Slashdot Mirror


SonicBlue Ordered to Spy on ReplayTV Viewers

An Anonymous Coward writes: "Got outrage? According to a story on SiliconValley.com, a federal magistrate has ordered SonicBlue to track ReplayTV users' every click to see what they're watching, recording, skipping (commercials) and e-mailing to friends. The info is to be given to the entertainment industry control freaks who are suing SonicBlue for allegedly abetting copyright violations."

136 of 426 comments (clear)

  1. Disney needs a boycott by woyouwenti · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First Disney sponsors Hollings bill. Then Disney does this to SonicBlue users.

    BOYCOTT DISNEY.

    Don't buy Disney products. Don't go to DisneyWorld, Don't go to Disney flicks.

    1. Re:Disney needs a boycott by Silver222 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yep, good idea. However, here is what will happen.


      Slashbots will all proclaim their hate for Disney, and will refuse to buy Disney products, right up until Miramax or Touchstone or Hollywood Pictures releases a film they want to see. Then, they will flock to the theater in droves.


      How else do you explain the fact that a quarter of the stories on Slashdot are condemnations of the entertainment industry, and another quarter of the stories are slobbering writeups about Sci-fi movies or the X-files?

      --
      "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
    2. Re:Disney needs a boycott by teslatug · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Boycotts almost never work...can you imagine the kind of thought and commitement that would have to go into a successful boycot? No one will go through the process of actively making sure that they are not buying any Disney products unless they have a serious personal reason to do so. Unless Disney starts killing off some nerds, I don't foresee a boycott coming.

      The only thing that will work, is money, and the only way that we will pay is if it becomes easy and safe to do so. One way to do this is to send something like a $500 yearly check to some organization to hold (SLashdot can do it, they get to keep the interest and maybe even make more money through investing that money - sort of a pseudo bank) and every time something like this happens, Slashdot can have a money hammer on top of the offending Senator's head. One click of the hammer, bamm $10 bucks against him or her. Pool that money and somehow display how much money has been gathered so far so as to encourage more donating...MAYBE then something will get done through Slashdot. Any other way will not work.
      Boycotts will not work and letters will not work.

    3. Re:Disney needs a boycott by Wolfier · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't boycott, just PROTEST.

      Set up some Mic**y M**se parody web pages that spread the message, and let the whole Internet mirror them, until it shows up first on Google.

    4. Re:Disney needs a boycott by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      About a handful of People make the rules in the usa, they are the ones who the representatives listen too, they are the ones with the deep pockets that get them elected. Maybe you should look at who is behind the company, instead of the company itself.

      Sam Nunn
      Donald F. McHenry
      Donald V. Fites
      Helene L. Kaplan
      Franklin A. Thomas
      Michael A. Miles
      Carl E. Reichardt
      Michael Eisner
      Howard Stringer

      You can boycott disney all you want, but until the top few people agree with us slashdot minorities you will have an uphill battle.

    5. Re:Disney needs a boycott by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 2

      Finally, a proper use for those "punch the monkey" ads.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    6. Re:Disney needs a boycott by Jebediah21 · · Score: 3, Informative

      So do you watch ESPN? ABC? If you do you're not boycotting them. Many radio stations and magazines are owned by Disney as well. They are not easy to avoid. I won't pretend I'm all holy. I still watch ESPN, but if ever called upon by Nielson Ratings I have never watched ESPN.

      --

      Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
    7. Re:Disney needs a boycott by smagoun · · Score: 5, Informative

      TheyRule.net does a good job of showing who's in charge of what. It's scary...

    8. Re:Disney needs a boycott by Zathrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I generally explain it as the odd concept of "individualism". Some weirdo right wing thing that tries to convince Us that We don't all think the same exact thing.

      Fight it. Discontinuity can only follow. If We are not all the same, society will certainly crumble!

      Seriously - just because a story gets posted by the editors doesn't mean that everyone on /. agrees with the political slant on it. I personally believe that the DMCA and related laws are likely to permanantly cripple the Western economy, just like religious laws did so in SW Asia (aka Middle East) and manufacturing-oriented labor laws have done so in parts of Europe. But that doesn't mean that everyone else agrees with me, and while I can try to convince them, I can't expect them to do as I would do.

    9. Re:Disney needs a boycott by Stoutlimb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well said! It irritates me whenever I read a post that assumes that Slashdot and their readers are all of one mind. We are not the borg collective! I hope we never will be!

      Some people say: "Boycott Disney!
      Some people say: "I'm going to watch whatever I feel like!"
      And yet others say: "whut??" as they scratch there ass...

      THERE IS NO SLASHDOT COLLECTIVE

    10. Re:Disney needs a boycott by ethereal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that there is no /. collective agreement on these issues, and really you can't fault thousands of people for not agreeing to the exact same positions.

      But the onus on the editors is a little stronger - they are always making editorial comments about non-free software, restrictive legislation, civil liberties on the 'net, etc. Yet they also support the latest DVDs, movie reviews every weekend, and playing non-free games on their Windows partitions that they sometimes forget that they have.

      So while you can't really expect the /. readership to agree on anything, I think it is more reasonable to expect the /. editorial staff to put forward a cohesive editorial policy on what they support and what they oppose. They have a "bully pulpit", but right now the message from that pulpit is sadly inconsistent. Until that changes, we won't be seeing any /.-launched boycotts doing any real good in the world.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    11. Re:Disney needs a boycott by Silver222 · · Score: 2
      Exactly! I don't expect all the readers of Slashdot to agree, but the editors seem to have pretty much the same ideas. I'm know I'm not the only one to point this out, but the fact that they keep posting Star Wars stories right after condemnations of the entertainment industry is kind of like listening to Jimmy Swaggart preach on the evils of prostitution, no?

      --
      "It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
    12. Re:Disney needs a boycott by HiThere · · Score: 2

      You've wait 'til now to start?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:Disney needs a boycott by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      TheyRule.net does a good job of showing who's in charge of what.

      No, it does a horrible job. This is great example of how to present information in a cumbersome and relatively difficult-to-access manner. It's a shame, and a little bewildering, that someone who actually has something to say would obfuscate their own message like this.

      Imagine how much easier-to-understand and just all-around-better this could be, if it were presented in the form of a website. And imagine how many more people would see it if the search engines could visit it. Instead, it uses a weird UI, requires proprietary software, and is doomed to net.obscurity. The small group of people that it talks about, are no doubt relieved.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    14. Re:Disney needs a boycott by Jebediah21 · · Score: 2

      It is bad in the states as far as the media goes. The brainwashing is so complete and ingrained it's amazing. I had no clue of the depth of deception until I stopped paying attention to TV News and its affiliates.

      Too many people do use TV as an evening filler, and I can't blame them. Anything to numb a full day of work.

      --

      Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
  2. One more nail in the privacy coffin by BorgFear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where will this all end ? I read today that the entertainment industry considers skipping ads as "stealing" content that we have "contracted" with the networks to receive! These types are really getting up my nose. Excuse me while I go down to CompUSA for another 100GB drive for my downloaded mp3's :-) Gotta pay 'em back somehow, huh ?

  3. Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 by pgrote · · Score: 5, Interesting

    is slashing their own throats.

    It's an escalation of arms at this point. Total war. Never in our histroy have we been subjected to such comprehensive privacy invasion.

    It doesn't matter that the data doesn't say Mr. Smith watched such and such. The thought that the entertainment industry will have access to this data implies that they will use it against the viewers. Incredible.

    Maybe they should read what the court has said in the past about privacy and viewing habits.

    Here is the link to Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984

    Assholes.

    1. Re:Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 by windchill2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It doesn't matter that the data doesn't say Mr. Smith watched such and such. The thought that the entertainment industry will have access to this data implies that they will use it against the viewers. Incredible.

      It may not directly say the users name, however acording to the article, all the data will be associated with a unique identifer for each viewer. I dont think it would be that difficult to find the way back to the origional user

      The idea that a judge would order this is just sickening.
      --
      -Windchill2001 The One, The Only, The Cold...
    2. Re:Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 by pgrote · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bingo. That is exactly what I was saying. It doesn't matter if it doesn't link someone's name with the data. There are ways around that.

    3. Re:Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 by windchill2001 · · Score: 3, Informative
      I was reading through the CTPA and came across this interesting quote:
      " A governmental entity may obtain personally identifiable
      information concerning a cable subscriber pursuant to a court order
      only if, in the court proceeding relevant to such court order -
      (1) such entity offers clear and convincing evidence that the
      subject of the information is reasonably suspected of engaging in
      criminal activity and that the information sought would be
      material evidence in the case; and
      (2) the subject of the information is afforded the opportunity
      to appear and contest such entity's claim.
      "

      So they have proof that every subscriber is useing it for illigal activity?

      Also i think that this means we might see a million geek march up to this courthouse, as we are all entitled appear in court and contest the records collected and all allegations against us.
      --
      -Windchill2001 The One, The Only, The Cold...
    4. Re:Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 by AJWM · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This gets interesting. Quoting from the Cable TV Privacy act:
      h) Disclosure of information to governmental entity pursuant to court order

      A governmental entity may obtain personally identifiable information concerning a cable subscriber pursuant to a court order only if, in the court proceeding relevant to such court order -

      (1) such entity offers clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the information is reasonably suspected of engaging in criminal activity and that the information sought would be material evidence in the case; and

      (2) the subject of the information is afforded the opportunity to appear and contest such entity's claim.

