." or something at
>>>>>>the end there?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If I were still in the U.S., I might have.
>>>>
>>>>And that would matter because?
>>>>KWW
>>>
>>>
>>>1. By downloading a television show that was broadcast over the free
>>>airways in the U.S. and viewing it in my home, it is far from clear
>>>that I'm violating any copyright laws. It isn't terribly different
>>>from the "time shifting" that is achieved by Tivo or any VCR that
>>>has been in use for the last 20-30 years. It's quite different,
>>>however, from downloading movies or CDs that one would normally have
>>>to pay for, which I do not do. I could just as easily be arrested
>>>for all the videotapes of various television shows that I made while
>>>living in the U.S. and brought with me to Japan, or if I enlisted my
>>>parents to videotape shows and mail them to me here in Japan as an
>>>alternative.
>>
>>I do not think your analogy is a good one. A copyright holder of a
>>television broadcast would have a good case against the Bittorent-ing
>>of the work as being an infringement of his exclusive rights to
>>distribute and perform to the public. Your recording of broadcast
>>television shows or having your parents do so would not be such an
>>infringement.
>>
>>As an aside, I would also add that television shows broadcast by the
>>networks are increasingly becoming works that one pays for as more
>>series are being released to DVD season by season.
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, I know. There are very good arguments against it. But it remains
> an untested legal theory. 

I'm not certain that it is completely untested, but even if it were, we 
can certainly use our knowledge of the law to make an educated 
prediction. Every fact pattern is untested until we get before a court. 
That's why we tell clients about what can be expected to happen but not 
what *will* happen.

While I hestitate to use the word "clearly" when discussing anything, I 
don't think your fact pattern is "far from clear" on the question of 
whether it is copyright infringement. I think it is quite a bit 
different from time-shifting. If you think there is not much difference 
between making a copy of a broadcast copyrighted work to watch at a 
later date and distributing an indefinite number of copies (for charge 
or free of charge) to all takers, I don't know what to tell you. Your 
argument seems to expand the doctrine of time-shifting so widely as to 
make it meaningless. To be honest, I don't see how Bittorenting is 
time-shifting at all.

> Plus you cut out my whole number 2 which is what
> I'm really relying on.

I agreed with your #2, so I clipped it out.

> I should add that if the networks made TV shows available for download as a
> paid service I would quite happily pay to do so. I only use Bittorrent as an
> alternative to having my parents burn DVDs because it is more reliable and
> less of a hassle.

You don't have to justify your online activities to me. I just disagree 
that it is "far from clear" that they infringe copyright.

- Kevin