# Transfer & Watch Protected Tivo Files?



## Zeigh (Jun 3, 2002)

Hello,

Is there a way to transfer and actually watch the protected files from a Tivo unit? Here is my story... 

I just bought Roxio's Toast 8 primarily for burning specialized DVD's on my Intel-Mac, but one of the benefits that finally prompted me into the purchase was it's Tivo Transfer module. I was excited that Tivo finally made file transfers available between my Intel-Mac and Tivo Series 3 DVR just last month. Yup, it all jives now and I have transferred allot of old programming that I was just hanging on to. However, about 40&#37; of the programs or movies that I have recorded are protected and unavailable for transfer. For me, I have to ask, what is the use in gaining access to the Tivo files when you can't use most of them remotely?! In researching this closer, I see that the same limitation is between two Tivo units as well! WTF?! What is the use of Multi-Room Viewing to boot?!

So, is there some hack or trick that allows one to extract (digitally) and watch (even just once) a protected file from a Tivo unit? Yes, I can do it via an analog method, but that is so laborious it is such a pain (just what the Record Industry Nazis expect).


&#8220;Technological change is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.&#8221; (Albert Einstein, 1941),
Dr. Z.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Zeigh said:


> So, is there some hack or trick that allows one to extract (digitally) and watch (even just once) a protected file from a Tivo unit? Yes, I can do it via an analog method, but that is so laborious it is such a pain (just what the Record Industry Nazis expect).


You can (hack) modify the hardware in your TiVo to allow that, but such discussion is not allowed on this forum.

If Verizon FiOS is available in your area, switching to that is the easiest thing to do. They don't copy protect anything.


----------



## Moriarty1979 (Apr 23, 2006)

Is this an issue just with the series3? I dont think my series2 did this at all. I am in a somewhat similar situation as the OP. I loved being able to transfers shows to my pc and now that I upgraded I have a bunch of copy-protected files that cannot transfer. When did this happen? Is there anything that can be done?


----------



## cartouchbea (Jan 14, 2009)

This is only an issue on Series 3 machines using digital cable. Since the Series 2s use analog signals, they do not receive the copy protection information from the cable company. Also, OTA broadcasts do not suffer from these problems. Time Warner likes to copy inhibit _everything_ except those things that the FCC has expressly forbidden them from protecting.

Series 3 machines can be modified to ignore that information from the cable company, but the topic can't really be discussed on the TCF.

cartouchbea


----------



## Moriarty1979 (Apr 23, 2006)

Thanks for the quick reply, guess I will be reconnecting my series2.


----------



## Zeigh (Jun 3, 2002)

cartouchbea said:


> Series 3 machines can be modified to ignore that information from the cable company, but the topic can't really be discussed on the TCF.


Cartouchbea,

What, you will only meet in a dark alley to divulge this information? Are you sure your name isn't "Deep Throat"? At least give us some search phrases so that we can track down the information for ourselves.

More microchips than sense,
Dr. Z.


----------



## cartouchbea (Jan 14, 2009)

Zeigh said:


> What, you will only meet in a dark alley to divulge this information? Are you sure your name isn't "Deep Throat"? At least give us some search phrases so that we can track down the information for ourselves.


 That's funny! 

No dark alleys required. These sorts of topics are discussed over at the Deal Database forums but not at the Tivo Community Forum.

cartouchbea


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Moriarty1979 said:


> Is this an issue just with the series3? I dont think my series2 did this at all. I am in a somewhat similar situation as the OP. I loved being able to transfers shows to my pc and now that I upgraded I have a bunch of copy-protected files that cannot transfer. When did this happen? Is there anything that can be done?


It isn't an artifact of the S3, per se. It is a requirement for CableLabs certification. Every CableCard device must rigidly honor the CCI protection byte setting broadcast by the CATV system.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

cartouchbea said:


> not at the Tivo Community Forum.


It's discussed in the underground.


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> It's discussed in the underground.


Aren't we talking about the CCI hack? If so I didn't think it was allowed on TCF...


----------



## cartouchbea (Jan 14, 2009)

Sorry to get a little off topic here.

