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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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)
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
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?
You're right, of course, but here's the mind blowing thing: even without one of these nifty little commercial-skip features, hardly anyone watches commercials anyway. Seriously, commercials are mostly just for going to get a drink or using the bathroom. And even the ones you watch are not of much effect. If advertisers realized how useless TV ads were, they'd put all their money into product placement instead--which does seem to be pretty effective.
The only difference between TV commercials and banner ads on the web is that by click-through analysis, advertisers can actually SEE how ineffective it is.
Also, you can share that file 15 times according to the article. So you and 15 "TV buddies" get to watch the show. And skip all the commercials too.
Another interesting quirk. I subscribe to say HBO and send a buddie who doesn't get HBO every episode of Six Feet Under and in trade he sends me some series off of Showtime. The cable company loses money on two premium packages. Now let me do that for 15 buddies. Price gouging bastards they are and personally I would get some small satisfaction (my wife would get a great deal of satisfaction as she actually pays the bill:) but I'm surprised they haven't sued already.
Here's another interesing possible hack. What if I could get the PVR to record while I'm playing a DVD and then I could send that movie to 15 buddies? IIRC, the 4000 records 320 hours of video. Heh, I'd almost break down and buy a DVD player if I could do that.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
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.
how could this ever improve the quality of tv? there is no incentive to improve quality of shows since the user can always skip over commercials thereby stripping the network of it's ability to profit. the only option is to get rid of free tv and up the cost of cable and eliminate commercials.
My Prediction: Since Replay doesn't actually MODIFY the content of the program (which is completely intact on the hard drive), this copyright infringement suit will be lost by the networks. The courts will ask why the networks haven't pursued similar lawsuits against VCR manufacturers that provide the ability to fast forward past commercials, and then throw it out. This is just another example of how corporate bozos think inside their tiny little boxes, and don't think about how they could HARNESS the power of the technology to further their evil little (and I do mean LITTLE) deeds. See.. if I was a TVLand exec, I'd got to SonicBlue (Replay's owner) and say.. "Hey.. what if we ADDED functionality to allow people to rate and even comment on commercials by providing identifying information in the vertical blanking interval of the video feed, and you send that back to us over the internet?" (the units have ethernet connections...) Just a thought.
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.
:CueCat.)
A good business will find a way to adapt to the times. If the networks can't survive with widespread commercial skipping -- I don't care. Their profit is not our responsibility. If they go away, something else will turn up.
I would go so far to say that the networks are in fact "the enemy" for trying to stop the development of innovative products with their silly lawsuits. Our civil rights can be curtailed not only by the government, but by these kind of activities. If you can't get a law passed, pull the wool over a dumb judge's eyes to get your way...
Ack. When did everything start to suck so much?
I just hope that when Sonic|Blue loses they don't have to take the 30 sec skip button away from my current RTV unit.
(Yes, that's a pipe character in the name, that's how it is in their logo. Ridiculous, but not as bad as
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.
A good business will find a way to adapt to the times. If the networks can't survive with widespread commercial skipping -- I don't care.
Remember that these people are "publishers", viewers generally don't much care who broadcasts programmes, so long as they can watch them.
But publisher-middlemen, be thay in film/TV/music/etc often have an overinflated view of their own importance.