
Copyright Doesn't Mean Unlimited Control - dwaxe
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/copyright-doesnt-mean-unlimited-control
======
Nomentatus
I can't help but think that in this matter EFF (which I generally support) is
far off the mark - at least re what the FCC is actually doing. Here's a quote
from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler:

"There is nothing in here that allows third parties to disaggregate cable
content or sell advertising around it... It takes the same system that goes to
the cable box today with the same structures and moves it through a different
box requiring the same structures. As a result, existing copyrights and
programming agreements are unaffected, consumer privacy is protected,
emergency alerts are passed through and child protection laws are unaffected.
Nothing in this proposal slows down or stops cable innovation."

In other words, the current copyright aggreements don't insist on a particular
box, so the FCC is able to step in to insist on more competition in that
regard - thus preventing cable companies from leveraging someone else's
legitimate monopoly into a different unsanctioned monopoly of their own.

But could copyrightholders could be that specific? Could they insist on a
particular means of reproduction (as they could with a printer.) Maybe.

However note that long established law finds that after you broadcast a
copyrighted work, this narrows your rights. For example, see this perhaps
extreme view of a recent EU decision:
[https://falkvinge.net/2015/05/05/a-year-ago-the-european-
sup...](https://falkvinge.net/2015/05/05/a-year-ago-the-european-supreme-
court-appears-to-have-ruled-the-whole-web-is-in-the-public-domain-and-nobody-
noticed/)

~~~
mcherm
I am not sure I understand your issue with the EFF's position.

The EFF is _supporting_ the FCC's right to require set-top-box compatibility;
their article says "copyright law prohibits copying, not 'doing anything with
it' so we think that as a matter of law, the cable companies telling you not
to use this regulation are simply wrong".

Do you disagree with this? When you say:

> Could they insist on a particular means of reproduction (as they could with
> a printer.) Maybe.

are you suggesting that you think the copyright holders have a legal right to
restrict what your set-top-box can do? If so, do you think that they ALSO have
a legal right to restrict what your television set can do?

------
kazinator
> _A television set is worthless without video programming to view, and a home
> audio system has little purpose without music. One could argue that the
> commercial value of these devices derives from the copyrighted works they
> touch._

It's said that this sort of argumentation is still needed: it is home video
tape recorders all over again.

------
ams6110
Of course the cable companies don't want this, because they charge exhorbitant
monthly fees for the use of their hideous set-top boxes. It's just a pure cash
cow for them.