      Two key questions: does the unique identifier make it "personally identifiable" information? (I'd say yes -- a Social Security Number is a unique (well, almost) identifier, for example.) and even though the plaintiff isn't a governmental entity (unless I missed something), the court surely is.

      So, has the court offered clear and convincing evidence, etc? If not -- and seeing how this is information that is not being gathered at the moment, then the court seems to be exceeding its authority here, and should issue wiretap or search warrants for each subscriber it wants SonicBlue to monitor.

      I hope SonicBlue is appealing this.

      --
      -- Alastair
    5. Re:Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 by peddrenth · · Score: 3, Funny

      the court seems to be exceeding its authority here, and should issue wiretap or search warrants for each subscriber it wants SonicBlue to monitor.

      I believe that american courts can already do that, by using the "John Doe 1" through to "John Doe 112,300" naming convention.

      Makes you wonder how useful it would be to name yourself John Doe. Would utter confusion at the courtroom suffice, or would you be able to cause a divide-by-0 error on your speeding tickets?

    6. Re:Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984 by erasmus_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think like many other laws, they start out assuming innocent until proven guilty, which is what this excerpt says to me, and now are more and more turning into guilty until proven innocent. The great reasoning here is that the accuser (Disney) can't prove the clear and convincing evidence unless the accused, SonicBlue, cooperates.

      If only the rest of the justice system worked that way. The police, when not able to produce evidence that someone is engaging in illegal activity, would require individuals to wear tracking devices to prove that they're not doing anything bad.

      I think this is exactly what's going on in this case, except the accuser will be able to get away with it.

      --
      Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
  4. Centralized data gathering? by rjamestaylor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are times that DDoS makes sense...

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    1. Re:Centralized data gathering? by UncleFluffy · · Score: 2

      Much better than a DDoS would be for SonicBlue to suddenly announce a conversion to the world of Free Software and GPL the ReplayTV software... I suspect the problem would be solved for them in less than a week.

      --

      What would Lemmy do?

  5. a major dilema by cdf12345 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok I'm stuck, do I avoid Sonic Blue's PVR's because it will invade my privacy, or do I buy PVR from Sonic Blue, because they are as outraged about this as I am. I suppose I could record all kinds of crap on it too, that would at least subvert their data.

    Hmmm, maybe if we could get everyone to do nothing but record Tech TV for 24 hours as a protest of our privacy being violated.

    --
    Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
    1. Re:a major dilema by soulsteal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ok I'm stuck, do I avoid Sonic Blue's PVR's because it will invade my privacy, or do I buy PVR from Sonic Blue, because they are as outraged about this as I am. I suppose I could record all kinds of crap on it too, that would at least subvert their data.

      What to do is easy.... get 3 SonicBlue PVR's. Set them ALL to tape the Golden Girls everytime it comes on Lifetime, Law & Order everytime it comes on A&E, and grab as much Cinemax softcore porn as possible. Make sure to have the three PVR's just randomly grabbing so that the monitors catch your "unique viewing habit."

    2. Re:a major dilema by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 5, Insightful

      cdf12345 wrote:

      > Ok I'm stuck, do I avoid Sonic Blue's PVR's because it will invade my
      > privacy, or do I buy PVR from Sonic Blue, because they are as
      > outraged about this as I am. I suppose I could record all kinds of crap
      > on it too, that would at least subvert their data.
      >
      > Hmmm, maybe if we could get everyone to do nothing but record Tech
      > TV for 24 hours as a protest of our privacy being violated.

      If Sonic Blue is indeed the victim here (along with their customers), you could try to help them by carefully using your unit so the info they get supports their case: record and view all commercials (from the kitchen if necessary), erase programs frequently so you are not "stealing", etc.

      Since they will be watching email as well, be sure to email all of your "friends" (on hotmail or wherever you can pick up some free accounts for all of your pets, pet rocks, stuffed animals, etc.) on how unconstitutional the judge's ruling is (cite quotes from the US Constitution with plenty "IANAL"s). General rants on the idiocy of the MPAA and RIAA on IP issues would also be apropos (don't forget Eisner's act of piracy -- showing a pirated Sony movie -- during the Senate Hearing with Hollings). Long discussions of the relative merits of the various open source licenses might also be educational (again, lots of "IANAL"s).

      This privacy invasion stuff has long since gotten out of hand. I live in Missouri and in the spring here we get so much pollen that it coats everything outside in yellow powder. I have chronic sinusitis, and I imagine lots of people have bad hayfever. Imagine my surprise when I went to the Walmart pharmacy to pick up some over-the-counter decongestant and they not only asked for photo ID, but also took down my name and address (and possibly phone number or social security/driver's license number)! This, as the sign proudly informed me, was for "the safety of our community"!!! Yes, of course I know Sudafed is used to make an illegal drug. It is also the only decongestant on the market (brands don't matter, they all use the same chemical), and antihistamines don't do me any good. I'd switch if I could find another choice that worked for me, believe me.

      So I (and all my fellow nasal and sinus sufferers) are such dangers to our community that they need our names and addresses?!? Is the Constitution null and void if your sinuses are swollen? Most importantly: Is my personal info going to appear on ebay tonight to be sold to the highest bidder (all they had was a sign and an ordinary notebook -- this could have been some kind of a scam)?

      "War on Piracy" (not coined yet, but it will be), "War on Terror", and "War on Drugs": they all sound so heroic and protective. But they arise out of the same mindless, false patriotism as resulted in pink and white rags on sticks, and pathetic little flags lying in the road. Americans, especially after 911, are like frightened children, seeking any promise of safety, at any price. The power hungry vultures in Washington, and the greedy sharks of the corporations (particularly members of the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft) are more than happy to give it to them, at the cost of their freedom.

      The way I see it, we can either stand up for our freedom now, or we can suffer four more years and await the great couch potato riots of 2006. That's when all the TVs in America stop working, either due to not being HDTV, or being too early a version of HDTV, or because Windows for TVs bought each American $4 million worth of content licenses then crashed and lost them all. Regardless of the cause, American couch potatos will rise up and demand the right to have working TVs and VCRs. Hopefully some wise person will also throw in a recommitment to ideals expressed in the Bill of Rights (but don't hold your breath).

      Or we could call Mothra:

      "They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
      Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming.
      At the end of noon we will make our prayer."
      From the song "Infant Girl" in the Japanese version of Mothra (1961).

    3. Re:a major dilema by nexex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      just run it through a firewall and filter whatever data it sends; err, would that break it? (i dont have one:))

      --
      Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
    4. Re:a major dilema by CantGetAUserName · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's worth pointing out that in 1984 (a book that includes, among other things, TV sets that send data back) the populace is kept in check by war. War is regarded to be the only thing that can generate so much hysteria that people will give up all freedoms. And now we have a war on terror. Cute, isn't it?

      --
      Semper en excreta sumus solum profundum
    5. Re:a major dilema by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, maybe if we could get everyone to do nothing but record Tech TV for 24 hours as a protest of our privacy being violated.

      Better yet set it to record every dopey "judge" show for a week - Judge Judy, People's court, Moral court, Divorce court, Judge Mathis, Night court, etc.

      Might be simpler to just record the CourtTV channel for a few days straight.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    6. Re:a major dilema by erasmus_ · · Score: 2

      And continue this line of thought, next year, 2003, we're set to get a brand new season of that show we love best, War. The villain in this series of episodes will be Iraq. Not that I would question my government - that would be unpatriotic, and that kind of speech is not allowed.

      --
      Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
    7. Re:a major dilema by kenthorvath · · Score: 2

      I will not be helping their case by forfeiting my right to time shift, skip commercials, and record whatever I damn well please. That is the reason most of us bought the box to begin with. It is NOT illegal, and this whole thing is just the beginning of a greater movement by the government to force us into communism. China tells its people what they can and can't watch on the internet and TV. The US tells its people what they can and can't watch on the internet and TV FOR FREE. Utter bullshit...

    8. Re:a major dilema by Sophacles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      War is regarded to be the only thing that can generate so much hysteria that people will give up all freedoms.

      Along a similar line of thought (I can only speak from my experience in the US):

      The hysteria you speak of also causes those who want to take away rights to sound rational. I see a few things happening here. First the US constitution is about protecting rights, many laws are made to protect people, the police protect us from criminals, the common theme being protect. Protect protect protect.

      Along these lines, protection is everywhere, theres a subtle indoctrination towards the idea that everyone and everything needs to be protected. This is dangerous.

      Every time someone wants to impose more controll over anything, they just invoke the magic protection backdoor. Suddenly its a rational thing to do, these people simply want to protect us, or their stuff, or the country and W. We should let them do it, its for PROTECTION!

      Then someone sees how bad of an idea this is, and says, "no way, this is terrible!" Of course by then this great idea has been vaunted for its unheard of levels of protection. The naysayer is just a "far left" or "far right" (exactly opposite of your stance actually no matter where (s)he actually lies on the spectrum) crazy.

      I find myself feeling this sometimes. I can rationally agree with the "crazy", and even feel that they are in the utmost right, but for some reason in the back of my mind, the dark part where conditioned responses lie, there is a little voice shouting "NUTCASE SHE WANTS TO TAKE YOUR PROTECTION!". And when I hear this voice I am afraid.

      It extends even further though. Even though I am infuriated by the person who is stealing my rights and defending his point by not answering questions and instead uttering his invocations "for your protection. Yes mam, this means you will be forced to have sex with any police officer to prove you aren't a terrrorist, but it only for protection. Yes sir, you can't read any book without registering with the FBI first, but its for your protection, protection, protection." THe intellectual fury I have for this person is offset by that little voice saying, this guy is being calm and RATIONAL (yes the feeling that this guy is rational). Then I wish the person opposing this would be rational, but then I realize that they are, not shouting, not ranting, but being calm and cool. Then I am terrified.