I'll have to claim ignorance on _exactly_ what is verboten here on the TCF. I'm pretty sure direct links to "the other" forum will modded/removed but other than that, I've been just speculating based on information I've read in other posts. I've been through the FAQs and haven't really seen a description of what sorts of discussions we need to avoid here. I was guessing that since forcibly removing copy protection information would violate your terms of service with your local cable company (and may be illegal), that that sort of discussion would probably be forbidden here.

If someone can post a link to where we can find out what is permitted and/or forbidden here at the TCF, that would be very helpful.

cartouchbea


----------



## ciper (Nov 4, 2004)

TCF is the fun police LOL

Anything that allows extraction of shows besides TiVoDesktop is not allowed. Anything that circumvents copy protection, encryption or other roadblocks is not allowed.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> It isn't an artifact of the S3, per se. It is a requirement for CableLabs certification. Every CableCard device must rigidly honor the CCI protection byte setting broadcast by the CATV system.


It's also a requirement of the DMCA, is it not?  CCI is an access control mechanism and you cannot legally sell (or give away, for that matter) a recording device in the U.S. which ignores it.

Of course, the fact that the licensing agreements for CableCARD and DFAST require compliance doesn't hurt .


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

mikeyts said:


> It's also a requirement of the DMCA, is it not? CCI is an access control mechanism and you cannot legally sell a recording device in the U.S. which ignores it.


It's the cable card restriction, and you can not get CableLabs certification without following the rules.

I don't believe DMCA plays into this at all.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

AbMagFab said:


> It's the cable card restriction, and you can not get CableLabs certification without following the rules.
> 
> I don't believe DMCA plays into this at all.


I'm pretty sure that it does. Every VCR and DVD recorder produced for sale in the U.S. since passage of the DMCA has paid attention to various analog copy protection mechanisms (CGMS-A, which HBO/Cinemax uses on their cable channels, and a couple of other schemes). TiVo complies with the analog protection mechanisms--I just recorded a little bit of a program on analog Discovery, and the recording details has the "Due to the policy set by the copyright holder..." restriction message, and it shows up as protected on TiVo Desktop's "Pick Recordings to Transfer" dialog.

The licensing agreements for CableCARD and DFAST underscore the requirement to deal with CCI (and specify how to comply in great detail, which the DMCA does not), but I'm fairly certain that TiVo would have been required by Federal law to pay attention to CCI even if those provisions weren't in those licenses.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

mikeyts said:


> I'm pretty sure that it does. Every VCR and DVD recorder produced for sale in the U.S. since passage of the DMCA has paid attention to various analog copy protection mechanisms (CGMS-A, which HBO/Cinemax uses on their cable channels, and a couple of other schemes). TiVo complies with the analog protection mechanisms--I just recorded a little bit of a program on analog Discovery, and the recording details has the "Due to the policy set by the copyright holder..." restriction message, and it shows up as protected on TiVo Desktop's "Pick Recordings to Transfer" dialog.
> 
> The licensing agreements for CableCARD and DFAST underscore the requirement to deal with CCI (and specify how to comply in great detail, which the DMCA does not), but I'm fairly certain that TiVo would have been required by Federal law to pay attention to CCI even if those provisions weren't in those licenses.


They are loosely connected in that the CCI flag says what can be copied. But since it is set basically at the whim of the individual cable companies and is by no means universal (BHN in central FL CCI flags everything as no mrv, ttg, but FIOS sets it as use freely) I really don't think of it as a DCMA issue.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

cartouchbea said:


> Sorry to get a little off topic here.
> 
> I'll have to claim ignorance on _exactly_ what is verboten here on the TCF. I'm pretty sure direct links to "the other" forum will modded/removed but other than that, I've been just speculating based on information I've read in other posts. I've been through the FAQs and haven't really seen a description of what sorts of discussions we need to avoid here. I was guessing that since forcibly removing copy protection information would violate your terms of service with your local cable company (and may be illegal), that that sort of discussion would probably be forbidden here.
> 
> ...


Here is a link to the "Forum Rules". Banned topics are at the bottom.


----------



## cartouchbea (Jan 14, 2009)

Thanks JWThiers. I looked over the FAQ page and never found this info. Glad to have it now. 

cartouchbea


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

Its under "quicklinks" at the top of every page.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

JWThiers said:


> They are loosely connected in that the CCI flag says what can be copied. But since it is set basically at the whim of the individual cable companies and is by no means universal (BHN in central FL CCI flags everything as no mrv, ttg, but FIOS sets it as use freely) I really don't think of it as a DCMA issue.


