Interesting article...if MLB wins Placeshifting will be ILLEGAL

[phenixdragon]

http://news.com.com/Major+League+Bas...l?tag=nefd.top

[dbfresh23]

I think you're reading into this too much. Last time I checked MLB wasn't run by congress - thus cannot make it illegal. MLB will lose because this essentially should fall under the fair use act. MLB has the worst broadcasting policies of any sports organization. The blackout policy they have basically prohibits me from watching my local team if I were to order their online broadcasts from MLB.TV. If anyone had legal standing to oppose a technology like this I think we'd have seen someone else find it before MLB.

[phenixdragon]

umm I think you need to learn how the laws works here. Courts basically decide what the law is now. If MLB wins in the courts, then at some point any device or software that does the same thing as Slingbox (which placeshifting does) will be shutdown or forced to remove that feature as they will say its illegal. Now I'm not saying I agree with it and it is jacked up how the courts basically make their own laws but thats reality.

And as time goes on more and move devices will come out features like this and just like with Napster the main boy will be shutdown and others to follow at some point.

And fair use is junk. It's all being reworked as we speak as they are already passing new laws to it and really, in the end, the users will be hurt and the bigwigs will win. They already are and have on the music side.

[phenixdragon]

BTW, after doing some reading online you will find MLB isn't the first to bring up the legality and even MSFT has held off before adding this feature in Media Center because there are legal issues they are working out.

[dbfresh23]

ummm I think you need to google separation of powers...

[src666]

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

ummm I think you need to google separation of powers...

Or Google "How things work in the real world, as opposed to an idealized reading of the Constitution."

Courts are making/modifying law daily. A court decision makes precedent, which is then cited in other cases, which is then used by other courts, which eventually becomes de facto law. It's called interpretation, and Judges rarely have a problem with turning cases based upon their personal opinions/biases rather than the black letter law.

[mikejaner]

They already are and have on the music side.

I can still copy any CD I want, so law or not, I don't see this the same as you.

Law or not, the consumer has the ultimate power, because if it makes everyone unhappy, they won't buy the movies or music. Then the music and movie industries will have to change back.

[dbfresh23]

Originally Posted by src666

Or Google "How things work in the real world, as opposed to an idealized reading of the Constitution."

Courts are making/modifying law daily. A court decision makes precedent, which is then cited in other cases, which is then used by other courts, which eventually becomes de facto law. It's called interpretation, and Judges rarely have a problem with turning cases based upon their personal opinions/biases rather than the black letter law.

Courts aren't making/modifying laws, they are simply interpreting them. I don't disagree that Judges think they should have the power to make a de facto law, I was just saying that it is not a written law unless congress says so. Either way, MLB isn't exactly on good terms with any part of the law at this point with all the steroid stuff going on...

[blade]

Originally Posted by dbfresh23

Courts aren't making/modifying laws, they are simply interpreting them. I don't disagree that Judges think they should have the power to make a de facto law, I was just saying that it is not a written law unless congress says so. Either way, MLB isn't exactly on good terms with any part of the law at this point with all the steroid stuff going on...

You might want to read up on case law and precedent. Written laws aren't the only laws.

[dbfresh23]

This is a stupid argument to be having here, but precedent is not law - it's a referral back to a previous interpretation of the law.

[JUC]

everyone's right here....kind of anyway. while precedent is certainly not concrete like statutory and constitutional laws, stare decisis (a policy!) dictates that case law should be followed and adhered to if certain facts are similar between given cases. This is especially true for superior court decisions and how lower courts interpret their holdings. Some case law is more pursuasive than others and courts will often give more credence to those--further strenthening past precedents and case law in general. This of course follows modern theories regarding a 'living constitution' and Supreme Court jurisprudence (of which I have no intention of getting into now and many people are opposed to). There, didn't really add much to the conversation but thought I would share some info in an area of interest.
JUC

[mikejaner]

I can tell you one thing for sure. Even if MLB paid me to watch their content, I wouldn't do it. I find it less painfull to fall asleep out of boredom by staring at the wall.

[dbfresh23]

Originally Posted by mikejaner

I can tell you one thing for sure. Even if MLB paid me to watch their content, I wouldn't do it. I find it less painfull to fall asleep out of boredom by staring at the wall.

Heh, and baseball is the only sport I can still watch and enjoy.

[paulbeers]

I am quite a fan of Women's beach volleyball, Cheerleading competitions, Women's Swimming/Diving and Women's Tennis. Those are great sports to watch!

[salsbst]

I can't wait for the NFL season!

In the meantime, I am attending my first Washington Nationals game tonight in the rundown RFK Stadium. Another thing I can't wait for (okay, maybe I can) is the new stadium planned for them.

On the courts/legislation front, I'd just echo dbfresh and JUC, so I won't bother.

On the subject of placeshifting, it's obviously a toughie. The principle that I follow is that if content providers want to control how we consume or manage the content once delivered, they should do so technologically rather than legally. Of course, this is what has led to all of the DRM that is arriving, and while I abhor it, I think it's better than using legislation (or the interpretation thereof) to control behavior in this arena.

Net neutrality on the other hand... don't get me started.