      Im not trying to wax conspiracy theorist, I just feel that this is good intentions gone wrong. There initially was no intentional evil, but then once the people trying to do good had made protection a warm fuzzy word, the evil got a hold of it and abused it. Scarey neh?

      Oh well, sorry that my rant isnt better organized, Im still struggling to identify this concept more than a fleeting thought and a few moments of metacognition. I hear Canada is pretty this time of year, maybe Ill move there.

      --
      To live till you die is to live long enough. -Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
  6. Somebody tell me by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This really goes back to what slashdot covered earlier how AOL-TW CEO said that PVR users were stealing when they skipped over commercials, but it also applies here... the users are not bounded to a contract to watch the ads.

    It's also interesting to see the hypocrasy when AOL-Time Warner's CEO denouncing products like TiVO and ReplayTV while AOL is making deals with Tivo...

    It adds somewhat of a twist when Sonicblue is ordered to infringe on its user's privacy and not TiVo.

    --
    Sigs are for losers
  7. Just let the bastards tax us! by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 3, Funny

    It strikes me that the whole music/movie piracy issue could be solved in one fell swoop if the industries involved simply lobbied government to add another 2% onto income taxes and then give the music away for free.

    Sony, BMG and the others could then set up "free download" sites where Net surfers could drop in and grab as much music as they wanted, absolutely without further charge.

    The huge revenues thus generated would be paid back to the recording/music industries and apportioned according to the number of downloads of each album/movie.

    Likewise, some of the money would be aportioned to video libraries to compensate them for the losses they'd suffer.

    Hey, it's a win-win-win situation.

    The big companies get massive wads of cash. They can then pay the artists. Copy-protection is no longer an issue. Plus, you could then afford to listen to (and perhaps grow to like) a much wider range of music/movies.

    Even though I'm just kidding, I suspect that it's only a matter of time before someone seriously suggests such a plan.

    Just look at the lame technology/IP bills proposed already!

    1. Re:Just let the bastards tax us! by stevenprentice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're saying that I should pay $2000 a year for music/videos even though I have *never* purchased a CD and have *never* purchased a movie and only rent a few a year...sounds like a great deal to me. Communist.

    2. Re:Just let the bastards tax us! by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It seems, given the current political situation, that the 2% tax would pass, the money go directly to RIAA members, and the "free download" sites would mysteriously never appear. Remember, this comes from an industry that's perfectly willing to rip off artists and consumers (and I say this as a musician, not as a disgruntled customer), and I'm sure they're not above forcing everyone in the country to line the pockets of record company executives.

      Copyright law was intended to protect writers, musicians, actors, etc from being exploited by groups of people who want to profit off of mass reproduction of creative work. Record labels fit that definition exactly. As long as the people who put actual artistic effort into a work are payed, then it is a valid copyright system.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Just let the bastards tax us! by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure, a good idea, music and art are public goods, so lets have the public pay for it.

      So. 2% of income you say? Well I think it should be 3%. No actually, 5% sounds pretty fair. I mean, think about all that music that's been stolen over the years. Billions of dollars lost, thousands of musicians died of starvation. Okay, you got me, I made the last one up completely. But then again I'm in the entertainment business, we make stuff up for a living.

      And of course that will have to be increased by 1/2% per year. For inflation, DUH! What? I don't know what 95 times 2 is, why do you ask?

      And of course we'll have to figure out the best way to distribute the funds to the artists. I say we go by top-40 radio airplay. We can just review everybody's contract and be good to go.... No I've never heard of "Independent Artists" is that the new group on Arista? Eh? You mean there are musicians who don't have record deals with us? Well, fuck 'em, they can get their own percentage, we got ours already.

      This tax sounds like a good plan to me!!

      Sincerely,

      Record Company Executive

  8. Its Just wrong... by Quicksilver31337 · · Score: 2, Funny

    How anal retentive can these freaks get, its becomming more and more impossible not to give out your personal information, now they wanna know what people are watching...rewinding....then watching again....then rewinding...then watching again. HOW STUPID ARE THEY, I can save them the trouble and tell them right now. ITS PORN!!!!!!!

    --
    _______
    Death wish, n.:

    The only wish that always comes true, whether or not one wishes it t
  9. Childhood in America by small_dick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When young, the media constantly warned that America should be ever vigilant for threats from overseas enemies who hated the American people.

    Welcome to the new millenium. The enemy is wealth and control, they have no borders, and it appears they have won.

    --


    Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
    See my user info for links.
    1. Re:Childhood in America by BrookHarty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What pisses you off more, Knowing there are powerful interest groups that are attacking your rights and freedoms, or that most of the people in the usa will let it happen.

      we seem to be the minority.

  10. Hate to say it... by Aniquel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... but as much as this pisses me off (the invasion of privacy part), isn't this exactly what the industry needs?

    Seriously, once stats like this are collected, either they'll realize that this isn't a threat (and then really start pushing digital tv, stop suing companies like sonicblue etc..), or we'll be right back to where we are right now.

    I understand the slippery-slope argument and all, but how the hell are you going to convince tv networks that piracy isn't happening unless you do something like this?

    And if piracy *is* happening, wake the fuck up. It's illegal. You knew the free ride wouldn't last forever. Being able to freely copy anything you want isn't a constitutional right, even under the guise of fair use (which, by the way, isn't even established by the constitution).

    1. Re:Hate to say it... by devin15 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously, once stats like this are collected, either they'll realize that this isn't a threat (and then really start pushing digital tv, stop suing companies like sonicblue etc..), or we'll be right back to where we are right now.

      All I have to say to this is appeasement didn't work against Hitler. If they realize no one will stop them they will just get more and more greedy, maybe shows will become 15 min instead of the 20ish min they are now to make more room for advertisements.

    2. Re:Hate to say it... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2

      Humorously, the codification of the judicially crafted Fair Use guidelines in 17 U.S.C. 107 has been interpreted by the courts, IIRC to not be binding, but merely to be a restatement of the judicial doctrine, which remains alterable should the ocassion present itself.

      But the general point still holds -- copying is the norm, and exceptions carved out of that, themselves with exceptions again.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    3. Re:Hate to say it... by ratboy666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The airwaves are a public commons. If you
      put it there, and I take it, well, you had
      NO expectation of privacy.

      Cable wants to be a common carrier. And,
      where I live anyway, its a monopoly. Certain
      rules apply.

      So you wake the fuck up, it is legal.
      Of COURSE the "networks" want to control
      how, what, and where I watch the feed.
      They would love to feed advertising.
      But... my cable company pays for programming,
      and some is supplied for a cost of $0. If that
      model doesn't work, ITS NOT MY FAULT.

      Remember, I pay $20 a month for cable tv,
      and $40 a month for broadband. The gov
      takes around 8 bucks in taxes. I PAY FOR THIS.
      And, "copying" notwithstanding (no, I don't
      share copyrighted material with anybody), I
      HAVE PURCHASED THE MATERIAL AND I WANT TO
      USE IT WHEN I WANT TO. This isn't a question
      of "fair use", by the way. Fair use means
      I copy material for others, breaking copyright,
      but am allowed. Not happening, I don't do that.
      Read my lips: I BOUGHT THE MATERIAL, AND AM
      USING IT MYSELF.

      Now, the cable provider charges between $20
      and ?? for the service. "Basic" cable (the
      so-called "free" networks, plus some specialty
      stations) is at the bottom, then you can
      add "premium" content for an additional amount.
      Given that the delivery cost is the same for
      ANY of the content, the additional cost must
      be going for the content. Got it?

      So, people are paying for the content. Given
      that fact, why is there still advertising?
      Because the networks think the "free with
      advertising" sponsorship model works?

      And that's it. Now, I don't live in the
      good 'ole US of A, but most of this applies
      there as well.

      If the "free" tv advertising model ain't
      working, well then, fix that.

      Alternatives:

      1 - make commercials compelling
      2 - fund raising drives
      3 - sell the material to cable providers
      4 - get out of the business
      5 - product placement

      And I haven't even really thought about it!

      Ratboy.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    4. Re:Hate to say it... by grmoc · · Score: 2

      Distributing snipets of said material in a meaningful manner, or changing and redistributing (as long as such changes are substantial) falls under fair use.

      Merely catalogueing the data in copyrighted material is completely legal and doesn't even fall under fair use doctrine because it doesn't break copyright at all.(IANAL!)

      Tiny technicality: Copyright law DOES protect secret information if it is copyrighted- You can't copy it! It doesn't protect the information itself, but rather the statement of it.

      Furthermore- If there can be only one way to state something (for example a recipe), then copyright doesn't apply. If it isn't a unique and creative statement, then it cannot be copyrighted.

      (i.e. databases cannot be copyrighted, unless the law has changed in the past few years.)

    5. Re:Hate to say it... by 5KVGhost · · Score: 2
      Unfortunately, I don't think that Replay has a leg to stand on in terms of their "show-sharing" feature since everything recorded from broadcast television (including PBS, it's worth noting) is covered by copyright.


      Er, what difference does that make? Have you ever exchanged videotapes with someone, or asked someone else to record a show for you while you're away on vacation? How is this any different?
  11. This goes further than what Tivo does by Otto · · Score: 2

    From the article:
    The court ruling also requires SonicBlue to track individual users -- not by name, but through ``unique identification numbers.''

