Sonicblue Wins Stay of Spying Order

ebonkyre writes "According to this article, federal Judge Florence-Marie Cooper has stayed the order which would require SONICBlue to begin recording users viewing habits and reporting them to the MPAA, et al. It has been stayed until June 3rd, at which time the court is to review SB's motion to throw out the order entirely." EPIC has filed a brief supporting Sonicblue's position. EPIC's argument (starting on page 5 of the PDF) neatly summarizes why this order should never have been given.

Comments

spying?

[coronaride]

ok, I'm trying to find out why a court WOULD order that a company like SONICBlue to record viewing habits for distribution to other media companies..does anyone know the court's reasoning behind this?

Re:spying?

[ZeroConcept]

I agree, is like ordering the defendant to gather evidence for the prosecution.

Re:spying?

[chriton]

I think it has mostly to do with the fact that SonicBlue's product(s) allow users to "share" programs using a broadband connection. I can see how that might pi$$ some content providers off.

I'm ALL for fair use, of course.

Re:spying?

[Dimensio]

1) The Federal Magistrate who issued the order is being bribed by the plaintiffs.

OR

2) The Federal Magistrate is terminally stupid.

Re:spying?

[Anonymous Coward]

why are you implying that these are mutually exclusive?

Re:spying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either of which is likely why the Justice that blocked the magistrate's stay should likely have also informed him that he's eligible for disbarrment for attempting to subvert the constitution.

Re:spying?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate the MPAA and RIAA

Does it run linux!?

I hate Jonkatz

Micro$oft needs to die.

Re:spying?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reasoning behind the judges decision is simple.. He is providing the result that the MPAA paid the judge for.

It's decisions like this that proves without a shadow of a doubt that the Judges here in the States are on the take and can easily be bribed.

You know everyone is up in arms about the kids that snap and kill their tourmenters at school... I will not be suprised to start seeing companies being bombed or other atrocities due to the rampant aborting of justice by companies in this country...

Re:spying?

[chefmonkey]

Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorally explained by stupidity.

While I'm as cynical as the next guy, I strongly suspect this is a case of sheer incompetence.

Re:spying?

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

"I will not be suprised to start seeing companies being bombed or other atrocities due to the rampant aborting of justice by companies in this country..." Interesting. Isn't it a common thread in cyberpunk that future Corporate America will have heavily armed security forces?

Re:spying?

[Dimensio]

Sorry, I should have been aware that not everyone uses logic terminology in common writing. Had I meant that they were mutually exclusive I would have put XOR, though I should have just used AND/OR to make it less ambigious.

Sonic FU

[Anonymous Coward]

Requiring gathering of user info?

What in the WORLD is this HELL coming to? er... yeah.

Re:Sonic FU

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. The hanging will take place immediately.

finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

'bout damn time a judge had some common sense! Guess the powers that be have to put someone else into their pocket.

--hommiefro

There is no way

[stoolpigeon]

they will be able to push this thing through. Can you imagine the repercussions? Every time you think someone is using a product in a way that is illegal you require the manufacturer to track what people do w/that product.

Liquor companies should start tracking what happens w/their product.

Automotive manufacturers the same, and well anybody who pretty much makes anything. Yes, very smart.

.

Re:There is no way

[slothq]

word up man, you're totally right, this muddy water between products that are tangible vs virtual the money worshippers have been trying to exploit is starting to appear far passed the realm of ridiculous... and more into the zone of STFU. they better watch it before i drag their butts into the territory of the thunderdome... see how the lardos like it when i whip out my Mad Max musical stylie and start blowing that whistle.

ahem. anywhey.
whoever said that legal systems, much less the american legal system was smart? :P

Re:There is no way

[Liora]

Well, there kind of is a way on some things... Wasn't there something here just the other day about how that publishing companies were going to track books throughout their lifetimes? And they do sort of track automobiles... through the VIN numbers. Admittedly the manufacturers don't always know where the cars are, but in states like IL, where insurance is mandatory, the insurers know where the cars are...

Thank goodness they don't track alcohol sales though... although I used to be paranoid they did back when I was too young to drink. I wouldn't use a credit card to purchase the stuff for fear that someone was tracking it. I really wonder if it would have mattered.

Re:There is no way

[Aceticon]

Ooops ... beter start hiding my identity when i'm buying porn^H^H^H^Hnature documentaries videotapes.

The MPAA and its excesses

[littlerubberfeet]

Now, the MPAA is the Motion Picture Artists association? It seems as if it is all encompassing....Now perhaps we should start to encourage cinemetographers and studios to revoke Their membership. Then It would begin to lack power. All it takes is one big company to start it, then others will follow. Bah! oh well, it will never happen.

Now, the way I see it, its a direct violation of my privacy rights to have someone poking through my viewing habits. Its like someone going through my mail. It just shouldn't happen. Theoretical course of events: They begin tracking viewing habits. The "Uncaring Public" goes along. The rest of us either disable the tracking mechanism, or we dump the device entirely. Sonic Blue loses buisness, and the MPAA still can't tell what we, the 'worst offenders' are doing. Lose lose situation for MPAA and Sonic Blue.

Re:The MPAA and its excesses

[DarkZero]

MPAA = Motion Picture Association of America, not "Motion Picture Artists Association".

Re:The MPAA and its excesses

[matula]

Unfortunately, if the "uncaring public" goes along, SonicBlue is not gonna lose it's business. There are simply too few geeks that would dump their devices.

Re:Who cares.

[bstadil]

How do you know Slashdot or TV has adds?

One word: Subliminal

Good Analogies

[geoffsmith]

SONICBlue's legal doc makes some good analogies:

In a personal injury lawsuit, it is relevant to kknow whether a plaintiff who claimed to be wheelchair-bound in fact left his chair; yet, one would be hardpressed to find a discovery ruling in which a judge ordered a plaintiff to place an electronic sensor in his chair seat. In a defamation lawsuit, it would be helpful to know if in fact the defamatory comment had a wide circulation among plaintiff's neighbors; yet, it is unfathomable to think that a court would order a microphone to be place in the local pub.

The point I think they are trying to make is that the only reason this seems even slightly reasonable (and the above examples do not) is because it affects so many people that it becomes a statistic, and the way in which those people's privacy is violated is complicated enough that it is easy to gloss over the fact that it is a severe intrusion into the living rooms of SONICBlue's customers!

This ruling is sickening, and I think it seriously hints at some money changing hands between the plaintiff's and the powers that be. This ruling unquestionably violates the rights of SONICBlue and its customers, and it is without legal precedent.

Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon

Re:Good Analogies

[andrewski]

Your rights are the last thing on the court
's mind right now. How in the fuck do your rights make the corrupt judges in this country any money?

Pretty soon people will realize that they have quite a lot less rights than they thought they were guaranteed.

You will still have the right to pay taxes and to die. Everything else is debatble.

Re:Good Analogies

[zurab]

The point I think they are trying to make is that the only reason this seems even slightly reasonable (and the above examples do not) is because it affects so many people that it becomes a statistic, and the way in which those people's privacy is violated is complicated enough that it is easy to gloss over the fact that it is a severe intrusion into the living rooms of SONICBlue's customers!

Of course, SonicBlue's problem being that they explicitly put the clause in the service agreement allowing them to collect such information from the consumer. Which is what TiVo did also. Now, I do not believe it has come up whether this clause in itself would be legal and enforceable; but I do not see why not. Usage info is being tracked from variety devices and software legally.

Listening to an EFF representative on CNet radio, and reading this brief, I wouldn't think this was a great argument to reverse the original ruling. This brief goes way too much into how privacy would be violated and presents not so good analogies. Of course MPAA is going to respond by arguing SonicBlue has perfectly legal right to collect such info (based on the clause in their agreement).

IMHO, what they should have argued more than anything else, is that in the discovery process plaintiffs have no right to demand extra, non-existent information from the defendants or ask them to create such data, and presented more and more rulings backing this argument. But then again, IANAL.

Re:Good Analogies

[MindStalker]

Exactly, also I believe there is such a thing as the 5th amendment. The judge is asking SonicBlue to give up info that would incriminate them.

Re:Good Analogies

[cpt kangarooski]

That doesn't apply in civil suits iirc, only in criminal ones.

Re:Good Analogies

[Pluralization Troll]

between the plaintiff's and the powers
plaintiffs

Re:Good Analogies

[MindStalker]

So then can a judge apply a criminal charge of contempt if they don't comply. If so, couldn't a civil suit be filled along side a criminal one, in order to get evidence???

Re:Good Analogies

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

The problem I have with that is that I, as a ReplayTV owner, am not specifically named as a party in the case. I refuse to cede my right to privacy as a member of a class. What's next, certain "classes" of citizens are ordered to wear a special symbol so that the court can gather "anonymous" but uniquely identifiable data "in case" they are found guilty of a crime?

Further, SonicBlue may state in their documentation that they "reserve the right to collect" such information, but I cannot be coerced to cede my right to privacy through contract. They can't reserve the right to my information, because that right is not theirs in the first place, and _I_ have already reserved it.

It's a provision of their "clickthrough" that they are more than welcome to attempt to get enforced in court. I'd be happy to add to the (already existant) legal prescident that click through "contracts" are not enforcable where they are unreasonable and contradictory to Constitutional rights.

Basically, the MPAA et al can kiss my ass. They want information about how I use MY property, they can damn well get a court order that names me specifically as a defendant (for which they'd need some proof to support the request), otherwise they can fuck off.

Re:Good Analogies

[cpt kangarooski]

I would imagine that the rules of evidence for civil and criminal suits preclude this sort of sharing. Ask me again sometime, and I might have a more definitive answer.

