[conspire] Copyrights and patents

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Mon Mar 28 19:09:43 PDT 2011

Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):

> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/business/media/29ipad.html
> FWIW - this is an example of a company, TM in this case, stretching the
> law to create facts on the ground....

Stretching which law, by the way?

The article you point to discussed cable channels such as Comedy
Central, which is owned by Viacom, one of the two cable-TV holding
companies it discusses.  Viacom asserts that Comedy Central is made
available to the cable companies by contract, and that the rights
conveyed by contract don't include streaming to tablet computers.
That strikes me as entirely plausible.

Are you saying some law requires that right to be automatically conveyed
to contract partners?  If so, what law?

Less vague, please.  (I've noticed that rant percentage takes a
nosedive when speakers are politely challenged on doubtful assertions of

> and THEN following up with a PR campaign to change public perception
> (not to mention their inevitable lobbying).

The cited article doesn't mention lobbying.  It does mention that
Time Warner Cable had been doing a PR campaign on its Web site.  Is
there some other article that talks about lobbying in connection with
this story?

I'm not clear on any broader significance to this money squabbling
between cable companies and channel owners.  In particular, it seems to
have nothing particularly to do with copyrights or patents (see Subject 

More information about the conspire mailing list