    This goes further than what Tivo does, as Tivo sends no unique ID with the data it collects. Wholly anonymous.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:This goes further than what Tivo does by Quixote · · Score: 2

      This goes further than what Tivo does, as Tivo sends no unique ID with the data it collects. Wholly anonymous.
      Wrong. TiVo's data is keyed to the ID of your TiVo unit, which is unique.

    2. Re:This goes further than what Tivo does by Otto · · Score: 2

      Wrong. TiVo's data is keyed to the ID of your TiVo unit, which is unique.

      Wrong. The ID of your unit is not sent with the anonymous data that Tivo collects. Check the Tivo Underground for more details on how to examine the data yourself.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    3. Re:This goes further than what Tivo does by Otto · · Score: 2

      Those are separated. The ID is sent to determine if it's a valid subscription, true, but it is not sent with the data.

      It sends the data using HTTP POSTs to Tivo's servers. Basically, it's as if I submitted two web forms, one with my serial and another with my viewing data. The only way to correlate those two bits of info is by noticing that they were sent at around the same time (sequentially, in fact). However, with 300k subscribers calling in daily and only 86k seconds in the day, it's a bit difficult (read: impossible) to backtrack from the access logs to determine who sent what when.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    4. Re:This goes further than what Tivo does by Otto · · Score: 2

      Yes, well, whether they can or not seems irrelevant. SonicBlue claims they couldn't and the judge simply said for them to write code that could, and to do it within 60 days.

      Assuming some idiot judge ordered them to do it, then it can be done. Or the people who don't do it get shut down. So the law sucks. Nothing new there.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  12. NONONONONO by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You do not know anything about bussiness people. You think if they get a 2% tax they'll shut up? Certainly not - they will keep the money and try to find other ways to charge us with improved services. Oh yeah and that 2% will slowly increase as well.

    Oh sry i just read that you were kidding. Still a bad idea imo.

  13. It is too late. by Fuzquat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The entertainment industry is fighting a losing battle here. Anyone who has purchased a TIVO or similar hard disk recorder will absolutely never go back to watching ads.

    I personally have a hard disk recorder, and since having it I cannot stand to watch live tv, because I now percieve how much of my time is wasted by ads.

    My guess is that eventually the entertainment industry is going to have to modify their revenue system, because no one will willing submit to ads again after being free of them.

    What is interesting is that the TV industry will has a system allready in place that could be switched to an ad less system. All they would need to do is charge more for cable or satellite service, or something along those lines. They would probably be forced to take an income cut, because people will not be interested in paying very much more for ad less TV then they do for regular TV today.

    If media corporations think they have a problem now, wait until hard disk recorders drop below $200....

    They are facing a losing battle, just like the music industry.

    1. Re:It is too late. by AJWM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Heck, with a couple of rare exceptions -- and most of them PBS -- I haven't watched live TV in years. Even before PVRs, recording on a good old analog VHS VCR still let you fast-forward over the commercials, pause to go to the bathroom or get a snack, etc. Sure, the image quality wasn't quite up to what a digital recorder with a digital feed will give you, but it's Good Enough.

      And time shifting (which is what the above is) was ruled legal in the courts, as I recall.

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:It is too late. by mlippert · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that the same way they are going to modify the software on the PVR you currently own and use to record your actions, they can change the software to force you to watch the commercials also.

      I don't think (I don't own one so I'm not sure about this) that you can prevent a software upgrade [sic] from being downloaded and installed unless you never connect to the SonicBlue or Tivo service.

      Mike

    3. Re:It is too late. by Silverhammer · · Score: 2
      What is interesting is that the TV industry will has a system allready in place that could be switched to an ad less system. All they would need to do is charge more for cable or satellite service, or something along those lines.

      Wasn't that the original bloody point of cable - paying a monthly subscription for ad-free programming? They managed to do it just fine until the late 80s. How did they eventually convince us that it's perfectly normal to pay $40-50 a month for JUST the copper wire?

      Right now I can think of a dozen different channels that show no original programming whatsoever, just infomercials and reruns. What the hell is all that ad revenue and subscription money paying for?

    4. Re:It is too late. by Silverhammer · · Score: 2
      You, my friend in tvland, are not a sucker. So stop letting yourself be treated like one. You are mad as hell, and you're not going to take it anymore. It's your money, damn it. Use it to make yourself happy. Dump your cable subscription and never see another infomercial again. Do it.

      I already plan to, in 2004. Why then? Because that's when a) my current lease ends and I'll probably buy a house, b) I'll be 30 years old and it seems a nicely grown-up thing to do, c) the digital switchover will be getting really obnoxious, and d) Farscape finishes its five-year run.

      Yes, really, I like Farscape that much.

    5. Re:It is too late. by Animats · · Score: 2
      The entertainment industry is fighting a losing battle here. Anyone who has purchased a TIVO or similar hard disk recorder will absolutely never go back to watching ads.

      I feel that way since I installed WebWasher. I'm barely aware that the Web has ads.

      • WebWasher Statistics
        Filtered images: 187,103.
        Filtered windows: 10,998.
        Filtered cookies: 85,542.
  14. So how does this help the entertainment suits? by Otto · · Score: 2

    I mean, it's fairly obvious that they need this info to prove that users skip commercials and send shows to each other, but I fail to see how this makes either of those activities illegal... Yes, it's poor form that the judge ordered this data gathering, but I don't see that it makes much of a difference to the bad guys case.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  15. Umm...Replay Hackers? by Will_Malverson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know that there's a RePlay hacking community, though it's not as big as the TiVo hacking community. Anyone know how to completely mess up the data in my RPTV about what I've been watching and how I've been watching it?

    1. Re:Umm...Replay Hackers? by rusty0101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I do no own a replay, nor do I know any owners who hack their systems, I do have doubts about the reliabiliy of the data being collected.

      They have 60 days to build a database that reports all clicks, skips, and passes. I.e. in less than two months, they have to construct, test and distribute bug free software.

      This I would love to see.

      Why bug free? Do you want to explain that the reason that the database shows all of the comercials on all of the 4000 series Replays were the only material passed from one PVR to another, and that the data shows that the viewers were watching the comercials and skipping the shows, was a bug in the software? To a Judge?

      If they pull it off, I will be impressed. If they do so without making it possible that even one of the pvrs could be hacked to start reporting the lowest rated shows as the only shows being recorded, I will really be impressed.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
  16. I guess we're all thieves by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had no idea that not watching commercials equated to stealing televison shows. My cheesy RCA VCR marks commercials after recording and skips them during playback. This has been around for a while. How does ReplayTV make it different?

    So what happens to people who have sent a copy of Six Feet Under to their non HBO subscribing friends? Will they get jail time for this?

    --

    'Same speed C but faster'
  17. Neither example is "anonymous" by coyote-san · · Score: 2

    Neither of those examples is either "anonymous" or "aggregate."

    As I've told some of the marketing droids so confident that they would "never" misuse information gathered by shopping cards, if they truly respected my concerns there would be a basket of shopper cards at the service counter and I could just grab one and walk away. They could collect all of the information they wanted about me... except who I am. (That's also why I pay with cash, etc.)

    But when they want me to fill out a form, then it's not anonymous. It may be pseudonymous (if I use a bogus name and address), but that's not the same thing as anonymous.

    As for aggregate data, that's what the stores collect when they ask you for your ZIP code and cross-correlate purchases, ZIP code and store location. It would be the number of people in a square mile (or greater) watching HBO at 10 PM on Sunday night. It's not something tied to your individual PVR.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    1. Re:Neither example is "anonymous" by jareds · · Score: 2

      As I've told some of the marketing droids so confident that they would "never" misuse information gathered by shopping cards, if they truly respected my concerns there would be a basket of shopper cards at the service counter and I could just grab one and walk away. They could collect all of the information they wanted about me... except who I am.

      And how old you are, and what sex you are, etc. Also, how do you propose they get people to keep the cards in their wallet rather than throwing them away and grabbing a new one next time?

  18. The problem is not with the tv companies by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

    The problem is that sonic blue were gathering the informastion to begin with.

    Since they already have access to the info it is normal court procedure for the court to request that they preserve it if it may be evidence.

    In the article a Sonic Blue manager is complaining "we are being asked to invade the privacy of our customers". No buddy- you are already doing that you are being asked to share the data.

    As long as somebody is gathering your info your privacy is being invaded. It doesnt matter what their privacy statement says, because:
    a. you can never know if they follow it or not
    b. even if they follow it once there is a court order they have to turn it over.

    Court orders and search warrants cannot be stopped by privacy statements.

    There is no reason why a some tv device has to send information about the viewing habbits of the user. If you want privacy get one that doesnt.

    The fact that there isnt one on the market only proves that companies dont really care about consumers that much.

    By the way do you guys think that if someone figures out how to port linux on the Xbox it could be programmed to be an open source tv recorder? That would be nice.

    Lately having open source devices has been the only way to ensure your privacy.

    1. Re:The problem is not with the tv companies by Jack+Porter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read the article.

      "The plaintiffs asked SonicBlue to turn over information on how individuals use the recording devices. SonicBlue said it does not track that information. The magistrate, who is supervising discovery, ordered the company to write software in the next 60 days that would record every ``click'' from every customer's remote control."

    2. Re:The problem is not with the tv companies by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

      yes but they used to track it. So their davice so made so it can track it, without the owner being able to do anything about it.

