TV Networks Sue ReplayTV 378
Robert Wilde writes: "Three major television networks have sued Sonicblue over the ReplayTV 4000 and asked the court to grant an injunction to prevent the sale of the device." Here's another blurb about the lawsuit. All you readers that predicted that Replay would get sued over this device, give yourselves a pat on the back.
No pat, thanks (Score:2)
How is this different? (Score:2)
Re:How is this different? (Score:2)
What I'm curious about is whether the networks would claim it is illegal for me to tape an episode of the X-files, hitting stop and record around the commercials. All this does is automate the process. I understand why the networks would really hate this device (lost revenue speak loudly), but I don't know if they'll be able to win in light of precedence.
F-bacher
Re:How is this different? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, of course, but here's the mind blowing thing: even without one of these nifty little commercial-skip features, hardly anyone watches commercials anyway. Seriously, commercials are mostly just for going to get a drink or using the bathroom. And even the ones you watch are not of much effect. If advertisers realized how useless TV ads were, they'd put all their money into product placement instead--which does seem to be pretty effective.
The only difference between TV commercials and banner ads on the web is that by click-through analysis, advertisers can actually SEE how ineffective it is.
Re:How is this different? (Score:3, Informative)
Can you back this up please (though I can't back up any of my claims I do know that I watch plenty of ads, and I am of the opinion that I watch less TV than most)? I am seriously curious. I for one believe that TV ads are extremely effective. Why do companies spend so much on advertising? Why are all the stops pulled for the Super Bowl ads? Do you think companies haven't done research on the effectivines of TV advertising?
Yeah, you might go to the bathroom or flip around during commercials, but you'll probably catch at least the first or last commercial in the set. While flipping around you're bound to come across some commercials.
I know as a child I saw certain toys on TV and then wanted them dearly. I know as an adult I am subtly influenced to believe that products advertised on TV are somehow higher quality than generic products.
I don't think anyone's arguing about the effectiveness of ads that are watched though, only if they are watched at all. I believe plenty of ads are watched. One doesn't have to devote full attention to an ad to get its message anyway, the purpose of many ads being repetition for product recognition.
Re:How is this different? (Score:2)
(In somewhat related news, v2.5.1 came through to my TiVo a couple of nights ago. I had to reinstall the NIC driver and ExtractStream, but it appears that TiVo didn't dick around with the system to try to break ExtractStream as some people feared might happen. In fact, it might actually be running better now than it did before. w00t!)
Re:How is this different? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, you can share that file 15 times according to the article. So you and 15 "TV buddies" get to watch the show. And skip all the commercials too.
Another interesting quirk. I subscribe to say HBO and send a buddie who doesn't get HBO every episode of Six Feet Under and in trade he sends me some series off of Showtime. The cable company loses money on two premium packages. Now let me do that for 15 buddies. Price gouging bastards they are and personally I would get some small satisfaction (my wife would get a great deal of satisfaction as she actually pays the bill:) but I'm surprised they haven't sued already.
Here's another interesing possible hack. What if I could get the PVR to record while I'm playing a DVD and then I could send that movie to 15 buddies? IIRC, the 4000 records 320 hours of video. Heh, I'd almost break down and buy a DVD player if I could do that.
How many people fit in your living room? (Score:2)
Where's the difference between this - a capability we'll surely have in 2015 if not 2005 (long as we don't shoot ourselves too seriously in the foot while gunning for Afghans) - and Replay buddies? Really, none at all. Unless there are agents in the Web cams that blank out all copyrighted media from retransmission.
So, do we want a future where we just can't fully share our living rooms virtually, because the police quite literally have extensions within our devices? That's where this goes tomorrow, if SonicBLUE doesn't win today. There's no other way the networks' strategy makes the slightest sense in the long run. And heck, our buddies might be getting one of those bootleg terrorist-friendly channels off the satellites - better make sure we can't pick that up from their living rooms either....
Re:How many people fit in your living room? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh I can just see that now as over the computer I hear "Flower move your butt, you're blocking the TV!" or "Hey! Who has the remote? I was watching that!" or "Ummm, folks you left the cam on..... Maybe next time you could keep that stuff in the bedroom. I think my son needs therapy now."
The diff is I'd swap shows with my friends but this put up a web cam and "have my friends over virtually" to watch a movie? For myself it would never fly.
Re:How many people fit in your living room? (Score:2)
Re:How is this different? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How is this different? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a hedge to counter the obvious point that TV broadcast are distributed widely and freely by the networks, and therefore it's hard to argue that copyright infringement will significantly damage the networks' financial interests... But ooh, if people can hit that +30 second button, it's a totally different story from having a fast-forward like a VCR or Tivo.
Re:How is this different? (Score:2, Informative)
dejavu (Score:2, Insightful)
This is so similar to the RIAA injunction against Diamond for the RIO MP3 player [slashdot.org]. It should turn out about the same I would imagine:
The lawsuit will add a lot of legal fees to the cost of development, artificially driving up the retail price. Meanwhile, the networks will desperately look for ways to protect their content against fair use by consumers!
What a scam!
