Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

SonicBlue Going w/ReplayTV 4000 Despite Lawsuit 212

Posted by Hemos from the me-wants dept.
Ughhgu writes "Looks like SonicBlue is going to go ahead and start shipping. The Cnet article even has a quote from SonicBlue. It seems they can't understand why the industry would sue them. Sign me up for one!" I'd dearly love to test one of these.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SonicBlue Going w/ReplayTV 4000 Despite Lawsuit More

SonicBlue Going w/ReplayTV 4000 Despite Lawsuit

Comments Filter:
  • ReplayTV changed my life. These PVR are here to stay and the TV networks need to learn how to use them to their advantage.

    RZ
  • The only high tech thing I have with my TV is a remote control.

    How is a SonicBlue any different from TiVo. Isn't Tivo just a digital video recorder?

    • replay tv allows you to send the copy of the show that you recorded to someone else with a replay over a broadband internet connection... tivo just records... you can't get the digital file off the box.

      • replay tv allows you to send the copy of the show that you recorded to someone else with a replay over a broadband internet connection

        No wonder the TV industry doesn't like it. Another difference is that the Replay TV has a "skip forward 30 seconds" button, and the Tivo doesn't. Both of these are examples of how Replay TV is just trying to please the consumer and doesn't really care what the TV industry thinks of them (which I guess is how we got the VCR), whereas Tivo is trying to get the industry on board, chiefly by holding out the carrot of being able to get much more detailed information than Nielson provides about who is watching what (not on individuals, but in aggregates).

        • The bottom line is, I think TiVo is doing a very good job of making both the viewer and the network happy. The sonicBlue box can share over the internet out of the box - on the TiVo, mods are necessary that put this out of the reach of Joe Blow on the street. And TiVo underground [avsforum.com] has "secret" remote sequences.. once of which gets you a 30 second skip button on your TiVo. I've actually gone back to using the Fast Forward button instead. The automatic backup when you exit makes it easier.
      • Not entirely true. TiVos have been hacked [anu.edu.au] to support ISA ethernet cards... making it possible to move, edit, burn, etc. your recorded TV.
      • If you're into hacking, you can add a 10mbps ethernet port to your Tivo, get bash running, and use ExactStream to pull programs off your Tivo, so you can burn them to a CDR.

        I personally think this whole "Send your friends TV shows over broadband" feature of ReplayTV needs some serious rethinking. At its lowest quality setting, an hour of TV takes up around 1.2GB of disk space on your Tivo. At the best quality (called "Best" :), this same show takes up over 9GB of space. I can't imagine trying to send something this large over broadband.

        More than likely, ReplayTV is hoping to use this connection so they can push commercials and other promotional video clips to your unit (if you check ReplayTV's website, they say you *must* have broadband and you *must* make your box accessible from the internet - meaning you can't put it behind your firewall or NAT box.)
    • Both Tivo and ReplayTV are DVRs, but have slightly different feature sets.

      Some prefer ReplayTV, others Tivo. Competition is a good thing...

      (BTW, I prefer Tivo, mainly for its UI and ease of use.)

  • ReplayTV 4000 official site (Score:3, Informative)

    by Black Acid ( 219707 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @07:53PM (#2627713)
    For more information on ReplayTV 4000, see the official site [replay.com]. Interestingly, it's the only networked digital video recorder with broadband connectivity.

  • Ever heard of "capitalism"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Logic Bomb ( 122875 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @07:53PM (#2627714)
    Such devices, the suit contends, deprive the networks of revenue and reduce their incentive to produce new shows.

    Translation: "Our business model is antiquated, and instead of trying to find a new way we're just going to sue anyone who takes advantage of it." Methinks the networks want immunity from the darwinian aspect of capitalism. As I'm sure has been said on /. before, perhaps it's just time to find a better way.

    • Um, that *is* capitalism. Big winners in capitalism have always depended on external factors such as royal charters, exclusive government contracts, legal restrictions, monopolies (technology or geography-based), knee-breaking thugs, and so on.

      I'm not sure there's every been an era of "pure" capitalism, which actually makes me hopeful that by historical standards, the current attempts to create competitive advantage by outlawing actions and ideas anathema to the established corps isn't so bad. Right.
    • Such devices, the suit contends, deprive the networks of revenue and reduce their incentive to produce new shows.

      We could only hope! Network TV is a black hole of intelligence so the sooner these dinosaurs disappear from the landscape, the better. Of course the networks are only pleasing their viewers. All the smart viewers have gone elsewhere...

      I'd rather see these major media companies bleed through their network outlets and not have the profits to pour into further eroding individual rights and freedom. Hopefully, devices like this can get a marketplace foothold such that a legal block is impossible.

      But then, I dream a lot lately!

    • Re:Ever heard of "Obnoxious"? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HamNRye ( 20218 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @08:42PM (#2627932) Homepage
      The banner ad died, we cheered. Then came the pop-under, the flash ad between pages, etc.

      Yes, perhaps the idea of putiing commercials into breaks in the programming so that it does not interfere with the content is over. Commercials will be integrated into the program so that it cannot be skipped without skipping the program.

