Slashdot Mirror
TV Networks Sue ReplayTV
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.
Bastards.
Keeping
Once again...
faithInHumanity--;
Feel free to add your own version your favorite language.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
I'm not actually happy that something bad, such as this, can be so easily and accurately predicted.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
When are major media corps going to realize that they can't beat it so they should just join it. Media being shared on the net is here to stay and the more they try to control it, the more people will fight it underground.
And tell me? Who actually watches the ads on a taped program anyway???
Acaila
Growing Old is Inevitable; Growing Up is Optional.
wait till someone hooks up their Replay to the FastTrack/Kazaa network.....
I sig, therefore I was.
There is no replay 400. This is probably referring to the replay 4000. Again, nice fact checking slashdot.
psst. its the ReplayTV 4000, not 400.
Wow, a typo in a Slashdot article, surprise!
Didn't the Supreme Court already decide that VCRs are legal? Can any legal experts out there explain why this case is different?
This is so similar to the RIAA injunction against Diamond for the RIO MP3 player. 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!
Unless replay is going to keep some kind of centralized database of who is transmitting what to whom, it would be very hard to enforce a fifteen retansmit limit if a bunch of reasonably competent hackers decided to break it. In any protection scenario, you've got to have some trusted element in the equation. If you're putting the hardware into the hands of the public, it can't be considered trusted. Since users A and B can't be trusted, you would need some kind of an intermediary trusted element, like a decryption key server, to make sure shows couldn't be pirated.
There's a few things that made me wonder about this, such as:
Why are large corporations and networks so pathetically predictable (much like a FOX sitcom)?
and
Why didn't they do this sooner? Not that I wanted them to, but I expected them to a *long* time go.
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.
There's this thing called 'fair use'. I've been taking advantage of it with my VCR for years now. My VCR also has a button which lets me advance past commercials. Pretty neat, huh kids?
So they might as well kiss that part of their lawsuit goodbye, as it will not be going anywhere. 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!
"And like that
As the happy owner of a Replay TV, I can tell you that it has changed TV forever. Prime Time is whenever I sit down in front of the couch. I regularly watch two or more episodes of a program in a row. Episodic programs are much more interesting when they can be viewed back-to-back rather than week-to-week. I'm addicted to the pause and rewind features. Phone rings in the middle of West Wing? No problem - I don't miss a sentence.
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...
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.
How ironic that it only took two weeks after SonicBlue won a Technological/Engineering Emmy Award for the Advancement of Television for the big boys to crackdown on them. Too bad we still have media people wanting to control information rather than letting it free.
begin := 1;
:= hopeThatHalfTheSuitHasNoMerit - 1;
toWorryAboutThem
with hopeThatHalfTheSuitHasNoMerit do
begin
CrossFingers();
hopeThatHalfTheSuitHasNoMerit
end;
end;
(sorry, been a few years. if only i could remember COBOL, not that COBOL could do anything useful).
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
is this type of lawsuit going to happen to the "pop-up" killers and ad blockers that proliferate the internet today? It will happen.
Is see the flaws in the current 'underground' sharing systems, and offer a better solution, charging appropriately.
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.
This is not really intended to shut SONICblue down. As the article states, the defendants and the plaintiffs are also negotiating a business deal. This lawsuit is nothing more than a pressure tactic designed to get a more favorable deal.
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
...but all too DIGUSTING! FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM! And to HELL with anything who messes with my F-R-E-E-D-O-M!!
You heard it here first, folks!
I don't even watch TV anymore(usually) except for the news sometimes, whatever I want to watch I can usually find on a filesharing program with ads removed anyway
One particular feature of the Replay TV 4000 is it's commercial skipping AKA "Commercial Advance" feature (See commercial advancing for more details)
:-D
If PVRs like the RTV 4000 begin to take off, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to predict that the major broadcasters/networks will respond by adjusting their broadcast methods, perhaps by eliminating the trademark "dead space" which enables commerical advancing.
One lesser known feature of Replay TV (See Replay Codes for more) is the quickskip-by-minute feature. Pressing 2 and Quickskip on the controller jumps ahead 2 minutes.
Of course, if this becomes an issue, you can be sure that we'll be getting 15 second commercial breaks, 45 second commercial breaks, etc....
Like I said, One Upmanship.
- Any Day above Ground is a good Day (Michael Rich, 1997)
I suggest that you try again you inconsiderate turd.
If you visit replayTV's B2B section, among other things you will find "Targeted Ad System". So, instead of static one-size-fits-all old-fashioned commercials, users will see accurately targeted ones. And sure they will be different for every replay by you or your friend. On top of that, users will be able to "buy on the spot"...
:-) Overall, seems like not a bad idea for troubled networks, if only their paranoid executives could visit websites of their perspective defendants.
Actually, it's seems like they implement the multi-tier approach in TV entertainment.
I haven't seen Kahuna around for awhile so I'm continuing his work. If you have any objection, you can go suck CmdrTaco's cock. You have no right to an opinion because you're a faggot AC.
If you don't like seeing the media companies taking this sort of action, there's only one thing for you to do:
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.
For those without nytimes account: news.com
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
Then I wonder why anyone hasan't sued the makers of programs like pop off! and such, since they do basically the same thing, they prevent you from viewing ads. or better yet why not sue whoever mad the remote control!! after all with it you can also flip past the commericals! :)
Snoozer.
Yeah, well there's a reel account behind this faoggoty AC but you, penix, are not worth exposing it. Why don't you grow up and get Kahuna's FPs right? You can at least study the archives or something...but I suggest that you just find a fast moving train and jump in front of it. That would be the best for the entire community.
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?
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
You nean it is going to be against the law
to skip over commercials on your home video
recorder??
Sounds like these guys need a third party
plugin.
How come they aren't suing VCR manufacturers
over video recorders ability to make and
distribute illegal copies of television
programs?
(Wait, didn't they lose that one? Something
about time shifting and fair use rights. So,
I play back commercials at the rate 1 frame
per 300. How does it feel to be edited for
content and compressed for TV viewing?)
