Corante

AUTHORS

Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )

About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development, and technological innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying and the law, and more.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

COPYFIGHTERS
a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Benlog
beSpacific
bIPlog
Blogaritaville
Blogbook IP
BoingBoing
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
CoCo
Commons-blog
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyfutures
Copyright Readings
Copyrighteous
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Detritus
Julian Dibbell
DigitalConsumer
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
DTM:<|
Electrolite
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
GrepLaw
James Grimmelmann
GrokLaw
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
ICANNWatch.org
Illegal-art.org
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
IPTAblog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
LawMeme.org
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
miniLinks
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Napsterization
Nerdlaw
NQB
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Slapnose
Slashdot.org
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Teleread
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
Weblogg-ed
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

LINKABLE + THINKABLE
AKMA
Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
bk
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crawlspace
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Dispositive
Ben Edelman
EEJD
Ernie the Attorney
FedLawyerGuy
Foreword
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IPnewsblog
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Kuro5hin.org
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
Misbehaving
MIT Tech Review
NewsGrist
OtherMag
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
PHOSITA
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

ORGANIZATIONS
ARL
Berkman @ Harvard
CDT
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
CPSR
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
DigitalConsumer.org
DFC
EFF
EPIC
FIPR
FCC
FEPP
FSF
Global Internet Proj.
ICANN
IETF
ILPF
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
PFF
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office
W3C


In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Copyfight

« It Is All About Locking Down the System | Main | Burning DRM's CDs »

June 2, 2004

Cable Theft or Cable Sharing?

Email This Entry

Posted by Ernest Miller

The Wichita Eagle warns readers that the local cable provider is cracking down on those who are illicitly receiving cable signals as part of the cable industry's national Signal Theft Awareness Week (Cable TV isn't a free-for-all).

"A lot of people don't really see stealing cable as a crime," said Kristin Peck, director of public affairs for Cox [Wichita's cable provider].

That raises a good question. Why is it cable theft and not cable sharing? Assuming that the illicit taps into the cable system don't interfere with other's use by degrading the signal or causing frequency interference, why should cable sharing be wrong? If enough people do it (an estimated 15,000 in Wichita, or ~4.5% of the population) shouldn't it be legal? Doesn't the cable company rip people off by charging too much and by charging for channels they don't want or watch? Shouldn't people be allowed to sample, as long as they buy the DVD set later?

Discuss.

Comments (13) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Big Thoughts


COMMENTS

1. Collin on June 2, 2004 10:56 AM writes...

My favorite line from the article:

"Passive theft occurs when a resident moves into a home where the cable is active but does not report it to the company"

My appartment has cable outlets, but I've never subscribed. I've never plugged in a TV to see if there's a signal on the cable. Maybe I should, so I can see if I'm committing "passive theft" without even knowing.

Permalink to Comment

2. rkrjrdn on June 2, 2004 11:04 AM writes...

This sounds like a law school exam question.

Permalink to Comment

3. Mike liveright on June 2, 2004 12:18 PM writes...

I want as much open access as I can "reasonably" get but also want to have a free enterprise model that allows the creation of copyright material.

On this basis, I would vote that tapping off of the Cable is theft where as if I am one person, I should expect to be able to use a second cable converter, e.g. for my bedroom, without significant cost.

This sort of goes along with the idea that cable service, DVD's, software, etc. should be licensed like books. One simultaneous use at a time.

Permalink to Comment

4. Brad Hutchings on June 2, 2004 4:38 PM writes...

Yeah, it sounds like a law school question. Here's the answer: Because it is against the law to share cable. It likely also violates the usage contract. If you don't like the product, the terms, or the price, here's an idea... don't sign up.

If enough people do it ... shouldn't it be legal?

So now the Copyfight is about preserving the rights of drunk college guys to force themselves on women. You go guy! </sarcasm>

Permalink to Comment

5. Ernest Miller on June 3, 2004 6:55 AM writes...

Ah Brad,

You missed the point of this exercise. The point was not promote cable stealing, but to ridicule some of the facile arguments used to justify file sharing.

