Slashdot Mirror
ReplayTV Users Sue Hollywood
Seth Schoen writes "A group of ReplayTV 4000 users, led by Craigslist creator Craig Newmark, today sued a group of entertainment companies to establish
that plaintiffs' use of the ReplayTV (including skipping
commercials) is not illegal. The defendants are the same entertainment companies which
have sued ReplayTV. Here the end users of the product
are getting involved to defend the legitimacy of their
activity in the face of allegations that skipping commercials is "theft". The plaintiffs are represented by Ira
Rothken and EFF. The case
is Newmark
v. Turner, in the Central District of California (at Los Angeles).
(Some people are calling it
Craig
v. Hollywood.)"
So, now every time I go to the fridge to get a snack during commercials, I'm a thief? Or the thousands who tape their favorite shows and then hit the Commercial Skip button on the VCR remote? Give me a break. Hollywood needs to grow up.
Real software engineers regret the existence of COBOL, FORTRAN and BASIC.
Funny... I don't ever recall signing any contracts. What about the people that channel surf during commercials? Are they stealing programming too?
If the plaintiffs win or lose, some good could come out of this suit.
WIN: Reinforces a person's right to use their own technology as they see fit, within the bounds of the law. Skipping commercials is NOT a copyright violation.
LOSS: Gets an admission from the governments and the courts that "You have no rights to the media that you see or own. The owner can dictate terms even after it has left their control." If we get an admission like that, it could be used as a rallying cry to get nontechnical folks concerned about the issue.
http://slashdot.org/faq/slashmeta.shtml#sm1100
These people - the Hollywood content industry - well, idiotic doesn't begin to describe them.
What are they going to do next? Lock the doors at the movie theater during the opening previews and commercials? Make you pay extra is you come in late and thus skip that crap?
And what about fastforwarding through the previews and commercials on videos and DVDs? Are they going to try and put anti-fast-forwarding technology in them?
"You have fast forwarded this tape illegally. Your VCR/CD/DVD will self-destruct in 5 seconds. Thank you!"
Oh shit, and what about flipping radio stations during the annoying 5 minutes of commercials they have at ten minutes to the hour, every hour? Are they going to put a special no-station-changing feature in the radio that's activated during that time?
Oh well. Even if they do I'm sure someone will figure out a way to circumvent it with a paperclip, or perhaps a magic marker. Sledgehammers probably work pretty well, too.
What a bunch of assholes.
Finally, real action by a recognized key-player in the space of online communities.
/. readers, and we WILL support you in these important acts.
Imagine if one of the key slashdot players joined with the EFF and sued the RIAA for a declaratory judgement that mp3 use was legal.
My goal in this post is not to pressure any slashdot hanchos, nor criticize anyone.
Simply this:
Please: Those of you in the community with name-recognition, use your influence for good causes other than running linux on an aibo. You have the ears of 100,000s of
Now - off to the eff to make a donation.
When an advertiser buys time on a network program, they're trying to "buy eyeballs". The networks charge a rate based on the ratings, which is a statistic of approximately how many people are watching.
However, it's not accurate as people get up, go to the bathroom, grab a snack, change the channel, etc, or if taping the show (which Nielsen accounts for) people fast forward through the commercials. The notion that you're required to watch the commercials is offensive and ridiculous.
Now I can see why the ability to skip commercials might be frightening to networks, but it's nothing new for the reasons I've described above. The worst that can happen is that there's no money to be made in traditional commercials, so advertisers are forced to pay for product placement. For example, instead of a 30 second add with a poorly written, poorly sung "Diet Coke" commercial, maybe Jennifer Aniston drinks a Diet Coke and talks about how much she loves it on Friends. You know.. this is how advertising is still done in places.
The big problem I have with Hollywood also is the notion that SonicBlue should be FORCED to collect usage statistics. It's nobody's business that I watched Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Playoffs (go Red Wings) unless I want it to be, meaning I agree to fill out one of those stupid Nielsen books or otherwise agree to be a Nielsen Household.
And this should be a lesson: When your current business model is out of date, CHANGE THE MODEL. Too often big corporations try to legislate profits rather then be innovative.
I sure hope not.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
more product placement.
How can you even bitch about product placement as a way for companies to make money? It's completely non-intrusive. Do you really get upset when you see someone on a sitcom drinking a Pepsi? I know you want 24 hours of great uninterrupted entertainment geared directly towards you, with no money being made by anyone and all, but give me a break...
