CL wrote:
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
>> I don't know what "exactly the same result" is supposed to mean. You 
>> have a copy of a television broadcast that you did not pay for. You 
>> could achieve this means by any number of means, from using your DVR 
>> to armed robbery. Is that exactly the same result? I don't know.
> 
> 
> Sounds more like a list of excuses to justify corporate greed than any 
> reasonable defense of a published work.

I do not know what list you are talking about, and there is no such 
thing as greed. If you are going to quote a dictionary definition, 
please don't.

I hasten to add that not all of the copyrights to works broadcast over 
VHF/UHF are held by corporations.

> Exactly what copyright control are the networks exercising when they 
> throw a broadcast out into the stratosphere for anyone with a properly 
> configured receiver to capture in the first place?  

I do not understand the purpose of the question. It certainly is 
relevant to nothing, and seems to blame the copyright holder for any 
infringement that occurs because the copyright holder has let the work 
get "out in the open". That is simply asinine.

> Would the networks 
> feel better of Jeff promised not to fast forward through the ads (maybe 
> making him agree to hit the "Freeze" button if he has to get up to use 
> the bathroom or get a glass of his favorite beverage) and to watch them 
> in their entirety, thus justifying the original payment (to the network) 
> for the transmission?

Whether or not Jeff watches the commercials has nothing to do with 
copyright infringement. Whether or not the holder of the copyright gets 
paid has nothing to do with whether or not an infringement has occurred. 
That is why it is called "copyright", not "getpaidright".

- Kevin