15 transmission limit hacking (Score:2, Interesting)
Difference Between Music and TV (Score:5, Insightful)
Music is something people generally listen to over and over again. A favourite song might be played 100 times by a person. On the other hand, a single episode of favourite TV show will generally only be watched once or twice. Even die hard Star Wars fans have probably only seen the movie a couple of hundred times!
TV has always been free. The networks have an explicit agreement with producers to show advertising. They have no such agreement with TV consumers to actually watch them. If the Networks say this sort of technology will cost them money, well their business model is wrong.
This reminds me of the one Simpsons' scene... (Score:4, Flamebait)
Here's the deal. You want to get TV for free, you have to pay the price. I'm not talking about the cost of your cable bill here folks...very little of that actually goes to ABC or CBS. That money is for the cost of operations with your TV company. That's why Showtime, HBC, etc. charge money for their channels, since they don't show nearly as many advertisements during their programming. That price is commercials.
Sure, you're have every right to skip over the advertising if you want (now that it's almost instantly possible to do so). Yet what happens when advertising executives realize that no one is watching their adds anymore? They're going to pull funding from you favorite TV channels. Then how are CBS, ABC, FOX,
If you think the business model is wrong, then you are right. They will have to change it. But don't go crying to me when they stick ad promos even further into your face, because that is the only way that they can get money without charging you a dime.
Re:This reminds me of the one Simpsons' scene... (Score:2)
Re:This reminds me of the one Simpsons' scene... (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh, sure they will. You miss the main point of hte PVR (ReplayTV, TiVo, UTV, DISHPlayer). If I start watching a 8:00 show at 8:15 I can skip all the commercials and finish up right about 9:00. I can choose to read a book, debug some code, or watch a half hour TV show (skipping the half that is commercials) and finish up at the same time you do.
Why would I possibly want to start watching at 8:00?
The only way to get me watch commercials is to make more good ones. I watch those. If I'm not in a hurry. And I notice them at 60x (or they start the block).
Do ads really work? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who's to say that people are watching their ads now?! I think most gen-X-Y-ers probably screen out 90% of the advirtising they see on TV. They go and heat up their pizza, or get a pop, or go to the watercloset, or whatever. Now maybe that 10% is important, but as I see it, the only really useful thing about ads is to let you know a place exists. That rules out about 60% of the ads on TV these days (Walmart, Sears, the major Pizza places [donatos is a toss up as to whether it's major yet..], DQ) And people who buy a lot of stuff and eat out will continue to do so, whether or not they see a lot of ads, and people who are generally miserly with their disposable income (we spend it on $3000 computers instead) will continue to do so, even if subjected to a barage of ads (unless they are computer ads, maybe not even then).
I sometimes wonder what would happen to consumer spending, both in volume and in distribution, if everyone stopped running ads for a week. I don't think much would change. Those of us who like pizza know where we like to get it from, those of us who like to get groceries (anyone?) know where we like to go to get them.
There is the argument that "ads target the young and impressionable" who I suppose don't know about these places. Ah yes, some ad-agency paradise - where the ONLY source of information for those impressionable young'uns is TV - no friends, no billboards on the highway, no magazines, and God forbid, no parents to get in the way of the 'tube's influence..
There has been at least one documentary (Frontline I think it was) a few years back about the Neilson ratings and how they basically don't work. People don't log themselves with the system correctly or consistantly, channel flipping behavior is sketchy, and they can't tell if the person is watching the ad, or getting a coke. They hinted about people trying to come up with totally passive sensing devices - laser scanners that will tell whose in the room, etc. The program ended with a judgement that whether or not Neilson's work well, they are some form of "currency" that networks and ad agencies can use to judge shows. I think as long as people continue to buy stuff (which I think they will with or without ads), the ad agencies don't really care that much about how accurate the Neilson's really are.
But as I'm not an ad-executive, and I'd love to hear from someone who is.
Re:This reminds me of the one Simpsons' scene... (Score:2)
-Paul Komarek
Re:This reminds me of the one Simpsons' scene... (Score:2)
That is how the BBC is supported IIRC.
the networks have been saying "gimme" forever (Score:2)
In my opinion, the public airwaves should be given only to not-for-profits, with a mix of public funding, fees, donations, and simple sponsorships. Then we wouldn't have to worry about "skipping commercials", and the content we get would be of higher quality.
Re:This reminds me of the one Simpsons' scene... (Score:4, Insightful)
A good business will find a way to adapt to the times. If the networks can't survive with widespread commercial skipping -- I don't care. Their profit is not our responsibility. If they go away, something else will turn up.
I would go so far to say that the networks are in fact "the enemy" for trying to stop the development of innovative products with their silly lawsuits. Our civil rights can be curtailed not only by the government, but by these kind of activities. If you can't get a law passed, pull the wool over a dumb judge's eyes to get your way...
Ack. When did everything start to suck so much?
I just hope that when Sonic|Blue loses they don't have to take the 30 sec skip button away from my current RTV unit.
(Yes, that's a pipe character in the name, that's how it is in their logo. Ridiculous, but not as bad as
Re:This reminds me of the one Simpsons' scene... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember that these people are "publishers", viewers generally don't much care who broadcasts programmes, so long as they can watch them.
But publisher-middlemen, be thay in film/TV/music/etc often have an overinflated view of their own importance.
