Category: Misc.
Original copyright presumed that the likes of Jack Valenti are bad guys, perhaps not criminals, but something close to that. There's something immoral about letting someone else do the work (the author), then earn money with it yourself (another distinction that seems to be lost nowadays).
The courts are correct in making a distinction between copying that is required to watch a film that you own, and copying that will let you give a film away on the internet. What the courts sometimes seem to fail to see, however, is that they should not regulate what's happening in the privacy of one's home. If somebody is sharing files, that should be considered a private action, even though it is also an act of publication. What you see now with the Skylink case is that the judges need to come up with all kinds of curious reasons (access vs. copying) to justify law that is intended to help bring copyright into the home.
Permalink to Comment