      I had a small error but i think my points are correct - if they really cared about privacy they wouldnt have that functionality in their device to begin with. Or they would have it but give the owner a choice to turn it off.

      The problem is that the owner does not have power over his own damn digital vcr. If he did then it would be much harder for the court to get that information.

    3. Re:The problem is not with the tv companies by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


      So far as I know, and I could be wrong, Replay has never collected such information.


      From the article:

      SonicBlue said it stopped collecting anonymous user data in May 2001, after a furor erupted over competitor TiVo's practice of secretly gathering information about its users' viewing habits.
    4. Re:The problem is not with the tv companies by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2

      Wrong. They used to collect data. They quit. They never used a unique ID. They have a time limit to implement *new* software that will provide user behavior data with said unique user ID. This isn't about "you are already doing it, share the data". This can't even be about, "we want to know what percentage are doing it, because we want to shut your business down". The *only* reason to tag the consumer is to be able to come back latter and say, "Judge, we have proof that user #abc123 violated our copyright, and we now want to nail his/her/their ass to a prison cell wall." Be afraid. Be very afraid. Next step: tap every phone/ethernet/cable modem?

    5. Re:The problem is not with the tv companies by n6mod · · Score: 2

      You're really not paying attention.

      "SonicBlue stopped collecting data in May 2001..."

      SonicBlue is being sued over the 4000 models, which didn't start shipping until November 2001. *This* device never collected any user data. Ever.

      --
      You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
    6. Re:The problem is not with the tv companies by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


      Ah, but in May 2001 the ReplayTV 4000 series didn't exist yet, and those are the devices that the magistrate wants to collect information from despite the fact that those devices have never had that capability.


      Maybe I'm missing the point... but I don't see how this makes that much of a difference. With the earlier products, SonicBlue included firmware (I'm assuming its "firmware") that allowed them to collect data. They saw Tivo get burned over this practice and promptly stopped doing so themselves. Later product lines didn't include software/firmware to perform a function SonicBlue had deemed a PR risk and wouldn't use.


      BUT.. they did continue to leave the clause in their EULA and had already proven that it was possible to do with earlier products.


      Sure - its outlandish for a court to demand that they develop code to reimplement this invasion of privacy (rather than turn over any existing records from previous data collection). But at the same time, SonicBlue DID collect data in the past.

  19. And why does the industry care? by CptnKirk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now I could be wrong, but get this. The industry has no way of knowing exactly how many people actually watch their shows. Sure based on a sample of people who agree to be polled, they're able to estimate. And based on these estimations they're able to charge for advertising.

    If you think about it, at this point they have their money. Nealson has already counted these views, whether or not commercials were skipped via conventional (bathroom) means or electronic means. I find is suspicious that these companies are now asking for this type of information. I could see the various companies who advertise complaining, but they don't seem to be. And if they did the TV industry would say that since taped views don't add to the ratings, those views aren't represented. So either quit bitching or we'll have to count those views in our ratings and raise rates accordingly.

    Either way I don't really see how the industries argument carries any weight. This is a game of averages folks and advertisers know this. Plus the industries accounting mechanism rounds for the industry anyway. I just don't see what their problem is.

    1. Re:And why does the industry care? by CptnKirk · · Score: 2

      And about HBO. Again, this should be good for HBO. It gains loyalty and brand recognition.

      As for being illegal. ReplayTV only allows a limited number of show 'sends'. Also given the reality of most people's internet bandwidth. ReplayTV will be used for the most part to send shows from a TV in one room to a TV in another (via local lan). Also these limited sends should be no more illegal than having people over to my house to watch HBO. They don't pay for the service, but I'm still allowed to let my friends watch my TV on my dime.

      Also since people are watching and sharing these shows off of a hard drive HBO no longer pays the cable companies for distribution over their lines. If anything the cable companies are the real loosers in this whole mess, and the court has already ruled on this issue.

    2. Re:And why does the industry care? by CptnKirk · · Score: 2

      It's sticky. However I think that courts have said that it's ok to do the following.

      1. Invite friends over to watch X-Files.

      2. Tape X-Files for later viewing, with friends, or alone.

      3. Tape X-Files for later viewing without commercials.

      4. Tape X-Files and watch it at a friends house on his VCR.

      5. Tape X-Files for a friend who would have otherwise missed the show, and give them the tape .

      I believe that courts have upheld this type of fair use. You're allowed to tape stuff off the TV and Radio. You're allowed to consume these tapes in any way you wish, and are allowed to share with family and friends as long as you're not profiting. You are not allowed to share with everyone. I think the friends and family aspect is what SonicBlue is going for. They only let you share a show like 5 times, eliminating the risk of proliferation to the world, while providing a service that allows you to essentially let a friend borrow your CD or tape.

  20. Hi, I'm Em Emalb, and I am a thief by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2

    Article time:
    "Attorneys for the studios say they need this information to determine the extent to which the ReplayTV 4000 allows consumers to steal copyrighted movies and television shows."

    So, in reality, they automatically assume that everyone who uses this is stealing. Nice, guilt until proven innocent.

    Could we please get a judge who says it is not my responsibility to legislate your problems. If you are losing money, change your business model. BTW, I don't believe I have *EVER* EVER...YOU HEAR ME YOU MARKETING F*cktroids? EVER bought something because I saw it on TV.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
  21. Judge Eick by guygee · · Score: 5, Informative



    Let the
    "Honorable" Charles F. Eick know what you think of his decision:
    give him a call at (213)894-5234, fax to(213)894-3335, or write him:

    The Honorable Charles F. Eick
    United States Magistrate Judge
    United States District Court
    United States Courthouse
    312 North Spring Street
    Los Angeles, CA 90012

    1. Re:Judge Eick by travis7 · · Score: 5, Informative

      FYI everyone, he's a Magistrate, not an actual federal judge. What this means, basically, is that he does not have lifetime tenure (as do "real" federal judges).

      Might be worth letting your US Senators and Representatives know that something is smelling in the LA District Court....

    2. Re:Judge Eick by guygee · · Score: 4, Informative

      FYI everyone, he's a Magistrate, not an actual federal judge. What this means, basically, is that he does not have lifetime tenure (as do "real" federal judges).

      Good point, somebody mod this guy up.
      According to this site:
      "The current Magistrate Judge system was begun by Congress in 1968 expanding on the 175 year old United States commissioner system. The Magistrate Judges are appointed based upon the recommendations of a citizen's merit screening committee. In 2002, in addition to the 471 full-time Magistrate Judge positions authorized there were 59 part-time judges and 3 combination Clerk of Court/Magistrate Judges who serve four year terms."

    3. Re:Judge Eick by Quixote · · Score: 2

      The Magistrate Judges are appointed based upon the recommendations of a citizen's merit screening committee.

      Wanna bet that this "committee" is packed with media flunkies (in LA)?
      People, November is coming up. *VOTE* . Make your voices heard. You can rant and rave all you want on /., but it'll have the same effect as a flea on an elephant's rump. When the geek crowd gets organized and STARTS VOTING in large numbers, then the congresscritters (and magistrates) will sit up and take notice.

  22. Mixed feelings by vanyel · · Score: 2

    While I don't like the concept of people watching what I do, in fact I sorta want them to do that with my PVR, since what gets aired is based on ratings. If they see that people record this show and not that one, then maybe the shows I watch will stand a better chance of sticking around. And if they see that I backed up to watch that good commercial and skipped all these sucky ones, maybe commercials will improve. Yeah, I'm tilting at windmills, but one can dream...

  23. Lite judges by Animats · · Score: 2
    Federal magistrate judges are sort of "lite judges". They used to be called "Unites States Magistrates" or "United States Commissioners". They usually handle minor cases, pretrial motions, and such. Normally, they only handle entire cases when both parties consent to the use of a magistrate judge. They don't usually make major decisions.

    An order like this one, one that affects third parties, needs to be kicked up to the district judge level for a more thorough examination. Hopefully some outside party will file a motion to do that. Anyone whose clicks are being recorded is probably an eligible party.

  24. Not if PVRs get banned by Gorimek · · Score: 2

    That's a little naive.

    Of course you (and I) will go back to regular ad based TV the day our Tivos are made illegal.

  25. Heisenberg-esque, don't you think? by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, now a few geeks know that they're being watched more carefully. They can tell other geeks, who will make a fuss, and maybe even the general public will hear about it. Maybe you have to do some protesting or set yourself on fire or something.

    Then, everyone who gives a toss will modify their behavior (Skip every commercial or watch only one show over and over. Or set up a robot arm to push the skip button once a second. Get creative.)

    Then, when SonicBlue goes back to the court, they can say that the data are obviously flawed, because the rats knew they were being watched and changed their behavior.

    SonicBlue must've been keeping data previous to this, anyway, they could compare and prove the behavior changed soon after the ruling.

    Also, anybody know how this machine would store all this data? I can't imagine it streams it off to HQ everytime you push a button. Sounds like good hack possibilities to me. "Your honor, viewer #23489A somehow managed to skip 10,000,000 commercials last weekend. I think if you just arrest him the TV industry will be good to go."

  26. making TV shows doesn't have to cost so much by martyn+s · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I read this article which talks about Dick Wolf's (creator of Law & Order) philosophy about paying TV actors. According to him, people don't watch TV shows for stars, they watch it for the good writing, and he claims this is different than movies. But the studios don't believe it and are willing to pay the actors on friends 1 million dollars each. I'm not saying friends would still be popular if they were all suddenly replaced, but the fact is, TV studios, even now have pretty slim profit margins, so if ad revenues went down across the board, most likely actors' salaries would go down too, because profits couldn't get any lower. I think it's pretty sick how the government thinks they need to baby the TV and movie industries, as if they'd suddenly collapse without sticking to their age-old business model.

