<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hollywood sues Cablevision over network DVR</title>
	<link>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/3106</link>
	<description>Independent Tech News and Product Reviews from former VP and head of CNET.com and Longtime Computer Shopper Columnist, Alice Hill author of the popular "Hard Edge" column. Originally named AliceandBill.com.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:35:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Doug Felteau</title>
		<link>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/3106#comment-31638</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 17:27:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/3106#comment-31638</guid>
					<description>I got the copyright bit alright, but I suppose that the way I see it, the material is still going to be TiVo'ed one way or the other, either by the end-user or the cable provider. But my main gripe was really that instead of the companies sitting down and discussing it, they've decided as usual, to head to the courtrooms to settle their disputes. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I got the copyright bit alright, but I suppose that the way I see it, the material is still going to be TiVo&#8217;ed one way or the other, either by the end-user or the cable provider. But my main gripe was really that instead of the companies sitting down and discussing it, they&#8217;ve decided as usual, to head to the courtrooms to settle their disputes.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Bob Jones</title>
		<link>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/3106#comment-31626</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 15:14:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/3106#comment-31626</guid>
					<description>I think the difference here is that the consumer is an end user and doesn't retransmit the content for profit.  Cablevision is providing a value added service but getting paid for it so they actually are violating copyright law by copying and retransmitting unlicensed content while getting paid for it.  How the Chief Gadgeteer could miss such an obvious and basic principal of copyright is a bit stunning....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the difference here is that the consumer is an end user and doesn&#8217;t retransmit the content for profit.  Cablevision is providing a value added service but getting paid for it so they actually are violating copyright law by copying and retransmitting unlicensed content while getting paid for it.  How the Chief Gadgeteer could miss such an obvious and basic principal of copyright is a bit stunning&#8230;.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.551 seconds -->
