Amazon Announces Cloud Player and Cloud Drive

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

... if you don't watch the commercials, you're stealing the show.

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

That's right. You dirty thief. Take your bathroom break after the commercials are done!!
...

Wait! Where'd all the monkeys come from!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

So by analogy, if an online news site complained to your ISP that you had viewed their articles, but their logs showed that you had not viewed their adverts, so you must be using an ad-blocker, so you are infringing their copyright, so if you continue to do so they can apply to have your connection terminated, what would your response be?
Have you ever used ad-blocking software? You dirty thief you

Without the ads on commercial TV, there is no commercial TV. Do you honestly see no ethical issue with watching the product without the ads in that circumstance? It's certainly not copyright infringement, but I do (personally) think that it's just plain "wrong".

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Wait! Where'd all the monkeys come from!

We're everywhere. We've even infiltrated Angry Birds Rio.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

So anyone who goes to the bathroom during a commercial is stealing programming?

To be fair to Mr Kellner, he did add: "there's a certain amount of tolerance for bathroom breaks."
Seriously, you couldn't make this stuff up.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Without the ads on commercial TV, there is no commercial TV. Do you honestly see no ethical issue with watching the product without the ads in that circumstance? It's certainly not copyright infringement, but I do (personally) think that it's just plain "wrong".

Without the ads on commercial websites, there are no commercial websites.
So what would your response be to a threat to disconnect your internet service for using ad-blocking software?
And no, I see no ethical obligation whatsoever to watch adverts.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Without the ads on commercial TV, there is no commercial TV. Do you honestly see no ethical issue with watching the product without the ads in that circumstance? It's certainly not copyright infringement, but I do (personally) think that it's just plain "wrong".

This argument has some flaws. The commercials are sold and bought with the knowledge that everybody that watch the program does not watch the commercials. So I really do not see how you get to feeling that for a specific person it is morally wrong not to watch the commercials. Selling a device that makes everybody not watch the commercials on the other hand is something your argument might work for.

[HarryT]

I don't think this is copyright infringement, so I don't think the question would arise. I'm saying that I think it's unethical; I'm pretty damned sure that it's not illegal.

I ask again: what was the outcome of the case that you quoted?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This happened in 2002. What was the actual outcome? I'd be very surprised if it had been judged to be copyright infringement!

What happened is that they kept the case going long enough to force ReplayTV into bankruptcy from their legal fees.
Oh, and the studios dropped the case, and the EFF's counter suit seeking a declaratory statement that skipping commercials was not infringement was dismissed as not addressing a live issue.
Timeshifting was not fully recognised as legal until 2008, when the court of appeals overturned the ruling in Fox v Cablevision.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't think this is copyright infringement, so I don't think the question would arise. I'm saying that I think it's unethical; I'm pretty damned sure that it's not illegal.

The question does arise.
It doesn't matter whether it is infringement or not, it matters whether the rightsowner claims it it is infringement or not.
There is nothing in the DEA act that allows your ISP to reject a complaint because they do not think it is a valid claim of infringement.
If the rightsholders make a complaint against you, that complaint will be logged by your ISP, and you will be warned.
So I ask again, what would your response be? Would you 'consider that they are in a better position to determine the licensing terms of their own products than I am'?

124AObligation to notify subscribers of copyright infringement reports

(1)This section applies if it appears to a copyright owner that—

(a)a subscriber to an internet access service has infringed the owner's copyright by means of the service; or

(b)a subscriber to an internet access service has allowed another person to use the service, and that other person has infringed the owner's copyright by means of the service.

(2)The owner may make a copyright infringement report to the internet service provider who provided the internet access service if a code in force under section 124C or 124D (an “initial obligations code”) allows the owner to do so.

(3)A “copyright infringement report” is a report that—

(a)states that there appears to have been an infringement of the owner's copyright;

(b)includes a description of the apparent infringement;

(c)includes evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the subscriber's IP address and the time at which the evidence was gathered;

(d)is sent to the internet service provider within the period of 1 month beginning with the day on which the evidence was gathered; and

(e)complies with any other requirement of the initial obligations code.

(4)An internet service provider who receives a copyright infringement report must notify the subscriber of the report if the initial obligations code requires the provider to do so.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

What happened is that they kept the case going long enough to force ReplayTV into bankruptcy from their legal fees.
Oh, and the studios dropped the case, and the EFF's counter suit seeking a declaratory statement that skipping commercials was not infringement was dismissed as not addressing a live issue.

Thank you. So there's been no legal ruling as to whether or not skipping commercials constitutes copyright infringement? I don't think it is, personally, but the law doesn't always make rational decisions.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The question does arise.
It doesn't matter whether it is infringement or not, it matters whether the rightsowner claims it it is infringement or not.
There is nothing in the DEA act that allows your ISP to reject a complaint because they do not think it is a valid claim of infringement.
If the rightsholders make a complaint against you, that complaint will be logged by your ISP, and you will be warned.
So I ask again, what would your response be? Would you 'consider that they are in a better position to determine the licensing terms of their own products than I am'?

My response would be, if it were a groundless accusation "accuse away". Because you're rather missing the point: this is the first stage in the process and has no effect on the consumer.

The next stage in the process is that the rights-holder can request an "anonymised" list from the ISP of all customers who have exceeded a certain level of complaints in a given time period (that period to be defined by OfCom regulations). They then have to go to court, present their evidence to the court, and get a court order for the ISP to release subscriber information. At that point, if they wish, they can institute legal proceedings for copyright infringement through the courts.

ie, although the initial accusion requires no legal proof, the subsequent steps in the process DO involve the courts - very much so - and no alleged infringer faces punishment without the ability to defend themselves in court.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This happened in 2002. What was the actual outcome? I'd be very surprised if it had been judged to be copyright infringement!

The one I remember they changed it so that it fast forwarded through the adverts like a VCR instead of just jumping to the end of them. Whether they did it voluntarily or not I don't know.

Under the DEA of course, the mere accusation that it infringed copyright would be enough to have it banned. So it's probably just as well that law didn't exist when VCRs first came out. Or mp3 players, come to that. Still, at least everything useful has already been invented.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

ie, although the initial accusion requires no legal proof, the subsequent steps in the process DO involve the courts - very much so - and no alleged infringer faces punishment without the ability to defend themselves in court.

Assuming they can afford to defend themselves without Legal Aid, how would they go about proving their innocence? Remember that the burden of proof is on the accused not the accuser. The accuser needs to present no evidence of wrongdoing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Assuming they can afford to defend themselves without Legal Aid, how would they go about proving their innocence? Remember that the burden of proof is on the accused not the accuser. The accuser needs to present no evidence of wrongdoing.

No, that's not the case. All the current legislation provides for is the process that I outlined about. ie:

1. Accuser makes allegation of copyright infringement to ISP.
2. ISP issues warning.
3. Periodically, rights holder can request anonymised list of subscribers who have exceeded a specified number of infringement allegations in a given period.
4. Rights holder presents evidence of wrongdoing to court.
5. Court issues order for ISP to disclose personal information.
6. Rights holder takes copyright infringement action against alleged infringer through the courts.

That's the limit of the law as it currently stands. In steps 4 and 6, evidence has to be presented to a court, just as it did under previous legislation. There's no change in the burden of guilt: it's still "innocent until proven guilty". Really the only change that the DEA makes is steps 1-3. A rights-holder accusing someone of copyright infringement has to provide exactly the same evidence to a court as they would have done previously.

[kennyc]

I just got an email from Amazon announcing this, cloud and cloud player...

http://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node...42610_19323710