  27. Lobotomy Time by huntdwumpus · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm sorry folks, your brains are now property of Disney. How many images of Mickey Mouse have you illegally recorded in your memory? How many movies, books and songs? All the knowledge and experiences in your memory are stolen intellectual property. Confess now, and we'll offer you a special discount rate to license your brain back for limited periods of regulated thought.

  28. ObHeinlein by sconeu · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Quote:
    There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.
    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:ObHeinlein by MasterKayne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is from Robert Heinlein's Life-Line and it is written in 1939! All the players change but it is still the same game.

  29. Entertainment industry has reached critical mass by Fastball · · Score: 2
    Let's face it. The entertainment industry is suffering from poor timing with a receeding economy and discovering that there is a limit to how much money we're will to shell out for their goodies. Actually, I believe a lot of industries are running into a revenue wall.

    You can imagine these people getting spoiled the last few years, and then when our disposable income becomes less disposable, they wig out. Has anyone else noticed how prolific our corporations have become at perverting capitalism? Enron, Worldcom, AOL/TW. And those are just the tip of iceberg that we can see.

    I see a trend of corporations looking to government to bail them out of jams they created for themselves, and I don't like it. It's funny that some want government regulations (RIAA, MPAA to name a few) and others don't (MSFT) AND they're all wrong!

  30. Slipping on the Slope they Made by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'm mixing two apt metaphors. "Starting down a slippery slope" and "sleeping in the bed they made."


    SonicBlue (and Tivo) laid the foundation for this sort of action with their EULA and origional policy of collecting user data ("anonymous" or not). They removed this functionality when, suprise, there was a public backlash. But by then, the damage is done. They have demonstrated the ability for those who would abuse it.


    Enter the entertainment industry. Sure, I'm dismayed that a court would force this kind of action. But I'm sad to say I'm not shocked - we've all seen this kind of attitude from the entertainment industry and the legal and political system that seems to favor it, and these kinds of tactics.


    But let us not forget that it is the current PVR industry (SonicBlue AND Tivo) who have created the industry standard that allows invasion of consumer rights. It is their short-sightedness that gave the entertainment industry this option to push for in court.


    They created the slippery slope and despite their attempts to get off of it, they will now be forced to continue their slide.

  31. Mess with their stats! by shuane · · Score: 5, Funny
    Here's what the users should do:
    • Pause during ads, rewind over a particularly annoying one and run it through several times.
    • Record programmes and then do not watch them.
    • Record programmes and watch them entirely in fast-forward.
    • Record infomercials and leave them running while you go out.
    • Generally do anything you can to skew the statistics (people seem to really like infomercials, perhaps we here at OmniCorp should bring out an infomercial-only channel?)
    --
    This signature intentionally has just seven words.
  32. And So It Begins... by ewhac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Consider: A US Federal Court -- not some backwater municipal or state court -- has just ordered a wholesale invasion of citizens' privacy and personal information without a search warrant.

    Consider further: This action was ordered, not in the name of "National Security" or "Anti-Terrorist Investigation", not on behalf of the government at all, but on behalf of a monsterously wealthy corporation bleating about "theft" and illusory "lost profits".

    It has begun. The last bulwark against tyranny has been swept aside by a sitting Federal Magistrate without the slightest qualm.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I offer the following admittedly foolish, idealisic counsel:

    Close your wallets.

    Buy nothing.

    See no movies. Rent no videos. Buy no music CDs. Purchase no computer software that isn't Open Source/Free Software (remember, the BSA members are in on this, too).

    "But what do I do for entertainment?" Easy. Fire up your Web browser and/or go to your local government building and start digging for incriminating dirt on every elected official you can find. Once you find it, publish it. Read the dirt other people have dug up. Learn as much as you can. Discovering incriminating secrets about other people is endlessly entertaining, especially with that whole "betrayal of the public trust" angle going for it.

    And once you've learned everything you possibly can about the people ostensibly representing you... VOTE!

    Too many Attorneys General simply refuse to bring malfeasance charges, so relying on criminal prosecution to delete these people won't be very effective. Get out there this upcoming November and vote the bastards out. They are your employees. They are betraying you and selling you out. They are embezzling your earnings and selling your personal secrets to the highest bidder. Fire them. Hurl them out the door so fast that you can see a redshift on their ass.

    Apathy about our government is a luxury we can no longer afford. We will only have one or two more shots at this before the courts decide that EULAs really are binding, that your property isn't really yours, that the monopoly of copyright trumps Freedom of Speech (q.v. Keith Henson) and Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure (this case). At that point, we all become serfs, and, "Your papers, please," will become a phrase heard all too often in our places of work and our homes.

    Schwab

    1. Re:And So It Begins... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... and start digging for incriminating dirt on every elected official you can find.

      Shouldn't you be digging up dirt on corporate executives? Lots of people have done things they aren't proud of, and some of it is probably prosecutable. Getting some VPs convicted under 3-strike drug laws could be lots of fun.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:And So It Begins... by stripes · · Score: 2
      Consider: A US Federal Court -- not some backwater municipal or state court -- has just ordered a wholesale invasion of citizens' privacy and personal information without a search warrant.

      Ummmm, wouldn't the court order be the search warrant?

      (yes, I do think it is a crappy order, but...)

  33. Re:Entertainment industry has reached critical mas by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


    It's funny that some want government regulations (RIAA, MPAA to name a few) and others don't (MSFT) AND they're all wrong!


    Actually, the RIAA (and likely MPAA) both want and don't want government regulations depending on the situation.


    Hilary Rosen of the RIAA has received awards for her fight against censorship and Government intervention / control over what her member companies can sell. Obviously, this interferes with the revenue stream and can not be allowed.


    At the same time, Rosen is a champion of new law and court intervention concerning content found on the Internet. If it circumvents the revenue stream then it can not be allowed.


    Sure, its not shocking. But I still find it an interesting observation.

  34. I have two words to say to EICKIE.... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fuck you!

  35. Re:Can't they plead the Fifth? by ewhac · · Score: 2

    It's a civil case. The right to refuse to self-incriminate is only available during criminal proceedings.

    Schwab

  36. Re:Redundant by Em+Emalb · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey mods,

    thanks for clarifying that my post was redundant...hopefully the title helped :^)
    a little humor, don't get too excited!

    now, it would be ironic if this post here gets modded as off-topic. that would make my day.

    yours,
    Em Emalb

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
  37. Ha Ha Ha, fools! by Alcimedes · · Score: 4, Informative

    you think that advertisers are going to let you get around watching commercials by just skipping through them? you think that they haven't thought of all of your ways to skip them already?

    there are new methods in place already to take care of this, and have been going on for years.

    images are placed, products are placed, entire scripts are rewritten to take products into account. it's integrated advertising, and it's where television is going.

    you won't be able to watch your tv show w/o getting force fed advertising. now the smart companies will do this so that you don't hate them. but how many you think are going to be smart about it?

    lol, i majored in marketing, they are well aware of the limitations of commercials in today's tech society, and are already well on the way to fixing the problem.

    one little example. remember sienfeld? those boxes of cereal in his apt. were digitally changed based on the market and who paid the shelf space, and that was years ago. they're better at it now, and you never notice 90% of the time unless you've been trained to watch for it.

    and for those saying that they've never bought a single thing due to advertising, you're flat out wrong. you may not realize it, but advertising has measurable, consistant effects on sales in markets. if nothing else it will make you aware of a product that you wouldn't have known about otherwise.

    -alcimedes

  38. I'm game by tester13 · · Score: 2

    Ok the disclaimer is that I watch about 2 hours of T.V. a week (at a friends house).

    Hey man, I would be more then willing to pay for what I watch. I frankly would love the oppotunity!

    I wonder what the networks would feel that my contribution would be to offset adverts?

    Anyone know, because I would pay it if reasonable.

  39. But it is able to by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

    Otherwise the court order would be pointless.

    1. Re:But it is able to by SEE · · Score: 2

      The device has a general-purpose microprocessor, data storage, and a network connection; therefore software can be written for it that collects data about its use and sends it in. Equivalent software not only could, but has been invented for coroporations to monitor use of their PCs, even though those PCs were not ever specifically designed to collect and send in such data.

  40. Business model protection... by scd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So it would appear that we again have a case of a company believing that they have a legal right to preserve their business model in perpetuity.

    This is, of course, the same thing that the RIAA thinks: they've made lots of money in a certain fashion, therefore they are OBVIOUSLY entitled to the continued existence of that revenue stream.

    Pure rubbish.

  41. That's how it's done in Germany! by jeti · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In Germany and other European countries, you pay extra for every CDR blank and similar 'taxes' on CDRW drives, PCs and HDDs are in the discussion.The money is distributed among the labels according to market share. The same system (different institution) is applied to printers and copiers.

    For the money I pay, I'm granted rights of fair use. I can make personal copies and I'm even allowed to share with personal friends. You can also use text excerpts for educational purposes.

    Oh - and it looks like we are also getting some DMCA-like laws that make it illegal to circumvent copy protection. Even if we're explicitly charged for the right to copy the content.

