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.
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)
They have joined it. They just joined a different team. NBC has a stake in Tivo, which is essentially the same product as ReplayTV.
Why are they suing Replay instead of Tivo? Ostensibly because Replay has a "commercial advance" button that lets you skip forward thirty seconds. Apparently this button spells the difference between a copyright-infringing product (Replay) and a perfectly ok product that NBC does business with (Tivo). Who could have known that the ability to fast forward your video footage would make a product "infringing"?
If the networks win (which they probably will, as I doubt the defendant will spend the dough to fight this one), they not only damage a competitor to one of their interests (Tivo), but they also gain a legal precedent for limiting what has been found to be a perfectly legal practice (time shifting TV.)
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?
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
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