Re:Good Analogies

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever heard of Sherman Skolnick? If not, just Google for his name and go to his home page. He has personally busted a shitload of judges in one of the most important courts in the country.

Discovery

[phriedom]

Well, I guess the first judge ignored the fact that there were actual people involved here who had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Instead she figured that these "records" were just ordinary discovery. Glad to see that another judge at least wants to think about it for a while.

A question

[YourFavoriteBandSux]

This is slightly offtopic, but do you ever wonder why the TV industry doesn't launch an ad campaign against the use of PVR's like the ReplayTV 4000?

I mean, can't you see it? Kelsey Grammar doing a 30-second spot, explaining how skipping commercials is really a crime, and explaining how ads pay for TV programming, et cetera? After all, it would be pretty cheap and easy to launch for them to launch such a campaign.

I believe I know why they wouldn't dare do such a thing. Because the very concept that somehow manipulating content that comes into your home is a form of theft flies in the face of common sense. That's why these bastards are taking their fight to the courts, where common sense is almost a liability. But I'm glad to see some sense has come back into the courts with the latest ruling.

Re:A question

[wikkid007]

I agree that the concept of such commercials seems rediculous, but I also think that public knowledge about the capabilities of new PVRs is really very limited at this point in time... a television commercial pointing out that there are people out there who don't have to watch commercials! One 30 second prime time spot would sell thousands of ReplayTVs! I mean, I only know about PVRs because I'm a geek and the technology behind it, as well as the resulting court case, is interesting to me. People who like to hang out in the home electronics department while their family/spouse/friends shop -- know about PVRs. People who hang out on Slashdot know about PVRs. And people who really like their television, or have really busy schedules, know about them too. And right now, this is the realistic market for such a device -- techies and tv-lovers. If the television industry stepped outside of the courtroom and into the living room with their concerns, suddenly the general public would be much more aware of these products and their capabilities would be that much more appealing.

Re:A question

[Hans Lehmann]

This is slightly offtopic, but do you ever wonder why the TV industry doesn't launch an ad campaign against the use of PVR's like the ReplayTV 4000?

Why? Because every viewer that hasn't heard about ReplayTV will think "You mean I can get a box that lets me skip commercials? Where do I sign up?"

Re:A question

[Warped-Reality]

Exactly.
This is where i think Metallica shot themselves in the foot.
Nobody I knew (except for geeks) even heard about downloading music (except for 3 second .wav clips) in MP3 format, let alone Napster. Then Metallica goes along and sues Napster, and the napster user base increased exponentially almost overnight. If they would have just kept there mouth shut, only a very small percentage of the population would have actually been swapping music on P2P apps.

Re:A question

[Trevin]

I mean, can't you see it? Kelsey Grammar doing a 30-second spot, explaining how skipping commercials is really a crime, and explaining how ads pay for TV programming, et cetera? After all, it would be pretty cheap and easy to launch for them to launch such a campaign.

Maybe he already did, but we just missed it because we skipped the commercials!

:-D

Re:A question

[YourFavoriteBandSux]

I agree with you. IMHO, the general public's ignorance of these devices is the only thing keeping the TV industry's ad-based business model afloat. That and maybe the price. But as the price and ignorance subside, the Napsterization of TV is all but inevitable. Agree?

Re:A question

[soft_guy]

They'd do it in a second if they could get the FCC to count these as PSAs.

Re:A question

[Tackhead]

> If the television industry stepped outside of the courtroom and into the living room with their concerns, suddenly the general public would be much more aware of these products and their capabilities would be that much more appealing.

Which is what bugs me about this.

The court shouldn't even be fucking involved in this. It's legal to piss while you watch TV. It's legal to tape a show to an analog VCR and fast-forward through the commercials. There's no law that says that VCR's can only fast-forward at a certain rate - just an engineering problem with spinning a shaft and winding a spool of magnetic tape. A VCR with extremely powerful motors (and really strong tape :-) could do this and nobody would bat an eye.

The difference between the VCR and PVR is that a VCR engineered to do that would cost thousands, and the tape, hundreds. The PVR makers have merely built a better ad-skipping mousetrap, by swapping analog stretchy tape for bits on a disk and a CPU to decode them.

So how the fuck are the Content Cartel able to browbeat judges into thinking that 30-second skip is somehow worthy of a lawsuit? (Yes, I know that's not the thrust of this suit, but with that fucknozzle from AOL/TW calling PVR users "thieves", we know it's coming). Why the hell aren't such suits immediately recognized as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participations) and thrown out?

All the PVR industry needs to do to achieve total world domination(tm) is run one 30-second spot, something like this:

[Guy comes up wearing an ugly suit, looking totally cheezy]

"Hi. This is Ron Popeil (or Earl Scheib, or Ed McMahon, or any other "guy whose career is now over and he's only famous for his obnoxious commercials"). Tivo (or ReplayTV) are paying me a lot of money to say this. If you buy a Tivo or ReplayTV, not only can you pause live TV, but you will never have to see this commercial, or any other commercial again!

Presto! Instant consumer adoption - it gives the consumer what he wants - the ability to watch a 2-hour broadcast of a movie in 90 minutes. (The ability to watch a whole baseball game in 20 minutes ;-)

The consumer wants this, but they can't imagine that it's possible. Your job is to show them that it's not only possible, but it's here, and available for the low, low price of $10/month.

Will you get sued? Probably. But you're getting sued by these bastards anyways. Why not get the public on your side now, before the Content Cartel gets Congress to pass a law banning 30-second-skip or other ad-skipipng features in PVRs? (Or a judge bans your product, which is what the Cartel is trying to have done now?)

The Cartel can get away with it because Joe Sixpack doesn't know he can skip commercials.

I know this is horribly old-fashioned, but lots of people have made assloads of money by simply making the consumer aware of a need they didn't know they had ("I hate the 3-4 minute ad breaks") and that you have a product that meets that need ("You mean I don't have to watch commericals if I buy your box?").

When Joe Sixpack realizes he can skip commercials, it'll be too late. Just like Sony vs. Betamax - once Joe Sixpack found out how valuable time-shifting was, no court, (and just as importanly, no Congresscritters), will dare take it away from him.

Why work with the broadcasters? You guys sell hardware and subscription-based software. I can't see any legal reason why 30-second skip is any more "illegal" than fast-forwarding on a VCR, or channel-surfing during the commercials. FUCK the broadcasters. You don't need them.

Re:A question

[Tackhead]

> every viewer that hasn't heard about ReplayTV will think "You mean I can get a box that lets me skip commercials? Where do I sign up?"

Actually, the best ad wouldn't be the "Find an annoying guy to talk about the product" one I mentioned a few minutes ago.

The best ad would cost $20 to produce:

30 seconds of a 1000-hz tone at loud volume, and in big block letters:

"If you owned a PVR, you could press 'skip ad' and never have to sit through another annoying ad again."

Re:A question

[phriedom]

I really admire your zeal. But, tell me again why the courts wouldn't dare to outlaw something that is vastly popular? (*cough**napster**cough*) What does a Fedral Judge, appointed for life, have to fear from your disapproval? And unless you can outspend the MPAA, what does your congresscritter have to fear from you?

Sorry, I don't mean to be negative, but I don't think we are going to get anywhere with [i]They Wouldn't Dare![/i] They do dare. They will dare.

Re:A question

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's legal to piss while you watch TV. "

Yes, but aparently you have to stay in the same room to do so. I can live with that...

Re:A question

[n6mod]

ROTFLMAO!

I don't remember if it was Tivo or Replay that ran the ad parodies, but they were a little counterproductive. Ads for an ad-skipping device that were actually worth watching. ;)

Re:A question

[AtariKee]

No network in their right mind would allow such a commercial to run, thereby stifling this (otherwise) good idea before it could even get off the ground.

Re:A question

[Latent IT]

Happily, that's why God made billboards by the sides of highways. =)

Re:A question

[GungaDan]

"It's legal to piss while you watch TV."

Granted. It's the getting up and going to the bathroom that MPAA resents.

Re:A question

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it gets to be much more interesting race, in that the advertisers/broadcasters find ways for ads to become more intrusive (ala popups, full-screens, half-page sized ads). A running advertising layer in my newscasts or heaven forbid, my favorite shows, would be a hell of a lot more irritating, and harder for "common technology" to get rid of... not that it's right either way, but Joe Average is going to get advertising one way or another, since he's not going to give up with WWF and Superbowl.

Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are things so crazy over there? I realise that times have changed, but how free can you be when they're more interested in monitoring what you watch in your spare time than they are in what you do with your handguns? Scary stuff, not that I want to criticise (please don't take this the wrong way), but I'm afraid of the priorities of your nation and worried of the implications to mine. How do you stop this way of thinking?

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

We're guaranteed a right to handguns in the 2nd Amendment. They didn't say anything about privacy. Maybe we'll get around to that, but if they start to take our handguns away I'll really start to worry. Sure people throw all sorts of stats at you about how dangerous they are but cars are dangerous too, we still got them, and we don't have a law that says we're guaranteed to them.

Re:Wow...

[Bitmanhome]

You know the phrase .. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." We got here one step at a time, passing laws that were good for the independent author. Corporations now use these same laws to protect themselves.

Those of us with some foresight can tell that some fundamental laws need to change, but the government needs proof. So all these lawsuits will help build that proof.

Gov'ts and corps are doing what they've always done throughout history -- acquire money and power. The only way to decisively "stop this way of thinking" is war. I hope we don't come to that.

Re:Wow...