Viacom's CBS, Disney's ABC, General Electric's NBC and other media companies are planning to sue personal video recorder maker Replay TV for copyright infringement. (Emphasis added)
Note that they are not actually filing a lawsuit, they are just announcing that they are planning to. They feel threatened all right. They are threatened because they fear that this could be perfectly legal and they could not do a thing about it. So they are announcing a potential lawsuit to try and scare other companies away from video sharing and automatic commercial skip, otherwise the big scarey lawyers might come after them.
(This is from TVInsite. For some reason, I can't seem to get login to NYTimes working, so don't know what their article says)
Don't Networks broadcast their shows free over the air? Don't people fast forward through commercials they taped anyway? or mute it when it comes on TV? or surf to another channel during commercials?
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
As far as I am concerned a lot less time/money/space would be wasted if CEOs had to personally respond to threats like these as an individual used to respond to slurs against his honor.
THEN we'd have situations like this:
Hillary Rosen: I challenge you, Dmitri!
Dmitri Sklyarov: Fine. Shotguns at three paces.
And then I'll tell them I won't give them any more money if they don't listen to me. Lets see, I gave my party $100 this year. Lets see... The RIAA gave my party about 50 grand this year. Disney gave my party about 140 grand this year.The MPAA was relatively cheap and only gave them about 20 grand this year. Hmm. I wonder who they would possibly listen to... (Statistics thanks to opensecrets.org here.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
In order for a judge to instate an injunction, the plantiffs have to provide evidence that:
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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?
Hmm...given the great steaming pile of crap produced by the US TV networks in recent years, I'd say it would be no great loss.
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...
RCA makes several VCRs that boast "Commercial Advance" (my brother actually has one of these POS). RCA's parent company is GE. Same goes for NBC. Now that's a lawsuit I'd love to see. It's like Plymouth suing Dodge...
I wish I could buy a set top box that had had a button that would take the ads out of the shows on television. I don't want to watch Chandler drinking Coke, or Bart eating Butterfinger, or Malcolm using an iBook. Heh, that would bring a much bigger law suit.
________________
All my sig are fjdklafjkldafjkldafdaklf
So they want to make this device illegal because it lets you share the recorded programs. Fine. Why don't they ban the sale of guns since they let you kill people. Are these companies trying to say that sharing TV programs is worse than MURDERING SOMEONE? That money is more important than human life? Wow. I'll have to agree with the first post about faith_in_humanity--; Damn.
My other car is first.
BCTR R1,0
ST R1,FTINHUM
EQUREGS
you know, you can't ride the concept of the horse.
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.
How about?
OpenReplay
I think the TV networks can learn from the music industry's strategy. If you don't want people to copy your content willy-nilly, provide a legit way for them to get it how they want, when they want. The music industry's version of this is MusicNet and PressPlay; they same principle applied to TV would be video-on-demand for everything. Obviously people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to time-shift TV and skip commercials, but none of that money is going to the networks. Commercial-free VOD could potentially give viewers and networks what they want.
I realize that it lists commercial skip as part of the lawsuit, but i genuinely think that's just as red herring. ReplayTV didn't get sued before SonicBlue had this announcement, and UltimateTV (by MS) hasn't gotten sued, and both of those had this feature.
The crux of the issue is the same as you hear before/during and after every sporting event. Material broadcast is the property of the broadcaster... you cannot rebroadcast without expressed written permission by everyone involved. Just copyright law 101 (for better or worse). SonicBlue allows this, and SonicBlue is getting sued.
... and those of you who were really wrong, slap yourselves in the face.
The suit isn't being filed against the television watcher requiring them to watch the ads. Nor is it being filed against the purchasers of the Replay units. It is being filed against the manufactures. As you make it more and more convenient for customers to avoid advertisements more viewers will avoid them. The sugestion of this suit is that there is a point where it becomes so easy to avoid commercials that the average man will start avoiding them and it is at this point that the networks have an issue. The question of the suit is whether an actual law has been broken here. I think this is a legitimate question (I don't beleive a law has been broken) and should discussed in the courts. One thing the law is frequently interested in is not whether a 2nd party is simply allowing a 3rd party to infringe on a first parties rights but is this 2nd party leading the average man into this infringment. The average man test is one of degrees not of black and white.
(Theme from jeopardy)
Buys one of these things immediately of course! <cliche>If all of /. bought one then it would a) piss off the media people, b) give the company some more money to fight this etc<cliche>
OTOH it's all very well for me in NZ as I can't buy one...
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
Unlike the music industry, which is a flawed system where the record companies make oodles of money while ripping off both consumers and artists, the TV industry works well - viewers get tons of entertainment, with enough variety to satisfy almost everyone, everyone involved is well paid, and advertising pays for everything. (Cable fees and whatnot are nothing compared to advertising revenues.)
Is suing a company for putting a "skip commercial" button morally right? Probably not. But if the current commercial system is rendered invalid by technology, the alternatives will be worse: either a great increase in the costs to the consumer, or far more annoying and invasive advertisements during programs.
Given how much of a rip-off movie and CD prices are, it seems we might not want to fight all that hard to take away the one piece of free mass entertainment.
But in a way so shops can re-enable them.
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.
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.
You could've hired me.
Oh, don't act like it's your first time.
This is stupid. People bypass commercials all the time with their VCRs. Now the networks are mad because people think highly enough of their TV shows to show a friend? This is the same thing as saying "This is a good show, here's the tape" Plus you can only distribute a show 15 times.
Besides, if you want to download practically any show on TV, go to efnet or something.
Troy
Slashdot Confirms: Sonicblue is dying
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Sonicblue community when last month IDC confirmed that Sonicblue accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest TV Networks survey which plainly states that Sonicblue has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Sonicblue is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent TV Networks lawsuit.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Sonicblue's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Sonicblue faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Sonicblue because Sonicblue is dying. Things are looking very bad for Sonicblue. As many of us are already aware, Sonicblue continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. ReplayTV 400 is the most endangered of them all, having lost the lawsuit with TV Networks.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Slashdot contributor Robert Wilde states that there are 3 lawsuits. How many more lawsuits will there be? Let's see. The number of TV Networks versus Sonicblue posts on Slashdot is roughly 2. Therefore there are about 3/2 = 1.5 times more lawsuits pending. Injunction to prevent the sale of the device posts on the Internet are about half of the volume of lawsuits. Therefore there are about 3 lawsuits against Sonicblue. A recent article put ReplayTV 400 at about 100 percent of the Sonicblue market. Therefore there are 0 customers. This is consistent with the number of posts under the story on Slashdot.
