Talk:Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

20th Century Studios Low‑importance

	20th Century Studios portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of California, Berkeley/Intellectual Property Law (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Untitled[edit]

Second Edit Users were able to determine whether or not to activate the PTAT functions and all recordings were done [the] on user's Hopper

1)[]PTAT and AutoHop neither infringed on the copyright nor committed breach of contract; and 2)[]although QA copies constituted copyright infringement and breach of contract, the harm from the copies was not irreparable

but the start time[,] end time of the recordings and the programming schedules of the day were determined by Dish

PTAT recordings were automatically deleted after several days (the default setting was 8 days[]).

Dish transmitted the marking data, [which] told the Hopper when the commercials began and ended, to PTAT users every day

The data [was] manually generated and examined by Dish's employees in order to assure its accuracy and quality; to do this Dish copied Fox's programs (QA copies) and used them internally.

Regardless of [the] AutoHop function, the Hopper retained all commercials until the TV program would be deleted when its retention period was expired.

Regarding the copies on the Hopper, Fox argued that Dish direct[ly] infringed on the copyright holders exclusive right to reproduction because Dish had an impermissible degree of control over the copying process of PTAT.

in which [the] prior court judged that the individual users, and not the service providers were liable for infringing copies

Fox licensed copies of its programs to other companies (e.g. Hulu, Netflix, iTunes, and Amazon) to offer its works to subscriber[s] of those companies

However, mentioning that all cop[y]ing [was] conducted on the user's PTAT without "chang[ing] hands" and that the only thing distributed from Dish to the users was the marking data, the Court denied Fox's claim.

[Therefore], Dish's secondary liability was also denied.

Dish argued its service was not identical to time-delayed or VOD, but could not show why it was not similar. The Court, however, held that the district court correctly found PTAT [to be] more akin to DVR than VOD.

Notes:

I can't access citation #4 because the website requires registration.

You can add citations to intellectual property law, copyright infringement, breach of contract, preliminary injunction, reverse engineering, fair use.

Since basically this is a victory for fair use and consumer choice, could you provide more information about what fair use is and provide references to other articles either where fair use is helpful to understanding the verdict of this case?

Maybe you could add some pictures of Dish, Fox, DVR, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info2014bears (talk • contribs) 00:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Language question[edit]

Shouldn't "According to the courts' holdings,[1][2] the factual background was as follows." be replaced with "According to the courts' holdings,[1][2] the factual background was as follows:"? The full stop signifies an end of a full sentence, that is, a unit of meaning, but if it says "as follows" it means that there is more meaning following that sentence, so it isn't a full sentence and therefore it shouldn't end with a full stop, but rather with a colon, which is what should be used when more meaning follows a sentence. In addition, the colon better captures the sound produced when saying "as follows": the voice used by an educated reader signifies that there is more meaning to be added, a sound symbolized by the colon, whereas the sound of a full stop is different and wouldn't be used by an educated reader after "as follows". Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]