[jedidiah]

Read the brief.

A right to privacy is a necessary prerequisite to the 1st Amendment. Unlike Copyright, courts seem to care when "technological circumvention" measures are put in place to discourage or prevent free expression.

Re:Wow...

[TheMonkeyDepartment]

Sounds like a bit of a leading question to me, Anonymous Coward.

I'd be willing to bet this kind of thinking is a quirky, unfortunate aspect of human nature and is not entirely removable.

By your comments, I take it you are not American. That's fine. We are ALL going through a time of extraordinary technological change right now. Some people get scared by the change -- their reactions are not as cogent or reasonable as we all would like. This is not limited to the United States. (I'm sure I don't even need to mention Australia's warped approach to internet regulation.)

It's all caused by fear -- fear of change, fear of the unknown. Oh yeah, and fear of losing money. The best way to combat this is education, and tons of it. Get those kids -- get everyone -- educated. Get computers in the schools. Let people make up their own minds, when their minds are full of information. The right decisions will be made.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet regulation?
I can tell you nothings been regulated here.

However, my government wont stop me from watching any dvd from anywhere in the world on the all region dvd player that i just bought from my nearest department store.

How about yours?

Re:Wow...

[TheMonkeyDepartment]

I have a multi-region DVD player; I purchased it legally in the USA. When I watch movies on it, jackbooted one-world-government United Nations secret police don't come storming through my front door, if that's what you're asking.

Re:Wow...

[TheMonkeyDepartment]

One other thing... you say "nothings been regulated here."

Are you sure about that?

I'm disappointed...

[Rombuu]

...that the court didn't admit that all of the stern comments from /. caused them to rule in this way.

Re:I'm disappointed...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm disappointed that you didn't pay enough attention to even the headline - much less the article - to realize no ruling has been made.

The judge is still trying to decicde.

Finally...

[ryanwright]

Santa Clara, California-based SONICblue said federal Judge Florence-Marie Cooper halted the April 26 order in which a federal court ordered SONICblue to install tracking software on ReplayTV and report viewing results to movie and TV companies.

Finally, a judge who cannot be bought. I wonder how we can get more of these RIAA financed decisions sent over to her for review??

Re:Finally...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible that either a) the check hasn't cleared or b) it wasn't enough.

Court mandated invasion of privacy?

[og_sh0x]

If people who originally purchased Replay TV bought it with the expectation that it would not track their viewing habits, aren't they entitled to have the product function in the same manner in which they purchased it? Does the fact that this PVR is required to track you and others don't (possibly resulting in a consumer exodus to the competition) mean that this court order would affect Sonic Blue's profitability? Would Disney, et. al. then use this information to send threatening cease-and-decist letters to indivdual users who are "stealing" their programming?

Poor argument.

[glrotate]

The SonicBlue CEO and Plantifs attorney were on TV the other day. Appearantly the manual for the device says that they reserve the right to collect information. The plantifs only wanted anonymous usage stats.

Re:Poor argument.

[chriso11]

Wrong Answer.
Here is a clue. Actually, the plantiffs wanted to collect the information with unique identifcation for every user. So, don't listen to the media companies, as they lie like a cheap linoleum floor.

Re:Poor argument.

[Pluralization Troll]

CEO and Plantifs attorney
plaintiffs

The plantifs only
plaintiffs

Kellner

[DeLabarre]

They quoted Jamie Kellner's outrageous "theft" accusation in a footnote. That's great! Let's see the MPAA try to disown THAT...

around and around

[mugnyte]

You may think this is a no-brainer, but if the viable source of income for TV producers is to "promise" a certain number of eyes watch your commercials, thats how they are priced. Otherwise, you'd be paying-per-channel of cable TV, which again is possibly a good idea...

With the corporations soon to be expecting a discount based on the market share/demogrpahic of owners of SB or Tivo-like devices, we'll see the budgets of TV constrained from their traditional sources. Of course, other sources will be built (look out for a tax bill).

So, the bottom line is the dollars are expeced out of the consumer's pockets somehow. If the ad rates drop and TV quality follow suit, will we watch less TV? I doubt it, although I hope so. If a tax-proposal fails for devices that manipulated recorded video, then perhaps we'll see everything sold through cable at higher rates. So, the cable bill goes up.

This will undoubtedly push the distribution faster into free methods: PTP video. But then again, this may positively impact broadband sales. Perhaps cable companies again here will reap the rewards (Telecomm cannot compete since there is too much infighting about open markets and DSL just cannot cut it long term).

So the eyes have it. Shows can be compressed to a cheap size (still huge by today's file sizes) and passed around. When the bandwidth is sold with an odometer-like billing model, we'll be here again, discussing the neighborhood radio networks and other private options.

Oh the drama.

signal

Re:around and around

[stoolpigeon]

. If the ad rates drop and TV quality follow suit,

Yeah, that's not a long drop (t.v. quality). I know watching the most eligible bachelors in Alaska compete for a bride is riveting t.v. but I admit I am not too enamoured by what is offered up by the networks.

I wish they would go to a pay format because then I would stop watching altogether and have more productive time in my day. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Please help me by making television too expensive.

Re:around and around

[mugnyte]

A message from the other side: Life is fun and you won't miss it. Although I am the only one in the bar still giggling about the silly commercials that everyone else is bored of.

Killing The TV is just a slogan anymore. 12 years and going strong.

Re:around and around

[gleam_mn]

Otherwise, you'd be paying-per-channel of cable TV...

Obviously it would depend on price per channel, but I know that I have always wished I could select my channels a la carte... I only watch about 5 channels but to get them all I have to pay for 30 or so. If I could just have Discovery without having to pay for "Faith and Vision", or whatever that f'd up channel with all the evangelists is, I'd be a much happier person... although sometimes those evangalist types are good for a laugh.

Re:around and around

[UncleFluffy]

14 years TV-less here. NPR, real life and well-stocked bookshelves more than compensate for the lack of TV in my life. (Plus Slasdot, of course...)

Re:around and around

[Jaysyn]

Have some friends, over turn the volume down & take turns doing voiceovers while they are ranting about fire & brimstone. Great for a laugh.

Jaysyn

Re:around and around

[Anonymous Coward]

I watch 1hr of TV/day because I got so sick of the commercials, and I cannot imagine that TV can get dumbed down any more than what it is-Jerry Springer, Montel, Sally Jessy, Survivor, Who wants to marry an millionaire-yeah, these are real high quality shows.

Networks got smart and started synchronizing commercial time. Ever notice when the show you're watching goes to commercial and you start surfing, many of the other stations are showing commercials too?

Re:around and around

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise, you'd be paying-per-channel of cable TV, which again is possibly a good idea...

Gee, I would love that. I only watch like 4-5 channels, and they're all in tier 3, so I have to pay for basic cable, and tiers 1 and 2 just to get what I want. If a phone company did that, it would be illegal.

Bah!

[cymraeg]

Among features the studios and networks object to are the ability to skip commercials and a broadband connection that allows users to exchange recorded programs with others.

PBS has been airing quality television programs for many years commercial-free by asking viewers to contribute their financial support. This and the ability to hit the mute/channel change button on my remote allow me to watch TV stations commercial-free.

So what's next, suing TV manufacturers to force them to start making TV remotes without mute buttons and channel changing capabilities? God forbid I excercise my own free will and look for an alternative.

Further, what's to prevent me from recording a show to VHS, taking it to a friend's house, and then watching it again? This is a method of sharing. It's just not as convenient for me to do so. Add to this the term "digital" or "broadband" and suddenly all the lawyers in the room come alive as programmed and start using acronyms like DMCA.

I think the truth is that companies like Disney realize that someone else beat them to the technology, they realized what an opportunity they missed (to make more money), and they're now trying to catch up by miring the industry in legal battles.

Regardless of what Disney and their ilk think, I decide whether or not they are successful... Unfortunately, I (and most /. readers) am in the minority of people who actually give a rat's ass and vote with their wallet.

Yeah yeah, I know. Flamebait.
--

Re:Bah!

[OklaKid]

cymraeg: your post is not flamebait, you make some good & valid points :) i think that is what peeves most greedy corperations is that they cannot totally remove our free will, and turn us all in to drones to feed their greed...

Re:Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been a drone for 3 years now. It's underrated! You should try it. The major corporations care about us!

Re:Bah!

[ftobin]

The following quote best exemplifies Disney's stance. The Future of Ideas, by Lawrence Lessig:

In the early 1970's, RCA was experimenting with a new technology for distributing film on magnetic tape--what we would come to call video. Researchers were keen not only to find a technology that could reproduce firm with high fidelity, they were also keen to find a way to control the use of the technology. Their aim was a technology that could control the use of firm distributed on video, so that the owner of the firm might maximize its return from the distribution.

The technology eventually chosen was relatively simple. A video would play once, and when finished, the firm would lock into place. If a renter of the video wanted to play the video again, he or shee would have to return the video to the store and have the tape unlocked. In this way, the owner of the firm could assure that it was being compensated for every use of the copyrighted material.

RCA presented this technology to the Disney Corporation in the early 1970's. In a room with just five of the senior executives from Disney, a young RCA executive, Pat Feely, demonstrated RCA's device. The executives were horrified. They would "never,", Feely reports their waying, permit their content to be distributed in this form. For the content, however clever the self-locking tape player was, was still insufficiently controlled. "How could they know,", a Disney executive asked Feely, "how many people are going to be sitting there watching" a film? "What's to stop someone else coming in and watching it for free?".

If that doesn't make you shudder, I don't know what will.

Re:Bah!