      Yes, we now get to see a station badge in the lower right corner, and now we will have a marquee running across our shows too. "Make 7 Up Yours!"

      Hammy

  • VCR (Score:2, Redundant)

    by talonyx ( 125221 )
    I suppose VCR's are illegal too... oh wait, FAIR USE.

    When is the industry going to realize that the only difference between digital and analog, in the eyes of the consumer, is ease of use?

    I mean, given a VCR and some electronics skill, it would be a simple enough task to send video over a phone line, 100% analog, right?

    This is the same idea.

    And how do the networks lose money if people record their shows?

    The only "bad" feature, as far as I can tell, is the commercial skipping option. If it were removed, I'm sure there would be nothing even remotely illegal in there. Of course, that won't stop a lawsuit :D
    • The networks may consider commercial skipping a bad feature but how is that illegal? Oh wait its stealing money, ya thats it.

    • Re:VCR (Score:3, Informative)

      by monkeyserver.com ( 311067 )
      I don't know why the same argument that worked for BetaMax (Sony) back in '84 won't hold up here, it's just simple precidence (sp?):
      ...a 1984 Supreme Court case where the movie industry sued Sony, Inc., trying to stop the production of their BetaMax, which was an early version of the VCR.
      In that case, the movie industry argued that VCRs would signal the end of the movie industry by allowing VCR owners to copy movies without paying royalties, in violation of copyright laws. The Court in that case ruled that the VCR had "substantial non-infringing uses," which made the new technology legal. What that means is that, while it is true that VCRs can be used to pirate copyrighted work, they also have substantial beneficial uses which have nothing to do with those illegal uses.
      VCRs, as the Court pointed out, can be used to play legally purchased or rented movies. They can also be used to record non-copyrighted works including home movies made by the VCR owner. These "non-infringing uses" were substantial enough that the new technology should be released to the public, instead of held back for the protection of copyright owners.
      taken from http://www.apca.com/112000.html (no permission :)

      But we all know how big money..err..companies owns the legal system now <Insert MS jibe>

    • Re:VCR (Score:1, Insightful)

      by ralfp ( 519069 )
      If you could send a VHS quality video signal over a phone line in real time, everyone would be doing it, and every electronics store would sell "video over phone" boxes.

      The bandwidth of a POTS line is less than 4kHz (limited by ADCs and DACs in the central office, which sample 8bits at 8kHz; the effective bandwidth is about 3kHz), whereas an NTSC video signal (broadcast quality) is about 6MHz. You would need 2000 "100% analog" POTS lines to send a video signal. One POTS line would get a full-resolution frame in just over one minute (67 seconds per frame versus 30 frames per second). Remember home video phones and how successful they were?

      Even the best compression algorithms and the fastest modems still produce really crappy video over phone lines. DSL gets higher speed by bypassing the ADCs/DACs. Even high speed DSL connections use an effective analog bandwidth of about 1MHz.
    • When is the industry going to realize that the only difference between digital and analog, in the eyes of the consumer, is ease of use?

      Never, because that's not the only difference. If it was the only difference, I wouldn't have two copies of several movies, one on VHS and the other on DVD. Digital is better. It looks better and it sounds better. To Hell with the bonus material -- they could sell us most of it on a 2nd VHS tape if they really wanted -- I buy DVD for the digital sound and picture.

      As for ease of use, VHS is better, because I fast-forward through the FBI warning and commercials, then note the time on the counter and write that on the label. From then on I just FF to 10:15 or whatever and press Play. So it's:

      DVD: Insert disk, press Play, wait through the warnings and ads, watch video.

      VHS: Insert tape, FF through the warnings and ads, press Play, watch video.

      Same difference, really.

      • Re:VCR (Score:3, Funny)

        by talonyx ( 125221 )
        I'm not going to get into the whole vinyl vs cd arguement, but suffice it to say that digital is NOT higher quality by definition - it is in the case of VCR's of course, but I'm sure an analog video system could be made better than a DVD, and a digital system could be made better than that too. The two are on equal terms when ti comes to quality, save for the longevity of digital.

        In fact, you'd think the industry would be happier with formats that only lasted a few years as opposed to DVDs which might last 20 years or more.

        By ease of use I meant the easy ability to modify, copy, and otherwise deal with digital information as opposed to analog.

        • Re:VCR (Score:1, Insightful)

          by ralfp ( 519069 )
          This has been repeated ad nauseam, but the media's (Disney, etc.) main concern, as talonyx stated, is the "easy ability to... copy".

          Digital is not inherently better than analog, but digital copies are perfect copies. You can make a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. and the 1000th copy is exactly the same as the original. Try doing that with a VCR.

          Of course, the TV stations are already broadcasting the original analog data over the air for everyone to see for free. They wouldn't be making much money if they weren't doing this.

          Things would kinda suck if everyone had one of these SonicBlue PVRs, since there would be no advertising revenue, so TV would no longer be free.

