The moment of my decision to take up law was clouded by an expression which showed clear fear and confusion. I was told then, that ,"there is no need to worry as law is what common sense is". Now, it is my beleief that common sense shares a deep relationship with logic.
Logic, I always imagined was a standard which was universally understood as being not only simple, but also as if it were a straight line, which is treaded upon, to arrive at the "logically obvious conclusion".
However, Law school ensured three stages of travel before I truly understood what logic and common sense were. Either progressed from being simple english terms to obscured understanding of matters and then finally, the truth dawned upon me.
In law, logic deviates from being that straight line to being numerous lines and therfore lawsuits. What I mean is that though law is truly based on what seems fair and logical, interpretations make the laws all the more interesting, as each interpretation is based upon independent perspectives.
Dwelling on this thought I happened to have come across a particular news item about studios suing cablevision over service. Obvious as it may seem, it really isnt. Still it surprised me how this simple fact surrounds us in everyday life.
The lawsuit surrounds a progressive idea on how DVR can be used differently thanks to technology. However, whether or not the law keeps within its perview this progression is yet to be seen.
DVR allows viewers to record their favorite shows so as to be able to watch it later. The Studios alleged that the act of Cablevision allowing subscribers a way to retrieve recorded programs from its system, rather than from a hard drive installed on a special set-top cable box was violative of copyright laws.Therefore, instead of recording on a hard drive at home, the cable company would record the programs on a central computer, then allow viewers to watch them later.This would naturally require the use of different technology and issuance of more fees.
Now the Studio companies alleged that it never allowed Cablevision to store and broadcast as and when the consumer wishes to view a particular program. It only allowed for the consumer to record the show at home. To make matters worse Cablevision decided to allow the usage of this feature with the application of a seperate fee at the cost of consumers. This system would no longer require the consumer to record their programs at home.
Logically, Copyright law states that under a contract "A" gives rights to "B" to do or not to do certain things. Therefore, the act of Cablevision allowing consumers to retrive the show , at any given time and at an applicable rate, might seem violative. Though much depends on the contractual terms agreed to between the two parties herein, it is eveident nonetheless, that if the terms are stringent and directive of the fact that "only the act of broadcasting is allowed wherein the consumer can record at home" - in that case the Studios may well be within their right to dispute the sanctity of the act of cablevision. Cablevision, on the other hand, claims to have reviewed copyright issues prior to annoucing this decision and felt well within the law to do the same.
So being a lawyer it seems like an ironic fact with a twist of humor -
In law, what is common sense,
might not really be so and
what is logical,
might just be a mere perspective in the the end.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This matter was reported in the business section of New York Times and is availble at-
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/25/business/media/25cable.html