[fiber_halo]

The simple solution to keeping people from skipping commercials is to make them worth watching. I would gladly sit through a few minutes of commercials if they were entertaining or informative.

Unfortunately, most commercials are stupid and insulting.

Re:Bah!

[Trevin]

First of all, I just have to say it: I've seen a few shows on PBS that were interrupted by telethon-like requests for financial contributions. Okay, maybe that's the exception rather than the rule, but still...

The main point I want to make is that there really isn't that much difference between DVR's and VCR's as far as what you can do with them. The implementation may be different, but I can still record shows for later viewing, skip through commercials (though not as fast), take a tape over to a friend's, or make copies. And there's nothing wrong with that (as long as it's for personal use). In fact, allowing viewers to record TV shows can actually increase a station's audience, because otherwise we'd have to choose between two or more shows that share the same time slot, or choose whether to watch TV at all if we have something more important to do at that time. So why raise such a fuss over a new technology to do the same thing viewers have already been doing for years?

Re:Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

If that doesn't make you shudder, I don't know what will.

fat chicks wearing spandex

Re:Bah!

[Pluralization Troll]

Repost, with spelling mistakes corrected:

In the early 1970's, RCA was expelimenting with a new technorogy for distlibuting firm on magnetic tape--what we wourd come to carr video. Lesealchels wele keen not onry to find a technorogy that courd leploduce firm with high fiderity, they were arso keen to find a way to contlor the use of the technorogy. Theil aim was a technorogy that courd contlor the use of firm distlibuted on video, so that the owner of the firm might maximize its letuln flom the distlibution.

Re:Bah!

[Pig Hogger]

The simple solution to keeping people from skipping commercials is to make them worth watching. I would gladly sit through a few minutes of commercials if they were entertaining or informative.

Where I live, the most popular cinematographic event of the year is the presentation of the Lion awards of the Venice commercial festival. Plenty of people are glad to queue for hours, then plunk down plenty of money simply to watch 2 solid hours of superbly slick commercials from all over the world.

And I never saw any of those commercials on TV!!!

Re:Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's mot forget that NPR joined a lot of the other media biggies to snuff the expansion of micro-power local stations -- the ones that only broadcast at low power for a few blocks.

Re:Bah!

[mpe]

The simple solution to keeping people from skipping commercials is to make them worth watching.

Also avoid repeating them too often. Other possibilities would be commercials which solicit viewer input (but these are obviously not much use if not watched "live".)

Re:Bah!

[Mr Guy]

I went into a different career because of this. In high school there were two things I loved more than anything, GOOD advertising and computers. I realized then that if I really wanted to make good advertising that would make people really interested, I'd have to to work for a beer company. Since I was willing to sell products that eventually kill people if used improperly, I ended up a programmer.

I work as a subcontractor for the DoD. Now I make products that only kill people if used correctly.

Oh well...

Re:Bah!

[Arkham]

I hate to even post this, since it may some day be brought up in a court case (an actual quote from a PVR user!). I use a TiVo at home. I go through commercials at 30x (60x has too much over-correction). If they were great or terrible, I'll never know. Sometimes I see the logo of the product being advertised, but that's it. The commercial may be funny or interesting, but I'll never know.

ReplayTV users are even further away. They never even see the commercials, not even at 60x. They'll never know if commercial quality improves.

Let this be a lesson...

[jmorse]

I'm glad this ridiculous ruling was objected to and stayed (for now), but it touches on a bigger problem: PVR companies could shield their customers from this type of abuse by simply not implementing a way to track viewing habits. Just make a PVR that doesn't track anything but software diagnostics. Then advertise it as a feature: "we won't spy on your viewing habits like other PVR companies!"

Of course, an unscrupulous PVR company could make that claim, get someone like TrustE to back it up, then put a bunch of fine print in that basically exempts them from it.

Re:Let this be a lesson...

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the software is automatically updatable by the PVR company (which it typically is, for bug fixes and upgrades), it can always be modified to track other things.

Re:Let this be a lesson...

[kabir]

That's essentially what SonicBLUE did. If you read through the brief there's a section which details the fact that SonicBLUE decided not to implement data gathering facilities due to cost and consumer reaction concerns.

The fact that they didn't implement those data gathering methodologies is what allows them to stop the discovery proceedings like this. One of the main points of the brief is that Civil discovery rules do not allow surveilence as a means of obtaining prospective evidence. If SonicBLUE already had the data it would be a cinch for the plaintiffs to get their hands on it. That's what discovery is. But since they don't actually have the data they are arguing (correctly, IMHO) that they can not be compelled to gather the data.

Most telling

[Anonymous Coward]

William Pitt declared: "The poorest man may in his
cottage bid defiance to the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake -
the wind
may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter - all
his
force dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!"

--
It makes me wonder how many laws the current internet spyware craze is breaking. Spyware authors and users may very well be criminally liable.

You've got to tell them!

[albeit unknown]

SonicBlue is made out of people!

Re:You've got to tell them!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was made from Hedgehogs.
Wasn't Selsom Green from people?

legal brief

[grung0r]

That was the most interesting legal brief I've ever read. Wait, check that, that was the only legal brief I've ever read. Are they all that interesting?

I do hope that this ruling is overturned. The way courts have been ruling lately on copyright law terrifies me. Are these judges not citizens? Do they not see how this is going to effect them? Are they all bought? sigh......

A point about PBS

[TheAwfulTruth]

They ask viewers to donate, but that's just to keep the facilities on the air (mostly). I.e. paying workers salaries, broadcast liscence, equipemnt charges, rentals, power etc. The majority of funding for programs comes from corporate donations which is money received through traditional advertising mechanisms. Heck, even the private viewer donations are money earned most likely from working in the commercial sector.

As usual, "free" is only free in small scale due to support of commercial interests. A suitable balance must be struck.

Re:A point about PBS

[cymraeg]

Exactly. Thanks for the follow up.

And it's companies like these that I support. Unfortunately it's killing me having to buy the entire line of Delta, Porter-Cable, and Stanley hand and power tools.

Re:A point about PBS

[Fat Casper]

The majority of funding for programs comes from corporate donations which is money received through traditional advertising mechanisms.

And the majority of that traditional advertising is a simple "this program was made possible by a grant from the XYZ Corporation." It isn't in your face, it doesn't annoy anyone and doesn't turn an hour show into 35-40 minutes worth of crap. It does, however, fund programming and create a brand association. ABC Corp. interrupts my shows with shitty ads. XYZ Corp. funded that Nova episode.

The few things I do watch aren't on PBS, though. I'll buy a PVR when it all gets sorted out and that'll be fun.

Re:A point about PBS

[realdpk]

Why wait to get the PVR? They're great little devices now. Who knows how great they'll be in the future.

Most of the shows I watch have horrible commercials. Some of them, they're so bad and so uncared for that the color even drops out of them - FX I'm talking about you - and they're so repetative. How many times do I have to watch an ad about painted silver dollars or penis "enhancement" products before I should be able to decide I'm not interested? Apparently the anti-PVR crowd thinks that I'll eventually buy in. As if that would stop the problem. :)

Re:A point about PBS

[Fat Casper]

Why wait to get the PVR? They're great little devices now.

Because want one that'll get info from my guide channel, not one that's crippleware to force you into subscriptionware that the fscking illiterate courts will turn into spyware. I also want to tape off of it so I can archive things on an old fashioned shelf.

I haven't done any research as such, but everything I've heard of has to phone home. I don't want a lifetime subscription- I want an appliance. Any suggestions? Seriously- please.

Re:A point about PBS

[Anonymous Coward]

And the majority of that traditional advertising is a simple "this program was made possible by a grant from the XYZ Corporation."

Bull. You can hardly tell a Ford ad on PBS from one on NBC. The wonderful Republicans made sure that "enhanced placement messages" couldn't be rejected on PBS.

Re:A point about PBS

[Simon Brooke]

And the majority of that traditional advertising is a simple "this program was made possible by a grant from the XYZ Corporation." It isn't in your face, it doesn't annoy anyone and doesn't turn an hour show into 35-40 minutes worth of crap.

The BBC is currently showing a US-made television drama called '24', shown in 24 episodes each of which supposedly encapsulates an hour of the day. This is screamingly announced as 'real time television', but each episode, as screened by the BBC, lasts only 45 minutes... so presumably you guys watched one minute of advertising for every three minutes of content. No wonder you have attention deficits!

Re:A point about PBS

[Trepalium]

Then that's a particularily commercial free program. Many programs have a 2:1 ratio of shows to commericals. Most 30 minute programs are 20 or 22 minutes long, most 1 hour programs are 40 to 45 minutes long. Some televised movies can be even worse. A 90 minute movie will be stretched to 120 minutes, but so will an 80 minute movie, or even a 70 minute movie. Advertisers in North America have discovered that it's very difficult to make a quality commerical to bring in people, so they've decided to make up for it in quantity, playing the same commericals over and over again, knowing eventually they'll stick in your head.

Re:A point about PBS

[mpe]

The BBC is currently showing a US-made television drama called '24', shown in 24 episodes each of which supposedly encapsulates an hour of the day. This is screamingly announced as 'real time television', but each episode, as screened by the BBC, lasts only 45 minutes... so presumably you guys watched one minute of advertising for every three minutes of content.

In US television terms "one hour" equates to around 43 minutes. (With one notable exception.) AFAIK this hasn't changed much in a long time.

Pointer to SonicBlue references

[Seth Finkelstein]

Just a quick pointer:

There's a good index of various references at

http://cs-www.bu.edu/~dm/pubs/replaytv.html

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Re:Pointer to SonicBlue references

[Anonymous Coward]

Another sonicblue ref: BBB report. It is very difficult to get an unsatisfactory rating with the BBB - a rating usually reserved for questionable businesses (read: scam).

