Most likely someone ruined the discussion by giving away info about tape trading.
Anyways, this is discussion that should be taken else where, I don't believe mma.tv wants to do with ANYTHING having to do with legal rights about tape trading/ehh recording.
E-mail UFC.TV about this if you guys are so overly concerned with the law, I'm sure they could clarify it much better than legal wannabes on the UG.
Plenty of case law has clarified the Sony case: it is not illegal to record the UFC on tivo, vcr, dvd, or anything if you are just using it for your own personal purposes. If you try to use it for COMMERCIAL purposes, however, you would be breaking the law.
This is the law as interpreted by the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT - live with it.
Until new legilsation is drafted (or the USSC holds differently), it is not a copyright violation to record the UFC.
"* It has never been held to be illegal, so it is simply not yet
illegal. That could change, though. The burden is on the
person trying to prove illegality. "
Goku was saying this as well. I thought that reproducing the
PPV was a clear violation of 106(1) and that as such, this
would be the law. Are you saying that Copyrighted material
does not have 106 exclusive rights unless a court rules
spicifically on the point on a case by case basis? Interesting.
* If a content provider has the option of copy-protecting, but
does not choose to do so, then that is implicit authorization, if
the copying is reasonable and customary. "
This implicit authorization is something that you are implying,
right? The implications could go either way, right? Nothing
says that it is OK to record PPV with or without the
copyprotections. As such, it does not say anywhere that if the
PPV is broadcasted with a copyprotection on it that it is
illiegal to copy it, it would just be more difficult.
-jk
jhill,
"If you try to use it for COMMERCIAL purposes, however, you
would be breaking the law.
This is the law as interpreted by the UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT - live with it."
I'm not doubting you, but I want your source for where the
supreme court has ruled on the PPV issue, or cases that
have interpreted The Ct. and have applied it to PPV.
Goku,
Good fucking point. The affirmative defense angle was
"clarified" by my prof. as being an admission of a violation of
the act. I even asked him about this specifically. This does
not seem to be the case as you point out.
-jk
*hugs jhill & runs to mail 3 UFC tapes to Australia*
:-)
**trips momita as he runs for the mailbox, grabs his copies of
the UFC and throws them in the trash and calls the feds**
;)
-jk
"I love the way the UG laws are applicable to some members and others seem to have diplomatic immunity."
How can i get that?
I read the thread and I saw no reason why it would be deleted. It baffles me as to who/what/where/when/why it has disappeared. If I knew how I would try to figure out what happened. Im sure some mods know how to do it, just I dont.
**trips momita as he runs for the mailbox, grabs his copies of the UFC and throws them in the trash and calls the feds**
*jumps up & down for joy because they will be looking for a man*
:-)
Wow, a thread with harmless debate deleted for no apparent reason and a deletion of a post making fun of a mod b/c of that mod's making fun of a pro-member (OG related)... hmmm, and we have to pay $29.00 for pro-membership....hmmm
Jump Kick,
I work with copyright attorneys on a daily basis. I am also a law student. I do not need to cite cases nor do I need to cite statutory authority. I mentioned the Sony case - go to Westlaw and key cite it to see which cases have clarified it. You will find that I am right and you are wrong.
jhill,
"I work with copyright attorneys on a daily basis. I am also a law student. I do not need to cite cases nor do I need to cite statutory authority."
Well you don't have to do anything, but you are not going to prove anything by rattling off your credentials. The SONY case has been discussed, and it dealt with free broadcasts.
GrumpyGorilla,
Again, it was an important factor in the SONY case that the recorded material was of a free broadcast. Maybe this has been further interpreted to mean PPV, but nobody has shown this to be the case. It has been claimed, but not shown.
-jk
Jump Kick,
Again, go to Westlaw and key cite the Sony case (like I said in my last post) to see how it has been clarified and applied to pay-per-view cases.
Once again - IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO RECORD THE UFC ON PPV. This is not an issue the court has left open for discussion, it has been decided.
Try again.
hmmm, was there really a conflict with a mod?
I'm sick of moderators deleting things that aren't aginst the rules.
I think Kirik needs to pare down the number of mods on this site.
he will .......... when this happens ...............
lol, that sign would be really funny if the ice weren't photoshopped.
I think Kirik needs to pare down the number of mods on this site.I disagree. He just needs to make them directly accountable for their actions to paying customers, which they are not.I plan to abide by this, and will encourage others to do so:I will not be renewing here unless I have the assurance that threads/posts will not just disappear with no notice and no accounting. My money can be used for other things. There is no good excuse for unaccountability.
Thanks to all who have left constructive comments on this
thread. To all of the others, well, may your intellectual
property be violated in the future.
I am still learning. Thank you for the input. This was a good
learning experience, and for all of those pricks out there, well
may the fleas of a thousand camel infest your armpits.
Cheers.
-jk
*runs to shave armpits quickly*