        • Re:VCR (Score:2)

          by ocie ( 6659 )

          In fact, you'd think the industry would be happier with formats that only lasted a few years as opposed to DVDs which might last 20 years or more.



          Even this industry has to be a little concerned about what the consumer wants. Remember the failure of DIVX and the self-mutilating DVDs. Once consumers have something (like long-lasting CDs) they don't want to go back to something inferior (VHS tapes that wear out), but they will go to something better. DVDs last a long time like CDs, but also have the capacity to store movies like VHS tapes. The industry can't turn back, it can only limit how slowly it moves forward.

        • "I'm not going to get into the whole vinyl vs cd arguement, but suffice it to say that digital is NOT higher quality by definition "
          If you're not goign to get into it, why did you bring it up? This isn't a vynil vrs cd convo, its a digital vrs analog. CD's sample rate is 44100. Records sample rate is 48000. Ok, so vynil will sound better the first few times...and?
          Also, note that the whole "analog is better" arguement ends once a single conversion is made. If, at any point, its been converted to digital...then putting it back to analog is pointless. For "true" sound yes...analog is better. But its hard to find things that are analog and have never been digital.
          And to make my point clear...how do you think most methods of saving video occur? Think its analog? Nope. Guess again. So your post is pointless. And...another clue for ya: digital can most certainly handle the quality of feed you get from your TV antenae

      • Re:VCR (Score:3, Insightful)

        by grammar fascist ( 239789 )
        Never, because that's not the only difference.

        Actually, the biggest difference, in the eyes of the huge media companies, is something that too many Slashdotters tend to dismiss as an invalid argument: you can make perfect copies of digital material, with no loss.

        Before anybody dismisses it: try to think like a big media company for a minute. You have rights over works that you've bought or hired people to produce, called "copyrights." They're exclusive, with certain exceptions. (You'd like to forget the exceptions of course, but that's beside the point right now.) One nice thing about the current media formats (a few years ago) is that copies degrade, even without copy protection measures. Books are really hard to copy cheaply (so anyone who does it likely has deep pockets and is quite sueable), and audio and video tapes get noticeably worse with each generation.

        If anyone was going to pay for the material in the first place, they'd want a good copy, so they'd get it from your publishers. You can almost forget about the pirates' fair use excuses - nearly no impact on you, right?

        So along comes the digital media. It looks and sounds great forever! But...you can copy it! Perfectly! No degradation! All of the sudden, you have a new brand of pirates: the ones that don't have much money. And there are a lot of them, at least potentially, and they're really, really hard to track down.

        Now, I'm not saying that all of their actions and arguments are excusable, justified, and sane. I am saying that, at least in this one thing - the difference between analog and digital - they have a good point. It's something more people in the tech crowd should at least acknowledge if they don't want to look like punk 13-year-olds when they argue copyright issues.
    • Ham's use slow scan tv, which would not do the trick (5-15 seconds/frame), but given enough bandwidth I guess it could be done. It'd still be damn slow though.

    • Re:VCR (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Webmoth ( 75878 )
      It seems to me that the media companies are not so much opposed to copying for personal use, perhaps not even copying to share with friends at no profit, but rather are opposed to high quality copies lacking the artifacts that analog devices inherently leave behind when making multi-generation copies.

      VHS to VHS ulitimately makes a poorer-quality copy that few people are willing to pay money for (except before release on VHS format). Digital to digital (any form factor) results in perfect copies. People don't have to give up quality for a lower price like they do in analog.

      The media companies fear, and I think it is a valid fear, that perfect copies will cut into their profits to a much greater degree than the analog formats of days past.

      Where this fear loses its foundation is when you consider that most people who purchase pirated copies of media (digital, analog, software, videos, music, books, whatever) probably would not purchase the item if the (cheap or free) copy was not available.

      Put another way, I will never buy a legal copy of Microsoft Office. In my opinion, the quality of the product is not commensurate with its price (I have a legally licensed copy of WordPerfect Office 2000 that I am very happy with). On the other hand, if a copy were made available to me at a low price (read: free), I may consider it. Profits be damned.

      But then, it's none of your business how I spend my money, now is it?
  • i wonder if you have to sign up for a service?

    • Re:looks cool to me (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Black Acid ( 219707 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @08:03PM (#2627768)
      Unfortunately, it appears you do have to sign up to use their server. According to the ReplayTV 4000 product page [replay.com]:
      SONICblue reserves the right to automatically add, modify, or disable any features in the operating software when your ReplayTV 4000 connects to our server.

      Fishy policy, I'd say...

      • Fishy policy, I'd say...

        Actually, what caught my attention first was the previous line that you left out.

        When in use, the Commercial Advance(TM) feature may not skip all commercials.

        I wonder what that means...you just bought a $1700 appliance that selectively skips commercials? It doesn't skip the ones that are produced by companies affiliated with Sonic Blue I bet...

        • It probably means: "When the networks figure out how Commercial Advance(TM) works, and it gets popular, they'll figure out how to mess with it. Plus, the algorithm isn't exact, anyway."

    • Dork! (Score:3, Funny)

      by jabber ( 13196 )
      Click on the link.. Then type "www.replaytv.com or "www.sonicblue.com" into your browser, and find out.