Re:This reminds me of the one Simpsons' scene... (Score:2)
1) Eliminate competition.
2) Gain monopoly.
3) Make continued purchase of product a necessity for everyone.
4) Keep raising prices until all users pay a signficant portion of income to you (see #3 and #2).
At that point the limit to growth is population expansion, since you already have everyone paying you a percentage of everything you make. Which may lead to...
5) Require increased reproduction.
Re:Difference Between Music and TV (Score:2)
Which in the end is capitalism. The basic assumption being that both producers and consumers will attempt to seek the best "deal" for themselves.
Some TVs have more fun... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the big complaints is that I get to skip commercials. Do I? You damn betcha! I don't waste a moment on cheesy ads pushing depilatories, cleansers not available in stores (or in states with active consumer fraud statutes, I suspect), and Slim Whitman retrospectives. However, I DO stop and watch ads that are either funny (Amstel Lite, for example), or are for something in which I'm interested.
As for sharing recorded programs across the Internet, it should be noted that this feature is for sharing programs with other Replay 4000 owners. I'm sure it will be able to be hacked, but how does it differ from sharing my Babylon 5 tapes with unfortunate friends who don't have cable?
I hope Sonic Blue is able to vigorously defend these suits. I'm sick to the teeth of network executives who want to control what, when, and how I watch.
For more on this phenomenon, check out the last section of Michael Lewis' book, Next.
And now for a word from our sponsor...
Re:Some TVs have more fun... (Score:2)
It doesn't - and the saddest part is that the MPAA and its ilk are convincing Congress that you are criminal for doing this.
You'd think so but... (Score:2)
US law does not permit this. Yes, it's silly but that's what the law currently says. It certainly veers away from the original intent of the Copyright clause in the Constitution which aimed to protect *publishers* from being undersold and forced out of business. With "publishing" being now very simple and almost cost-free (if you choose your distribution medium well) the whole nature of dissemination of information has changed completely.
This is total BS (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see them suing Tivo, a company that NBC owns a big stake in. Why? Because they don't have this one silly button? I can understand why this product might be seen as a threat by the networks... What I don't understand is their legal case for copyright infringement. Why the heck does the ability to skip forward 30 seconds make the difference between an "un-infringing" product and an infringing one?
The networks are picking on a weak, underfunded company that doesn't have the resources to fight them. What makes it even dirtier is that one of the plaintiffs has a financial stake in that company's direct competitor.
Re:This is total BS (Score:2)
I think they have more of a problem with the fact that you can share shows over the internet.
Re:This is total BS (Score:2)
ReplayTV has a FFW control that works the same way as Tivo, it backs up a bit when you hit Play. How much it backs up depends on how fast you were going.
It *also* has a dedicated 30-sec skip button. In addition, if you push a number and then the skip button, it jumps that many minutes ahead. For some of my shows with regular-sized breaks, I can do 3-skip and boom, I'm back in the action.
RTV and Tivo are both cool. Each does a few things better than the other. But I would give the nod to Replay for transport controls based on what I know.
Re:This is total BS (Score:3, Informative)
But that is also not the strongest part of this, IMO. I suspect the bigger part will be the ability to share recorded shows.
Re:This is total BS (Score:2)
How can it detect commercials? Does TV station send description stream with video and sound telling "The Simpsons, season 7, episode 3, part 2 of 2, currently running 12:17 min of 22:02 min" and "Commercials, currently running 1:05 min of 3:15 min"? And then they blame us for using devices to rip of commercials?
In Finland, where I live, stations send PDC signal that tells VCRs when show is delayed and recoding is automatically delayed correctly. It also tells if show is running late and recording time is fixed accordingly. Commercial channels tell that "the show starts now" when actually the ads before it start and again tell that "the show ends now" after last ad after the show is over. When show is interrupted by ad the signal tells the show is still running.
Of course you can still try analyze images and stuff to recognize ads automatically but you need pretty much computing power for stuff like that and it's not bullet proof.
Re:This is total BS (Score:3, Interesting)
This project wasn't exactly super-expensive high-tech. I'm not sure if it is still possible since Commercial Advance VCRs seem to detect commercial fade-in/fade-out, which is more complex; if it is though, it is a fairly easy way to do reliable detection.
Re:This is total BS (Score:2)
It would not be copyright infringement, under the holding of the Sony Betamax case. There, the Court held that time-shifting of a VCR does not give rise to copyright infringement liability for the manufacturer of the VCR because the end-user's time-shift is fair use. Even if some users might use the VCR to copy commercial videos or otherwise engage in copyright infringement, the substantial noninfringing use of time-shifting gets the manufacturer off the hook.
But the fair use factors include the impact on a marketplace. Time-shifting was blessed under 17 U.S.C. s. 107 (factor 4), because it actually involved an increase in commercial viewing.
Not so with replayTV's commercial advance. Or so the argument goes.
Without passing on the question, the studios certainly have a case to make. Without commercial advance, there would be slam-dunk Supreme Court authority in support of the defendant. With it, the Sony case is arguably distinguishable.
