In this digital age that we are now on the verge of, content producers are having to ensure their rights are protected. But do their arguments sometimes go too far?
Cablevision recently won a court case against content producers who had accused the company of breaking copyright laws by the use of a Tivo-like remote DVR.
We’ve already heard from Sherwin Siy how the appeal court’s decision was correct, and constituted a victory for home recording. Here, he discusses the wider implications related to buffering for all video streaming sites.
Why the Cablevision Decision Matters
In my post from Monday, I laid out a very
brief outline of some of the conclusions reached by the Second Circuit
in its Cablevision decision
on remote DVRs. Today, I want to take a step back and discuss why it
was so important for the development of digital media and technology.
Two theories espoused by the TV networks
in the case were extraordinarily dangerous for copyright law. The first
was that fleeting, transitory copies like buffer copies could make
someone liable for copyright infringement. The second was that the
provider of a product or service could be directly liable for
infringement when the actual copying was done by someone else entirely.
Buffer Copies
Rashmi’s talked
about
the buffer copy theory in relation to the Copyright Office’s
section
115 rulemaking, but I think it’s still worth mentioning the
basics: A
buffer copy is a copy that is made in the course of digital transfer.
It’s not intended to be directly viewed, accessed, or used by
anyone.
It’s just a step in the relay of information from one source
to
another.
Trying to count this as a “copy” in the
sense of copyright law
makes little sense. In the end, whether the process used to get a
streaming video from a server to my PC makes two or two thousand buffer
copies in the process, it doesn’t matter (for copyright
purposes—let’s
ignore system resources for now) to me, the sender, or the copyright
owner.
(more…)