      Moderators, this is not Flamebait, it's common (freaking) sense.
  • No more downloading crappy VHS rips of Simpsons and Seinfeld. Make some nice DivX AVI's out of 'em. Perfect digital quality baby!


    *jizz*

    • Re:Yeah baby! (Score:4, Funny)

      by psamuels ( 64397 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @09:43PM (#2628228) Homepage
      Make some nice DivX AVI's out of 'em. Perfect digital quality baby!

      Excuse me, I think my screen must have gone blurry or something. Did you just say "DivX AVI's" and "perfect digital quality" in the same context?

      Look up the term "lossy compression" some time. (:

  • The article doesn't list any sellers, but I want to buy one quick, before Disney stormtroopers sweep down and confiscate them from the stores.

  • Get rid of your TV (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @07:56PM (#2627722)
    Read a book! Go hiking! Learn to cook! Become a viking!

    Fix that squeaky door hinge. Eat a banana. Buy a Japanese orange. Lay into some sweet ill-nana.

    Log onto the web. Shave your head. Watch the tides flow and ebb. Don't be caught dead

    watching that damned tv.

    Life is waiting.
    • You can watch TV while studying, while doing your homework, while programming, while reading, while chatting over the net, while playing Pokémon, while playing chess, while building a lego robot, while listening to music, while painting [omlettesoft.com], while cuddling with your sweety...

      It's all good, and stuff...

  • "Pretend" ReplayTV (Score:5, Interesting)

    by irregular_hero ( 444800 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @07:57PM (#2627727)
    Preface: The way things are posted here is really confusing to me, even though I've been a user for years. Seems to me like I submitted this one a long time ago. Anyway...

    These units have the capability to send shows from one ReplayTV unit to another. There's not a whole lot of detail given about this functionality, but I wonder whether it can be fooled into thinking your PC is a ReplayTV unit. I slobber uncontrollably when I think about a DVR that would let me archive shows to my file server.

    I've been a Tivo owner for almost a couple of years now, and in that time I've modified mine with extra disk space, a web interface, an ethernet port, and a shell prompt on a serial port. :> And there is some work going on right now to play raw video streams from the unit streamed over the network (Andrew Tridgell of Samba fame is the main culprit there), but something like this -- and the stand that SonicBlue is taking on this issue -- makes me sorta want a ReplayTV 4000.

    For those interested, there's very little information on the "Send Show" functionality listed on the ReplayTV [replaytv.com] web site, but I am curious how a user with multiple ReplayTV units and a broadband hardware firewall would allow people to send video to them. I assume it's a TCP session and let-'er-rip, but the site is annoyingly lacking on details. I'd love to know.

    • Re:"Pretend" ReplayTV (Score:2, Informative)

      by pjl5602 ( 150416 )
      I slobber uncontrollably when I think about a DVR that would let me archive shows to my file server.

      You mean like a stand-alone Tivo with a network card [9thtee.com] added along with a web server [lightn.org] running on it?&nbsp Then you can make an MPEG-2 file [sonnik.com] from the data stored on the Tivo.&nbsp The downside is that there currently isn't a way to get the data back to the Tivo for viewing.
    • All they have to do is sell it with the contentious fanctions disabled by default.

      Then make it easy for the end purchaser or retailer to enable those contentious functions by having say a mini screw switch on the PCB acessed by a tiny round hole in the back one could sloyt a csrew driver down.

      Just like DVD players in Oz are virtually all sold with multi-region re-enabled, even though officially they are all only region 4 capable.

  • Controling trade... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 )
    Ironic that ABC/Disney has backed away from the internet (Go.com), MS-NBC is a weak presence, CBS/Viacom is almost nonexistent in influence and the only company capable of enforcing through medium (any metering or blocking of content exchange) is TW/AOL.

    I find it interesting that many of these companies could be throttling this sort of device as an oligarchy, yet have little or no influence on the use of the technology. Actually that's a good thing, because of many concerns about there eventually being only a few companies, some years down the road, through which internet service will be provided and dictating what technology would be available and how it could be used by consumers.

  • I'll buy it when... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hoggoth ( 414195 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @07:59PM (#2627736) Journal
    I'll buy it when I can use a SMB or NFS drive over my network to store an amount of video only limited by my hard drives, and I can access the files from my PC (to play on the PC, to extract clips, whatever I feel like doing).
    • No you won't. Like most people, you're trying to throw the virtual weight of your 'maybe dollars' around to influence people.

      If you are REALLY interested in change, put your actual money where your mouth is. Identify a company that is going in a direction you like and purchase their products. The only person a company listens to is someone it has a financial relationship with, not just a 'potential'.

      When the first thoughts of networking computers was realized, the US Government did not say 'well... I'll fund this only if it does super reallistic streaming video.' They decided that they liked the potential that a non-centralized communication system had, so they put their money into developing something that originally could barely send plain text.

      Look where we are now? Bottom line, spend money, don't make vague demands.
      • > No you won't.