No, the stations have a case (Score:2)
It would not be copyright infringement, under the holding of the Supreme Court Sony Betamax case. There, the Court held that time-shifting of a VCR does not give rise to copyright infringement liability for the manufacturer of the VCR because the end-user's time-shift is fair use. Even if some users might use the VCR to copy commercial videos or otherwise engage in copyright infringement, the substantial noninfringing use of time-shifting gets the manufacturer off the hook.
But the fair use factors include the impact on a marketplace. Time-shifting was blessed under 17 U.S.C. s. 107 (factor 4), because it actually involved an increase in commercial viewing.
Not so with replayTV's commercial advance. Or so the argument goes.
Without passing on the question, the studios certainly have a case to make. Without commercial advance, there would be slam-dunk Supreme Court authority in support of the defendant. With it, the Sony case is arguably distinguishable.
Just two weeks after winning an Emmy... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Just two weeks after winning an Emmy... (Score:2)
[1] http://www.emmys.tv/
Re:Just two weeks after winning an Emmy... (Score:2)
So when....... (Score:4, Interesting)
Lawsuits as tactical weapon (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like this... (Score:2, Interesting)
CONTACT YOUR GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE!
That's right, get off your behind, write a letter, make a phone call, take a drive, fire off an email. DO SOMETHING!!!
And after you've contacted your representatives, tell a friend. Tell several friends. Write to a newspaper. Get the word out.
Yeah! (Score:2)
Re:Yeah! (Score:2)
Back to the point, this lawsuit is the establishment pissing in the wind again. No matter what lawsuits are filed, and what legislation passed, someone will find the technological means to "liberate" content.
What's unfortunate about this is that in the future, content will become heavy with embedded advertisements to compensate for our new consumption habits, such as avoidance of commercials and non-prime-time viewing. After legal and technological means fail the establishment (and they will), we'll begin to see many more ads projected onto football pitches, more closeups of nikes in reality tv, and more mentions of specific brands in sitcoms.
As the Accenture commercials say - "Now it gets interesting."
Re:If you don't like this... (Score:2)
Re:If you don't like this... (Score:2)
This is a _court case_. Your judges aren't elected. They don't run campaigns. They get life tenure. There is absolutely, positively nothing at all writing your representitives will do in this case. Your representitives can't do much of anything when the judge says that the Television execs are right. About your only hope in this case is to donate money to ReplayTV. Your congress person has nothing to do with this at this point.
The law is on the books. They can't go back an retroactively change the law just so the television networks lose. That'd be unconstitutional as an ex post facto law.
People, the time for writing your congressmen is long before the lawsuits start. You should not mod up people who say to write congressmen when its in the court room. You shouldn't even post "write your congressmen" messages in places like this. It doesn't do anything at all.
Re:If you don't like this... (Score:2)
And let's say I disagree with that system. What would I do about it? Oh, wait, I'd write to my elected representatives.
Sure, because there's no point in changing the law to prevent further abusive lawsuits against similar products in the future, right?
It does seem fairly effective at flushing out the apathetic whingers who take some wierd kind of smug pleasure in saying "There's nothing you can do under the current system, so do nothing."
Article also at news.com (Score:3, Informative)
Ads are a gamble, not a guarantee. (Score:4, Insightful)
People have been skipping ads, not only via VCRs, Tivos, and other timeshifting devices, but by flipping channels and leaving, for years.
I thought it was an accepted fact that advertisers are gambling that you will see an ad, and that the ad will have an effect on your buying patterns.
What next, will media corporations sue us if we don't buy advertiser's products?
Re:Ads are a gamble, not a guarantee. (Score:2)
Dear Companies - make better products that actually do what people want and stop relying on marketing to sell your crap. Word of mouth will save you a fortune.
Crossing fingers, expecting no injunction (Score:3, Interesting)
1) The likely ruling will be in favor of the plantiffs. Given the historical precedent of the VCR lawsuit this seems unlikely.
2) The injunctive relief is necessary to prevent some sort of serious damage to the plantiffs. In this case, they can't really proove that they would suffer any consequences so immediate as to require such a remedy.
So if they get a judge with their head screwed on straight I think Sonicblue will be okay. Of course I've seen a lot of insane judgements lately on these sorts of issues. So, I'm definitely keeping my fingers crossed.
Re:Crossing fingers, expecting no injunction (Score:2)
But just damage isn't enough, it has to be damage caused by something that is actually ILLEGAL, right? Otherwise the horse and buggy company could get an injunction against the car comapny for having a superior product.
To me, this is sort of like that. The networks will just have to adapt to a new way of doing things.
Oh, no, wait, they will just have to file suits and injunctions and get their way in the end -- I was being an idealist, silly me!
Re:Crossing fingers, expecting no injunction (Score:2)
TV broadcast priviledge (Score:5, Insightful)
Which bring me to my next point: if a television network is going to beam this shit into my home via a publically regulated electromagnetic spectrum, where do they get off telling me what I can do with the signal?
Re:TV broadcast priviledge (Score:2)
Re:TV broadcast priviledge (Score:2)
A more creative solution? (Score:2)
Those who were right, pat yourself on the back... (Score:2)
Just sell it with those nasty features disabled (Score:2)
Just like the way virtually every DVD player sold in Oz has been modified to be multiregion compatible.
They could just have a couple of little holes in the back that line up with some internal screw switches on the board.