Re:Pointer to SonicBlue references

[e.a.kendrick]

That is a highly suspicious report.

All the report says is that people have emailed BBB complaining that SonicBlue is unresponsive to complaints. That is very different from saying that SonicBlue is a "questionable business"

And the report was created today. Hmmm. I would like to see a little more information. BBB may be a big organisation but how easily are they fooled?

And you are an A/C who got modded up for this? Sounds like someone is trying to slur SonicBlue to me.

Oh god no!!!

[powerlinekid]

SonicBlue is made of people!!! You maniacs!!! oh wait...

HAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it, mod to +5!

Fun solution

[vspazv]

I think that any judge who thinks privacy is not an issue should have webcams (or put it on c-span) installed in his/her house, car and place of business with all of their online activity, phone calls and personal conversations transcribed for the viewing audience for 1 year before they are qualified to make a decision about teh privacy of others.

No one promised the studios a rose garden

[A nonymous Coward]

Just because their business model is for advertisers to pay for production in return for also broadcasting ads is no reason to enshrine that business model forever. If it is no longer viable, then they should find a new business model or go out of business.

Are we supposed to weep for vaudeville tap dancers and plate jugglers because radio and TV ran their business model into the ground?

How about street sweepers -- should we guarantee them a job even though the automobile reduced the amount of horseshit on the roads?

Re:No one promised the studios a rose garden

[mugnyte]

And just what business model do you think will replace it?

Here's a hint: Big Hollywood will like it more than you.

Re:No one promised the studios a rose garden

[jedidiah]

Media conglomerates have somehow gotten this assinine notion that having people view their commercials is some sort of "entitlement". They infact have NO RIGHT to any of our eyeballs. If they want our viewership, they damn well better earn it. The decreasing quality of television advertisements is the real problem here. Media conglomerates are merely using Replay as a scapegoat.

Much like the Music industry, they want to use technology as a club to prevent the market from forcing change.

Instead of suing Replay, they should be paying them to collect real performance statistics on commercials. Broadcasters should be more interested in figuring out how to get people to voluntarily watch more commercials. Broadcasters should be trying to avoid showing commercials that send people running to the bathroom.

Re:No one promised the studios a rose garden

[mugnyte]

Ok Time's Up!

The business model to expect is The Show Is The Commercial...The Commercial Is The Show.

Imagine if advertisers simply paid for the Friends cast to drink Coke, eat Wheaties and wear Gap jeans. Logos everywhere...storylines about brands by name.

It's already been done. Shift it to moralizing and you have the anti-drug scandal that broke last year about plot line written just this way.

If you don't want to watch a commercial, turn your TV off.

Re:No one promised the studios a rose garden

[Sentry21]

If they want our viewership, they damn well better earn it.

While I agree with your points about commercials sucking, networks make money by either having commercials, or having people pay for content (HBO, etc). Therefore, their providing to you, for free, television shows is in return for your eyeballs come commercialtime. Getting up and going elsewhere, that's fine. Fastforwarding, I'm ok with. Reading a book or magazine, sure, but intentionally, deliberately, blatantly skipping over commercials removes the only source of income the networks have to fund these commercials. If advertisers say 'we're not going to pay as much because people aren't watching', then less shows get produced, and the quality goes down.

That being said, I don't think the quality can go down any further. Most TV I watch is CBS (Survivor, Amazing Race, CSI), HBO (Sopranos and Sex in the City, which I would watch if I had a PVR), Canadian (This Hour, Lexx, and the news), or has already been paid for (M*A*S*H). There are a few exceptions, but nothing I watch regularly. Maybe if the networks didn't throw money away on crap like they do (VIP? Come on...) it wouldn't be an issue, but people don't want quality TV, they want to rot their brains, and if you want to rot your brain too, you have to pay the toll.

--Dan

Re:No one promised the studios a rose garden

[mpe]

Imagine if advertisers simply paid for the Friends cast to drink Coke, eat Wheaties and wear Gap jeans. Logos everywhere...storylines about brands by name.

Problem with product placement is that it can be highly limiting. Viewers certainly will notice if a New York cab company suddenly appears in Sunnydale. Or question how so many 21st century US brandnames could survive a major war in order to get on the starship Enterprise. Usually such product placement is a little more subtle.
Consider also what would happen if every Star Trek ship was plastered in Pan Am and Enron logos...

Re:No one promised the studios a rose garden

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want to watch a commercial, turn your TV off.

That's what I do. It's a lot more interesting to read stuff written by real people on the internet... even here on slashdot!

Re:No one promised the studios a rose garden

[Anonymous Coward]

but intentionally, deliberately, blatantly skipping over commercials removes the only source of income the networks have to fund these commercials.

but people don't want quality TV, they want to rot their brains, and if you want to rot your brain too, you have to pay the toll.

Bullshit.

They broadcast it for free or you've already paid to receive it via cable, dish, etc. Once you've legally acquired the signal, you are under absolutely no obligation to watch 100% of it. There is no "toll" to be paid, other than the expense of acquiring the publically broadcast signal. There is no legal obligation, as no law forbids skipping commercials. There is no contractual obligation, as home viewers have not entered into any agreement to view the commercials. There is no "copyright control" in place on conventional equipment and standard NTSC signals today, so the DMCA does not apply.

It's legal to make a copy for personal viewing at a later time, and when you view the copy, you're also under absolutely no obligation to view the commercials. Payment from advertiser for the "placement" of that commercial does not somehow obligate anybody to behave in any particular manner in the privacy of their own home.

Re:No one promised the studios a rose garden

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is still just a BUSINESS MODEL! It's not a legal right. The networks and producers and advertisers don't have a legal right to demand we WATCH THE COMMERCIALS. If people no longer watch the ads, they can't pass laws to make them watch the things again. If people don't watch commercials, they just have to find a new way to make money.

Re:No one promised the studios a rose garden

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you vastly underestimate the amount of horseshit on the roads these days.

favroite Kellner quote

[martissimo]

in reference to his attitude about people who skip ads during shows...

CW: What if you have to go to the bathroom or get up to get a Coke?

JK: I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom

jeez how reasonable of him, there is a "certain" tolerance for allowing natural bodily functions by TV viewers, but im guessing that us beer drinkers and people with weak bladders should probably stop watching, because such willy-nilly use of the bathroom is probably thievery ;)

full interview here btw

Re:favroite Kellner quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he say it was ok to get a Coke?

Re:favroite Kellner quote

[n6mod]

No.

On Slashdot...

[zurab]

When you click on a particular comment the following page scrolls you down to that comment directly thereby bypassing the viewing of the great banner ads on top of the page.
If I was a sponsor, I would request Slashdot to turn over the user browsing data on the grounds that the above activity clearly constitutes as stealing the content. Also, scroll bars should be disabled until the banner ad goes through at least 3 iterations of its images.

Don't act like SonicBlue is the good guy in this

[Anonymous Coward]

Before too many congratulations are given to SonicBlue, one should ask why they built the capability to do this into their system in the first place, and why their agreement with the customer actually gives them the right to collect this information (which, curiously, they claim they don't do).

Tacking Viewing

[kmellis]

As much as I desperately want to agree with the general sentiment here on Slashdot about this case and this specific issue, I'm not sure I can.

The fact of the matter is that the viewing habits that can be tracked and utilized by a PVR that is networked are extremely valuable and useful to a whole host of interested parties. It dwarfs the value of similar data about web users' habits and demographics.

I tend not to be as militant about privacy as most of the rest of you. Even so, I agree that this type of information should be anonymous if it is collected. Perhaps also an explicit opt-in. But even with those requirements, the data collected is still very useful and valuable. That data is worth a great deal of money to the PVR manufacturers. The broadcast industry had every reason to expect that SonicBlue was collecting this information; and, if not, that they will in the future. It's disingenuous of SonicBlue to act as if collecting that information is something that they don't do and would never consider doing. Frankly, that would be a stupid business decision.

In this way, this information and its collection is substantially different from the "sensor in the wheelchair" or "microphone in the bar" analogies that Amici uses. In those cases, that information would never be collected for any reason outside the context of a court order. In the SonicBlue case, this information is closer to, for example, Best Buy's information on what kinds of people buy what kinds of products from which Best Buy stores. Best Buy probably collects this information, and there are hypothetical court cases where this would be relevant and completely acceptable for the plaintiff to order its discovery (or how ever that should be worded).

SonicBlue is in a tricky situation here. The broadcast industry is asking for information that SonicBlue might reasonably be collecting and that they very well may want to be collecting if they're not. The broadcast industry wants information on how the ReplayTV devices are being used, and that information is relevant to the case. SonicBlue certainly has an interest in how their PVRs are being used, and that information is at their fingertips.

I don't think that Amici is going to convince the court of their position. The personal privacy issues can be easily addressed while still collecting the information that is relevant to the case. And that information is not merely relevant -- it's crucial. Is the ReplayTV a device that exists to break copyright law? Or is it a perfectly acceptable example of fair use in the VCR tradition? SonicBlue can supply strong evidence one way or another simply by checking to see how their product is being used. As I said, it's at their fingertips, and there's good reason to believe that they are or will be collecting it anyway.

Having said all that, I'm as rabidly angry about the entertainment industry's methods and goals in the wider debate as anyone here on Slashdot.

