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."

26 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 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.

    3. 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...

    4. 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.

    5. 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

  2. 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 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
  3. 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).

  4. 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
  5. 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."

  6. 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

  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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"
  10. 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).

  11. 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
  12. 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

  13. 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
  14. 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

  15. 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!!!)