Protecting Copyright, Preserving Fair Use (Score:2)
I certainly don't have all the answers, but I do have a few observations:
For copyright protection to be effective, content must remain encrypted from receipt by the consumer, to display by the device. Of course at some point it is available (i.e it can be seen and/or heard), but presumably, the cost of equipment to digitally capture such content at a sufficient resolution to threaten master redistribution would be prohibitive for the consumer.
Of course, storing such content is not a problem, if it can only be played back on a restricted set of devices, i.e. content custom-encrypted for each and every consumer. Of course this raises three questions: 1) How can such encryption be done effectively, especially for broadcast or multicast delivery? 2) How do you deal with playback equipment that breaks down, or with vendors that go out of business and so can't "clone" decryptors in such equipment when it breaks. 3) How do you permit multiple playback devices with the same key for convenience within a single household?
Question 1 can be addressed thus: broadcast and multicast content is encrypted with a public key that matches a common private key in all receivers. Yes, this is a weak link, but the receiver need not be a display device -- content would still have to be uniquely encrypted for a particular display device (more on this later). Furthermore, most broadcast content is likely time-sensitive -- it's value diminishes with age. Of course, hacking such a receiver to expose the private key would attract strong SSSCA-like sanctions. Non-broadcast content could be encrypted at source with a public key provided by the consumer at time of purchase, presumably via automated electronic means. It is important, however, that the corresponding private key not be known by the consumer, lest unencrypted versions of the content become available to her. Appropriate signing, by an authority the content provider recognizes, of the public key provided by the consumer (from his equipment) alleviates this.
Question 2 is easily addressed. Clearly each piece of playback equipment has, within it, a decryption module that is (a) sealed and relatively impervious to attack, (b) contains a unique private key. The relevent external connections to this module are encrypted content input and analog decrypted content output. Such modules will be generally customized for each type of equipment. Of course this raises the question of what do you do if the playback equipment, with a unique key fails, and the manufacturer goes out of business (and so can't clone a decrypter module).
This brings us to question 3. Clearly, there is a conflict between uniquely keyed playback equipment, singly-keyed broadcast receivers, and the consumer's desired storage and transport of content around the home. Enter the "transcrypter".
A transcripter is a piece of equipment designed to take content encrypted with its public key, decrypt it internally, and reencrypt it with the public key of another piece of equipment. Placing a transcrypter ahead of any playback device will thus effectively alter it's public key. Transcrypters also have the property that, although manufactured with a unique key, can be cloned to the key of another transcripter (perhaps some limited number of times), thus permitinng several playback devices to share a common key. Of course, when cloning a transcrypter, they have to authenticate eachother to ensure that the public keys correspond to private keys that are "secure" within the transcrypter. Furthermore, while transcrypters should be relatively inexpensive devices, their price should deter distribution of many numbers of cloned transcrypters with encrypted content. Authentication of transcrypters with eachother can be simply a case of detecting public keys signed by an approprliate authority known to the hardware. Hacking a transcrypter, of course, would attract SSSCA-like sanctions.
Transcrypters would allow custom encryption of received content to a common public key used by the consumer, and perhaps, registered with some authority. Receivers would have built-in transcrypters to output content encrypted with this common consumer's public key. Playback devices would have transcrypters to reverse the process. Content encrypted at the source for a consumer would be encrypted with the common public key for all the consumer's transcrypters.
The issue of signing authorities, is, of course, a tricky one politically, however, it is not unreasonable for a piece of equipment to identify peer equipment certified by a common industry body, or its own manufacturer.
More problematic of course, is the registration or at least the signing of a consumer's common public key -- clearly the consumer can't generate the public/private key pair lest they get access to unencrypted content. If a third party (say a transcrypter manufacturer) generates the keypair and signs the public key, they can impersonate the consumer, generate lots of cloned transcrypters, and incriminate the consumer as a content pirate. One solution is to have the transcrypter generate the keypair itself, and trust an external authority for signing the public key. It should be possible to do this in a manner where the transcrypter can be trusted to not disclose the private key to anyone. For example, the transcrypter can allow for arbitrary code execution, particularly to access it's external interfaces, with hard-coded internal transcryption routines and key generators that remain private. This would allow open source networking code to be run on it that could be audited.
Of course, these ideas are just the tip of the iceberg. I'm open to a critical analysis, and realize that the hackability of such devices (receivers, playback devices, and especially transcrypters) is probably the weakest link. However, I'd much rather see SSSCA-type laws applied to a small set of devices and a much broader set (like general-purpose computers), and this may bne one way to do this and still respect fair use.
Re:Protecting Copyright, Preserving Fair Use (Score:2)
How does limiting the devices with which you may "share" to a few specific machines within the home facilitate fair use? Replay's ability to share across the internet suggests that Replay's definition of "fair use" includes the ability of limited sharing with immediate friends, even if only somewhet distant "net" friends. Transcryption to a handful of specific keys does not allow that, nor do I know of any other definition of fair use that limits it to a locus like "the home" or any other limiter of that sort.