        Umm... Yes I will. I thought I was pretty clear.

        > Like most people, you're trying to throw the virtual weight of your 'maybe dollars' around to influence people.

        Umm... No I'm not. I'm not trying to influence anybody. I'm stating what product I will buy if it ever becomes available. Wow, you're really not good at this mind reading thing, are you?

        > Identify a company that is going in a direction you like and purchase their products.

        I think a personal-use orbital-capable vehicle would be really neat. Do I have to buy a Space Shuttle now? It's not what I want, but it's going in a direction I like.

        > When the first thoughts of networking computers was realized, the US Government did not say 'well... I'll fund this only if it does super reallistic streaming video.' They decided that they liked the potential that a non-centralized communication system had, so they put their money into developing something that originally could barely send plain text. Look where we are now?

        Yeah, they paid for and got exactly the product they wanted. A network that was non-centralized and could be routed around nuclear destruction. Many years later the new technology in it evolved into something even better than what they paid for. I'll buy a PVR that uses network drives and many years later maybe it's descendents will do holograms.

        > Bottom line, spend money, don't make vague demands.

        Vague? How much more specific can I be? Record and play video on an SMB or NFS mounted disk. Do you want specs for SMB and NFS?

        Do you always tell people what to do?
    • You can easily add space (up to 240GB) to your Tivo and ReplayTV has a 300+ hour model...just how many hours of TV do you need, anyways? With many shows coming out on DVD, there's not the need to archive TV shows yourself anymore.
      • just how many hours of TV do you need, anyways?

        Well, Babylon 5 is 110 hours, the B5 movies add another 8, and Crusade is 13. Plus, there is a new B5 movie coming out. And then there's Buffy...

        With many shows coming out on DVD, there's not the need to archive TV shows yourself anymore.

        I'll believe it when I see it. (Yes, I've preordered the first B5 DVD.)

      • Re:I'll buy it when... (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Bah! You miss the big picture. You only record a small amount right now, because that's what you've been limited to. With this unit, you can program it to record entire seasons of shows. You can query based on an actors' name, and THEN select the movies you'd like to record.



        After recording an entire season of Sopranos, you can then dump the entire thing down to your VCR. As for the DVD solution, I'm still waiting for the third season of Sopranos to come out. Wish I woulda had one of these units back then.

  • is ReplayTV based on linux as tivo is? (thereby making it easy to add space)

  • Just another in a long chain... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ajuda ( 124386 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @08:00PM (#2627746)
    MP3 players were supposed to be the end of music companies, VCRs were supposed to be the end of movie theatres, Photocopy machines were supposed to be the end of books, Radio was supposed to be the end of newspapers. You know what? None of them created the destruction that people feared they would. This will all blow over like the fears surrounding the RIO.

    • The managers at the big companies may be evil, but they aren't entirely stupid. As the new technologies come through, they reshape the business world. New technologies make some companies grow, and other companies fail. So, which movie companies shrank as a result of VCRs, and which ones prospered?

      As we all know, VCRs helped most of the movie companies prosper. Now look at the executives. Video sales and rentals helped a bunch of executives climb the movie company corporate ladders. Which means turnover at the top.

      The folks choosing to bring the lawsuits, might be afraid that their company will suffer, or more likely, they're afraid that they personally will suffer.

    • VCRs were supposed to be the end of movie theatres

      In fact, VCR IMPROVED attendance at movie theatres overall. It widened the scope for the movies, bringing a wholenew audience in. I'm not a huge movies fan, but watching crappy VHS copies just kind of makes you want to go to the BIG SCREEN and soak the thing in. It improved the possibility of getting a small film funded because the direct to video revenue stream was viable.

      What broadcasters need to do is produce better BROADCAST television, so we find some benefit from watching live / watching through their hardware. Other than sporting events I cannot think of an example of a TV show I'd pay extra to watch 'live'

      OR they need to find a different charging mechanism than subscription / advertising.

      Actually. All TeeVee should be funded like the BBC [bbc.co.uk]. The BBC is great!

  • forgive my ignorance... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by GPB ( 12468 )
    but shouldn't the networks be going after the individuals who utilize the features of replayTV to violate copyright and not replayTV itself? Just because replayTV has the capabilities to allow users to violate copyright, it doesn't mean that all users will or that relayTV is forcing them to. Sure, going after users is difficult and expensive, but they are the ones actually breaking the law.

    I guess the same argument could be made for Napster, and look where that ended up.

    -B
  • The coolest part about this thing is that it lets you skip commercials in replayed shows. I want one of these things, if anything, it will make my TV experience more enjoyable. Plus, how many of us are going to share 200MB+ TV show recordings over the internet? Can't we just set our SonicBlue to record the show instead of downloading it? Seems like over-paranioa by the industry.

  • Hackability? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RedX ( 71326 ) <redx@wideopenw[ ].com ['est' in gap]> on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @08:07PM (#2627786)
    As a veteran TiVo user, I'm very intrigued by the ReplayTV4000 since it adds a few of the features out of the box that many TiVo users have been hoping for (yes, I'm completely aware of TivoNet). That said, unless there is a way to hack the software I won't be wasting my money on this product that very likely will be pulled from the market in its current form at some point thanks to the wonderful judicial system in the US.

