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

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.

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.

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...

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:Good Analogies

[cpt kangarooski]

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

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.