Re:Protecting Copyright, Preserving Fair Use (Score:2)
It strikes me that permiting unlimited copying for storage solves the archival problem, all you need to ensure is that you do not lose the playback private key, so have multiple keys made/available. In terms of specific numbers, I was thinking not in terms of one or two, but potentially dozens or even hundreds, but certainly not tens of thousands.
Extraction for critique is an issue that I didn't address, though. Clearly extraction of lower resolution content shouldn't be a problem, but sometimes extraction of full resolution content is necessary -- for example if critiquing a compression technology and illustrating visible artifacts. In such cases, it may be possible for the playback device to limit how much of such extraction is possible. Certainly a daily/weekly limit on use of such a function would not be unreasonable. But, you want to prevent 1000 people from extracting 1/1000th of a movie and reassembling it, for example, and ANY full-resolution extraction mechanism would suffer this flaw. Perhaps a "pay for excerpt" mechanism would work, but that does not satisfy fair use, IMHO.
Oh, and with transcrypters shared temporarily with friends, yeah, you could take the movie (for example) to a friend's house and share that way.
Re:Protecting Copyright, Preserving Fair Use (Score:2)
Isn't that exactly what we had for a couple of hundred years, before all these weird new laws were purchased?
Re:Protecting Copyright, Preserving Fair Use (Score:2)
I very much desire a technical solution to help enforce traditional fair use principles. Lacking one, we will see technical solutions that are far too blunt.
It will help ABC, NBC, and ABC (Score:2)
Besides, if you want to download practically any show on TV, go to efnet or something.
Troy
Dumbasses (Score:2)
If miss commercials, it does nothing to affect the incoming that a network has made selling that time. True - if a majority of viewers started using these and skipping commercials, then the value of that time goes way down, but we are nowhere near that point, and by the time it gets there, I'm sure there will be another revenue stream in place.
As for the sharing thing - how stupid are they? First off - I don't really understand how they can get so paranoid over something they are BROADCASTING - we're giving it away, but no one else can. (Simplistic - hell yes).
So anyway, I tape a show cause I'm out doing something and miss it when it is on. So, that lets me become a loyal viewer, so I am more likely to tune in when it is on next time.
So, someone else misses it so I send it to them. Same thing - viewer recruitment.
They should be embracing the fact that it is helping people see their shows they may miss and creating a stronger, more loyal viewiership.
As for the commercial thing - the people skipping the commercials would probably have done the same thing with video tape or just left the room anyway.
Guess I'll be scared of a lawsuit next time I tape Friends or something and let my office mate borrow the tape.
How hard would it be to make one of your own? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm seriously considering it myself for the simple reasons that it doesn't sound all that hard and the gatekeepers of the thinly veiled propaganda known as television would disapprove.
Lee
Re:How hard would it be to make one of your own? (Score:2)
On the PPC track, for some reason I remember reading a recent story or post on
Re:How hard would it be to make one of your own? (Score:2)
The DirecTivos don't have the second chip (and hence are cheaper) because they just dump the satelite feed to disk.
Cat out of the bag (Score:2)
So basically the stuff will be on the internet regardless of the outcome of this suit.
There's more broken than a business model (Score:3, Interesting)
What made the broadcasting industry possible was not the invention of the technology, it was that the expense of operating the technology limited its use to a few people who could afford to invest in it. Same with the recording industry and the publishing industry. The whole copymaking and distribution business is what made intellectual property a meaningful idea in the first place. Go all the way back to the printing press. If Gutenberg's invention had been so cheap and simple that virtually anybody could reel off as many copies of anything they wanted, the whole copyright concept itself probably wouldn't exist today. We never would have had a publishing industry with investments to protect, motivated to turn copyright into a holy word.
We have the concept of IP because technology was developed in a certain order. Expand your mind a little. Instead of the knee-jerk "what about artist's rights?" reaction, try to forget for a moment that you ever heard of intellectual property. A minstrel wanders into your village and sings a song in a tavern. A storyteller tells a story. They leave town. The local minstrels and storytellers repeat the material, then they wander off to other towns, etc. The performers get paid to perform, in fact some of them might make more money than the creators of the material (no ethical problem there -- the copymaking industry does that in the real world). But the songs and the stories themselves are just sort of floating around in the air. They aren't intellectual property, but they also aren't public property, they aren't even property at all. They are just part of your culture.
So in the hypothetical model time passes and someone invents the Internet, and suddenly you can zip this material off to your cousin in the next village effortlessly. Nobody gets majorly bothered because the fact of who created the material is not economically significant in this model. The minstrels and storytellers can keep doing their thing as long as people still value live performance.
When you separate the fundamental ideas from those that are merely customary (or lucrative), the righteous moralizing everybody has been doing on all sides of IP issues starts to sound like arguing over whether Superman could outrun the Flash. Maybe the real truth is that there is no such thing as "Intellectual Property" at all. Or to borrow from Galaxy Quest, "There is no quantum flux, there is no auxiliary, there's no God Damn Ship!"
Intellectual property is not a god-given right, it's not a "given" at all. It's an investment protection mechanism that was invented by investors, not inventors. At some point we have to move on. The economy would be a lot different without IP, but nobody really knows how. On the other hand, cars and trains might not exist if the concept of "wheeled travel" had been treated as the intellectual property of whoever invented the wagon.
