You could apply the same [Moore's] thought process to all of those things and many others (like auto production); but it would be fallacious. The most important thing to remember about Moore's “law” is that it's not a real law-of-nature; it's just an observation that has [thus far] borne out, it's not predictive or compelling.

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. was not about educational purposes, it was about time-shifting; and therefore directly applicable to all of the use cases I've mentioned previously. As such, I don't see the disconnect between what fair use is, and how I've applied it in this discussion. Remember I'm not defending anyone's claims around fair use but my own.

Economics should drive pricing and business models; for those who argue against fair use or seek to limit the application pointing out that the economic forces that apply to digital goods are different than those that apply to physical goods provides a solid rational for why fair use is a good, logical approach to regulating personal use. While I don't personally exercise many of the rights that fair use provides, I don't think we should give them away on your say so.

I didn't say that a digital good has no value, just that its marginal cost approaches zero. The marginal cost of a good is how much it costs to create another copy of that good; in this case making a copy of a digital good is almost costless (small amount of electricity, wear and tear on the hard drive, etc). That price should equal marginal cost in the long term is a basic economic principle; something I learned in high school. Every good has a marginal cost, not sure why that's a point of contention.

Instead of using HBO, how about FSC or Disney Channel. Both have commercials, both require a premium tier (at least where I live) subscription, and in the case of FSC an additional “Sports Package” on top of that. Clearly I am paying for something beyond the pipe.

FWIW, my opinion on fair use was the same when I used Media Center.

Moore's law was about semi conductors but you can also apply the same thought processes and theory to anything technology wise, the internet, software, ect…

I'm claiming that the fair use law has been taken way out of proportion and that those who use fair use to do what they want, with anything they want, for personal use, is far outside of what fair use was originally intended for is all. You keep yapping on and on about fair use and how it applies to you, but in truth it doesn't is all, are you using fair use for educational purposes as it was originally written?

I'm just curious as why you keep bring up economics and fair use together?

Also why do you assume that just because a good is in digital format, that is has a zero value?

You also are assuming there is marginal cost of digital goods, why?

Most of this is rambling yes, but they are not uneducated ramblings and it not just my view points either.

You don't pay for HBO because it is not subsidized by commercials/advertisements simple as that.

My point is not that it should but that it will convince them to put more and higher quality content online, they are already doing it now. It also allows them to do more targeted advertising again which we are already seeing now. Many don't mind the 3 commercials you get with hulu, they are short and to the point, Many can take in a 30 second ad and get back to the content more easily than several minutes of ads.

But again back to where all of this started, we are all enthusiast here, we are in the minority when it comes to building, using, and maintaining our own DVR systems. As I said above, Josh was ONLY talking about replacing the tuners in your PC and replacing it with internet tv, and again we are already seeing that.

Hell look at how many more people use Boxee over Sagetv or Media Center, again more anecdotal information than anything, but the trends are there, getting content on demand when you want it is more of an acceptable practice over putting forth hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and maintain a HTPC DVR system and it is only a matter of time when more enthusiasts (read hard core) will go that route as well.

The only reason I bring up fair use or anything like that is just in the past and now where its all you and other SageTV users ever talk about is “I should be able to do with my content as I please” and every time I hear that, it just boggles my mind is all, that many just assume it is how it is suppose to be and that is the way it is suppose to be.

I will just leave it at that, yes I may have gone a little off tangent, but that happens from time to time.

If you have more to add that is fine, you know where I stand on this matter and I was just trying to clarify more about what Josh was getting after as I understood it completely, as he wasn't specifically talking about replacing TV methods for EVERYONE, but merely speaking on behalf of us HTPC enthusiasts as the first thing he said was take the tuner out of the pc and replace it with internet tv, didn't' say anything about replacing the tv methods for my parents who don't even have a htpc or anything along those lines.

- Josh

Moore's observation about the pace of change in semiconductors is about as relevant as Newton's about apples in this discussion (why do you keep bringing it up?). Infrastructure is a huge blocking issue to the future you predict. Even if the technology exists to cheaply deploy the necessary bandwidth, someone has to pay for it (and that someone is not the same as those who will benefit from IP delivery; in fact the opposite is true), and probably more importantly the existing players need to lay down. Full IP television may be coming, but it's not going to replace the existing model in any reasonable time frame.

You are free to feel however you like about fair use and my position on it, but it is important to note that our personal beliefs have no impact on the fundamentals of how economics works as it relates to pricing. The basic principles, digital content as a non-rivalrous good and price should equal marginal cost (which approaches zero for a digital good) in the long term, have been touched on enough here (and certainly in much more detail elsewhere should you care to self-educate) so I won't rehash. But before leaving it completely, I do find it interesting that instead of addressing any of these fundamental principals, all we see is blind assertion about what you feel and what you would[n't] do. Is there anything beyond your personal beliefs that you can provide to back your position on this issue?

