Networks and Studios Against PVRs

HiredMan sent in an LA Times story talking about more suits against PVR makers like Replay and Tivo. The most bizarre quote to me is that the suit argues that "it's illegal to let consumers record and store shows based on the genre, actors or other words in the program description." Huh?

Comments

A Wrench.

[Renraku]

PVR's throw a wrench into the finely tuned machine that is mainstream television. They make their money from ads, and the more people sitting through those ads, the more money they make. Well, what happens when advertising firms start paying channels less because there are less people actually viewing the show than recording it? You can guess that the channels will be pretty pissed off. They're just trying to protect a source of money there, really.

Re:A Wrench.

[scoove]

what happens when advertising firms start paying channels less because there are less people actually viewing the show than recording it?

TV remote control has already eroded ad viewing already. Where's the suit to ban remotes?

And while we're on the topic, we need toilets that have lids that lock during commercials and refridgerators with auto-locking doors. Better yet, let's install seat belts on couches and lazboys and require all viewers be belted in before viewing. Belts will automatically lock during commercial breaks for optimum viewing convenience.

The reality of it all is that it's time for the advertiser to evolve. Rather than fighting intuitive behavior, those that want to survive will focus on better product integration in the programs and blur the advertising boundries from where we're at today. Heck, we might even Wouldn't a Whopper be good right now? see comperable use on /.!

*scoove*

Re:A Wrench.

[Splork]

they have no right to that source of money. just because it worked in the past does not mean the government should guarantee it for them in the future. if that were the case the government would be subsidizing all of the now failed dot-coms that depended on once lucrative internet advertising revenue.

let the corporations earn their living, not have it fed to them on a plate.

Re:A Wrench.

[GreyPoopon]

Do you see this as just the network's problem because they're greedy corporations

I'm not sure I would define this as a consequence of being greedy (although I'm sure they are). Their problem is that the primary source of revenue is being threatened. It's not just a matter of making a little less money. It's more like making a whole lot less money if PVRs become as popular as VCRs.

I think somebody mentioned down below that these corporations need to evolve. It's time to find other sources of revenue. If their only salable "product" is airtime for advertisements, they're in real trouble. Every business that I know that stuck with a single product has gone down the tubes.

I think you would see a lot less concern over this kind of thing if someone could come up with a really good suggestion on how they can stay in business. As you might guess, charging the cable/sat providers isn't going to cut it. That cost will only be passed to consumers who are not willing to pay.

Re:A Wrench.

[bnenning]

Exactly. I keep pulling out this Heinlein quote, because it keeps being applicable so often:

"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - Robert A. Heinlein, "Life Line"

Re:A Wrench.

[mshomphe]

Wrong. We have every right to free television. The airwaves are public property. Networks license the use of those airwaves (for free, or next to nothing at most).

Coming next

[phil reed]

A lawsuit by the Buggy Whip Manufacturers Association against the automobile industry, because the change from carriages to automobiles has decimated their markets. The Horse Manure Shoveler's Association is expected to sign on as co-plaintiff.

Re:Explaining the bizzare "illegal" quote

[mcelrath]

it will cause substantial harm to the market for prerecorded DVD, videocassette and other copies of those episodes and films

Correct me if I'm wong, but last time I checked, "markets" were not constitutionally protected, and neither were coporate profits or business models. (unless, of course, the business model is patented)

They're trying to protect their business model through litigation, because embracing new technology is more expensive than lawyers.

Maybe they'll all be hit with frivolous lawsuit countersuits. Here's hoping, anyway.

--Bob

Re:Commercials

[ghostlibrary]

" The most disturbing part of the story is that they claim deleting commercials is violating the copyright."

Well, doesn't the fact that they cut portions of the show to add room for new commercials mean they have already violated the copyright of the original show producers/owners, then...

Re:Unlogic

[mshomphe]

That's not what I was saying. Here it is in short:

1. The airwaves are (should be) free. That means (theoretically) anyone can fire signals through the air. However, since that would make things really messy really fast, there's a licensing scheme to make the airwaves useable. Basically, if someone puts out a signal on the public spectrum, I can watch it (but not resell it or violate any copyrights on the material that the broadcaster might have).
2. Because of (1), I can BUILD my own TV (or in your example, my own car for a highway) to view the signals whipping through the air. And I can view it however I like, any color scheme, any time of the day, etc.
3. Also, because the airwaves are public property, the networks can't just start encrypting those publicly owned airwaves. It's like a private company fencing off a public park and charging admission to get in.
4. Because TV is a linear stream and there was no way to circumvent that linearity, commercials made sense. Interpose ads in the stream.
5. Because of the advent of TiVo, &c., the broadcast stream becomes non-linear, rendering the commercial model obsolete.

The correct response to this is NOT to sue the manufacturers of TiVO, &c., it's to change the business model of television. This is expensive, so they decide to sue these replayer manufacturers instead -- a stopgap solution at best. Broadcasters chose to get into this business and to use the commercial model for generating revenue. That's their problem. The onus is on them to revise their business models, not to sue those who found a way to legally circumvent their revenue stream.