Due to the troubles of ReplayTV 400, abysmal sales and so on, ReplayTV 400 went out of business and was taken over by Sonicblue who sell another troubled device. Now Sonicblue is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Sonicblue has steadily declined in market share. Sonicblue is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Sonicblue is to survive at all it will be among TV hobbyist dabblers. Sonicblue continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Sonicblue is dead.
Sonicblue is dying
I guess they should also sue GE and American Standard, since my fridge and toilet also make me miss commercials.
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.
Strange that CBS would be involved, considering Howard Stern is always extolling the virtues of his Tivo and talking how he can zip through the commercials on "Survivor". (The Howard Stern Show is owned by CBS)
...the one where Grandpa Simpson is complaining about how young kids keep trying to get something free for doing nothing. He then walks into the Social Security office and scremes to the clerk, "Gimme Gimme Gimme!"
... going to fund their businesses? One of two options...either they aren't, or they are going to move the commercials directly into the TV programming, just like they have already with football and the World Series.
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.
People were saying they'd get sued just for doing a recording device in the first place. That's not what happened. They didn't start suing until they came out with the latest model. The model that lets people ship tv programs to other people and completely eliminates commercials. What a bunch of morons (Replay/sonicblue, I mean). I don't see how they thought they wouldn't get sued for that, especially after what happened to Napster. Weren't they paying attention...AT ALL? Damn shame though...ReplayTV is great. Guess I'll have to get a Tivo soon....better to hack on anyway. =\
When I hear about devices like this one it really makes me wonder how hard it would be to recreate one of your own. There are plenty of video capture cards on the market today not to mention the TV cards, many of which are supported by linux. Encoding audio and video streams into MPEG in real time should be no big deal to a 1.4 Ghz athlon provided well written code is used. At worst a dual processor system would be needed. There are plenty of video cards on the market with video out built in. So my question is, why aren't hobbyists homebrewing systems that will do what these devices are designed to?
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
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
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.
The commercial skipping part of the suit sounds completely bogus to me. However, the part about copyright infringement sounds quite dangerous. Why should they put up with people being able to essentially [i]rebroadcast[/i] shows on pay channels to lots of their friends without those friends paying for the channels? If I were working for them I'd be ticked off too. People are asking how is this any different than sharing tapes with friends. Well, it's not really, except that the commercials are automatically removed. It's also no different than taping your CD collection and giving it to friends. Think about that. The reason they've tolerated with VCR's so far is for several reasons: 1) they lost the suit about fair use 2) VCR's leave commercials in 3) it's cumbersome and therefore not a great threat What surprises me is that it's the major (freely broadcast) networks bringing this suit. Rather, I would have expected the pay cable networks to sue Replay for this, as it's their material that people are actually paying them to provide. I don't think the redistribution thing would have bothered the major networks so much but for the automatic commercial skipping part. Don't be surprised if other pay cable/satellite channels jump in on the suit though.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
Fifteen would be a crowd in my living room. But wait, it's now 2005 and Web cams have progressed and all the dark fiber is lit and lots of folks are starting to leave their living room cams on so that friends can share virtual space. Now, you're watching a k3wl show in your house, and I'm there too, and I zoom the cam in by remote and watch with you.
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....
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
The "Three major television networks" are planning to file suit... I'm assuming ABC, CBS, and NBC.
Given that these bozos BROADCAST their signals thru the ether for all to receive for FREE, how in the hell can they possibly have standing to even file this suit?
So long as one is not reselling the show, or creating an at-home service to record and transmit to other Replay 4000 owners, what do they have to bitch about? Hell, I ought to be pissed because I'm distributing their product to KNOWN viewers and not getting paid anything! Couldn't we just call it a wash?
As for the advertisements - tough shit guys. I've been skipping them since I first had a VCR and will always skip them. Takes 20 minutes per hour out of my viewing time. 20 minutes that I could care less about anyway. The first time I purchase a video recorder of whatever kind, and can't skip commercials - it's going right back to the store. If they won't take it back - I'm leaving it there and cancelling the credit card charge.
I AND I ALONE CONTROL MY TV VIEWING. If I want to skip commercials, I'm going to do it. If I want to share a program with a friend - I'm going to do it. None of this is depriving you of revenues. If the advertisers bitch about the potential for people to skip commercials, then tell them to a) call those people, b) call the TVR people and try to eeek some $$$ out of them, c) make commercials that are worth watching, and which aren't broadcast until I'm ready to puke.
That said, I could see where the pay-TV people might have standing for a suit. Not that I actually care, because if they're so friggin concerned about piracy, then they just ought to reduce the price to something reasonable. Given that, the broadcaster ought to be able to insert something into the stream to tell the recorder not to share (except to the local output for backup purposes...), and if I filter it out - well, then too bad for them...
If these bastards are not going to embrace the technology and put it to use for their customer's benefits (remember, we're the ones paying to see commercials!), then they should at least be consistent and thorough in their suits.
AC comments get piped to
I wouldnt be suprised if those companies have replay tv devices of thier own coming out..
Four years ago, I bought a panasonic VCR. It had 1 minute advance.
I could record programs, and then skip through the commercials with that button.
I don't remember Panasonic getting sued for such a feature. Does anyone else?
You know the one where the pherengi were transported into the delta quadrant and were controlling a whole population using their advanced technology(replicators). Voyager came along and out technologied them and the scam was ended.
The problem with the TV bis is they now feel entitled to the profits/power afforded them by the limited distribution channels of days gone by. They wan't to live in a fantasy land devoid of the reality of cheap digital video production and cheap digital(Internet) distribution. Their world is about to come tumbling down and they are freaked out about it. Look out they will sue/slander anyone who presents any kind of easy target.