Mark
My question is what copyright is being violated? The industry is upset that their revenue model is being circumvented by this product, but what EXACT copyright is bein violated and how? It's the same argument as "skipping commercials is theft". Am I a thief if I get up to go to the bathroom? Am I a thief if I fast forward through a commercial using a VCR? Hollywood is scared that they won't be able to make money the same way and they want the government to make laws to guarantee that revenue stream. No matter how they try to hide it by using phrases like theft and copyright violation, in the end that is their only argument: "We can't make money the same way if people use this product". That is not the government's place.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't
As far as I am aware, the parents lost all of these lawsuits. Courts held that government did in fact have the power to force (pre-voting) citizens to watch commericals.
sPh
No one wants ads (I don't)
No one wants to pay for programming (although we do anyway to some extent, cable, hbo, etc.)
No one wants adverts plugged in the background
and No one wants to pay for public tv
So where does that leave us? While I fundamentally agree that it is my choice to watch ads or not while at home, I also understand that economics and the free market play a role here. I cannot expect that someone is going to produce or air a TV show without getting anything in return for it. That's just not reasonable. Now if we don't want commercials, then we'd better start supporting our publicly funded media, because they're only ones who do that (and they're so underfunded they can't seem to get away from sponsors anyway). Otherwise, we're stuck with ads, because there is no other business model for media content except to sell ads (either in the program or between segments) or to sell the programming via subscription.
What further frustrates me, are the posts where people are declaring that these big media co's need to update their antiquated business model; To what, I ask? How should they update it? and where else are they going to get their revenue?
It's the same thing with the music industry. We like our nice sounding CD's and many people enjoy the big concerts and personalities developed and paid for by these entertainment co's, but everyone's complaining that they're trying to make a buck. Sheesh, people, do you realize how much it costs to pay the artists (who don't get enough from records anyway), make that nice sounding record, and put on a concert...
Now, I'm not saying that the media co's and their strong arm legal tatics don't reek of misconduct or that these companies don't need to adapt their methods for selling and capturing the marketplace somewhat, but I have to side with them in some ways because they are the ones getting that shaft at both ends financially (and don't give me that "they're so rich it doens't matter" crap, this is capitalism, not charity).
They have a right to be pissed that their ads are getting skipped, because what happens next is that advertisers start saying "well 30% of the viewers of your shows skipped our ad, so we want to 30% credit back" or in the future they force a cheaper rate. Which in turn impacts profits, which then forces the studio to limit what they make, thus impacting selection for the consumer. Or even worse, forcing production companies and studios out of business so that it then narrows who is producing content. Which as we all know would suck.
-s
Why on earth do you think you are paying $42 (or even $ zero) for your entertainment instead of $84? Because the entertainment companies thought that it is easier to get the money from advertisers than you. If everyone decides to skip the commercials, then the audience ends up paying everything. When the audience ends up paying everything, there will be less audience that wants to pay for everything, and when there is less audience to pay for everything, the cost will be higher, and as result there will be even less audience that wants to pay for everything, and as result the cost per individual will be higher, and there is even more who decide to not pay for everything, and as result...
Did you get the point yet? Even though commercials suck, their existance is a natural result.
I can bitch about producy placement because if that is the revenue model, the advertisers will completely control the show. TV is by an large for the basic common denominator right now. If it was funded in this way, there would be no controversial television. Advertisers sometimes cave to small groups of people protesting a show now, and their product is not directly linked to the show. If a show wants to do something controversial, do you think advertisers will let their products be in the show itself? If there is a domestic violence episode, will they allow the abuser to talk about how much he loves Pepsi? Not a chance in hell. The shows will no longer be controled by the networks and the creators, but by advertisers how will veto anything that is controversial.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Contract? What contract? I didn't sign any contract with anyone.... I never even SAW a contract. I think that if I were going to sign a contract that involved my telivision service I would certainly demand that I get ONLY the channels I want. And pay for nothing else. And I would demand that commercials be between the shows only so as not to mess up my continuity, and that no single commerical could exceed 20 seconds, and no block of comercials could exceed 3 minutes.
I would sign that contract.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Actually, the position if the xxAAs is legally indefensible.
They are basically calling YOU and ME thieves and saying that WE, by the very act of buying their products, can't be trusted to own them. (Okay, I don't own a TV and I don't go to movies, but its the principle of the thing.)
Basically, somebody woke the fuck up and said "I am NOT a thief and you can't get away with calling me one."
And Jack Valenti and Hillary Rosen CAN'T. They DESERVE to get SUED by everybody who'se intelligence they insulted.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Makes no difference, really. In a jury trial, the jurors would apply the applicable law -- the content of which is the more important aspect of this case -- to the facts of the dispute as they find them. The lawyers on either side still would compile, and the judge would approve, the charge given to jurors before deliberation, with the backstop that the judge could ignore a verdict that clearly is not accordance with that law. (In fact, most of the relevant facts may be established in other litigation, i.e., the suit by the content makers against Replay, without the need for independent findings here). Better to hope for a smart and tech-savvy judge than to wish for a jury.