Re:Tacking Viewing

[Todd Knarr]

Bear in mind that the same arguments were made against the VCR as are being made against the PVR. The courts ruled that it didn't matter how large or small a percentage the legitimate uses were, because the VCR manufacturers didn't have control over that. All that mattered was that a) there were legitimate, non-copyright-infringing uses for VCRs, and b) the VCR makers were targeting their sales at those legitimate uses and not to the illegal ones. If one replaced PVR with VCR in the case, the court would have to ignore Federal appeals court precedent to rule in favor of plaintiffs here. So what precisely is different between a VCR and a PVR, other than that one records on iron oxide on a plastic substrate and the other records on silicon, that would demand that the two not be treated the same?

Re:Tacking Viewing

[n6mod]

I disagree strongly with several of your arguments. And I'm not saying anything that isn't in the Amici brief.

First of all, SonicBlue is not making a "stupid business decision." They're making a very smart one. Their competition got *fried* on privacy issues for making the decision you advocate. So they made the opposite decision, and then advertised it as a feature. Tivo has since anonymized their data significantly, but there's still a black eye. (And the DTivo box is anything but anonymous...DirecTV is absolutely spying.)

Yes, this information is worth a great deal of money to the PVR manufacturers, but only because they can sell it to the content cartel. I fail to see, however, how the value of the information correlates to whether it's OK to collect it.

But this ruling goes far beyond that. It required that a device be used to collect ostensibly private information, simply because it was within the capability of the device to do so.

Think about this for a moment. Let's change the names a bit. Let's say that the RIAA gets tired of Apple and goes after them. So they sue Apple, and get a court order demanding that they install keystroke loggers in the OS to see where Apple's customers are getting their music. Certainly this is data that Apple might want (hey, good marketroids want all the data they can get!), but it's not data that Apple is going to collect, because to do so would be a massive invasion of privacy.

%s/Apple/SonicBlue/
%s/RIAA/MPAA/
%s/music/mov ies/
%s/OS/Replay 4000/

Get the point?

This isn't really about Copyright law anymore. It's about privacy, which is allegedly protected by the Constitution.

Re:Tacking Viewing

[kmellis]

Well, while it is true that commercial-skipping has freaked out the broadcasters, the reason they've gone after ReplayTV and not TiVo is because of the network sharing feature. I just wanted to be clear that it's that usage that is the focus. Or at least I thought it was.

From what I've read about the VCR decision, I think you're 100% correct. But I think that because there's already a thriving trade of captured TV shows on the Net, there's good reason for the broadcasters to worry about the ease of which ReplayTV makes this possible. So although there's the VCR precedent, I have an intuition that it's possible that a judge could undermine it by changing the standard. To the degree that a judge thinks that ReplayTV's sharing mode is a feature explicitly aimed at pirates, it's more likely that a new standard will be set.

But, anyway, that's not my argument. I was more interested in defending specifically the request for usage information.

Re:Tacking Viewing

[kmellis]

Manufacturers of these devices and the providers which manage their networking will include exactly as much demographic gathering code as they can get away with. While this community is very concerned about privacy, I don't think that the general public is equally concerned. As is the case with the web, if you restrict the egregious privacy violations, most people are satisfied.

Providing that SonicBlue satisfies this minimal requirement, they will have every incentive to collect and sell information about the viewer's habits. It's free money, as they say. (I don't know who says this, and it doesn't make any sense. But maybe that's why they call money "money".)

I think your keystroke logging monitor is a bad analogy. Like the Amici brief's wheelchair analogy, it's unnatural and intrusive. There would be no reason for Apple to be gathering that information, and the scope of the information is far beyond the use that is being questioned. In this case, SonicBlue has an incentive to be gathering that information (their competitor is), it's easily collected (I disagree with the posters who says that it's not), and it has everything to do with the case.

I think that if the information is made anonymous, Amici's argument about invasion of privacy disapears. Whether or not an injunction to do such a thing outside the context of privacy is legally acceptable, I don't know. IANAL.

Finally, the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee privacy. A "right" to privacy was inferred by a SCOTUS decision, I can't recall which. It's still a contentious issue for the court.

Re:Tacking Viewing

[Todd Knarr]

If they were just interested in the sharing, they could request recording only of which programs a user shared with who and when. But their request was for what users watch, record to watch or skip commercials on in addition to what they share. There's no need for the first three, because under copyright law they're all legal. And even the sharing may be entirely legal under traditional copyright law, because copyright law has been held by the courts to include the right to make copies for personal use of things you own a copy of. One of the more recent decisions, involving a video store in Utah making edited copies of the movie Titanic with scenes involving nudity removed, even held that you could legally have someone make those copies for you.

Yes, the judge will almost certainly try to treat the PVR differently, but IMHO SonicBlue and the others should continue harping on the similarities. Movies didn't cease to be movies just because they were recorded on iron oxide instead of celluloid. VCRs don't cease to be VCRs just because they store video on silicon instead of iron oxide and can send what they've recorded from the living-room set to the bedroom set without you needing to take the tape out and put it back in the other machine. Make it as hard as possible for the judge to throw out the old precedents, because no judge wants to go on record as contradicting Federal appeals courts and the Supreme Court.

Re:Tacking Viewing

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's about privacy, which is allegedly protected by the Constitution."

... of some country other than the US. Unfortunately, the people who wrote the constitution forgot to add in mention of a right to privacy. And don't give me any shit about the 9th and 10th Amendments -- you might as well say they protect a right to murder.

Re:Tacking Viewing

[n6mod]

You have yet to establish any coherent argument as to why a company's incentive to collect data has anything to do with whether it is reasonable and proper to do so. You agree that Apple being forced to install a keystroke logger would be unnatural and intrusive, yet somehow because my PVR is connected to a TV, keystroke logging there isn't?

(And make no mistake, that's PRECISELY what Tivo logs. Keystrokes. They knew that we were rewinding to watch Britney jiggle, and fast-forwarding through the rest of the Super Bowl.)

Apple being forced to log keystrokes was a close parallel. What about...

<REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM>
Is a datalogging condom an invasion of privacy? Even if the results were "made anonymous"? Think of all the "free money" Schmid could get by eliminating excess latex. With all that data on number of strokes, surface temperature, tension, and coefficients of friction, they could reduce the raw material requirements dramatically, a cost savings that would go straight to the bottom line.
</REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM>

Sorry. That was, perhaps, in poor taste. But you see the problem.

As to the Constitutional issues regarding privacy, you are correct that it is not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution. I submit, however, that it is only a contentious issue for the court because it was the basis of Roe v. Wade. Had that been based on, say, property rights (Interesting suggestion, courtesy another /. denizen.), I don't think privacy would be nearly the hot button that it is today.

But even setting aside all of those issues, which have far more to do with emotional charge than actual law, this was still a completely brain-dead ruling. Federal Law regarding discovery does not allow surveillance for prospective evidence.

And that should have settled it.

Re:Tacking Viewing

[n6mod]

"It's about privacy, which is allegedly protected by the Constitution."
... of some country other than the US. Unfortunately, the people who wrote the constitution forgot to add in mention of a right to privacy.

Hence the word "allegedly."


And don't give me any shit about the 9th and 10th Amendments -- you might as well say they protect a right to murder.

Thank you for underlining my argument regarding the right to privacy being contentious only because it was the basis of Roe v. Wade.

Re:Tacking Viewing

[n6mod]

Actually, if you really want to be picky about the recording. They both record on iron oxide. It's just that some of it is on reels of mylar, and some of it is on aluminum or glass platters.

(I haven't kept up with hard disc materials lately, but it's still magnetic recording.)

-Z

Re:Tacking Viewing

[Simon Brooke]

I tend not to be as militant about privacy as most of the rest of you. Even so, I agree that this type of information should be anonymous if it is collected. Perhaps also an explicit opt-in. But even with those requirements, the data collected is still very useful and valuable. That data is worth a great deal of money to the PVR manufacturers . The broadcast industry had every reason to expect that SonicBlue was collecting this information; and, if not, that they will in the future. It's disingenuous of SonicBlue to act as if collecting that information is something that they don't do and would never consider doing. Frankly, that would be a stupid business decision.

The data may be worth a great deal, but as the Amici point out collecting it would be a federal criminal offence in the United States, and incidentally it would also be a criminal offence in every state in the European Community. Don't know the state of the law on privacy in Japan, but my guess is the only place you could do this legally would be a few obscure third world countries. So it was not reasonable for the broadcasters to assume SonicBLUE was collecting this information. They may have had the means to collect it, but they had no right to do so.

Re:Tacking Viewing

[mpe]

One of the more recent decisions, involving a video store in Utah making edited copies of the movie Titanic with scenes involving nudity removed, even held that you could legally have someone make those copies for you.

This ruling probably protects broadcasters. Otherwise any TV station which made cuts, for either content or time, could find themselves in court PDQ.

Yes, the judge will almost certainly try to treat the PVR differently, but IMHO SonicBlue and the others should continue harping on the similarities. Movies didn't cease to be movies just because they were recorded on iron oxide instead of celluloid. VCRs don't cease to be VCRs just because they store video on silicon instead of iron oxide and can send what they've recorded from the living-room set to the bedroom set without you needing to take the tape out and put it back in the other machine.

It isn't so much the judge as the plaintiff trying to persuade the judge that the fiddling details of the technology make a difference. Also it would be perfectly possible to do things like a 30 second skip function with video tape. Anyway the major storage media for these devices is ferromagnetic material. Only real difference is the details of the substrate which carries it. Metal platters vs plastic tape.