IP appears to be breaking, if not broken already. IP isn't an axiom or a law of nature, it's a tradition. The really disappointing thing is that most of the bright people who could be thinking up a different system seem to be spending their time arguing over how the contracts are written.
Rant completed.
...or you could just pay... (Score:3, Interesting)
This license costs approx. £120 (GBP, ~$180) per year, and a massive infrastructure exists to prevent avoidance - Detector vans, databases etc... Last I heard public opinion was split about 50/50 as to whether to replace the license with advertising on these two channels, and therefore lose the massive cost of operating this infrastructure into the bargain.
Does the US really want to exchange their currently simple television infrastructure for one small "fast-forward advert" button? Surely you are not so lazy that you can't use an ordinary Fast-forward button, and let-go at the end of the adverts (TIVO style) ???
Bad timing is to blame. (Score:2)
Managers don't know shit about technical stuff, and neither do Judges. In the middle sit few big-ticket lawyers who know this all too well; they are the ones who will benefit from this. They're probably the ones who started the fire this time around.
Dammit, I want a decent PVR - knock this off! (Score:2)
So, TiVO ain't it. The DISH 501PVR (I'm a DISH user) apparently uses crap Microsoft code that's been *surpise* ABANDONED by Microsoft, and I see no light at the end of the tunnel for the next DISH PVR but they say it'll be Linux based.
Helllooo companies. I'm a consumer. I have money I wish to spend on a VCR like device of commercial production quality. Here are my requirements in order to pry the dead presidents from my paws:
Record shows, NOT time slots!
Some sort of "season pass" deal like the TiVO.
The ability to add larger HDs when I desire (PVR501 is cake to upgrade)
There should be support or SDK made available, there shouldn't be stupid lawsuits against people hacking the box.
The box should support multiple tuners so I can watch and record.
I should be able to pause live TV.
I want to be able to fast forward past commercials. IF they want me to watch the commercials stop making them insipid and show me something interesting - and not 50times a day!
Most importantly, give me a method of archiving on media like a DVD-R or VCD. I'd really like to be able to edit these on my PC before final archiving. I'm doing this from VCR now and it sux.
I, as a consumer, want a box like this. I will pay cash for it and I'll pay a bunch for it. You can make all the noise you want but I'll have what I want on way or another. TiVO is nearly there! If the hackers manage to get it to the point where the shows can be pulled off easily I'll buy one and mod the crap out of it to get what I want. Either build what I want and let me use it or lose my money and interest! This box was looking good - thanks alot jerks. TiVO isn't yet integrated with DISH but with the possible purchase of DirectTV it could be - I hope. These lawsuits are NOT endearing me or my dollars to the networks.
Some URLs of interest:
http://www.avsforum.com/ubbcgitivo/forumdisplay
http://www.9thtee.com/tivoupgrades.htm [TiVO Upgrades - Ethernet!]
http://www.9thtee.com/extractstream.html [Video Extraction from the TiVO]
http://www.vcdhelp.com/ [Great site for VCD help]
One of these days I'll own a PVR but NOT until I'm able to do what I want with it - by hook or by crook.=!
TiVo has the same feature (Score:2)
Like another astute reader posted, the governmen allows the networks to broadcast as a service for the citizens of this country. Broadcasting is a privilege, not a right, and there is no guarantee that they can make money by broadcasting. It would also seem to me that the networks would be required to prove that they have lost money because of this practice. With billions spent every year on TV advertising, I hardly think this is costing the networks money.
I really can't see this case going anywhere.
Re:TiVo has the same feature (Score:2, Informative)
Technical savvy? Select-Play-Select-3-0-Select on the remote is all it takes.
Bob
Sony Betamax (Score:2, Insightful)
See the Supreme Court's opinion [hrrc.org] on the Betamax issue.
Statements of note:
This case wouldn't even be an issue if Replay weren't a digital medium and therefore covered by the DMCA. I suspect that the major networks are counting on the ability of the DMCA to override fair use rights. I don't think it will work. They may be caught trying to defend the notion that the advance button is different from a FFWD button.
Re:Why is everyone lawsuit happy in the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
great idea!
Great idea? I AGREE! (Score:3, Funny)
Really, decent programming is pretty thin on the ground, and most good TV originated from other sources (independent productions, cable TV, internationally...). If big bad ol' "commercial skip" and the ability to share programming with fellow Replay owners results in the death of a TV network or three I say let technology prevail!
If such a shakeup doesn't improve the quality of TV then at least maybe more people will extricate their fat asses from their chesterfields to go for a walk in the park, once "Survivor" is cancelled due to lack of advertising revenue...
Re:Why is everyone lawsuit happy in the US? (Score:2)
great idea!
Sounds pretty fucken good to me!
what they *SHOULD* do (Score:2)
For example, if RIAA would provide high-bandwidth, high-availability servers with fully indexed music with fast searching and guaranteed bitrate quality (192-256 perhaps?), I'm sure people would pay a reasonable price per download.
Of course, they would have to actually invest some money and effort to to this, and not be raping the artists to fill their pockets anymore. Oh the horror.
Re:Why is everyone lawsuit happy in the US? (Score:4, Insightful)
They have joined it. They just joined a different team. NBC has a stake in Tivo, which is essentially the same product as ReplayTV.