Pretty soon you'll here that the Internet was the cause of 9/11 and "has to be destroyed to save us all!!!".
I just read over here a little bit about the ReplayTV 4000. I think it looks pretty cool, but you can only buy it online through the company's site! I think Sonic Blue is making some terrible mistakes lately. ReplayTV is destined to fail AGAIN at this rate.
Sure it started that way, but now that the government is more interested in corporations than the public, it doesn't work out so well any more. Pretty soon the networks will start suing YOU if you don't pay attention to the ads ("No, you can't get up to go to the bathroom during ads. That infringes on our right to control you.")
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.
So.. how is this different from, say, me taping a show for my friends, pausing out all of the commercials, and then sending out copies of the tape in the mail? It's slower, sure.. but, same deal.
Is it possible to buy these types of devices and use them in Australia ? I'd love one of these types of things. Do they work with PAL ?
Do you need to hack the device to make it work ? Does it work with standard non-cable broadcasts ? Ie. Free to air ?
Where can I get more information on getting one of these things for my neck of the woods ?
Thanks
I'm not sure what they're worried about here; popular TV shows are already readily available on the internet for download, usually within hours of their airing. You don't need a ReplayTV to record them; you can do it with a tv-tuner card on your computer and video recording software. People do it all the time - this would make it easier, but you only need one person to record each show for everyone to be able to get it, so that's really not important. And there's far fewer TV shows aired than there are music CDs released, so you don't need nearly as many people to rip the stuff - the people with TV-tuner cards or video-in on their PC are enough.
So basically the stuff will be on the internet regardless of the outcome of this suit.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Of course it should be illegal not to watch adverts. I hope none of you think of going to make a nice cup of tea while the advertisments are on, or you belong in prison...
And don't think you can bypass this by not watching any television either. Even if you don't watch the programs, the tv companies have a legal right to make you watch their adverts for a certain number of hours each day.
Sig is taking a break!
I sure would like to see more discussion about the overall intellectual property system and less moralizing and preaching from one soapbox or another. Pollux touches on it in his comments about the broadcasting business model. Yes, maybe the business model is wrong. Maybe the whole intellectual property model is wrong, and I mean in the sense of brokenness not in the sense of wrongdoing. I'm not trying to be the little voice of socialism or hacker utopia, I am simply saying that technology has opened holes in some of the basic assumptions that underlie economics. Like the holes in airport security, they've always been there waiting for somebody to step through them.
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.
In the UK, we have two commercial-free channels (BBC1 and BBC2) - These are paid for through a "TV licence", payable by anyone who owns a TV and receives broadcasts on it (burden of proof is on you if you do not receive any signals) Even broadcasts of non-BBC channels is included.
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) ???
Enjoy Y2K? Roll-on Year 2037!
It's also pretty cool that you're from SC. I just moved to New Jersey from Greenville a couple of months ago to attend Grad School. I went to Furman.
I think it's easy to assume that the TV networks' upper crass that started this lawsuit know nothing about the implementation details of the new ReplayTV networking thing, just like any old management types out there (the richer, the dumber). They were just waiting for something "legally exploitable" to come out, so they can sue it into oblivion.
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.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
How viable is it, really, to sue a nuetral device? The device can be used illegally, but that is not the intention of the manufacturer. I can record music off the radio with tapes and give it to friends. I did something possibly illegal, but could someone sue the manufacturer of the tape recorder itself? How about suing DV camera makers because people have been found sneaking them into theaters and recording the latest movies with them? Then, of course, you have VCRs. Why doesn't someone sue computer manufacturers because they generate all the mounds and mounds of MP3s in the world?
The list goes on... I could kill you with a pickaxe, a gun, a knife, a hammer, a bat. I could run over you with a car. Since all these things can be used to murder someone, let's get rid of them too.
My question is, how does this make legal sense... and if the courts hold this up, what does that mean for fair use, and does it open up the floodgates to sue manufactures of the above listed devices?
Ok, I have been downloading Star Trek Enterprise since it started because I can not get it in my area. I will not say what program I use because that is all I need is everyone using that and having another Napster attack... Anyway, my point is a generous person on this program tapes the show, strips Commercials and I download, burn to VCD, play in DVD player and I see a WHOLE 1 hr show in 45 minutes because of NO COMMERCIALS...
Also, VCR... They have been around and before that BETA tape. I could use the Triangle button pointing to the right, whats that do again?? Fastforward, skip ANNOYing commercials?? O yea, forgot about that... Stupid lawsuits, ruin all that is good....
Sorry, had to Rant for once.
CS majors, we are the geeks that run it all. Without us things die.
Soon, they'll all make us zombies who watch TV all day. We'll see the advertising and buy the products. We will quit going outside, socializing, all so we can watch TV until early hours of the morning.
Whoops.
I've been waiting and watching the various PVRs waiting for on that will do what I want. This one was actually looking like it might come close to it. TiVO would be perfect for me if it would allow me to get the video off and onto another media like a VCD or DVD-R but alas the work to do this is more than I'd like, it's unsupported code, and the primary support forum for TiVO usrs (not owned by them BTW) BANS discussions about doing this!
. cg i?action=topics&forum=TiVo+Underground&number=6&Da ysPrune=10&SUBMIT=Go [TiVO Underground]
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.=!
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Must wait 2 mins - bleah! :-)
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
that most of the time, the commercials are more creative/funny than the show. I can't help but cringe whenever I hear canned laughter on friends...
-KSCD
TiVo boxes have the same 30-second skip feature (at least the new ones do). It's an undocumented feature, and you have to have a bit of technical savvy to enable it. I would expect that most /. readers could enable this feature, though.
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.
I dont know alot about TiVo, Ive been 10x more interested in the Replay 4000... but doesnt the TiVo also have commercial skip? If so, why hasnt TiVo been sued? Oh, wait, let me guess, this lawsuit isn't really about that.... SonicBlue added a network connection to their PVR, and thats all it takes for a device to be sued over these days.