Permalink to Comment

6. cypherpunk on June 3, 2004 12:27 PM writes...

Wow... so that was satirical? I wonder if anyone caught it? It sure sounded like a million other arguments I've seen on this page and elsewhere. Hmmm... I wonder how many other postings on this site are also attempts at satire?

Permalink to Comment

7. Ernest Miller on June 3, 2004 12:33 PM writes...

Oh, come on now, cypherpunk. You've read my stuff for awhile. You, if anyone, should have gotten it.

Permalink to Comment

8. Brad Hutchings on June 3, 2004 5:10 PM writes...

I don't know what to believe anymore! Ernest, your post seemed a bit over the top, but maybe that's the problem distinguishing it as subtle satire... it was just "a bit".

The facile arguments for cable sharing or file sharing unfortunately are the strong arguments for it. Seriously Ernest, all you have to do is come up with a convincing argument that file sharing will make copyright owners as rich or more rich than traditional distribution, and you win the battle. It's that simple. Same with dropping DRM. Perhaps the larger market data is open to interpretation, but I can tell you that from an individual copyright holder's perspective, you clobber your revenues when you don't give people the right encouragement (hurdles) to buy.

Permalink to Comment

9. Ernest Miller on June 3, 2004 5:22 PM writes...

Brad,

I can't make the argument that copyright owners are going to become wealthier under a new business model. Some will thrive, many will fail. That is known as creative destruction.

I've never said that using DRM doesn't make sense from the point of view of an Apple or an RIAA - for them it makes a lot of sense. My concern is that it doesn't make sense to enforce DRM through law. After all, it would make sense for Chrysler to have a monopoly on gasoline for their cars. However, from society's point of view, it wouldn't make sense to enforce that monopoly.

Permalink to Comment

10. cypherpunk on June 3, 2004 8:36 PM writes...

Do you think it would make sense to enforce laws that would set up such a monopoly as part of the sales contract? So Chrysler could make you agree to buy only Chrysler Gas as a condition of buying a Chrysler car? And then if you found out that Arco Gas could also work in your car and was cheaper, Chrysler could then sue you for breach of contract if you used Arco? What do you think about those kinds of laws and contracts?

Permalink to Comment

11. Ernest Miller on June 3, 2004 8:49 PM writes...

I would think it is likely to be a contract of adhesion and unenforceable on that point. I would think that under existing law there are a number of contract elements that are not permitted for automobile contracts and this would be added to the list, if it wasn't already covered. I would wonder how one would enforce such a contract when you sold the car to another individual.

Permalink to Comment

12. Seth Finkelstein on June 3, 2004 10:37 PM writes...

Ernest, I've got to say, with all the talk of "a la carte" cable channels, and the market for DVD's, I think people can be forgiven for not realizing you intended satire - the real world is too close to that.

Permalink to Comment

13. Chief Auditor on August 17, 2004 1:45 PM writes...

In answer to: "Assuming that the illicit taps into the cable system don't interfere with other's use by degrading the signal or causing frequency interference, why should cable sharing be wrong?"

First, an "illicit tap", under Federal law is "Wire Tap". Does it degrade signal? It sure does. Check this article:
http://bush-waterhouse.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=19&meid=17

It can also affect fire, police and ambulance communications as well as airport navigation systems through loose connections and the use of cheap, poorly shielded cable.

Let me try to shed some more light on the reality of "unauthorized accounts" with a couple of links that may be helpfull.

http://bush-waterhouse.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=8&meid=6

Chief Auditor
Bush-Waterhouse Communications

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Congress Restores Bulk Unlock Rights
When is a Game a Clone?
Subscription Services for Books
Lest You Had Any Doubts, the ALA is on the Right Side Again
Deadly Effects of Unaffordable Medicines (TPP)
Planet Money on the Case Against Patents
FMC + Musicians vs FCC on Net Neutrality
Be the Potato Salad