Just because you (and they) can't think of a business model to supplant their current one doesn't mean that the need to do so does not exist. The same difficulty has been present with every technological change in business history. Adapt or die has been the rule through history, and it is no less valid now.
First, lets start with the fact that the underlying mechanism for determining viewership / advertising returns is flawed. The quasi statistical calculation that says, "here is how many people will be watching your commercial during program X" is less and less valid in the age of many channels and channel surfing, etc. Second, something like 50 or 60 percent of those watching aren't the target of the advertiser in the first place.
Second, the advertisers are paying for their ad space based on those ephemeral numbers of viewers. And those numbers are provided (indirectly) by the content providers (via shams like the nielsons, etc.). I, as a viewer, am not at all obligated to make the effort to support their flawed business assumptions.
Third, if they REALLY wanted me to watch their advertisements, they would produce advertisements that didn't have to evolve for 2 million years just to improve to the level of mind-numbingly stupid. I am not obligated to make myself physically ill in order to support their flawed business model.
All that said, there are two ways (off the top of my head) that the providers can change their models to improve the current situtation. First is that they can take advantage of the ability for the viewer to set preferences in the PVR's (and the like) and use those preferences to target advertisements that, even if still stupider than a member of congress, would at least have the value of being of passing interest to the viewer.
Second, they could embrace some form of the subscription plan. Channels like HBO and Showtime (as an example) manage to produce some seriously fine programming, both because they don't depend on advertising, and also because they aren't subject to the advertisers whims concerning content, etc.
And they don't have a right to be pissed about ads being skipped, anymore than buggy whip manufacturers had a right to be pissed at the automobile (to use an oft repeated analogy).
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
I think this is doubleplus ungood. The networks have a contract to provide 'eyeballs' at a certain rate (based on Neilson ratings which is why they have sweeps week - to increase the number of people watching at specific times so their ad revenues are increased. VERY basicly dishonest, as the numbers of people tuning in for some extra-exciting episode or special event is not representetive of the numbers at other times.), and the TIVO/RePlay PVRs undercut their bargaining position. Instead of estimating that 35% of the estimated number of viewers will get up to use the head, raid the refridgerator, nail teh old lady, or surf the net, they now have to add that another 40% will likely 'comercial skip' (note that the numbers were pulled out of my ... uh .. ear and have no relation to reality!), thereby reducing the amount the networks can charge for air time. Yes, not watching the comercials is theft - the NETWORKS are taking unearned money by not delivering TO THE ADVERTISERS what they (the networks) contracted to deliver - eye balls in contracted numbers.
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
So, I'm a thief no matter what I do. Worse yet, I'm a thief even if I don't do anything. Nughty me for breathing their air! Next thing you know, it will be illegal to own a TV with an off switch. (que Mac Headroom)
...because using advertising to fund TV is massively inefficient. Why waste the lives of talented creative people producing what most consider to be an irritation and they themselves claim does not induce anyone to buy anything? Those people could be doing something better (and I'll defend the moral absolutism if anyone wants me to. Starving babies.). Why not collect a smaller amount of money and have a few channels of quality programming with no breaks for our sponsors? And no product placement insulting our intelligence.
Maybe the average attention span might go up. Maybe our kids might grow up without turning into materialist consumer drones. Maybe it's actually immoral to try and influence someone's thought processes in the way advertisers do.
When I watch pay satellite channels like Sky I am amazed that anyone puts up with these constant rude interruptions. Know how long an episode of 24 really is? about 43 minutes. Friends? Those overpaid bloaters do about 17 minutes work per show.
I say to hell with all advertisers. Let them wither on the vine, one day we'll find away to edit out product placement, and dynamically overdub scipts. We'll killfile their brands because most of us would rather make our own minds up. And what we'll find is that without these scumbags our media will get a lot cheaper.
JK
How can you even bitch about product placement as a way for companies to make money? It's completely non-intrusive. Do you really get upset when you see someone on a sitcom drinking a Pepsi?
It only works with certain kinds of products, you can't really do any kind of "local add". It only works with contempoary drama, fans will spot an anachranism PDQ. You are in serious trouble if the product ceases to exist, gets renamed or the supplier goes the way of Pan Am or Enron.
Social contracts are quasi binding. If you live in a neighborhood that has a public standards commitee, you may have a binding contract without signature, or word of mouth, that may easily exceed $500. For example if the public standards commitee decrees that houses on the block may not be painted white, with black trim, and you subsequently move in, and repaint the house white with black trim, the social contract you live in that neighborhood under may require that you either re-paint the house, or have the house re-painted.