It's also important to note that while the intent is important, what the law allows is much more so. Are you claiming that fair use doesn't apply to archiving and time/place shifting? I know you're not a lawyer, but I am curious.

If I don't pay for the content, why does my cable provider charge extra for HBO?

I'll happily agree that internet content provides better metrics than Nielsen, but so would a DVR with some custom software or any kind of tracking intelligence built into a STB. Is your point that better metrics should convince providers to put the content online? If so, we can agree on that, but getting their buy-in isn't the only issue that needs to be resolved before IP can replace broadcast.

- Josh

Josh, Adam and even myself all agree that in 10 years, which btw according to moorse law is an eaternity, will definately bring such methods around. We are already seeing it now, Roku boxes, BD players, ect… Internet tv in 7MC, we're seeing it now, my only contention is that HD fanatics like myself won't fully adopt it until we can get true, full HD with 5.1 surround sound which I fully believe we'll see that happen easily in 10 years.

the content we get may not be fully network content, or content we're used to seeing on tv, however there is still great content being produced all the time by some very entertaining people/groups, just look at what revision3 is doing as one example.

The only reason I say what I say about you, and many others might I add, is that you sound like any gun toting red neck, with an NRA card saying “you can't take my guns” but in your case “you can't take my content”

You might want to re-look at fair use, and what it really was meant for, you and many others are just “bending” what fair use is, and was meant for. A law from 1976 has nothing to do with digital content, and digitally recorded tv or ripped dvd's. Hell most of fair use has to do with educational purposes and that is originally what the law was meant for. Now you nor I are lawyers so I will leave it at that, but you are just basically interpreting something that suits your needs and make it sound legit when honestly I feel its far from it.

I never once said you HAD to pay for a BD disc or any other movie, and pay for it again, I for one am whole hartedly against that as well, but when it comes to tv, DVRing tv, archiving recorded tv, is another issue in of itself. You don't pay for the content you get, you pay for the medium of the content to get to you. You pay satelite, or cable operators to lay the cables (the medium) so that you can get the content to your tv, once it gets there doesn't then mean you get to do with it however you want.

I may sound like a biggot here, I DVR as much as the next guy, but I am not about to go and record and entire season of a TV show, keep it forever and say its mine, and then say I have the “RIGHT” to do with it however I please, IE record a tv, then strip the commercials, re-encode it to my zune for an example.

But I do agree there needs to be some methods in place that do allow us to do those things easily, but at the same time, allow the content providers to still maintain control of their content with out hindering the end user at the same time, which gets back to streaming tv over the internet, it gives us the end user the content when we want it, where we want it, how we want it, IE the three screens, and still allows the content provider their control they want.

Finally you do realize that content providers are getting way more matrix data on usage with services like hulu and vudu than they do with the way outdated and poorly managed system of the nielsen system.

nielsen is flawed that it still ultimately is an avg of users per market, and not a true demographic as a whole. I could go on forever about how much nielsen sucks and how flawed it is, but the things that suck about nielsen have no bearing on streaming tv, as the content providers know exactly to the T how many users are streaming a given show, how long they watch it, and where in the country they are watching it, way way better matrix data for the studios. why do you think they air premiers of a new show on hulu and their subsequent sites weeks before it airs on broadcast tv? Because the data they gather from that gives them a way better indication on the shows success or failure, and they some times even throw in surveys to get further data.

So as Josh and Adam discussed it is only a matter of time until you see more and more studio content on streaming devices like the Roku box.

- Josh

I'm not “assuming” that I own the content (what does <strike>G</strike>god have to do with it). Fair use is a recognized part of our copyright system; also note that there is more than one meaning to the word “own”.

Please explain to me why I should have to pay more than once for a non-rivalrous good? When you buy a BD the delivery mechanism and packaging is rivalrous; once the bits are free of the plastic why should I have to pay again to consume them on another device, or in another place? Looking at TV content – I pay to bring the content into my house and record it (i.e. cable subscription*, physical infrastructure, etc). I don't own the content in the sense that I can resell it or rebroadcast outside of my home; but the bits on the disc are mine and I own them in the sense that there is no technical or legal constraint to where/how I consume them for personal use. Once the broadcast leaves the provider's infrastructure and enters mine, technology and fair use provide that.

* So what about OTA? Obviously their business model is slightly different, but there are still costs involved on both sides so it's not really free. We can get into that more if you want, but the underlying principal is the same just that the content costs are shifted around differently.