Re:Tacking Viewing

[Anonymous Coward]

> Is the ReplayTV a device that exists to break
> copyright law? Or is it a perfectly acceptable
> example of fair use in the VCR tradition?
> SonicBlue can supply strong evidence one way or
> another simply by checking to see how their
> product is being used.

I don't think it is right to say the way the technology is being used has any relevance on whether or not it 'exists to break copyright law'.

This appears similar to the thinking on Napster - heaps of people are obviously using the service to trade music illegally, but does that mean the service itself is illegal? It is just as simple to burn the music to a CD, walk down the road and give it to a friend or to upload it to an FTP server etc...do those services also exist for the sole purpose of copyright violation?

Re:Tacking Viewing

[shawnmelliott]

That this information is useful to many people ... true
That this information has a dollar value to the PVR business ... true
That this information can be given without breaking traditionaly privacy grounds ... true

BUT, let's look at the facts

This information is useful, but does the court have a right to give that information based on the belief that something might have been done illegally. As the Amici discusses this is like saying "We're not sure if they broke the law, we believe they may have. You should have somebody monitor them at all times to see if they will". As much as SonicBLUE has the capabilities and possibly future plans for this technology doesn't matter. It is beyond the powers of the court to set a precedent like this

Also, once again it doesn't matter if there is a possible dollar value to this. The court shouldn't have the power to force SonicBLUE to give this info. even if it is of value to them. What if SonicBLUE did want to sell this. This would be like the court saying "Give it to them for free". The fact that this information has a value is not the point. The point is the scope of the case involved and the data requested is beyond the scope of what may or might be, it's what IS and what should be allowed.

Also, this information can be given without breaking privacy concerns. But that's not what the industry is asking for. First, they don't just want information about ad skipping ( which is obscure since most people don't sign contracts about watching them anyway... but I digress ) and sending files. They want EVERYTHING. That's beyond what they would need IF they were to have it. Also, the information wouldn't be aggregate it would be personally identifiable by a unique number ( why is this necessary? this is beyond the info they need )

Re:Tacking Viewing

[Todd Knarr]

This ruling probably protects broadcasters.

No, the ruling in that case was specifically that the video store had the right to make edited copies for customers who'd bought or were in the process of buying the tape. No broadcast involved.

It isn't so much the judge as the plaintiff trying to persuade the judge that the fiddling details of the technology make a difference.

All the more reason to keep harping on the similarities. Just as you said, all the features of the PVR are available on a standard VCR or could be implemented, even sharing. Go Video fought that case around their double-well VCR and won. Rule #1: never ever fight a battle on your opponent's terms. The judge rules based on what's presented, and if the plaintiff's the only one bringing up options for how the judge treats things the plaintiff's likely to win. So why the hell aren't the defendants bringing up the string of cases starting with the Betamax case that say consistently that plaintiffs here haven't a legal leg to stand on?

Re:Tacking Viewing

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see, however, how the value of the information correlates to whether it's OK to collect it.

In fact, the more illicit, illegal, immoral the information is, the more valuable it is to whoever wants it. If the info was freely and happily given by anyone and everyone, it doesn't have much value, now does it. When the liberation forces swept over Germany and Japan and occupied territories, the data on medical experiments contained in the concentration camps (as evil as its collection was) was IMMENSLY valuable. Here you had the results of human experiments that were illegal to conduct back home.

So you're wrong, there is a very clear correlation.

Re:Tacking Viewing

[jbarr]

data is worth a great deal of money to the PVR manufacturers. The broadcast industry had every reason to expect that SonicBlue was collecting this information; and, if not, that they will in the future. It's disingenuous of SonicBlue to act as if collecting that information is something that they don't do and would never consider doing. Frankly, that would be a stupid business decision.

Just because something might be profitable (collecting data) doesn't necessarily mean it should be done. SonicBlue may have other motives (like not wanting to implicate themselves) but I commend them for sticking up for the consumers.

Re:Tacking Viewing

[kmellis]

Just because something might be profitable (collecting data) doesn't necessarily mean it should be done.

Several people have made this point in response to my post, and of course it's true. But it's beside the point (of my post).

My point was that a big part of the Amici argument, it seemed to me, was built around a sense of complete inappropriateness of the gathering of that data. Not "inappropriate" as in "wrong", but as in "a sensor built into a wheelchair to record the times that someone sits in it". Let me use an example that's a combination of fact and a hypothetical.

Remember the Kinko's case regarding the copying and distribution of copyrighted material to college students? Profs and TA's had been for a long time assembling some reading materials, and having Kinko's make x number of copies, binding them, and students would come in and pick them up (and pay for them) at the store. Kinko's got sued for copyright infringement; and as a consequence implemented a policy where they won't make copies of copyrighted materials without a signed waiver from the copyright holder. You can go in and make self-service copies of copyrighted materials -- they aren't policing that -- but they won't do it for you.

Now, it is conceivable that those binded copies requested by the Profs and TAs were within fair use. Perhaps they didn't distribute them, as unlikely as this sounds. In the court case, the plaintiff is alleging that Kinko's is participation in copyright infringement. Maybe they aren't. How those copies left the store and who took them makes all the difference. Wouldn't the plaintiff have the right to ask via discovery for the records of how and to whom those copies were delivered? It's reasonable to expect that Kinko's would have enough information to answer the salient question. And if this is an ongoing situation, if Kinko's wasn't keeping any records about who they gave those copies to, wouldn't it make sense for a court to require them to start collecting that information in order to answer the question of whether copyright infringment was occuring?

My objection to that brief was that it was comparing the PVR situation with the most absurd examples possible. I didn't, and still don't, think that the information required in order to answer the question at hand must necessarily be a violation of privacy, nor burdensome on SonicBlue, nor information that is no concern whatsoever to SonicBlue.

Now, the really big difference between the Kinko's and the SonicBlue example is that Kinko's was actively participating in the infringement. SonicBlue is not. Interestingly, Kinko's is off the hook, apparently, when their customers infringe when using the self-service copiers. It would make sense to compare SonicBlue to that situation and say that they are not responsible.

In the VCR case, the test ended up being any legitimate use makes it a-okay. On the other hand, it seems to me that the Napster decision uses a test of whether the product is used primarily as a means of infringement. As far as I'm concernced, that's stupid and the VCR standard makes much more sense. But I think the PVR ruling could go either direction.

I understand that the industry plaintiffs asked for far more information than is relevant, and that much of that information is a violation of privacy. But I wasn't really arguing that their contention was totally legitimate as it stands, but that the Amici objection wasn't as solid as the people here on Slashdot seemed to think.

Re:Don't act like SonicBlue is the good guy in thi

[Le Marteau]

one should ask why they built the capability to do this into their system in the first place

ReplayTV's are basically computers with software, modems, hard drives and graphics chips. The capability to send usage information through the modem is inherent in such a system.

Entering into a contract to watch ads??

[jwiegley]

Over the past few weeks I've seen several different publications hint at the concept that "when viewers watch a channel they have agreed to watch the advertisement spots." Even going so far as to indicate that this is a contract between the viewer and the advertisers/networks.

THIS IS REDICULOUS!! Is there any "viewer" out there that actually considers themselves as having agreed to watch ad spots in order to receive the programming?? Certainly I don't and never will.

My "Contract" with the advertisers/Networks is at most this: "I pay the cable company to bring me programming. I expect to receive 100 or so channels of programming that may or may not be interesting to me or consist of quality content. Except for premium channels, I expect to be annoyed during the airing of a program by interruptions from advertisers attempting to gain my attention."

But I never "agreed" to actually watch these annoying interruptions. In fact if I am ever forced into such a contract in order to receive a television program I'll just refuse to watch the program and the included advertisements entirely.

If the advertisers actually want to compete for attention in the new age of PVRs then I think they should take a history lesson. In the early days of television Advertisers sponsored a particular show and their product placement and other advertisements where made during the airing of the show. Famous examples would be shows like Howdy Doody or the Milton Berle Show, etc... It was in the best interest of both the viewer and the advertiser to produce high quality shows. It was almost impossible to be aware of the program without being aware of the sponsor and vice verse.

These days we have hundreds of times more content produced yearly but as we all know, 99% of it is pure crap. And the advertisements are, by far, the worst of the crap. Consisting of inane or irrelevant premises and pandering to the overall stupidity of the masses. 99% of all advertisements are no better than e-mail spam. Relying on contacing millions of recipients who don't need the product, can't afford the product or would be harmed by the product in an attempt to reach the overwhelming minority of recipients who do need the product or are stupid enough to waste their money on the product.

If PVRs result in the decrease attendance of advertisements then advertisers will be lessing willing to pay for advertisement time. Decrease revenues from advertsiements would result in the decreased ability for channels to remain operative resulting in fewer available channels. Fewer channels means less air time and thus an increase in competition for air time. Increase competition means a greater likelyhood of quality shows on the fewer available channels.

So PVRs result in fewer channels with an increased signal to noise ratio? I'm all for that. I don't need to watch crap like VIP or Greg the Bunny and I especially do not need to see another vacuous automobile commercial.

Re:F1st P4st???

[Anonymous Coward]

Colonel Sanders wants to goose Granny's loose caboose!

He's gonna give her a boost with that Kentucky fried juice!

Maybe They will be cool...

[nomel]

and make the system easily hackable...

If they really don't believe in this, that is what I think they will do.

Nomel

Product placement

[wytcld]

You can't skip the ads if the ads are smoothly integrated with the shows. And that would mean more of the showtime at least being used for the show and its characters, even if there were some obvious product placements in it.

The down side is that the shows then become less attractive in syndication, where the placed products could be in conflict with new ads introduced, and the new ads could be skipped. But then with digital technology, this stuff could be morphed, the brand of beer or whatever could easily change.