    What is needed is a way to have a fully functional system that doesn't take the software upgrades that will inevitably be coming to disable the sharing features and other features that the networks are complaining about. To compare it to TiVo, to use the full TiVo features you must leave a phoneline plugged in to "phone home" and take whatever software upgrades are forced on you. Pull the phone line for more than 30 days and you basically have yourself a glorified VCR. At some point in SonicBlue is going to be forced to send a software update to disable or alter some of the features of the 4000. Unless there is a way to hack the software to have a fully functional system without taking software updates, you're just wasting your money on this.

    • At some point in SonicBlue is going to be forced to send a software update to disable or alter some of the features of the 4000. Unless there is a way to hack the software to have a fully functional system without taking software updates, you're just wasting your money on this.

      If SonicBlue ever sends down an update that takes away functionality that is advertised (printed on the box, mentioned on their website, etc), then they would do this at their own peril. It'd be like shouting, "I hope all of our customers get together and file a class action lawsuit against us!"

      I think the MPAA or similar organization could get an injunction stopping the sale of these units, but could they force SonicBlue to send out an update taking away functionality that was promised to the customer during the sale?

      Talk about prompting a backlash... yeesh.

      • Re:Truth in advertising... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RedX ( 71326 ) <redx@wideopenw[ ].com ['est' in gap]> on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @09:51PM (#2628272)
        If SonicBlue ever sends down an update that takes away functionality that is advertised (printed on the box, mentioned on their website, etc), then they would do this at their own peril. It'd be like shouting, "I hope all of our customers get together and file a class action lawsuit against us!"

        As someone else pointed out in this thread, the legalease on their site states "SONICblue reserves the right to automatically add, modify, or disable any features in the operating software when your ReplayTV 4000 connects to our server."

        What I envision happening at some point is a judge declaring that ReplayTV 4000 can only share programs that the networks allow them to, sort of an opt-in for the networks. So technically Sonicblue wouldn't be guilty of false advertising since you can still share *some* programs. At any rate, the disclaimer above seems to cover them removing features as they please.

  • Hey Hemos -- the story does NOT state that Sonic Blue "can't understand why the industry would sue them. It DOES say that they don't think they should be viewed by the industry as an enemy but rather as a partner. Keep it objective.
    • The way things work here on Slashdot is that when you see an article and it starts out with:

      So-and-so states: "I hate Microsoft". How about that.

      That stuff in italics is actually what the submitter wrote. So Hemos himself isn't actually responsible for the statement "It seems they can't understand why the industry would sue them," the submitter of the article is. Now Hemos could have possibly corrected the submitter in the part after the italics, but he didn't. I don't know that I would say that he was being subjective by not taking the time to correct the subjective statement of the submitter...
      • I know the way things work here. If Hemos posts the article, it implies that he thinks that this particular article, selected from among the numerous submissions he gets, is somehting the /. community is interested in. As we know, not everyone reads every article and many more do not bother to read the source article.

        IMHO, when /. staffers post articles, they have an obligation to do a little further digging to ensure that the summary they post (which is all many on /. see) is accurate. Conclusion: even though Hemos is not the drafter of that statement, he is responsible by posting it.

        It is not a question of being subjective versus objective - those terms are properly applied only to opinions and analyses. It is merely a matter of being factually accurate.

    • Of course it was Ughhgu who said that, not Hemos. All Hemos said was "I'd dearly love to test one of these."

  • Umm... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dimator ( 71399 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @08:07PM (#2627790) Homepage Journal
    Sonicblue's DVRs range from $700 to $2,000, depending on the size of the hard drive, which can hold 40 hours to 320 hours of programming.


    Ya... exactly which hard drive costs over $1,000?
    • I'm pretty sure the higher end models use two disks, not just one.

      But yeah, the prices are still a bit high for essentially the same hardware as the low end model, with a larger HD.

      Assuming you can modify ReplayTV as easily as you can Tivo, there would be nothing stopping you from buying the low end, then modifying it to your heart's desire.
  • Not knowing what this was exactly, I went to the site [cnet.com] linked in this article that slashdot had on it's site. I then went to the site [cnet.com] that was linked on that article. These are two quotes that I guess would sum it all up for the companies suing.


    " Unlike its competitors, Sonicblue will not charge a monthly service fee. "

    "The boxes will display digital photos and skip commercials automatically, which differs from the ability in current ReplayTV boxes to fast-forward through commercials"


    The first statement, that they would not charge, would knock tivo down. The second would literally destroy the way that television content is paid for and profitable. Nuts, but true. Just thought I would point out as to why the companies are suing, although I do love the idea and plan to get one as soon as it hits the market.
    • Interestingly, I can get up and take a shit rather than watch comercials. Nobody's sued me yet :)
    • The second would literally destroy the way that television content is paid for and profitable. Nuts, but true.

