Judge Says Sonicblue Doesn't Have to Monitor

MoD writes "From CNet: District Court Judge Florence-Marie Cooper on Friday overturned a late April ruling that required the maker of ReplayTV set-top box technology to write and install software to monitor what its customers were watching."

Comments

1984

[Jones E. Versichoran]

I assume everyone remembers the television "screens" in 1984 which allowed the state to view exactly what its denizens were doing? It came *this* close to realization before this thankfully clued-in judge overturned it.

We're not there yet.

Music to my ears...

[NanoGator]

"If the networks and studios focused on the inevitable evolution of their business instead of attempts to stifle technology, we believe everyone involved would benefit, consumers most of all," the CEO added. "

I'm starting to hear this more and more. I hope that this was an influence in the judge's decision. The simple fact of the matter is that markets change. You can't legally force them to stay put. Doing so will ruin this economy. There is a lot more at stake here than just ad revenue.

Re:Music to my ears...

[cduffy]

The US currently has laws against counterfeiting. Creating new laws to, for example, require all scanners to detect image signatures within US bank notes, would be completely possible yet plain silly since it could probably be easily defeated and would raise the cost of scanners. Yet this is exactly what the RIAA/MPAA wants with respect to copyrighted audio and video.

You know, there are laws requiring color copiers to detect US banknotes.

Just because the US Govt' does some smart things doesn't mean it doesn't do stupid things as well.

If the entertainment industry wants to spy...

[Cmdr Taco (luser)]

then they should design and market their own Tivo/ReplayTV, etc device. I'm sure that they would know how to market it and I bet they could sell to countless Joe Schmedley's who wouldn't care if their viewing practices were monitored. Especially if they were given some kind of incentive like a chance to win some prize by actively participating in info gathering.

OTOH, the enterainment industry might wreck that product by not providing a commercial skip/fast forward feature. They're still deathly afraid that they'll piss of they're advertisers.

Re:Rights

[dmanny]

Your comment again provides an opportunity to point to VHS VCRs from Panasonic (and perhaps others) that automatically analyzes commercial content after recording and automatically fast forwards during playback. It works pretty good and is reasonably fast. Also, when I pull that tape out, it can go to a much wider audience than other hiqh speed internet video/computer junkies.

All of the people that I exchange recordings with have already or will soon migrate to this type of VCR. It only takes one demo. It is very convincing.

Sonic Blue & ReplayTV are not protecting your

[lupine]

If you buy a replaytv then all your viewing data belongs to them. Then they use your tv and your pvr to force feed you targeted ads when you pause, in banners on menus etc.

This cached google page is why I will not be buying a replaytv. When will device manufacturers make a decent product and leave me the fuck alone after the sale. I have money to spend and I will not support companies that harass me.

Re:We'll never get targeted advertising at this ra

[SirSlud]

There is danger in targetted advertising. New customer aquisition tends to suffer when you target _too_ well (because you're advertising to people who are likely already customers), and then advertisers get soured on the value of advertising. Some of the best and most valuable advertising and marketing is decidedly _non-targeted_ where advertisers surprise themselves by finding high converstion rates and RIOs in market segments they never would have thought of had they been offered uber-granular targeted media buys.

Re:We'll never get targeted advertising at this ra

[SirSlud]

Two points:

Suppose you're in a bitter custody battle for your children and the ex says you're a terrible parent and you're violent. Her lawyer would subpoena the cable company and then hire a psychiatrist to analyze your viewing habits and give expert testimony against you based on information that is totally irrelevant. And you know most judges would believe them.

1. Large, bluechip companies (believe it or not) are terrified of mismanaging your data. When they sell you to third parties, you're likely to complain, maybe file a suit or two if they violated their User Agreement as it pertains to your data. But if they start sharing this data with the feds, they know they'll never have a hope in hell of getting your permission to collect this data. The first time something like your scenario happens, everyone will complain .. a la Double Click fiasco. Have you ever heard of a company providing the feds with contest/survey data? They dont, or if they do, they have absolutely no choice. Thats not to say that companies dont fuck with your data - just pay attention, because the Blue Chips (Coke, Nike, etc) have been watching all the online privacy issues from the sidelines and are very cautious about what and how they deal with your data. A large company deals with exponentially more scrutiny with respect to their consumer data collection and management processes than your mom'n'pop or e-new.com businesses.

Or if you want to go with Big Brother conspiracy theories, then lets assume that the new and improved FBI/CIA is going to make a new Carnivore program that will analyze your viewing habits and flag you as a murderer, rapist, child molester, terrorist, etc..

Do you really think that collecting the viewing habits of users watching legal, mainstream television are going to help tip FBI/CIA off to trouble-makers. Its not like Bomb Making - A Guide to Anarchists is on every Wednesday at 7pm or something.

I really dont think aggregated viewing habits is data that is too sensitive to be collected. The only thing I'd be scared about is the media buys getting too granular, and having that turn advertisers off when their buys suffer from a low ROI (due to viewer burnout.) Then, they turn around and devalue the media, thus fueling the need for more advertising. Sometimes targetted advertising can suffer from tunnel-vision blindness.

Consequences of these devices

[Space Coyote]

The current slump in ad revenues combined with the spectre of TV watchers being able to skip ad has caused some TV show producers to write ads into the actual contents of the show. There was a story on CNN about this yesterday, in which they showed a scene from "Felicity" with dialog as follows "Hey, I just got a new computer" "Oh, is it one of those new iMacs? Those things are so beautiful".

Another example is on the Rosie O'Donnel show she recently shilled for Wendy's new salads, saying how great they were. I wasn't watching, but apparently while she was talking her producer said "Take a bite", "What?" "Just do it."

Another good example is the TV morning "news" shows on the day Coke launched Vanilla Coke. The Daily Show did a wonderful send up of this. "The Today show host then informed the Coco-Cola spokeswoman that it was time to go to a commercial break, at which point she just allowed her to continue speaking."

I can picture this getting a whole lot worse, as it's the enw hot trent in advertising. I've basically stopped watching TV altogether except for the Simpsons anyway.

firewalls?

[gerardrj]

Okay, so even if this monitoring does in the end become a fact of life (there are higher courts), what will prevent some clever hackers from making up a firewall for these Replay systems?

With a network probe or phone-line tap you could easily reverse engineer the protocols used to transmit this data.

You get a small box with a low-powered CPU, 2 network cards and modem interfaces and plug the Replay in to the "safe" side ports, and plug the others in to the wall.

Whenever the replay goes to send viewing data to SonicBlue, the fierwall changes all the data. It could either be random data or you could tell them you watched the NASA TV all day every day.

ObHeinlein

[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"