Big companies dont care about bad PR anymore, most (and before you flame I said *most*, not all) Americans just keep doing the same old routine, regardless of whats in the news, So companies like GE and Disney have no reason not to sue. I don't honestly see how the device is hurting them.. Sure, commercial skip, but since when was it a law that we had to watch commercials? I am sure many americans ignore or change the channel during many commercials. Not to mention, if this lawsuit goes through, and the networks win, that paves the way for these banner ad blockers to be sued- and our courts give corporations free reign to shove advertising down the american consumers throats.
Why do corporations keep trying to litigate away all technological progress (usually successfully)?
Then they have NOTHING to fear! The Felton lawsuit was thrown out. Seems that the threat to sue when you don't actually follow through is perfectly okay and they refused to hear the Felton case. It's okay to threaten someone with financial ruin unless you follow through with it. This is insane IMO as if it were a gun to the head they would certainly have head the case.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
So they have a "commercial advance" button. What if they didn't? Would it not be copyright infringement then?
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.
No mod points today but this guy deserves them. He has some interesting points and while I'm not sure I agree with them it's worth considering.
Yes, this is an investment protection system but one really has to wonder how much investing will be done if it didn't exist. Things cost much more to create now than they did previously, at least some things do. I'm not sure how this would all end up if these protections were removed...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
It is my understanding that the digital cable receivers and PVRs report 'anonymized' viewing data back to their creators/owners to provide a better idea of who is watching what. This can provide a better model from which to produce ratings information that can only benefit networks by allowing them to maximize viewership of shows that people like. The Neilson Ratings used to be collected through a notebook that had to be filled out. Shit, I'm too lazy to do that, but I don't terribly mind the cable company telling the networks that, for example, on Monday night at 9:00p that 27% of their 40,000 customers were watching Dennis Miller make an ass of himself on TV. (Was it me or did Dennis seem under the influence of something during the Steelers game?)
Anyway, in the long term I am all for paying for what I watch on TV. Video on demand via a subscription system using a PVR distribution architecture, in my opinion, is the way to go.
If you think about it we really only need six or eight live TV channels. The rest of the bandwidth can be used for distribution at a typical rate of 6:1. (Six channels worth of TV for every one 6 MHz analog channel) PVRs should be able to be built in quantity with up to 150 hours of recording at reasonable quality, maybe even with a cable modem built right in. As storage space continues its decline in price it is not unreasonable to expect 300 hour capacities within 24 months at a resonable price. Cable companies can use this to push content out to the edge of the network to provide true video on demand.
The nets need to embrace this technology and encourage it to mature. Maybe advertising could be permitted for something like 1 or 2 minutes every 30 minutes, and those who don't want to watch them can just FF through. Customers could complete a profile and receive targetted advertising or even regionally targetted advertising in a much more effective manner. Advertising should still exist because when not overused is an excellent conduit to introduce new products. The KEY is that it is NOT OVERUSED.
From the NYTimes article:
In a joint statement, the networks said the device ``violates the rights of copyright owners in unprecedented ways'' and ``deprives the copyright owners of the means by which they are paid for their creative content and thus reduces the incentive to create programming and make it available to the public.''
This little box is violating their rights? It's an inanimate object - it can't! Much like the saying, guns don't kill people, people kill people.... I wish these industry types would get it through their heads that its their customers who are supposedly violating their rights, not some box. Rather than attacking the box, they should try to jail their customers who illegaly copy stuff.
So let me get this straight, by following the precedent set by all the recent media lawsuits, the public is not supposed to decide what, when or how they want to listen to or watch something. Instead they can only get it crammed down their throats by media companies.
On a side note, what is the difference between this commercial advance and fast forward?
Ugh oh, my VCR from 1988 and my cassette deck from 1982 are horrible devices brought about only to destroy media companies. Oh wait, media companies are bigger and more powerful than ever? You don't say...
The networks also complained that technology in the personal video recorder can automatically strip out commercials.
I guess my fridge and shitter should be considered in the same catagory.
See the Supreme Court's opinion 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.
Tivo DOES have a 30 second skip. It has to be enabled through a backdoor code, but it does work.
www.tivonews.com has the info on that.
00101010
Did the networks even think to imagine that there are VCRs on the market today that actually do this kind of thing too? I can tape Enterprise and not have the commercials in the playback. When they go to commercial, the VCR receives a signal and pauses. When the commercials are over, the VCR receives a signal and starts recording again. It's not the cleanest recording, but hey, I don't have to FFWD through them...becuase they are not there. I think the BBC has it right...no commercials during the program. Too bad BBC America doesn't do that. I think we spend too much time in this country worrying about the almighty dollar and how many of them we have. I say let technology go where it may, and don't stiffle the growth of humanity. Ever wonder why we don't have an engine that get's 80MPG in our cars? One word folks...ARABS!
the networks don't like the replay (and tivo) because they
1. let users strip out or otherwise skip commercials
and
2. baffle the network's attempts to create a brand.
think about it. each tv network wants to create a style so as to reach out to a certain type of viewer and get the advertising dollars focused on that viewer. that's why there are so many specialized cable channels. but one of the advertising points behind tv recorders is that they let you create your own channels. when we have this capability, all the efforts at branding and network style just fall apart.
but the networks can't sue the tv recorder manufacturers on this basis. otherwise, they would have sued tivo and replay years ago. the courts have made it clear that the networks can't sue a tv recorder manufacturer (any type of recorder) on the basis of forcing people to watch commercials and network branding.
so when replay cam up with a way to let recorder owners transfer copies of tv shows from one machine to another, it gave the networks an opportunity to do a lawsuit. oddly enough, the networks probably don't have a problem with people copying shows and sharing them with friends. although hard to quantify, program sharing improves the effectivness of the advertising and gives advertisers greater exposure.
so here is the networks' problem. they can't sue replay over the recorder's ability to blur the distinctiveness of a network and to zap commercials, features they don't like, but they can sue over program copying and sharing, which they probably have no problems with.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
Michael Eisner and Bob Wright came to my house and popped the fast forward buttons off my VCR and DVD remote controls.
