Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.
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.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
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.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
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
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.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
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.
---
Two rights don't make a wrong, but three rights make a left. -Me
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??
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
They quoted Jamie Kellner's outrageous "theft" accusation in a footnote. That's great! Let's see the MPAA try to disown THAT...
In the Star Trek evil Mirror Universe, virtuoso cellist Yo-Yo Ma is gangsta hiphop star DJ Yo Ma-Ma.
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
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.
--
you don't have to outrun the bear, just the slowest person in your group.
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.
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
SonicBlue is made out of people!
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.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
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.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
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)
SonicBlue is made of people!!! You maniacs!!! oh wait...
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
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?
Infuriate left and right
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
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.
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.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
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.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
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.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
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...
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
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.
One other thing... you say "nothings been regulated here."
Are you sure about that?
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.
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
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.