For IP based content delivery to replace the current models it has to work for everyone, even AT&T subscribers. Until that happens no one [who is serious about making $] is going to go IP only, it artificially narrows the market. I made the point earlier that there are still many areas in the US where broadband isn't available, the same is true of 3G. Go take a look at VZW's mobile TV coverage map.

If vudu can deliver full HD (HDX as they call it) with 5.1 surround sound, then netflix, hulu, and other content providers most cerntainly can do the same thing.

and I am not only applying my usage here, I am just going off the fact that you and many others “assume” that you own the content, and can do with whatever you want with it and however you want with it.

And you come here and bitch about it, like its your god given right to do with it however you please.

Well if you refer to 3g and mean the iPhone get a real carrier like VZW and see what real coverage is like i've been to chicago, driven through it too, with a verizion mifi streaming pandora on my phone and chatting on IRC and emails and such all from the comfort of the back seat and never once skipped a beat.

there are also next generation radios coming down the pipe, wimax and the more popular LTE (some times refereed to as 4G) that blows the doors off of current provided wireless broadband.

Remember the spectrum auction that took place? well that lower frequency is great for long distances, and verizon and many other companies bought into that to provide greater distance wireless broadband and combine that with LTE and you've got the potential for some great wireless broadband coverage.

it is honestly much closer than you think. it might not be ATT but it most certainly is verizon and other vendors.

- Josh

I guess I'm missing your point w/ VUDU. We can agree that the tech is cool; my position is that the implementation is so flawed that it's useless to me. I have more features, convenience, and better price with a BD. If anything VUDU is an arguement why physical media still works.

Moore's law applies to semiconductors not bandwidth or Hollywood's business acumen. When you can explain who is going to sink the billions of $ required to enable your vision then we'll talk about five year time lines.

Like everyone techdirt is biased, but they do a good job of explaining the basic economics behind digital goods (as they are non-rivalrous in consumption). It's not a perfect start, but you seem to be missing the fundamentals around what it means to be non-rivalrous and how that effects issues like pricing and control.

Receiving airwaves is a public good (non-rivalrous & non-excludable), broadcasting is a common good (rivalous & non-excludable). While hardly authoritative, the Wikipedia entry for “Public Good” actually lists free-to-air TV as a public good.

Perhaps the disconnect b/w us is that I approach this as an economic issue; where things like price and control should be determined by market forces and my behavior is driven by value.

You don't have an issue w/ the time limits on VUDU? I certainly do. The combination of price and time limits is what I mean by “the implementation…”.

Applying your usage blindly to determine policy is fallacious. Also, while you don't personally exercise s right, doesn't mean there isn't value in having it.

Bringing it back to the org topic; I live in the 3rd largest city in the US and network coverage is so unreliable that even if the cloud world you advocate existed, I couldn't use it anywhere but my house (where btw, my 3G phone doesn't work). Ten years isn't going to be enough time to fix all of that, and put a media aware network appliance in everyone's hand/car/house. The infrastructure to provide all the features you describe doesn't exist outside the lab; and I really doubt that you will find anyone to pay for it to get deployed in the next ten yrs.

And again I am not, nor ever once said vudu itself was a great business model I only bring up Vudu as it is currently the ONLY service that is truely streaming HD with 5.1 surround sound, and that once you can get full HD with 5.1 surround sound streaming to a BD player or Roku box or a HTPC is the day when you will find that it will become more of a mass adoption is all.

And I don't agree with you that we won't see it in ten years. In fact I think we will see it in under 5 years. Look at moore's law and exponential growth and advancements in technology.

What does techdirt have anything to do with the right to do anything you want with the content you DVR? Techdirt is a biased blog that leans towards the way you want to do things and doesn't always give full rational to every point of view if you ask me.

[quote]OTA broadcasters take a public good (air waves) and use it for private gain, being able to record it “for free” is part of the bargain they agreed to.[/quote]

I don't see how airwaves are a public good or commodity at all. Local broadcasters have to pay millions for licenses, hell I have to pay for licenses to use public safety frequencies in teh 4.9ghz band all the time, also have to deal with 460mhz and 800mhz license for work constantly, all of work my company has had to pay for, and it not a public good what so ever.

License have to be paid, and such, advertisers pay yes, that is because studios need to get paid, before the broadcasters can broadcast the content, btw most of the commercials you see are national commercials and not local broadcaster commercials, and the content aired is sent out via the national feed. So say NBC produces, airs, and sells advertising for say Heroes.

The only broadcaster I can think of that this would be ok is PBS, but not CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CW, ect…

- Josh