PegQuin--I've got a sneakin' suspicion
Is it your right to not watch commercials on TV? Of course it is. But if a device that extracts commercials is 100% legal, and everyone adopts it, then free TV programs as we know them will end. The networks will need to find a new business model. Will this be painless? No way. They'll experiment with every intrusive form of advertising that they can. The war won't go away -- it will intensify.
Do you still have doubts? Look at the internet. Banner blockers knock out the 468x60 ads, so we now have all kinds of new, resource-intensive, in-your-face formats. We have popups and popunders. We have birds that fly across your web page. We have "affiliate" pages which masquerade as informational pages, trying to trick you into buying products. And we'll soon have full-screen ads that you have to watch for X seconds before proceeding.
Why do we have this? Because no one is responding to less intrusive banner ads. Creative content costs money to produce, and no one should be happy about preventing money from going the people who produce it.
So although it may be our right to block/skip ads, remember, those ads are what keep the content free. Once they stop working, TV becomes a billable service.
Ralph
Jesus, stop giving sue-happy neurotics ideas on who to sue. We know that you are the ones giving them these ideas because they certainly do not have the intelligence or coordination to come up with these ideas themselves. Next time, why don't you "predict" their sueing /. for helping in the piracy network. Geeeeez
The article states that the 4xxx models will use Macrovision to prevent the sending of shows. This is seemingly fine, but if networks begin adding Macrovision to their shows, existing ReplayTV "Showstopper" owners will get totally screwed because of the way Panasonic implemented Macrovision on the Showstoppers. The Showstopper won't play anything with Macrovision. Period. The ReplayTV-branded boxes will play anything. They just pass the Macrovision along with the signal (say, to a VCR.)
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Just in case someone out there doesn't understand, THIS is what the Information Revolution is all about. IP (intelectual property) and information in general, wants to be free - but the people that make it need to and deserve to be compensated. Unfortunately, the current business models and laws don't work.
I myself don't have a crystal ball - thus I don't know the outcome - BUT - THIS is what the Information Revolution is all about. [go back and read up on your Toffler]
Of course that exploding while you watch them issue is a bitch.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
And not other good television shows like MASH, Alias, The West Wing, The Practice, and a whole bunch more? I mean, lets be honest, Animal Planet kills PBS in the ratings... especially when the dog shows are on. Do you also sit around all day in a Tweed and tutrleneck combo and think about chess moves too?
Please, you can skip the commercials, but you can't tell us when breaking news hits you sit around all day and wait for the nightly PBS broadcast that tells you what happened instead of showing you what happened. This is a ridiculous argument. I mean, I love Black Adder too. But the PBS only argument is bull. Television networks don't suck... and keep in mind that you can't really complain about something you're not paying for.
The main thread says that the payment system is all wrong because it is not out for the human interest in the world. I find that to be hilarious as a newsman in the world. The strongest defenders of freedom are your newspeople... and they do care about the world. Even Katie Couric has to spend insanely intense amounts of time away from her family and friends to do a morning show... not for the money, for you... because TV is a hard life.
The fact that the networks send out crews all over the world for two hours in the morning, and a huge half hour in the afternoon of news provided by them across the globe. If you think that free television is hitting you with crap, then ask Bernard Shaw about getting bombed in Baghdad, or any of the about 25 journalists that lose their lives doing their jobs every year to inform you of human rights violations, to tell you the TRUTH ABOUT OTHER HUMANS THAT THE PSYCHOTIC REGIMES DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW.
Also, the other post. You like Farscape because it is one of the first SF shows that doesn't focus on technology, it focuses on character. The "other idiot" people that you speak of are actually people that prefer watching human emotion and interaction instead of spaceships. Just because they are different, doesn't mean they are idiots.
Heres a clue: No, they dont.
In a related action, a coalition of TV networks filed suit today in the Southern District of New York against LazyBoy. The basis of their suit is that LazyBoy recliners make it too easy for people to get up from their seat during commercials. An attempt to negotiate with LazyBoy by having a piece of hardware added that would prvent the chair from being raised during a commercial was rebuffed.
:) :)
The TV networks are saying that "technologies such as the LazyBoy recliner hurt our intellectual property rights. We need to be able to make money so we can continue to give you the quality programming you deserve and have come to expect from commercial TV."
:)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Did anyone sue when the mute button came out?
Copyright infringement? For skipping the commercials?
Have I become some hardened copyright infringing criminal for fast forwarding past the commercials when I view my taping of Politically Incorrect at a saner time than the 12:05 AM that my local network chooses to air it?
Here's hoping that the courts will kick this case out and say (LOUDLY) that they are NOT in the business of telling manufacturers what features may be included in their products.
``You can have my fast forward button when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!''
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
How ironic that it only took two weeks after SonicBlue won a Technological/Engineering Emmy Award for the Advancement of Television for the big boys to crackdown on them.
That may not be a coincidence.
The Emmy will have attracted the attention of a lot of people in high places at the networks, and a lot of potential customers as well.
Two weeks seems about right for putting the filings together. And even if they were already working on it the publicity may have encouraged them to get off the dime and actually file, before their opposition's position was improved by an expanded customer base.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The reason that I see them suing Replay and not TiVo is because of the 30 second skip, and it is different than a fast forward button.
When I fast forward at the highest speed with my TiVo, I STILL SEE THE COMMERCIALS. Granted, I only see them for one second instead of 30, but I still see it. And every once in a while one catches my eye and I stop and actually watch it at a slower fast forward speed.
The Replay box skips them alltogether - your eyes don't even see the commercial for a second. That's why Replay is affected, and not TiVo.
PBS kicks ass.
News Hour
Frontline
Nova
POV
Scientific American Frontiers
Nature
etc.
When you turn on the commercial skip feature, and your watching QVC does the screen just go blank?
Can we get a list of their advertisers? A good ole fashion email barrage stating that we will no longer be purchasing their products will bring this to light in a hurry.