      That's pure bullshit. It might do this, not would, if almost everyone who watches TV bought that exact unit and time-shifted 100% of their TV viewing. That's a big honking, un-fscking-likely IF.

      First, I doubt Sonic Blue has the capacity to provide a unit for all the TVs in the world. Second, not everyone wants to spend $600-$2000 per TV when you can get a VCR and TV for $100.

      My wife and I are avid time-shifters, and even we only shift maybe 40% of the shows we watch. It goes like this- if we happen to be home when it's on, we usually watch it. But that doesn't always happen!

      How about when you're over a friend's house, watching TV? We see the commercials.

      How about when I'm watching TV in a public area, like sitting in the hospital waiting room? I see the commercials.

      How about all the people who buy the unit who can't find the knob to turn off commericals, or simply don't care to turn it on? (Don't laugh, how many of you know people who can't set the VCR clock? It's a lot of people.)

      How about when nothing compelling is on, and I'm channel surfing? I'm not watching anything in particular, it's unplanned viewing. I see the commercials.

      Or when it's a premiere that you just can't want to wait to see, so you watch it live.

      If you think about it, even if this unit is smashing success and "everybody" has it, there still will be PLENTY of ads seen by all. It wouldn't make a single stinking difference in the money the networks make.

  • I just hope that this doesn't become popular. It seems things that become extremely popular get "attacked" and usually changed for the worse by the select few who don't like said product/service. Napster is of course the most recent example and don't forget about compact discs. CD's were not $19.95 a pop when I first started buying them. Its after they became popular that the price changed dramatically.

  • Sonic sent emails Tuesday... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Tide ( 8490 ) <chad&chadsdomain,com> on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @08:14PM (#2627813) Homepage
    From the email they sent me:

    Dear SONICblue customer,

    Thank you for pre-ordering the ReplayTV 4000. A customer service representative will be contacting you shortly to confirm the specific details of your pre-order. In order to expedite the shipment of your ReplayTV 4000 model DVR, you are encouraged to call us toll-free at 1-877-ReplayTV (1-877-737-5298) to verify your desired shipping method and other details.

    Our Sales department can be reached Monday through Friday, 5:00AM to 5:30PM (PST).

    Thank you and Happy Holidays!
    SONICblue Customer Care

    I immediately called and waited about 20 minutes on hold. The main options for shipping ran $22 (ground) $55 (2nd day) and$80 for Next day, though he mentioned that they ship friday so next day would be Mon at the earliest. CA residents need to pay taxes.

  • work-arounds for ad-skipping (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jamienk ( 62492 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @08:18PM (#2627827)
    * Ban the programatic detection and elimination of ads. Do this either with laws, or de-facto, by owning media "browsers"

    * Make ads use non-standard and random time lengths, sizes, volumes, ect., so that ads cannot be programatically detected

    * Interrupt TV, web pages, and even music CDs and movies with ads at irregular intervals so that ads cannot be even generally anticipated

    * Supperimpose ads on the sidelines of shows, web pages, CD covers etc. with a constant, nagging presence so that it is difficult to escape from ads even after they have been identified

    * Work ads into the background of the action of shows, web pages, etc. to make it more difficult to mentally "tune out" the ads' presenece

    * Work ads into the hearts of the plots of fictions, the comments of characters, and the opinions of pundits so that it becomes difficult to even distinguish ads from non-ads

    * Replace entertainment, information, opinion, and art with ads wholesale; completely removes the troubling burden of somehow "integrating" ads with non-ads

    * Attempt to ban the use of all mass media except for ads; eliminates non-ad competition

    What will they think of next?

  • What they're really scared of... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cresferthip ( 198912 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @08:20PM (#2627840)
    What they're really scared of is that with devices like this in the hands of the consumer, the networks' plans for pay-per-view replays go out the window.

    What the networks want is to get more money from the consumer by charging for video on demand replays of TV shows. Keep in mind that they're pushing for "locks" on digitally delivered programs so they can mark programs as "unrecordable" and "protected" at which point your VCR/whatever will refuse to record/show the time-shifted broadcast.

    The only reason they could want something like this is to be able to charge you for a time-shifted showing.

    "Not home for the big game? Well, you can't record it, but we'll let you watch it as video on demand for a small fee! Suck it down!"

    With a network of digital recorders that can share programs you no longer have to ask of family and friends, "hey, did you tape ER on thurs.? I missed it and forgot to tape it." Instead you search and download...and if people can do that, why would they buy a rebroadcast from the network?

    This isn't about protecting an old and out of date business model, this is about changing current laws and controlling the technology so that a new business model can take off.
    • What they're really scared of is that with devices like this in the hands of the consumer, the networks' plans for pay-per-view replays go out the window.

      I don't agree. As I've said before [slashdot.org], I think 99% of people would prefer pay-per-view video-on-demand over a PVR, because there's no several-hundred-dollar upfront hardware cost.
  • 5 Networks all in the business of making money. I can imagine millions of american families paying upwards of $500 a pop for a service like this.

    How do they miss this as a source of revenue? First they allow the cable industry to bite into the pie now another group of companies giving their "customers" services they would be more than happy to pay for. Sounds like just bad business moves.

