>I think he's saying if you invent a new tech, YouHolodeck, you're not magically exempt from copyright law and you can't just post existing copyrighted material ("but it's different, it's holographic"). Existing laws should apply, without needing constant updating ("on the internet", "in the holodeck", "in the singularity").
I don't agree that he's saying that. The issue is that (leaving DRM circumvention tools aside) standard copyright law doesn't prohibit distribution technologies at all, just infringement. Hollywood doesn't like that -- they want to be in charge of what distribution technologies people are allowed to create, regardless of what they're used for. So their end run around it has two parts: 1) They refuse to sanction the use of the new technology for their own content, and then 2) they argue that because it isn't sanctioned by the major players, substantially all use must be infringing and dissemination of the technology itself (regardless of use) therefore induces that infringement and has no substantial non-infringing use.
It isn't about Mickey Mouse and the local mime. Aereo doesn't pick which channels its users watch. Its users can use the technology to watch PBS broadcasts (e.g. of your local mime) that are distributed under Creative Commons or other permissive licenses, or Presidential speeches that as U.S. government works fall immediately into the public domain, or use the technology to record video that the users have negotiated a separate license for with the copyright holders, or make a variety of legal fair uses of the plaintiffs' copyrighted material. Or the users can use it for blatant infringement, e.g. to record sitcoms and burn them to DVDs to sell in the street. But that's all between the copyright holders and the individual users. Aereo is just providing the technology -- and Hollywood is trying to stop the technology, not the infringement.
Did you read the amicus that Techdirt is (poorly) summarizing? Because I read your comment and I can't find anything in it that refers to what Oman actually said. You instead seem to be arguing about what "the content industry" "wants". The content industry obviously wants a lot of silly things, but we're discussing a specific court filing --- more importantly, that's what 'tedunangst is talking about, and so if you're not talking about Oman's filing it's very weird to say he's wrong.
In the filing (which rabidsnail quoted above) Oman makes the argument that not enjoining use of a technology (rather than an identifiable act of infringement of a particular work in a specified context) is to exempt the distribution technology from copyright liability. That is clearly nonsense -- find a user using it for an act of blatant infringement and you'll be able to collect damages or enjoin that infringement. But that isn't what they're asking for. They aren't trying to stop just the infringement, they are (as I said) trying to stop the technology itself.
They're asking for a veto -- not on using new technology to distribute Mickey Mouse, but on using new technology for anything because someone could (and probably will) use it to distribute Mickey Mouse.
Saying that the vendor of a product carries the burden of persuasion that their product isn't solely intended for infringement is very different from suggesting that all technology should be enjoined by default. Do you think Oman is also arguing that copy shops should be enjoined by print rightsholders? If you'd read the whole amicus, rather than a quote out of context, you might have to ask yourself that question.
>Saying that the vendor of a product carries the burden of persuasion that their product isn't solely intended for infringement is very different from suggesting that all technology should be enjoined by default.
I'm not clear on how it's different. If the product is solely intended for infringement then it gets enjoined, right? So they're arguing that by default, unless the vendor can prove otherwise (the vendor having the burden of proof), the product should get enjoined on request.
I don't agree that he's saying that. The issue is that (leaving DRM circumvention tools aside) standard copyright law doesn't prohibit distribution technologies at all, just infringement. Hollywood doesn't like that -- they want to be in charge of what distribution technologies people are allowed to create, regardless of what they're used for. So their end run around it has two parts: 1) They refuse to sanction the use of the new technology for their own content, and then 2) they argue that because it isn't sanctioned by the major players, substantially all use must be infringing and dissemination of the technology itself (regardless of use) therefore induces that infringement and has no substantial non-infringing use.
It isn't about Mickey Mouse and the local mime. Aereo doesn't pick which channels its users watch. Its users can use the technology to watch PBS broadcasts (e.g. of your local mime) that are distributed under Creative Commons or other permissive licenses, or Presidential speeches that as U.S. government works fall immediately into the public domain, or use the technology to record video that the users have negotiated a separate license for with the copyright holders, or make a variety of legal fair uses of the plaintiffs' copyrighted material. Or the users can use it for blatant infringement, e.g. to record sitcoms and burn them to DVDs to sell in the street. But that's all between the copyright holders and the individual users. Aereo is just providing the technology -- and Hollywood is trying to stop the technology, not the infringement.