Here is the CBS line up:
60 Minutes II
The Amazing Race
Survivor: Africa
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
The Agency
The King of Queens
The Ellen Show
That's Life
48 Hours
Touched by an Angel
Citizen Baines
The District
60 Minutes
The King of Queens
Yes, Dear
Everybody Loves Raymond
Becker
Family Law
JAG
The Guardian
Judging Amy
The article says that not only the commercial skip is at issue, but also the sharing over the internet. This is something that TiVo can't do, but Replay intends to provide out of the box. Unless Replay/Sonicblue has a bigger agenda, they were morons for trying to go forward with this--it was a lawsuit magnet from the get-go.
This thing combines all the functionality of a TIVO with a P4 and a DVD-ROM. Not only can you record 'Enterprise', you can edit the commercials out, and burn the whole Season, commercial free, to a DVD. And it's made to fit into your component system, with S-Video in and out, optical in and out, and RCA Stereo in and out.
It also includes a Fast Ethernet card, and a PCMCIA slot for your 802.11b card.
Yes, I know's it XP; the world ins't perfect.
It's probably not hard to get the basic functionality to record shows on disk. But I'm pretty sure that is less than 1% of the engineering work that goes into one of these products. There are zillions of features on top of that that makes it convenient, usable and fun. Just a few: Remote Control, switching your cable box for you, knowing all the tv schedules, live buffer, etc.
The other thing is that a 1.4 GHz Athlon system costs way more than a good Tivo. Don't expect to be able to use it for anything else while it's recording. And a Tivo is always recording.
OTOH, if you want to be able to burn your favorite shows to DVDs, this is the only way to go. Well, actually, I would still get the Tivo, and record whatever I wanted to burn off it.
I lived with a tape freak. He traded audio and video tapes with people all over the world. He recorded every episode of the Simpsons and, oddly, In the Heat of the Night, and cut out every commercial from every episode. It was basically a second job for him he spent so much time on it. So he was 'profiting' (the studios regard trading one copyrighted work for another copyrighted work as 'profiting', even though you could have seen it for free yourself, even could have copied it for free yourself) from their work. Specifically because he was adding value by taking out the commercials his product was more attractive.
:)
He'd leverage collections of these prepared shows into trades for bootleg concert recordings, whole tours, all kinds of stuff fans have always wanted and media companies have always REFUSED to provide for sale. I mean sheesh.... how do you stop bootleg concert recordings? A la Pearl Jam, sell professional versions. The point is - the technology to allow this kind of activity existed with the VCR in the Betamax case. Stripping out commercials, making copies (unlimited copies too), and profiting from the work. Replay is on slightly more dangerous grounds than Sony was - Betamax allowed you to copy, but did nothing to encourage you to trade copies. Had Sony organized tv show tape swapping events, the Supreme Court may have decided differently in that case. Replay seems to be actively encouraging trading. That is a bit shaky, but it's definitely one point on a slippery slope. VCRs ALLOWED all the activity the studios are now saying is forbidden in a DVR. Love that progress
The real problem with the studio's arguments is that THEY GIVE THEIR PRODUCT AWAY FOR FREE! In fact, they WANT to encourage as many people to see it as possible. Their shows are beaming through my brain right now. Their claims that they 'own' it just don't match common sense. When you give me something for free, I feel free doing whatever I want with it. The problem is they need to change their ad system and they're too stupid to realize it. Instead of blocks of ads, which are a distraction from their show, and which people hate, and which encourage people to change channels, they should follow the prescient advice in the Truman Show - product placement should occur for a fee INSIDE of the context of the show. Instead of Nike paying Michael Jordan to hawm their shoes, they should just pay NBC to have Jay Leno wear them on his show. As soon as ads aren't something that can be stripped off a show and discarded, the studios wouldn't have to worry about people making ad free copies and giving them away. With ads embedded in the product their business model could dispense with blocks of annoying ads and could embrace this new technology, the spread of copied tapes of the Enterprise would be a selling point for the network instead of a lost opportunity for profit.
So what do you want to bet? Will the TV studios meet the challenge of new technology by redefining their business model into something better, or will they force more draconian laws on us preventing us from doing things with digital media that we can already do with analog media? WHY does nobody in the business community have any vision?
To make a claim for redress under copyright laws, the copyright owner must show ACTUAL loss, not possible loss, not potential loss. Otherwise they have no recourse under copyright law. Which is why they're so in love with the DMCA which makes no mention of loss, only of 'unauthorized' access.
TV studios need to realize that people hate ads. They need to start getting companies to pay for product placement in tv shows rather than selling blocks of time for companies to try to promote themselves. If they do this their revenue model will be immune from the ad stripping they fear.
If they choose not to do this, they're idiots. They seem to think they have a right to follow the same business model that prevailed before people had vcr's or net connections and still profit from it. There is no such right. Adapt and stay strong, or fight change and wither. Why does America's business community have so little vision?
TV stations live in a competitive world. The shows that have the most WIDESPREAD appeal have the best ratings, and are rewarded with higher ad revenue. What has the most widespread appeal? Anything that hits on our evolutionary hotspots: sex, danger, food, 'save the children' memes. People pay attention to those things not because they want to, but because millions of years of evolutionary programming compells us to. TV stations play to that. Is it their fault we're only human? No. But obviosly in a free market, evolutionarily driven system, we will produce shows that pander to humaniy's basest desires. We have to realize that this is the system we've set up, and shows like 'Married with Children', 'When Animals Attack', and 'Scariest Police Chases' are the inevitable result.
State sponsored systems like the BBC don't judge a show based solely on ratings. In the BBC, quality of the show actually determines whether it stays on or not. They also have an evolutionary system, but they kill shows with low quality, not shows with low ratings.
The networks are starting to feel entitled, forgetting that the public owns the airwaves. We used to force networks to show things about elections, other matters of public interest for free. Now they charge the politicians tons of money for runnign campaign ads. Ridiculous. I agree, we should re-take more control over the airwaves.
