The old Sony Betamax case is quite specific (and stupid). In short layman's terms, you're allowed to make a back-up copy of your media, for your own personal use, but said copy is LEGAL only as long as you have the ORIGINAL copy from which it came in your possession. Even if your original media is no longer playable/usable, you must keep it in your possession in order for your "BACK-UP COPY" to remain legal. However, there are gray areas if one reads the case right (Read about it here -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=417 ) Sony, on this particular view, was a decision about analog technology and therefore doesn’t protect digital uses of content at all.
This interpretation sucks a great deal of the wind from the Sony precedent — more so, I think, than can plausibly be sustained. Even the Supreme Court, which unquestionably imposed new limits on the reach of Sony in its more recent decision in MGM vs Grokster, did not at any point suggest that Sony should be limited to its precise facts. The principle of media neutrality — to wit, that copyright protection attaches to works, irrespective of the particular form of medium that happens to be used to store or transmit the work — also seems to suggest that Sony necessarily carries force beyond the specific technological context that produced the Court’s decision.
So.... when it comes to the writ of law, the details can spin and go on forever. At least until someone comes along an says "one nation, under God" infringes on my rights.
Whatever,
~ Scorehead
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