  42. Because they can? by Craig+Maloney · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is crap. Nobody in their right mind would ask VCR users to report back how many commercials were skipped, yet Sonic Blue is expected to comply with this from a judge. I'm not a PVR user, but I'm outraged at the sheer lack of respect this judge is demonstrating. I'm sure these numbers will be aggregate numbers, but honestly I think the judge should be given one of these and have his entire viewing habits made public record, including his thieving ways of fast forwarding through commercials.

  43. Fishing for a Neilson replacement by Big+Jojo · · Score: 2

    I seem to recall more than one failed "dot-com" business model that was set up to spy on users in this way ... emphasis on failed. Neilson (et al) can't give that kind of information, this is a marketeer's wet dream.

    If the entertainment industry can get someone else to spend a small (or larger) dot-com sized fortune collecting this information, from an unwilling set of customers to be sure ... it's no wonder they're trying to do so.

    That's what's really going on here: not just a massive invasion of privacy, unjustified by even a (so-called) PATRIOT act level terrorist threat. Not just trying to scare customers away from PVR vendors on a wholesale basis, while undermining the future growth of the market.

    But also finding someone else to pay for a level of market information collection that would otherwise be impossible to collect, since the financials don't pass a first level smell test and customers would never willingly commit to that level of surveillance.

  44. very little tv by BlueboyX · · Score: 2

    More and more I am waiting until a series comes out on dvd (or HK vcd) and buy the whole series. A HK vcd set for a whole season is usually $25. No commercials. Or, if it is something I really want I get a dvd set (legit + better quality;costs a ton though). Either way, I am not getting brainwashed by commercials anymore.

    --
    "Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
  45. Re:blank ?? by Kalabajoui · · Score: 2

    It's not the fact new technology has a different end result than old technology, so much as it presents a brand-spanking new opportunity for content producing lobbyists.

  46. Get your own lawyer! by stinkydog · · Score: 2

    Owners of Replay need their own lawyer!

    File for an injunction based on the Cable Act of '84. IANAL but could you not get someone that is to draft a 'form' injunction request(Call in the EFF?)? Send a few thousand of these to the magistrate to bolster SB case. Call it a legal DDoS. At worst you should be able to win the ability to opt-out and at best you will stop the whole deal.

    SD
    Don't wait to get screwed, fight back!

    --
    âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
  47. a little more by BlueboyX · · Score: 2

    Maybe I better elaborate on that a little bit. I am not the Super Piracy King. My collection of 'real' vhs and DVDs is unreasonably large.Most won't tv shows come out on DVD ever (or hd vcds, for ebay nuts who would want to buy from them) but there is alot of stuff out on vhs. Once you watch a tv series on vhs/dvd you won't appreciate watching live cable so much. My point is that there are alternatives to watching cable associated commercials.

    --
    "Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
  48. SonicBlue can now counter-sue by petard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They now have real damages to countersue for. I was going to buy one of the units (they really look cool) but now refuse to. I will not submit to this sort of monitoring. Period. They lost my sale. Am I alone? I am sending a message to this effect to privacy@replaytv.com, informing them of this and suggesting the countersuit. Maybe if they get more reports of real damages, a counter-suit will be filed.

    --
    .sig: file not found
  49. They have to develop and deploy new software too! by dmmjr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's part of the actual order. On April 26, Judge Charles Eick of the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, gave SonicBLUE 60 days to:

    (1) take the steps necessary to use their broadband connections with ReplayTV 4000 customers to gather all available information about how users of the ReplayTV employ the devices, including all available information about what works are copied, stored, viewed with commercials omitted, or distributed to third parties with the ReplayTV 4000, when each of those events took place, and the like;
    (2) implement Defendants' offer to collect available data from a second source -- the MyReplayTV.com web site -- about how users of the ReplayTV employ the devices, but for all time periods for which that data can be collected, rather than just for a short period;
    (3) provide the foregoing data to Plaintiffs in a readily-understandable electronic format and provide any technical assistance that may be necessary for Plaintiffs to review the data;
    (4) provide Plaintiffs with all documents about Defendants' consideration of what data to gather or not to gather about their customers' uses of the ReplayTV 4000; and
    (5) provide Plaintiffs with any other documents (such as emails or logs) reflecting what works have been copied with the ReplayTV 4000 and how those works have been stored, viewed, or distributed.

    Now who gets all of this data? The plaintiffs in the case against SonicBLUE (the makers of the ReplayTV 4000). Roughly, Time Warner, HBO, Warner Brothers, TBS, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock Entertainment, WB TV, MGM Studios, Orion Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Universal City Studios, Fox Broadcasting, Paramount Pictures, Disney, NBC, Showtime, United Paramount Network, ABC, Viacom, CBS, Columbia Pictures, Columbia TV, and Tristar. The plaintiffs are also ordered to pay 3/4 of the cost of gathering the data.

    Come on. Our courts have no business ordering a company to spy on its own customers just because big media wants to put the company out of business. We at the Privacy Foundation saw a lot of consumer outrage after we released our report about TiVo's privacy disclosure and practices. TiVo did a pretty good job of responding to the situation; they spent a lot of time with the press, and they wrote a white paper explaining what had happened. (We still have some gripes about their system, but that's another story.) The point is that companies are very sensitive about tweaking their customers' privacy, because they know customers don't have much patience for it. So when the court orders a company to spy on their customers, it's basically a punitive act. The customers will revolt and get mad at everyone. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the discovery of evidence phase of a lawsuit isn't supposed to be punitive.

    In this case it's worse than just a privacy squabble. Either the court doesn't understand or the court doesn't believe ReplayTV's repeated explanation that they simply don't have the information demanded by this order. See, in April 2001 some months after our TiVo report came out, I showed a ReplayTV exec my traces that proved that their current model also collected some type of viewing information. This scared them, and in May 2001 - before the ReplayTV 4000 existed - they disabled the collection function, since they had never used the data for anything. This is what they told me, and this is what they've sworn to the court in testimony.

    Now the ReplayTV 4000 is a different product than the one I investigated, and ReplayTV has said that they never reenabled the old tracking code, nor did they update it to make it monitor the newer features - like automatically skipping commercials and sending recordings to other ReplayTV 4000 units. But that's precisely the type of data that the plaintiffs are demanding to see in this case!

    So what we have is a court ordering SonicBLUE to prepare a new software release that implements new spying features, and then ordering them to force it upon all of their customers, out of fairness to Big Media in their case against them. Considering that SonicBLUE has probably updated their customers' software only a few times ever, this is like ordering Microsoft to create, distribute, and maintain a new version of Outlook that checks to see if any of its users are sending MP3s as attachments!

    I guess this is a sneak preview of the type of consumer broadband "protection" we can look forward to in the very near future.

    What happens next: SonicBLUE is planning to file papers with the overseeing judge in U.S. District court objecting to this order. If that doesn't go their way, then I guess they'll be working on a new software release.

    David Martin
    http://www.cs.bu.edu/~dm

  50. my solution by gimpboy · · Score: 2

    well, when i got my card for the giant eagle, they sent me a card and two of those keychain things. one day i was in line and the person in front of me asked me if they could borrow my card since they lost theirs (we get a discount when we use cards). i pulled out one of the keychain ones and said sure, keep it.

    so no they are tracking the speding habits of a 23 year-old white guy and a middle aged black woman.

    --
    -- john
  51. We could still be riding in horse buggies by sdo1 · · Score: 2

    It's a good thing that the manufacturers of horse-drawn carriages were unable to sue automobile makers out of existince. This "horseless carriage" completely messed up their business model, didn't it? And damn it, they have a RIGHT to keep making money even when something better comes along! "Judge! You have to watch Ford, and Olds, and Benz! Their plan is evil and YOU CAN'T LET THEM MESS WITH OUR PROFITS!"

    No, not quite.

    Look, this whole thing is pissing me off to no end. I pay for satellite TV. What I do with those TV signals once their decoded IN MY OWN HOUSE is my own damn business. If I want to capture every frame on my computer, print them out, and piss on them... I can do that. If I want to put them on video tape, toss the tapes into a bonfire, and dance around it chanting anti-Disney phrases, fine. Skip commercials? Fine. Watch commercials again and again. Fine.

    How are the capabilities of a ReplayTV unit at all different from what I can do with a VCR, a video tape, and the US Mail? What are they going to do? Sue VCR makers out of existance? Oh wait, they already tried that!

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    1. Re:We could still be riding in horse buggies by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      What really makes me laugh is how many people would come up to me (and I've done it too) to say "have you seen the new xyz ad? Its amazing" and we'd go check it out on adcritic (before it disappeared). There are ads that are _good_ ... and people enjoy them. I've fast forwarded through stuff then gone back to see it because it looked interesting.

      If consumers don't like the ads, the ads aren't working.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  52. Send to another Replay = Space shifting by alexhmit01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have a Panasonic branded Replay 2000. I'm really intrigued by Tivo Series2 and Replay 4x00, but I can't justify jumping to this generation, I'll upgrade in generation 3.

    Now, one of the problems with the Replay and Tivo is that while you can conveniently time shift with them (great to not miss shows and have them waitting for me when I get home at ~9:30 PM), you can't conveniently space shift. When I move out of my dinky apartment and into a large apartment or small hour, I'll have more than one television. I then have the choice of building an advanced audio/video distribution system (which are VERY cool, BTW, but don't exist for DTV/HDTV and DD/DTS signals, just NTSC/Stereo), or placing a Replay/Tivo in every room.

    Being able to send from one ReplayTV to another in the house is a useful feature. It's part of an attempt to also sell multiple ReplayTVs to people. My understanding was that the shows could be sent over the LAN or Internet. LAN would be quick, a few minutes to grab the show, Internet would take a while.

