Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Studios Forcing ReplayTV to Collect Viewing Info

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the man-that-sucks dept.

superposed writes "The San Francisco Chronicle has articles here and here about an ongoing court battle between ReplayTV and several major media organizations. A federal judge has required SonicBlue, makers of ReplayTV, to begin collecting data on how customers use the systems to swap shows and skip commercials, and hand the information over to the studios so they can make a case that copyrights are being infringed. SonicBlue is appealing the ruling, saying that collecting the data would violate their privacy policy. " It seems strange to me how much legal hoopla SonicBlue has been dragged through considering how many of these things they've actually sold. Update: 05/05 14:22 GMT by M : See the previous story as well.

11 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. A new low! by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Instead of making a case of their own, the "content-industry" has conveniently gotten the judge to order the other party to make their case for them.

    Sheer genius, but also very depressing. Our legal system is more screwed up than people think. Way more...

    --
    Who did what now?
    1. Re:A new low! by truesaer · · Score: 3, Interesting
      This is just discovery. Because SonicBlue has the ability to get stats on the use without much trouble, they need to provide them as part of the discovery process for a lawsuit. Your statement is kind of like saying "This deposition is crazy. Now they want the person being sued to just tell them about their actions in this case?"


      SonicBlue needs to make a legal argument why ReplayTV does not infringe on copyrights. As a replayTV owner, I really hope they are able to do it....


      Anyway, I think the studios will win. It can't be hard for SonicBlue to gather the data in aggregate, so I bet the court will think thats ok. And I'm not sure how beneficial the data will be for the studios....I doubt people are really swapping files much, since you can only do it with other people that have the brand new units. The commercial skip is fairly analagous to recording with a VCR and fast forwarding. Its not instant on a VCR, but its close to the same.

    2. Re:A new low! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      His point was that, in the process of discovery,
      HIS 4th Amendment rights are being violated.
      SonicBlue's records are ok to bring into the
      court - but the judge is saying: reach into
      HIS house and create new data based on what
      you find in HIS house.

      I don't see how MY constitutional rights are
      somehow put into limbo because SonicBlue and
      the studios are in court.

    3. Re:A new low! by cduffy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even though this is a civil case, involvement of the courts still implies state action -- that's been established ever since Shelley v. Kramer -- and so the government is still responsible for the constitutionality of their courts' actions in such cases. Discovery is reasonable when it enables each party involved in a suit to requisition data from the other. Not so when innocent 3rd parties are suddenly forced to provide otherwise non-public information without their consent.

      [IANAL]

  2. Question by dr_eaerth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could someone reply to this and answer a question I have, which none of these articles has answered? Why SonicBlue, and not Tivo? What's the difference between these two PVRs that lets Tivo get off scott free?

    I can't afford either, but from all I've read, they're the same thing: digital VCRs. Maybe ReplayTV should have copied Tivo.

  3. Gathering evidence by Trevin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't there something in the legal system that says a defendant may not be forced to testify against himself? It sounds like that is what's going on here.

  4. Too featureful product - court orders by shoppa · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I think that us techies should be reminded of something by this story:
    Be Careful what Features you add to your Product. They may be used in some future lawsuit as a way to violate your customer's privacy.
    There have been too many instances over the years where a "feature" not really needed by anybody has been misappropriated. See, in particular, creeping featurism for other documented side-effects. Unfortunately I think legalism will soon make this entry.
  5. Re:5th amendment? by aengblom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The 5th AMendment does not apply here. The 5th Amendment only prevents companies/people from testifying against themselves. This would not be testimony, but evidence.

    --


    So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
  6. What If? by carrier+lost · · Score: 2, Interesting
    General Armaments, the maker of the SideWinder 9mm pistol, will challenge a court order to track the shooting practices of customers and send the data to violent crime victims and family members, the company said Friday.

    U.S. District Court Magistrate Charles Eick told GA to create software within 60 days to monitor everything customers shoot at, everything they miss and any bullets they transmit through others.

    MjM

    --
    XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
  7. Fifth amendment... by TheRealStyro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    OK, I know, this is not a criminal case (and IANAL), but this seems incredibly obviously illegal for a judge to make this request.

    This judge is asking Replay/Sonic to gather data that will be used against themselves in a civil action. This should be the primary defense instead of "it goes against our privacy policy" non-sense that any judge would just tell them "so, modify your policy and process my request."

    --
  8. What about the Fifth Admendment??? by 3seas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds like the Judge isn't familiar with the US constitution to me.

    According the the fifth admendment, one does not have to provide information that may be used against them in a court of law.

    How is it that this judge does not know this?
    Have they ben following the MS anti-trust case to much?