It doesn't matter whether it sometimes gets set incorrectly or not--the same is probably true of CGMS-A, etc, on analog cable programs, which serves exactly the same purpose and, as I said before, is observed by all post-DMCA analog video recorders sold in the US, including TiVo. CCI on digital cable is a copy protection mechanism for copyrighted content, and therefore covered by the DMCA.

The main effect of the licensing is to prescribe _exactly_ how protected digital content received through the licensed mechanisms must be treated by recorders. When and how they can be sent over analog and digital outputs and what protections have to be applied.


----------



## AbMagFab (Feb 5, 2001)

mikeyts said:


> It doesn't matter whether it sometimes gets set incorrectly or not--the same is probably true of CGMS-A, etc, on analog cable programs, which serves exactly the same purpose and, as I said before, is observed by all post-DMCA analog video recorders sold in the US, including TiVo. CCI on digital cable is a copy protection mechanism for copyrighted content, and therefore covered by the DMCA.
> 
> The main effect of the licensing is to prescribe _exactly_ how protected digital content received through the licensed mechanisms must be treated by recorders. When and how they can be sent over analog and digital outputs and what protections have to be applied.


The point is, Tivo's implementation of these has nothing to do with DMCA, it has to do with the Cable Cards. CableLabs requires adherance to the CCI flag.

I think it's a stretch to say that DMCA *caused* the CCI flag. Or if you want to make that stretch, you might as well say Copyright law as a whole is the cause.

I think all DMCA does is provide another potential means of enforcement. But that has nothing to do with whether Tivo implements something or not (in this case). Perhaps the only connection you can draw is it makes the copyright *holders* and their representatives (like the RIAA and MPAA) more aggressive in asking hardware manufacturers to implement copy barriers.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

cartouchbea said:


> Thanks JWThiers. I looked over the FAQ page and never found this info. Glad to have it now.
> 
> cartouchbea


I sent you a PM yesterday as invited in your signature. Did you miss it?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

ciper said:


> TCF is the fun police LOL
> 
> Anything that allows extraction of shows besides TiVoDesktop is not allowed. Anything that circumvents copy protection, encryption or other roadblocks is not allowed.


Isn't circumvention illegal anyway?


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> Isn't circumvention illegal anyway?


The proper form of the question for my particular case is:

_Is beating copy protection illegal for Time Warner Cable digital channels, which are ALL copy protected, except for a few OTA channels._

Here is a *** Lauren Weinstein Blog **that pretty much expresses my perspective on the situation.

My additional thoughts on three aspects:

1. Legal and logical -- I know of no legal requirement for a provider (CATV, FIOS, or Satellite) to set copy protection on ALL it's digital content as Time Warner does. In fact neither ComCast nor Verizon FIOS do this. Also, Time Warner provides many of the same channels in analog form with no copy protection. Are the other providers all illegal? Or is Time Warner just taking an easy way out?

2. Moral argument:

The Supreme Court "Betamax" decision decades ago established the fair use rights of consumers to make copies of television programs, and save them on videocassettes. I believe the reasoning or context behind this was for personal, non-commercial use, which is my sole purpose. Although apparently there is no specific "fair use" legal authority for DVR technology, the principle seems identical to me.

That's my answer, which I'm sure is controversial. I respect the question.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

dlfl said:


> That's my answer, which I'm sure is controversial. I respect the question.


I wrote a passionate argument disagreeing with your post, but decided that I'd been down this rathole far too many times, in incredibly long threads in AVS Forum, some five or six years ago. I think that I'll skip it this time .


----------



## drcos (Jul 20, 2001)

"Fair use" is not applicable in this case, even with the 'protected' programs.
HBO et al (those with 0x02 or copy once) allow you to make one copy of the program (on the TiVo). You cannot make any copies of this copy.
Most other channels should be set to 0x00 or copy freely. If they are not, you can complain to your flavor of cable gods, maybe it will help, maybe not.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

drcos said:


> "Fair use" is not applicable in this case, even with the 'protected' programs.
> HBO et al (those with 0x02 or copy once) allow you to make one copy of the program (on the TiVo). You cannot make any copies of this copy.
> Most other channels should be set to 0x00 or copy freely. If they are not, you can complain to your flavor of cable gods, maybe it will help, maybe not.