    Sometimes my friends miss shows that I want. Sometimes my IR blaster fails to change the channel and grab the show. I'd love to be able to have someone send it to me so I can watch it.

    Ironically, with ReplayTV, I don't spend commercial breaks in the kitchen getting more food. It's probably helped me lose 2-3 lbs., reduce my television watching, and increase my commercial viewing. Sure I only watch really well done and funny commercials, but I used to watch no commercials.

    For any industry people watching, grabbing the last advertisements on action shows/movies may help. I got yelled at by the fiancee for over skipping and seeing the resolution of a cliff hanger then going back that we usually end up watching 1-2 commercials to avoid it.

    Alex

  53. Thats what they want you to do... by derrickh · · Score: 2

    But that's what they WANT you to do. Tivo(as great as it is) is in bed with a number of entertainment companies.(NBC and TW/AOL for example) This entire situation was created to kill Replay TV so the entertainment industry's golden child(Tivo) would have a clear path to victory.

    D

  54. We may not like it, but... by jbarr · · Score: 2, Informative
    ...ReplayTV users agreed to it in accepting their privacy policy:
    SONICblue may disclose Personal or Anonymous Information if required to do so by law or in the good faith belief that such action is necessary or appropriate to conform to the law or comply with legal process served on SONICblue, to protect and defend the rights or property of SONICblue, the ReplayTV Service or our viewers, whether or not required to do so by law, or to protect the personal safety of our viewers or the public. SONICblue reserves the right to contact appropriate authorities and disclose Personal or Anonymous Information to them at its discretion when it appears that individuals using our products or services are engaged in activities that are illegal or violate the ReplayTV Service Terms of Service.
    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
  55. no right to business model success by cowtamer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    What I find most troubling about these Media Company vs. New Technology cases is that the companies are seeking legal protection for their business model.

    It is patently unfair to sue someone because they make a product that is _too useful_ (such as a PVR, mp3 player, file sharing program, etc.).

    The law is not there to guarantee the viability of a business model. If advertising fails, then use something else (such as product placement), but do not seek to destroy or block technology that gives the users more power. If I were to invent a car that ran on cold fusion, the oil companies would not have a legal case against me, even if I end up destroying their business model.

    Of course, this has not kept companies from trying to save their business model in the past. A good example of this is the "Red Flag" laws that were passed in the 1860s to block the automobile industry:


    As the world leader in steam propulsion during the 1860s, for example, Britain might have expected to pioneer many of the automotive advances that in fact were made on continental Europe and in America over the following decades. But British railroad and stage-coach companies recognized that the automobile was a threat to their future, and lobbied for the notorious red flag laws. These prohibitive laws, which insisted every self-propelled vehicle be preceded by a pedestrian waving a red flag, were on the statute books for 31 years. By the time they were repealed, Britain had missed a huge opportunity.


    (taken from http://www.dana.com/corporate/history/history3.htm . I have nothing to do with the Dana corporation!!!)
  56. Re:Disney needs a boycott - So Does Star Wars by Lonath · · Score: 2

    I keep burning karma writing this, but...

    Boycott Star Wars. There are no other movies where a lack of geek support can make a big difference. If we boycott Star Wars, they might actually notice.

  57. Hmm...obfuscation? by Shoten · · Score: 2

    Idea...how hard might it be to reverse-engineer the format of the data going to SonicBlue, and salt it with all sorts of stuff? Might it be possible to give them enough false data, perhaps even pertaining to multiple users, to make the data useless to those who are demanding it?

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  58. Not legal ? by terrymr · · Score: 2

    It seems to me that this order is wrong for at least two reasons :

    A) Discovery in a case is normally limited to parties turning over information to each other that is in their posession - not being ordered to go out and collect new information and then turn it over.

    B) It's already been ruled illegal to spy on your wifes internet surfing habits - yet suddenly the movie industry is allowed to spy on your viewing habits - I don't think so !

    With any luck this ruling will be overturned very soon.

  59. German TV works like that by BlowCat · · Score: 2

    If you have a TV set and live in Germany, you have to pay a TV tax. This still involves privacy invasion, because the inspectors can come to my house and check if I have a TV.

    1. Re:German TV works like that by frost22 · · Score: 2

      You can politely tell them to go home. They are not entitled to anything.

      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
  60. Absolutely Correct - DIY Is The Answer by sulli · · Score: 2

    This is why DIY PVRs will be the best choice. A home-built recorder running on open source (GPL preferred) on one's own PC, with tv listings pulled from a reliable, public source, and with NO spying of any kind, will be the answer. I know there are various projects like that out there on sourceforge etc. - perhaps someone can create a nice component-shaped device to do all this?

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:Absolutely Correct - DIY Is The Answer by Thing+1 · · Score: 2
      This is why DIY PVRs will be the best choice.

      I completely agree.

      I recall that the "TiVo community" has been reluctant to produce software that works around the $10/month charge that subscribers pay.

      I wonder if the "ReplayTV community" is so reluctant to do this in order to avoid the (government-mandated!) spying. SonicBlue recently announced that they'd be moving to a subscription model, but for the existing units it wouldn't cause any loss of revenue.

      For the 4000 series, it's easy (and I think has already been done), since they have a broadband connection.

      But I own a 2020 model (no captions even!), which only connects through the phone line. Considering a solution, I would have to put a phone-line-simulator on it, so it would get a dial tone. Then put a modem on the other side of the simulator. The easy part is then just figuring out the protocol. ;-)

      The only problem with DIY PVRs is the box and the remote. I wonder if it would be possible to look to SonicBlue's suppliers, so we could have a custom-made box and a remote to go with it. Most everything else is standard, inside. Could be marketed as "Convert your old PC into a PVR!" or something like that.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  61. Radio TiVo by kindbud · · Score: 2

    I am so used to my TiVo that even when I am in the car listening to the radio, if I hear a part of a news story, or something else that catches my ear, my first thought is to rewind. Only then do I realize that my car radio has no TiVo-like functionality.

    But wouldn't it be cool if it did? Does XM Radio offer this, by chance? It should be rather easy to do with some modest components. Audio takes up far less storage bandwidth than audio+video. A TiVo device for radio ought to be able to buffer 30 minutes of a dozen preset stations, simultaneously, so that you had a pre-recorded buffer no matter which of your presets you switched to at any given moment.

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  62. Tivo already tracks every click by JoeBuck · · Score: 2

    A friend of mine who has hacked his Tivo verified that Tivo already does exactly this: every click by the user is sent to Tivo, along with the exact context, in an XML format.

  63. Re:Collective: Disney needs a boycott by SkyLeach · · Score: 2

    We collectively agree: there is no collective.

    --
    My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
  64. Re:Isn't this unconfisituional or something? by MoneyT · · Score: 2

    You do realize that the conservative viewpoint is to have as little government control over people as possible? The whole idea that we make our own decisions and call our own shots. Just because the conservative viewpoint promotes big business does not mean they're out to take your freedoms away. Remember, Bush wanted to give the extra money you gave the government (tax surplus) back to you. Gore wanted to put it in a "lock box".

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  65. What about Microsoft? by Convergence · · Score: 2

    What happens when some magistrate decides to make the exact same order and passes it to Microsoft.

    ``Microsoft is hereby ordered to record all programs run by users of their operating systems, and also record information about the files that their OS users copy and transfer.''

    How long till *this* order goes out?

    There's a reason my windows install doesn't know about the existance of the internet or what my name is.

  66. Re:Disney needs a boycott - So Does Star Wars by Lonath · · Score: 2

    What does Disney have in common with LucasArts? NOTHING!
    What can you expect Disney to do if you boycott an unrelated company? NOTHING!

    How much thought did you put into your post? NONE!


    No really. I have thought this out. I've decided that I want to minimize how much I spend on movies and DVDs and videos. I haven't given them money in about 6 months and I intend to continue. I pick starwars because it's the one thing that people want to see. I actually want people to boycott ALL movies and music (or at least minimize their purchases). All the dumbshits who complain about the DMCA/SSSCA/CBPDTA and then go out and go see the movie are the stupid ones. I just want to back up my bitching with (a little) action. It won't matter, but I'll feel better about myself.

  67. Re:Disney needs a boycott - So Does Star Wars by Lonath · · Score: 2

    I don't make a distinction between movie companies. Disney says what the rest of them are thinking. I would rather that people not see any movies or buy any music at all. I recommend a boycott of Starwars because 10 million geeks might make a noticeable difference. Especially since geeks are repeat customers (at least I was seeing the other ones several times each in the theatres).

  68. Re:FORGET IT--IT'S FLASH by BrookHarty · · Score: 2
  69. This is an analog device! by n6mod · · Score: 2

    What's shocking is that this is an analog capture device. First of all, it goes against the the notion that somehow digital copies are different, since this device doesn't get "pristine" digital copies of the content, it just captures them from analog inputs.

    And that's where this gets really interesting. The Content Cartel can only infer that their precious content is actually being traded by circumstatial evidence. Sure, the box sent the right IR commands to set a cable box to channel 2. And it recorded for three hours while channel 2 was showing Return of the Jedi. But unless they force the box to send them a copy of the video as well, they have no way to know that the video on the Replay's disk is actually Return of the Jedi. For all they know, I could have the video input connected to a webcam pointed at my fish tank. And while that's copyrighted, (Berne Convention, you know) it's not copyrighted by THEM.

    So they have only circumstantial evidence of infringement.

    --
    You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.