So that's what will happen.
___

My PVR Will Be a ReplayTV

[gdyas]

Wow, having read that brief by EPIC, finding out that Tivo collects info on what I watch, I'm getting a ReplayTV when I get a PVR.

Monitoring what people read/watch/listen to is the stuff of police states, and is no better if it's a company instead of the government, I don't care why they do it.

Re:My PVR Will Be a ReplayTV

[n6mod]

Hmmm...

rm -rf /var/log/*

It is a Linux machine, after all. ;)

-Z

Re:My PVR Will Be a ReplayTV

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just call 877-367-8486 and opt-out, no questions asked...

Re:My PVR Will Be a ReplayTV

[n6mod]

I should add that while I have two DTivos (analog sucks) I'm seriously considering buying a Replay as a meaningful contribution to the SonicBlue legal fund.

I already have several other SonicBlue products, most significantly a couple of empeg^H^H^H^H^HRio Cars.

Re:My PVR Will Be a ReplayTV

[n6mod]

That doesn't get you out of DirecTV's snooping on the combo box, just TiVo's data collection.

Re:Don't act like SonicBlue is the good guy in thi

[meringuoid]

ReplayTV's are basically computers with software, modems, hard drives and graphics chips. The capability to send usage information through the modem is inherent in such a system.

So leave out the modem! Market a cut-down Tivoid that (a) acts as a VCR and (b) has an option to filter out the ads. None of this phoning home nonsense. It can take its TV guide direct from Teletext.

Problems: how do you update the software when the TV companies work out how to beat your ad-recognition system? And just how much is the hardware of a Tivoid subsidised by the money from subscriptions? Would a standalone box with no strings attached be prohibitively expensive?

Alternatively, could we set up some sort of embedded system (cheap processor, small memory, TV tuner) that just plain kills both audio and video when it identifies ads? Something you'd plug your aerial through? Again, software update trouble, but it could at least be made very cheaply.

Companies are now greater than the Government

[Neolithic]

II. Arguements
B. The Television Studios Seek Greater Invasion Into Personal Lives Than The Federal Government Has In The War On Terrorism.

The television studios are seeking, and have obtained from Judge Eick, a mandatory surveillance system even greater that what United States law enforcement, battling international terrorism, has obtained, or considers appropriate.

If anyone doesn't believe that laws are being bought they are deluding themselves. Those wishing to preserve outdated revenue streams in the future and punishing all citizens of the United States, including those who might commit a "crime" in the future, are granted more freedoms and greater powers than those that are responding to an act of immense destruction and horrible violence that actually happened in the past.

Suppose I were presented with a choice, where upon completion would result in the preservation of my family. If the two options were to have a plane fly into a building, killing thousands of people, or to watch a movie without commercials I would be inclined choose the former. I would be much more likely to get away with it.

SEC Attack...

[Kindaian]

When the courts make this kind of decisions that are so appaling that the only alternative is to still them in an higher court (if one exists).

This of course have repercutions in the stock exchange if the companies involved are quoted in the stock exchanges they are mingling and abusivly tampering in the market values.

Why shouldn't the courts be investigated by the SEC?

Class protection?

Cheers...

P.S.- it is amazing how can a judge rule over something that he doesn't have an ounce of wit about...
Shouldn't the special cases be judged by judges with credentials in the area? (i'm assuming too much here mayhappen... i'm assuming that judges are people with curiosity and thrus have more skills then the law)

Ad campaign against PVRs

[cdf12345]

This is slightly offtopic, but do you ever wonder why the TV industry doesn't launch an ad campaign against the use of PVR's like the ReplayTV 4000?

Hmm, or they could just have the president/head of the writers and actors guild go into a a 5 minute rant about it at the next Oscars.

Hell, maybe even hire some college kids to record as many TV shows as possible in three days...

What about overlays?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know I think they can kill two birds with one stone here. You know the thing that pisses me off the most about DVDs? Those mandatory view parts, like the 20th Century Fox clip at the very beginning of the DVD. It doesn't just jump to the menu. If they beat up on the PVR companies right now and force the mto submit they'll do the same thing with commercials, all of the technology is in place it just needs industry exceptence. Can you imagine buying a PVR, recording TV movies and then when you're trying to get to last 30 minutes of the movie it stops and you have to watch every commercial in between? That's how they pay themselves now so that makes those commercial slots that much more valuble.

What if they switch to the Baseball and CNBC model? When an HD movie is on network TV there are commercial overlays on the screen (like the Sundance Channel logo that is on all of their movies) in the corner or something and what if there is commercial text flowing across the bottom? Not that I really want that crap on there but it retains their value and in addition to that it marks the original up so there is more incentive to buy a copy of it that is clean. The TV version is still HD quality but it has all that extra crap on it; who wants to pirate that, it's like pirating shareware or something? Then let the PVRs do whatever they want. This also inflates that amount of commercial time that they have, you can always skip the 30second slots but there will always be that commercial time on screen during the presentation.

I don't like this idea and I'm guessing artists won't either, although they don't seem to mind the station logos that much, but this seems so much more attractive than mandatory 30second slots and much more attractive than letting them have a complete record of everything I watch, when I watch it, what I skip, what I don't skip, etc.. TV is already annoying, if you don't like it then you pay for premium channels, buy DVDs or quit watching. I don't want to keep that annoyance and lose my privacy.

What is collected

[crow]

What is collected is a list of all shows that have been recorded and what shows are scheduled to record. Essentially, this is the table of contents you see when selecting shows. The unit has to send this information back to SonicBlue's servers in order for the web-based my.replaytv.com service to work (which allows you to delete shows or schedule new recordings when the box next calls home).

What is presumably difficult to provide is a history of what was watched. Even more difficult would be to record a history of fast forwarding, automatic commercial advance, and manual 30-second skip usage.

Making things worse is that older units (like my 2020) are short on RAM, so any new code added to comply with court orders would have to be added at the expense of removing other features.

Re:A point about PBS: sorry, they're real ads!

[Insightfill]

Sorry - I watch and PVR Sesame Street and a few other childrens' shows for my daughter, and I can assure you that the "commercials" are quite conventional.

There's a McDonald's one that comes on just before the show that shows Ronald climbing through the tube with the kids, while cheery, child-like (eerie) voices sing "put a smile on". The Spaghetti-Os one isn't as bad, as "Sesame Street was brought to you by the letter 'O'".

I think the line for me started blurring when the sponsors started supplying the scripts for the announcements, and the line was crossed when the sponsor started supplying video tape.

Re:guess the question!

[moyix]

What are things the MPAA/RIAA want to stick to your hard drive?

Obligatory Heinlein Quote

[sconeu]

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.

-- The Judge in Life-line

30 seconds? How about 2 minutes?

[SamTheButcher]

Okay, they're pissed about a 30-second skip feature. How about a 2-minute skip feature? There are almost at least 2 minutes of commercials per break. If the industry bigs are up in arms about the 30-second skip, then SonicBlue et al should just say "Okay, okay. You got us. We will remove all 30-second skip features from our boxes" and replace them with 2 or 3 minute skip functions. That way, we just have to press the button once and we zap the whole block, and then just ff through the last couple.

What that dickhead Kellner and the like don't realise is that with 30 second skip, we have to keep hitting the skip button. With a 2 or 3 minute skip, we blow right by all of them.

I know that for the most part we're just tempests shouting in our own little teapot, but I hope some of the higher ups are reading this. The people on /. are the people that will be writing the hacks around their court-ordered restrictions and selling them to their neighbors. Can you say "cottage industry"? I knew you could. And we're smart enough to code around any spy tactics you want to try.

The EPIC amici

[Anonymous Coward]

In this way, this information and its collection is substantially different from the "sensor in the wheelchair" or "microphone in the bar" analogies that Amici uses

Slowdown, Cowboy. The case at the bar is the SonicBlue case. The case at the pub is just an analogy.

You did read the footnotes, didn't you?

Big Brother

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to recall a book written in the 1940s or 1950s called 1984 that talked about a device that you could not turn off, only dim the sound a bit. It was also a spying device to watch what the occupants of any residence were doing at any given time, just to make sure they werent doing anything that might be deemed 'illegal' by the powers that be. Wouldnt the RIAA and MPAA love to have a device such as that? We could call them the Ministry of Truth and Love.

Re:A question -MOD THIS UP

[hplasm]

Brilliant Idea.
A reasoned sane posting on an insane subject.( Oh The Humanity!! wipe tear from eye...)

Arm (..) the civilians and let's see how the Suits like to be on the end of a targeted ad campaign for a change. MOD THIS GUY UP NOW!!

(Fucknozzle! ha!- I love this.. :-> )

My Biggest Fear Is More Aggressive TV Ads

[alteran]

Like the internet, advertising treats attempts to block it as an outage and routes around it. Look what happened on the web with animations, pop-ups, placement within content, etc.

It's only a matter of time before advertisers/networks fight back by abandoning current advertising formats and adopt more obnoxious ones. 30-second ad breaks every three minutes, ads inserted between scene cuts, aggressive product placement, non-standard ad lengths (10-seconds, 40 seconds), are all the kinds of things I expect we have to look forward to.

Re: tv manufacturers & ad skipping

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the some tv manufacturers have made channel chaning slower to reduce ad skipping. I'm assuming their paid to do it.

We have a 72" $4000 widescreen digital ready tv and it takes 2 seconds to change a fucking channel. Everyone who's used it complains.

It is a total pain in the ass to surf, so i have gone back to my 27" tv for everything except for dvds.