I admire *mikeyts*' attitude about not going down the rathole again, and I don't want to do that either. In my defense I just want to say that to me using TTG to transfer the file to my PC for MPEG4 encoding and archiving is not really making ANOTHER copy. My purpose is to get it off the TiVo so it isn't taking up MPEG2 space there. After the TTG transfer, I delete it from the TiVo. Then later I transfer it back via pyTiVo or StreamBaby, just for the purpose of viewing -- then delete it again. Effectively I only use ONE copy. 
This seems like a "fair use" to me.

Also, I won't be doing this with Pay-per-view content. I honor the requirement that I'm paying for just one view.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

dlfl said:


> I admire *mikeyts*' attitude about not going down the rathole again, and I don't want to do that either. In my defense I just want to say that to me using TTG to transfer the file to my PC for MPEG4 encoding and archiving is not really making ANOTHER copy. My purpose is to get it off the TiVo so it isn't taking up MPEG2 space there. After the TTG transfer, I delete it from the TiVo. Then later I transfer it back via pyTiVo or StreamBaby, just for the purpose of viewing -- then delete it again. Effectively I only use ONE copy.
> This seems like a "fair use" to me.


That usage of Copy One Gen marked content is actually allowed by both the DFAST and CableCARD licenses, but only if the recording device does the automatic deletion after copying. TiVo does not implement this.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

dlfl said:


> Also, I won't be doing this with Pay-per-view content. I honor the requirement that I'm paying for just one view.


Pay VOD also can be marked Copy Never and it can be viewed as many times as you want during the rental period (typically 24 hours--should be at least 28-30 hours, to give people who started it on one evening a chance to finish it the next evening).


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> My additional thoughts on three aspects:
> 
> 1. Legal and logical -- I know of no legal requirement for a provider (CATV, FIOS, or Satellite) to set copy protection on ALL it's digital content as Time Warner does. In fact neither ComCast nor Verizon FIOS do this. Also, Time Warner provides many of the same channels in analog form with no copy protection. Are the other providers all illegal? Or is Time Warner just taking an easy way out?
> 
> ...


While I agree with your frustration with the CCI flag, I believe the FCC has a regulation that requires that CE devices follow the CCI flag. That gives the legal authority to set the CCI flag and have it honored.

Circumventing the CCI flag it could be argued is a violation of the DCMA. While "Betamax" did uphold fair use, IIRC the parts of the DCMA that have been challenged have been upheld by lower courts, I don't think the Supreme Court has weighed in on DCMA as it relates to fair use yet. Once it gets there it a coin toss as to which way it would go. This court seems very pro business and development as evidenced by the Eminent Domain case that gave government the right to to take away peoples property and give it to someone else just because it can be developed and get more taxes from it than it was getting.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

dlfl said:


> The proper form of the question for my particular case is:
> 
> _Is beating copy protection illegal for Time Warner Cable digital channels, which are ALL copy protected, except for a few OTA channels._
> 
> Here is a *** Lauren Weinstein Blog **that pretty much expresses my perspective on the situation.


I am pretty sure ALL OTA channels have to be set at CCI 0x00. IMO 0x00 should be the default unless specifically requested by THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER not at the discretion of the cable company.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

JWThiers said:


> I am pretty sure ALL OTA channels have to be set at CCI 0x00. IMO 0x00 should be the default unless specifically requested by THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER not at the discretion of the cable company.


That's a possibly defensible rule, but it's not the law and is not required by any regulation. And if it were a proposed rule, TW would argue that they don't have the setup or resources to track every single show, and thus their approach is the only feasible one that can preserve the rights of THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. I'm afraid that if your rule gets strongly argued, the end result is that Comcast and company will have to be more restrictive for at least the short term.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

CrispyCritter said:


> That's a possibly defensible rule, but it's not the law and is not required by any regulation. And if it were a proposed rule, TW would argue that they don't have the setup or resources to track every single show, and thus their approach is the only feasible one that can preserve the rights of THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. I'm afraid that if your rule gets strongly argued, the end result is that Comcast and company will have to be more restrictive for at least the short term.