Businesses always forget that maxim. Especially Marketing departments! The customer is always right about what he wants. There's very little benefit in trying to convince him that he wants what you tell him to want; as an intelligent person, he will decide for himself
Now, that's not to say that advertising is irrelevant, far from it! I think most people will agree with me when advertising is unintrusive, and actually useful. From what I gather, what annoys people about commercials is that it wastes their time! So, what should a company do? Let people choose whether they want to watch an advertisement. If you're advertising campaign is good, even people with ReplayTV machines will stop to watch. If it's lousy, then you just blew a whack of money on something nobody likes. It's as simple as that.
== I am not Me.
Nope. You have to go even deeper than that. After all, before the remote, there was the child. How many of you here grew up to this? "Damn commercial.. Hey boy, change to channel 4." Most everyone over the age of about 20 I'd bet. So it must be the parent's fault. They should of sued them for having children.
Oops, nope, wait.. If the TV didn't have a channel knob on it then the child wouldn't of been able to change the channel in the first place. Better sue the TV manufacturers for allowing the device to tune more than one station.
Ok, now let's think about this. The very idea that you can change the channel to avoid commercials on a given station is flawed marketing to begin with. The networks are all running ads at different times from each other, thus allowing the consumer to avoid commercials simply by changing the channel. If they really want us to watch the commercials, they needed to all advertise for the same length of time, at the same times. That way, when commercials come on, they would be on every single station. Thus making it pointless to bother changing the station. The only way then to avoid them would of been to turn off the television. However, I don't think anyone would of done that because those of you that remember those old TVs remember that it took practically longer than a commercial break for the tubes to warm up enough to get a picture, so if only the networks would of been smart to begin with, this whole thing wouldn't be an issue.
So, the whole thing boils down to the fact that the networks are sueing over people exploiting a mistake that they themselves made decades ago!
I see a lot of people going on about the Fast Forward section. The suit is about the fact that ReplayTV has an Ethernet jack and some kind of File Server in it.
The actually claim to support "Video sharing with friends and family owning ReplayTV 4000 units."
This is what has everybody freaking out.
This is a boring sig
Actually, I think you have it backwards. The filesharing is the red herring. They'd be pleased as punch for you to send the commercials to all your friends who missed them.
What they're afraid of is the AUTOMATIC commercial skip capabilities. You don't even get to see the fast-forwarded version (which, one might argue, can grab your attention). That's the revenue stream they don't want to mess with. If the advertisers find out that a significant protion of the audience is skipping the commercials, without any effort on thier part, they will demand to pay lower rates. For example: Nielsen gives your show a 2.3 share, but the ad execs say that's really only a 1.8 share when you consider that 22% of that demographic owns a replay-like PVR, so they should get to pay only 78% of the requested rate.
Besides, if you could distill out the commercials automagically, drop 'em to tape or (*gasp*) VideoCD/DVD-R, why bother to buy the box set when it comes out at $79.95 per season next year. These packaged versions are commanding big $$$ in DVD-released formats. Part of the draw is the no-commercial format. If you have a machine that makes this automatically by recording, commercial stripping, and packaging for download to your favorite media, you may as well be taking food right out of the mouth of the children of the executives. ("Please, think of the children!")
Tell you what - you build me one of these babys with a DVD-R and a simple interactive interface and I'll beat down your door to get one. Geez...how sweet would that be...
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I used to think that too. Before the Skylarov case, I thought that copyright law was fairly straightforward. If you claimed that someone else's content was yours, you were in violation. And it used to be a civil law too. Now after the DMCA (Digital Mind Control Act), copyright is apparently a criminal matter (one were you enjoy no constitutional rights at that) and apparently ANYTHING can be claimed as a copyright violation. Copyright law has gotten way out of hand with the DMCA.
The type of complaint I thought they'd use here is the "Interference with contract" lawsuit (a tactic commonly used in SLAPP suits).
But I wouldn't even understand the basis for that claim. AFAIK, ReplayTV doesn't "edit" the commericals out of live TV for you (otherwise you'd be looking at a black screen for 2 minutes). It edits commericals out of taped shows. But this is something people do anyway. Most people who tape a show and watch it later, will fastforward through the commericals, intros, outros, credits, etc. And if they happen to be watching the same show they're taping, then most just "Pause" the recording during the commercials. There's an old legal saying that goes: "Unless you defend a right, it doesn't exist." Well these networks have never sued VCR manufacturers in the past 20 years for allowing people to edit out commericials on their own. I don't think the networks have the right to challenge it now.
The Tivo runs on just a 50 MHz PPC! But then the encoding is done by a dedicated chip.
What strikes me is the resilience of the hard drives. A Tivo is always recording signal. One Gig per hour 24 hours a day. I'm surprised the drives hold up as well as they do. I'd guess a regular PC accesses disk about 1% of the time, and even then only 5% writing.
But look at who they're suing! They're not suing other people who have the content skip... they're only suing the ones who have the file sharing.
... All your commercials are belong to us.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Nearly as much? HBO and Showtime don't have ANY advertising. They promote their shows between the end of a movie and the beginning of the next (or show, or whatever).
This Useless Post Brought To You By Home Box Office.
[insert witty comment here]
I had researched the 501 a good bit when DISH offered me (FINALLY!) an upgrade to it somewhat cheap. The research I did at the time seemed to indicate that an upgrade was as easy as sticking in a new drive. I also found that the 501 was getting VERY mixed reviews as it's got bugs and is on the way out so support is less than stellar. Needless to say I did NOT buy it. When I saw this response I aain went looking for information on the 501 to prove\disprove what you've said - it seems I may have confused the 501 with the DISHPLAYER line. The DISHPLAYER appears to be the one with the abandoned Microsot code. Bleah! After all of the research and pondering I did before rejecting the 501 I'm pretty surprised I screwed up and confused the two so badly - thank you for clarifying this. At least my conculsion, that the 501 was NOT a box I wanted, seems to have been sound (sigh).
? action=topics&forum=PVR+Information+Forum&number=1 4&DaysPrune=2&LastLogin=
For those who spot this thread down the road and are interested, here's another VERY good URL that I failed to provide before - it's for general PVR informaiton and is where I (again) researched the PVR501 -> http://www.dbsforums.com/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org