    Is the product illegal or wrong. Of course not. There is plenty of FREE TO DISTRIBUTE TV available. The local channels and PBS. A product cannot be illegal if it does not break the law simply by exsisting. The only real crime here as that their own "customers" will be going to companies that actually offer a piece of hardware for their services. A purchase of a TV and VCR can provide the same services they object to.

    It is all about the money involved in our purchasing habits. American culture is constantly wanting more and more entertainment by digital means. The TV industry looks like a lame investment of money. Wake up and offer what the people ask for. Otherwise the product exists and it will continue. The american dollar always can purchase.
  • Shows worth watching.

    An episode of *anything* more than 5 years old that hasn't been butchered (think MASH) to the point of unwatchability.

    Intelligent commercials...some of the producers or whatever should be flogged with their own film...camera still atttached.

    It was inevitable a device such as this came about...for all the talk years ago of V chips (violence chips) none of these idiots ever thought of a Commercial chip...well, here it is.

    And maybe I am too much of a geek, ethernet is nice...what it really needs is a RAID tower and LVD 360M scsi...OOoooo.

  • Not broadcast material they are worried about. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by barfy ( 256323 ) on Wednesday November 28, 2001 @08:54PM (#2627975)
    Ok, slashdotters, think outside the "box" will ya...

    Ok, it is a little about broadcast material. It will allow transfer of information outside the advertisor's area. (look at the SHIVA laws regarding protection of local broadcast rights and the effect it is going to have on picture quality of DBS systems)...

    But here is where it really matters. ALL PAY PER VIEW material. This includes Actual PPV, Premium Channels, DVD's, and Video's from blockbuster. Since the Replay will be able to record anything coming in on a given channel (like channel 3) at high resolution, and then distributed across the Internet to those that have not payed for the privelage, a technology like this, will result in less potential income to content producers. Less money to HBO, less to Disney, Less to Don King, less to the WWF.

    The biggest difference between this and VCR is convenience and distribution. Distribution of Video tapes is so limited to not really matter in terms of money. When distribution becomes "easy" (And in this case, Napster is an appropriate analog), then non-payment use of PPV material becomes rampant and uncontrolled.

    In this case it will only be a matter of creating "replay" groups that will create material that will be "easy" to get... "Hey, I missed the last episode of the Soprano's can someone send it to me?" "Does, any one have "Shrek?""

    Fair use laws never intended to allow easy distribution of copies of material in a fashion that allows use outside of the intended commercial distribution method. It is meant to allow fair personal use.

    IANAL but I think that they can demonstrate that this moves from personal use, to extra-commercial distribution of intellectual property, without compensation to the owners of that property.
  • anyone have a clue to the hackability? The thing that's been holding me back on these is the required "service" to just see schedule or set the clock. I want my pvr to talk to my server which gather's show information from the net via perl scripts.

    Free info, and my control. control of my viewing habit data.
    • The service is obtained over the Ethernet connection, so it should go through your server and automatically download the information. I would guess that since the data is going over the Ethernet it will be reverse engineered (unless they encrypt the data). If you use your server as a firewall (or even if you don't) it is a simple matter to look at all the data.

      As for the required "service", I don't understand your complaint, because unlike TiVo the service is included with the product with no service fee.

      Also, if it is like my current Replay box (which I hacked by adding a second hard drive :) the TV listings also include various categories, and you can update your settings and selections via a web portal. I can see what my Replay is set to record and can change it via the web from work and the next time my box dials in it will get the updated settings. I would guess that this box will be even more powerful since it uses a broadband connection, where you should be able to access it directly.

      -Aaron
  • Great, the list of stuff my wife won't let me buy (but that I REALLY need) gets longer.

    Congrats to SonicBlue for their bravery. Be very afraid of the IP Lawyers. Be Very Afraid.

  • Pause Technology Owns PVR Patent - Suing TiVo (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They've not yet been sued by Pause Technology who owns the patent on PVR - pausing live TV for subsequent playback. Motorola has licensed the technolgoy from Pause Technology. More at Pause Technology Commences Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against TiVo [yahoo.com].
  • I'd rather not see the average consumer wasting any bandwidth of the internet sending episodes of soap operas to each other. Besides wouldn't an hour of high quality video require sending something like 500MB to 2.0GB of data anyway?

  • I'd dearly love to test one of these.

    So buy one, you cheap bastard, instead of whoring around for free samples with a /. submission.

  • Here's a question: Instead of trying to STOP progress...Why don't Disney and them just make their own recorder? They could even integrate this into ABC somehow: If you have this specific recorder at this time, you will receave this special bonus footage of whatever instead of a commercial break. Something like that. It seems reasonable to me, and is certainly an improvement over bannig anyhing that could hin the lining of their pockets.
    Anyway, just a thought.
  • "We feel very strongly that this product violates copyright laws, and we intend to pursue our case vigorously," she said.


    Just remember - DVRs don't infringe copyright, people infringe copyright.

Slashdot Top Deals

The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood

Close