Around here Comcast is already restrictive. Comcast is too restrictive and FIOS is too lenient. The solution is somewhere in the middle.

Like the premium channels should be restricted but the regular cable channels aren't. FIOS doesn't restrict anything, and Comcast around here is all over the place. Pick ten episodes of a show and several may be restricted for some reason while the rest are not. And it's the same with the Premium channels on Comcast around here. It's never consistent.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

CrispyCritter said:


> That's a possibly defensible rule, but it's not the law and is not required by any regulation. And if it were a proposed rule, TW would argue that they don't have the setup or resources to track every single show, and thus their approach is the only feasible one that can preserve the rights of THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. I'm afraid that if your rule gets strongly argued, the end result is that Comcast and company will have to be more restrictive for at least the short term.


It shouldn't necessarily be the decision of individual copyright holders (though that would be nice, and very feasible, since CCI can be embedded in the MPEG stream provided to the cable providers); it should be decided by those who provide the content to the cable company, the cable networks. The FCC should really amend the regs to state that.

People tend to think of Supreme Court decisions, like Sony v. Universal Studios ("Betamax") as inviolable. On one level they are--they are lasting interpretations of the law, which hold until the SC should revisit that interpretation and decide something else. However, the law can change or be amended, making SC decisions about the old law moot. The "Betamax" decision made a creative interpretation of Title 17, Chapter 1 §107, the "Fair Use" section of US copyright law, which had nothing to do with recording television. As written, it gives scholars, students and journalists the right to include portions of copyrighted works--but no substantial part of the whole--in their productive output. The purpose of "Fair Use" was to prevent copyright from constraining public discourse about ideas whose popular expression is contained in copyrighted works. (For example, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I have a dream" speech is copyrighted, applied for by Dr. King himself and held by his estate. Certainly, people using excerpts in thesis, term papers and news specials shouldn't have to pay the King estate). Somehow the 5 members of the 1984 SC decided that the "Fair Use" provision could be interpreted as meaning that it's okay to record whole copyrighted works for non-productive use. In any case, the decision had nothing to do with pay or subscription cable or "place-shifting"--it concerned itself with time-shifting free over-the-air broadcasts, and though Copy One Generation marked content on cable isn't free OTA broadcast, you can time-shift it with a DVR.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

here is a pretty clear description of how the CCI flag is implemented in practice from a user point of view not legal terms. Is it the way the law reads? I'm sure the Cable Co's are right on the line when it comes to what they can and can't do to the letter of the particular regulation, NOT taking into account fair use of course or consumers who just want to be able to keep a copy of a show for later viewing like a VHS tape.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

CrispyCritter said:


> That's a possibly defensible rule, but it's not the law and is not required by any regulation. And if it were a proposed rule, TW would argue that they don't have the setup or resources to track every single show, and thus their approach is the only feasible one that can preserve the rights of THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. I'm afraid that if your rule gets strongly argued, the end result is that Comcast and company will have to be more restrictive for at least the short term.


Sorry for the confusion when I said COPYRIGHT holder I was meaning the original broadcaster HBO Cinemax, Showtime, DIY, Discovery etc. In fact there is no reason that these groups who are already encoding the shows for transmission can't encode in the CCI flag themselves. TWC, BHN and the like shouldn't have to do that for them they should be transcoding the content into something usable by them and putting it onto the assigned channel. If HBO doesn't want you to be able to move stuff around freely, I don't like it but it is their right, If Discovery does want me to be able to then they should have thatt say so also.


----------



## CrispyCritter (Feb 28, 2001)

JWThiers said:


> Sorry for the confusion when I said COPYRIGHT holder I was meaning the original broadcaster HBO Cinemax, Showtime, DIY, Discovery etc.


Ahhh, that's very different. Yes, I'm fine with the idea that the cable companies can't change the protection that is on the show from the distributor they get it from. That allows protection at the appropriate spot.

It is worth considering how much Time-Warner being a producer of such materials has let that influence their cable company decisions.


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

CrispyCritter said:


> Ahhh, that's very different. Yes, I'm fine with the idea that the cable companies can't change the protection that is on the show from the distributor they get it from. That allows protection at the appropriate spot.
> 
> It is worth considering how much Time-Warner being a producer of such materials has let that influence their cable company decisions.


