In any event, the court’s decision was a sound one. the mid 1990’s and the Telecommunications Act of 1996). Though this would set a clear precedent for dealing with time shifters and the developers of time shifting technology, but would have likely caused a chilling effect on the technology boom which America was on the brink of (e.g. The decision of the 9 th Circuit was nearly affirmed as well. ![]() The decision of the 1984 Betamax case was a difficult decision. (Russel, A., 2008)īy protecting the right of the individual end user, the court has neglected to provide sufficient protection for the copyright holders. The companies who produce place shifting devices in most cases claim to provide anti-piracy measures to ensure that there is minimal risk for foul play amongst end users, but the end users have been able to get around these preventative measures in most cases. An example of this would be devices such as Sony’s Location Free, Ivi TV and Monsoon’s HAVA these devices allow an end user to store media on them and then stream the media nearly instantaneously over the internet to a laptop computer or other mobile device. Place shifting, on the other hand, is the act of storing media on a device which then is able to remotely broadcast the media to another device. However, what makes the two distinct is that time shifters are simply viewing their chosen media on a device which stores said media locally the media is recorded and stays on one device until it is watched at the time of the end user’s choosing. ![]() ![]() Place shifting is indeed quite similar to time shifting in almost all respects.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |