But it seems the anon to which I replied does not see that as
"fair":
I don't think watching the *entire* tv show should qualify
as fair use.
Or reselling a magazine with all the ads
blacked out with a marker.
That anon seems to be equating
"providing a consumer with the capability to skip adds if the consumer wants" to
"serving up the programming with the adds stripped out".
I'd agree that
there's a legal question if the third-party (not the copyright holder) strips
out a lot of the programming and serves up only the "meat". However, it seems
the anon to which I posted didn't bother to read this part of the original
article:
a DVR feature that allows viewers the chance to
automatically skip over advertisements
Which is exactly why I
outlined the difference between a consumer's ability to not bother to look at
adds.
Thank you for all the additional examples :)
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|