Why are they suing Replay instead of Tivo? Ostensibly because Replay has a "commercial advance" button that lets you skip forward thirty seconds. Apparently this button spells the difference between a copyright-infringing product (Replay) and a perfectly ok product that NBC does business with (Tivo). Who could have known that the ability to fast forward your video footage would make a product "infringing"?
If the networks win (which they probably will, as I doubt the defendant will spend the dough to fight this one), they not only damage a competitor to one of their interests (Tivo), but they also gain a legal precedent for limiting what has been found to be a perfectly legal practice (time shifting TV.)
Re:Why is everyone lawsuit happy in the US? (Score:2)
The right to sue anyone for anything is written into the constitution.
The way to win this case is to buy each member of the supreme court a Replay TV unit. They are not going to give it up once they hve used one.
This is not Napster Mk II. The replay unit is not designed for the primary purpose of infringement.
The Tivo unit is evil, it is yet another of those clueless dotcom scams where you buy something and then have to pay a monthly fee to make it work. Like AOL the designers look for sneaky opportunities to bombard you with ads.
I pay $60 a month for my satelite TV. That should be plenty to support the program makers.
Re:Why is everyone lawsuit happy in the US? (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not sure where this is coming from. TiVo's model isn't that different from that of Replay. Replay chooses to bundle the service fee with the price of the unit. You can either pay $10/month with TiVo or $250 on a one-time basis. Both Replay and TiVo have actively looked for opportunities for advertising dollars, but neither one is bombarding people with advertisements. In TiVo's case, this takes the form of some sponsored content that you have to go looking for; while they're definitely attempting to make it convenient to find material from their partners, it's NOT pushed on you in an AOL-like manner. I've got a really low tolerance for gratuituous spam, and TiVo doesn't even show up on my radar screen of annoyances. It's a good product (as is Replay) and was clearly designed with the consumer's interests first and foremost.
Re:Why is everyone lawsuit happy in the US? (Score:2)
When are major media corps going to realize that they can't beat it so they should just join it.
They've realized it. But their method of joining is to sue their object to the verge of collapse, and then partner from a position of strength (vide Napster).
Re:Why is everyone lawsuit happy in the US? (Score:2)
Re:That first link you have to sign up/register (Score:4, Informative)
No-reg Link to article:
http://archive.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Ne tworks-ReplayTV.html [nytimes.com]
Re:Way to go..... (Score:2)
Re:Dear TV Suits: Tough Shit (Score:2)
Re:Dear TV Suits: Tough Shit (Score:2)
Apparently they do have a problem with TiVo and the old ReplayTV, at least on a business level, because both of these technologies allow users to cut out commercials. They just haven't found a way to sue these products out of existance yet, or prevent them from operating properly. So you can pretty much count on them sneaking more ads into the programs themselves.
Re:Dear TV Suits: Tough Shit (Score:2)
Re:Dear TV Suits: Tough Shit (Score:2)
It has come to our attention that you are violating the rights of our clients and abusing their copyrights by going to the restroom during commercials.
You are therefore being sued for the sum of ONE BILLION DOLLARS (puts pinky to mouth).
Sincerely,
Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe
Attorneys at Law
Re:Dear TV Suits: Tough Shit (Score:2)
If you're going to make references to a movie . . .
Re:Dear TV Suits: Tough Shit (Score:2)
However, don't everyone rejoice, because in a few years your favorite network shows will be interlaced with so many ads that it will make you sick.
Leo: Mr. President, your wife called, and she wants you to pick up some ICE COLD COCA COLA (beat) on the way home from the 'house.
President: Thanks, Leo. Please tell Charlie not to forget to put WORLD-CLASS MONTE BLANC PENS in my jacket pocket, like my dead secretary used to do!
Cool! Just like The Truman Show :-)
Well, OK, not so cool. But it's not actually that different now, it's just not quite so blatant. Companies pay a lot to get their cars (vehicles provided by Ford Motor Company), beer (mmmm...tasty Budweiser in the distinctive and patriotic red, white and blue can!) and other products into television shows and movies already. It's called product placement, and it's been going on for a long time. Of course, there's that nifty real-time video replacement where ads in stadiums get replaced with ads from television sponsors, so maybe it is already that blantant...
Re:Dear TV Suits: Tough Shit (Score:2)
Re:Note the key words, planning to sue (Score:2)
They better be careful. This is like the Felton case in some ways. Felton was "merely" threated, and now he's going to use that to show he was chilled and therefore the law that hung over him (DMCA), was a 1st Ammendment violation.
What we have here is a little different, in that instead of a person's speech being threatened, a product is being threatened with being withheld from the market. When you look at who the planning-to-sue guys are, you see a big list of big media megacompanies. The term "restraint of trade" comes to mind. Just saying that they're "planning to sue" may be enough to make them become defendants.
Re:s/390 assembler (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Doesnt TiVo have commercial skip? (Score:2, Informative)
TiVo has an undocumented "skip 30 seconds" feature, which I find rather pointless - using the second or third fast-forward speeds zips me through ads almost instantly. (And if you enable the 30-sec skip, you lose the "skip to end" feature that I use more.)
Steve