I doubt the Premium movie channels would allow much more than they already have but some of the other basic cable channels would probably go for it.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Cox Cable appears to be following Time Warner's lead according to this recent post by a Cox user in Arizona.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

mikeyts said:


> That usage of Copy One Gen marked content is actually allowed by both the DFAST and CableCARD licenses, but only if the recording device does the automatic deletion after copying. TiVo does not implement this.


So.... If TiVo made their software so it automatically deleted the TiVo copy of the file after a TTG transfer it would be legal, correct?

As a TTG (and not MRV) user, I would find that perfectly acceptable. Not sure what the technical difficulties might be for TiVo, e.g., since TTG transfers ocassionally fail, I would prefer the TiVo software detect such failures and not delete the TiVo copy until after a successful transfer. However such failures are so rare for me personally that I could live without that error recovery mechanism.

MRV might be different set of technical issues.

I suspect TTG user satisfaction is way down on TiVo's priority list, so the chances of such software mods are probably nil. Oh Well.....


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

dlfl said:


> So.... If TiVo made their software so it automatically deleted the TiVo copy of the file after a TTG transfer it would be legal, correct?


Doubtful. Once you have the .TiVo file, there's nothing to prevent you from copying it as many times as you want.


----------



## Stephen Tu (May 10, 1999)

> The Supreme Court "Betamax" decision decades ago established the fair use rights of consumers to make copies of television programs, and save them on videocassettes.


If you read the decision carefully, you'll see that time-shifting of free broadcast content was considered fair use, but "librarying", building up a collection for permanent use was not. Recording something & watching later to me is fair; building up a huge library of HBO movies in lieu of buying the DVD/Blu-rays is not fair use. The latter practice harms the copyright holder's value in being able to sell you a copy for your personal use.


----------



## Wpride33 (Sep 25, 2002)

mikeyts said:


> It shouldn't necessarily be the decision of individual copyright holders (though that would be nice, and very feasible, since CCI can be embedded in the MPEG stream provided to the cable providers); it should be decided by those who provide the content to the cable company, the cable networks. The FCC should really amend the regs to state that.
> 
> People tend to think of Supreme Court decisions, like Sony v. Universal Studios ("Betamax") as inviolable. On one level they are--they are lasting interpretations of the law, which hold until the SC should revisit that interpretation and decide something else. However, the law can change or be amended, making SC decisions about the old law moot. The "Betamax" decision made a creative interpretation of Title 17, Chapter 1 §107, the "Fair Use" section of US copyright law, which had nothing to do with recording television. As written, it gives scholars, students and journalists the right to include portions of copyrighted works--but no substantial part of the whole--in their productive output. The purpose of "Fair Use" was to prevent copyright from constraining public discourse about ideas whose popular expression is contained in copyrighted works. (For example, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I have a dream" speech is copyrighted, applied for by Dr. King himself and held by his estate. Certainly, people using excerpts in thesis, term papers and news specials shouldn't have to pay the King estate). Somehow the 5 members of the 1984 SC decided that the "Fair Use" provision could be interpreted as meaning that it's okay to record whole copyrighted works for non-productive use. In any case, the decision had nothing to do with pay or subscription cable or "place-shifting"--it concerned itself with time-shifting free over-the-air broadcasts, and though Copy One Generation marked content on cable isn't free OTA broadcast, you can time-shift it with a DVR.


That's a poor (bordering on inaccurate) characterization of the Sony holding.


----------



## mikeyts (Jul 10, 2004)

Wpride33 said:


> That's a poor (bordering on inaccurate) characterization of the Sony holding.


I've read the text of the decision and dissent (which overturns a circuit court's reversal of a district court judgement in favor of Sony). What do you find to be poor or inaccurate about my "characterization" of it? (And here we go down the rathole... ).


----------



## JWThiers (Apr 13, 2005)

mikeyts said:


> I've read the text of the decision and dissent (which overturns a circuit court's reversal of a district court judgement in favor of Sony). What do you find to be poor or inaccurate about my "characterization" of it? (And here we go down the rathole... ).


Thats OK I have one of those head mounted lights. They are great for crawling in rat holes and still keep your hands free to do other things.


----------

