Well, in his haste to be clever, he might have bothered to look up the law in question. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a US law, true, but its purpose was to enact into law treaties agreed to at the World Intellectual Property conference in 1996. Specifically, the WIPO treaties outlaw piracy of copyrighted material. And Sweden is a signatory of those treaties. Meaning that he's cooked whether he thinks it's silly or not. I would venture a guess that his "lawyers" are his beer buddies-- I would hate to think any lawyer could be dumb enough to misinterpret a situation that badly.
So the question is if they make these sites, say, co-op's, where each user pays a penny, and then becomes an owner of the technology, would it then be legal? It would pretty much be like Tivo.
I understand your points Kagy, but in the end I don't really see a difference between remembering to tape something on tv so that you can watch it later, or starting a download so that you can watch a show later.
Even if it's the issue of commercials not being seen on the downloaded shows, what if they were just included instead of cut out?
If the TV stations release a BitTorrent of my favorites shows with commercials that I cannot skip through, I would definitely download it. This is a great deal for the advertisers, because they can track how many people are downloading the torrents and see how many people are watching their shows. This is even more accurate gauge of product exposure than the regular Nelson family.
this is ridiculous because most of the time i cannot watch the shows i like when they air because of work or school. plus one of the shows i like to watch, Dr. Who airs on BBC and the only way I would get to view it is through downloading it on the internet through bt. not sure what will come of this i think its silly
Provide a legal alternative so users do not "have" to download them illegally? You don't HAVE to download them at all. You say that until they come up with an alternative, there is nothing they can do? Wrong. They can hold you liable for copyright infringement. They can do so either civilly or criminally. Meaning that they can sue you for damages (even the minimum statutory damages are quite steep) or they can refer you to the US Attorney for prosecution. You might not want to be so cavalier about it until you know the state of the law. You say they have to provide an alternative. Not even the DMCA says that. In fact, the DMCA suggests that if you use an ISP to connect to the Internet and you use it to infringe on a copyright, then your ISP could be held liable for contributory infringement. Enjoy.
