On Wed, Jul 03, 2013, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: Blu-Ray and Linux": > Eh, I think that the problem is copying/sharing. You can record a 10 > year old Dr. Who but you cannot give out copies of the recording to > others. Even if they have had cable TV for 20 yars and *could* have > recorded Dr. Who 10 years ago themselves, but didn't.
What moral distinction is there between someone who "did record" and someone who "could record but didn't"? Both of them payed for the content, both were allowed to watch it when it aired, to record it, and to watch the recording again at a later time. So if one of them *didn't* record, why do they give up the legal right to watch the movie later? It's time-shifting par-exellence - I *could* watch Dr. Who ten years ago, but I was busy, so I want to watch it now. Again, I didn't say this was a *tested* legal theory ;-) And the whole theory "works" (for a flimsy definition of "works") only if you pay for cable TV service. If you use bittorrent just because you want to skimp out on paying the cable TV bill (leaving the artists and movie studios with no income), then you're a pirate :-) -- Nadav Har'El | Wednesday, Jul 3 2013, 25 Tammuz 5773 n...@math.technion.ac.il |----------------------------------------- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Can Microsoft make a product that doesn't http://nadav.harel.org.il |suck? Yes, a vacuum cleaner! _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