The cost may easily exceed $500 to you, but may be offset by increasing the value of the adjoining properties in the neighborhood by virtue of the house being in agreement with local paint standards.
This is not the only type of social contract you participate in. Open air concerts generally do not hire squadrons of armed security personel to gaurd the perimiter, however the vast majority of people do purchase tickets and attend by passing through the gates with a valid ticket. This is a social contract with a written contract on top of it. (tickets being considered written contractual material.)
There are several other social contracts that you comply with, for example you and your co-workers may have an agreement to dress in some group co-ordinated style, where the office clothing code does not specify more than buisness attire, shirt and tie with jacket for meetings for men, business dress for women, casual fridays. Casual fridays in most businesses does not mean t-shirt and cut-offs, but may be interpreted as anything from a flanel or polo shirt with clean un-torn jeans, up to dockers, turtleneck and daily business shoes. How you interpret it is part of the social contract you have with your co-workers.
Another way to look at that cable contract is that it is a monthly re-curring contract for $50 a month. It also may not be entirely a verbal contract in that when you signed off on the installer's completion paperwork, you may also have signed a contract for the service to be rendered. This contract (as with your credit cards) may be ammended by an insert in your monthly bill.
Part of this contract idea that broadcasters have (which I am not entirely in agreement with) is that if you get up during a comercial break, to get snacks, or relieve yourself, the possibility exists that you will return to the program some time after the comercials have ended. Without a rewind capability, or pause option, you stand to loose as much the entertainment value of the show, as the advertizer believes they have lost in walk-aways. PVR's change that.
-Rusty
You never know...
Social contracts are quasi binding. If you live in a neighborhood that has a public standards commitee, you may have a binding contract without signature, or word of mouth, that may easily exceed $500. For example if the public standards commitee decrees that houses on the block may not be painted white, with black trim, and you subsequently move in, and repaint the house white with black trim, the social contract you live in that neighborhood under may require that you either re-paint the house, or have the house re-painted.
They can ask me to repaint the house, but they have no legal authority to force me to. At least in the UK, I can paint my house any colour I like provided (a) I actually own it and (b) it's not "listed" (of historical significance).
This is not the only type of social contract you participate in. Open air concerts generally do not hire squadrons of armed security personel to gaurd the perimiter, however the vast majority of people do purchase tickets and attend by passing through the gates with a valid ticket. This is a social contract with a written contract on top of it. (tickets being considered written contractual material.)
This is different. There is a (legally enforcable) rule that to gain admission to the concert you need a ticket - the concert venue is considered private property (even if only for the course of the show). Provided the perimeter is clear (i.e. so you know whether you are in a ticketed area or not) you are breaking the rules by entering that area without a ticket. It doesn't matter whether they actually physically try to stop you or not. They would be perfectly within their rights to throw you out. There's no "social contract" here, it's just trespassing.
There are several other social contracts that you comply with, for example you and your co-workers may have an agreement to dress in some group co-ordinated style, where the office clothing code does not specify more than buisness attire, shirt and tie with jacket for meetings for men, business dress for women, casual fridays. Casual fridays in most businesses does not mean t-shirt and cut-offs, but may be interpreted as anything from a flanel or polo shirt with clean un-torn jeans, up to dockers, turtleneck and daily business shoes. How you interpret it is part of the social contract you have with your co-workers.
No, how I interpret it is up to the rules laid down by my employer, in my contract of employment, which I signed, and by which I am bound.
Another way to look at that cable contract is that it is a monthly re-curring contract for $50 a month. It also may not be entirely a verbal contract in that when you signed off on the installer's completion paperwork, you may also have signed a contract for the service to be rendered. This contract (as with your credit cards) may be ammended by an insert in your monthly bill.
You certainly do have a contract with the cable company, I don't understand why people think you don't. If you didn't - they could stop providing, or you could just stop paying them. Neither of these are acceptable and could result in legal action.
Part of this contract idea that broadcasters have (which I am not entirely in agreement with) is that if you get up during a comercial break, to get snacks, or relieve yourself, the possibility exists that you will return to the program some time after the comercials have ended. Without a rewind capability, or pause option, you stand to loose as much the entertainment value of the show, as the advertizer believes they have lost in walk-aways. PVR's change that.
But here's the rub. My contract is not with the program producer, but with the company who run the distribution mechanism. They in turn have a contract with the networks. My contract is to get the content provided by network XYZ into my home via cable owned by ABC, it says nothing whatsoever about compensation to XYZ for that service. I pay ABC, they pay XYZ. If XYZ chooses to get more cash by selling ad space that's their right. If I choose to watch/not watch those ads (or indeed any other part of their programming) that's my choice.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"