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.)"
I can't wait for the TV movie adaptation of this trial. Hopefully they'll get Tom Cruise to play Craig Newmark
Someone needs to setup a donation account somewhere so we can donate in Craig's cause.
I know I'd donate. I value my rights enough to drop 50 bucks on it.
Get paid to code OSS
Just wonderful.
I don't understand what grounds the plaintiff's are suing on. The article wasn't specific. Is it a countersuit based on Hollywood's suit or ReplayTV?
Rather than wasting timewatching boring ads, I'd rather see companies pay to have actual products placed on sets in television shows. It could even add to the realism. Let's face it, do you have cans of Coke or Pepsi at home (or strewn around the house!). The answer is "bloody likely".
Superimposed ads are far less likely, as this would probably cause a firestorm of protest from annoyed viewers.
I am the evil aardvark!
being a Tivo user and not using the 30 second skip, but using the fast forward I will stop and watch commercials that I am interested in. I will skip the ones that I am not interested in or that completely annoy me.
Maybe this will be a much better way to target advertising and maybe get some of the really crappy commercials of the TV.
If a commercial is something I want see I will watch it. With my Tivo I don't have to have things basted at me repetitively. I will see a commercial once or twice as I feel is needed. If it is something I want I will look into it more. Much better for the advertiser because otherwise I would just get annoyed with the constant bombardment of advertising until I don't want anything to do with there products or services.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Actually, they don't seem to mind this as much as you think. Most of the networks try to run commercials around the same time as each other, so when you surf, you're actually increasing your exposure to commercials, by catching little bits of multiple commercials as you flip by. Most commercials are very cleverly designed to be still effective if you only see a brief flash (or if it's viewed on fast-forward, which was their answer to the VCR).
This is, of course, the advertisers' opinion. They assume their commercials will be surfed into as much as surfed out of. The networks themselves really don't give a damn, because somebody channel surfing through commercials still records that they watched the show on their ratings card, so they still get to charge the advertisers for the spot.
Money I owe, money-iy-ay
I was just wondering, but how is it that TiVO seems not to acquire the wrath of the MPAA and television studios?
They have a fast forward feature, but unlike ReplayTV, they don't have an instant 30 second skip button. Does that make all the difference?
The parent post gets at one of my only complaints about DVDs. Most I've seen do not let you skip the intro clips and FBI warnings. One even had previews I couldn't skip! If I paid for a DVD, I expect to be able to skip tracks. There's no good reason to lock out my remote control--ever.
The problem lies with using vague wording like "a certain amount," and it is for that reason that a proactive lawsuit is necessary to define exactly how long is too long. The downside is that if the networks win, they may even be able to show a breach of contract and be awarded damages for each minute you're gone. Could provisions be made for people who are actually ill? Only in a court of law can the fine points of contracts really be resolved.
Add that's the real danger of using contracts for this type of relationship. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find my copy to check the specifics, but I suggest you all re-read the relevent sections. I wonder if I can request a copy from Turner?
-Hope
So, if the TV giants win, could this apply to pop-up ads? I mean, if i go to a website that supports itself with ads, and I have a program (or setting) that prevents me from seeing them, would that be against the law?
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.
Perhaps they are really afraid that advertisers will discover that the networks have been selling them something that they don't actually own and therefore cannot legally sell.
Edith Keeler Must Die
That spying attempt is going to go down in history as one of the dumbest moves in the history of customer relations.
Looking at it another way, if the commercial is for something I'm simply genetically not going to buy, say any of the vividly advertised female products while I'm male, am I contractually obligated to buy the product? If I'm not going to buy it, am I obligated to watch the commercial, and how is the sponsor harmed if I don't?
Sponsors advertise because many people will watch the commercials. Heck, I've rewound a fast forwarded VHS tape many times when I noted that the commercial was something of interest. And some of those watchers will buy the product. But there is no obligation to do either, buy the product or watch the commercial. And calling those of us who go to the bathroom, grab a snack, or otherwise don't watch a commercial "thieves" is the real crime.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I've been writing to broadcasters for years, asking them to offer the option of no-commercial television. With cable, it can be done. With digital TV it can be done. Broadcast a 30 minute TV show (giving me 8 minutes more on average of actual TV show material). If I pay for my portion of the show, they know I am watching, and they are getting paid directly. For those who don't pay, digitally squeeze the 30 minutes into 22 minutes (speeding up the show a bit, but most people wouldn't notice) and insert said commercials.
I watch HBO TV shows for the simple fact that I pay for them, and there are no commercials. I would say screw public television in general, if not for my Tivo.
The few shows on broadcast TV that I do watch, I would GLADLY pay for. I'd pay $1 a month to watch King of the Hill, even $2 a month if it meant keeping it alive. I'd pay $1 a month for the Simpsons, maybe even $3.
Would everyone pay? Probably not. But you're paying for TV already in higher costs of goods sold. And if you don't watch TV, you're still paying.
What good is that?
If everyone decides to skip the commercials, then the audience ends up paying everything
I think that would be just fine as long as I decide which networks I pay and which ones I don't.
I never asked ABC/CBS/NBC/etc. to broadcast their crap into the sky... but I am more than willing to pay HBO for their content (which has never included advertising).
I'm one of the plaintiffs in the suit. There is some risk for us and some inconvenience, but it's minor compared to the scale of the outcome if we win or if the "entertainment oligopoly" (as defined in the suit) backs down. I mean, I'm not a thief. I don't like being called a thief. And I'm willing to stand up to the bullies who are trying to take away a combination of constitutional and statutory rights and privileges. Copyright is a grant in the public interest; fair use allows a lot of leeway in individual private use of copyrighted materials.
Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others
then I go a concert and get a 'program', that program has a lot of ads for sponsors. Especially 'programs' like Playbill magazine that you get at classical concerts, broadway shows, etc. Is there an implicit contract that says I will read those ads?
The important thing in all of these situations is ad exposure. Anyone who is buying advertising, anywhere, must hope that they will be exposed to enough people in order to offset the cost of the advertisment. The people selling the advertising space are hoping that they will get enough sales so that they can provide the product to the consumer at a lower cost (and hopefully increasing the number of consumers and increasing the amount of exposure...)
So when you buy Time magazine, you are being exposed to the advertisments, and in exchange, Time is providing you with a product at a lower cost. It really doesn't matter if you personally are personally attracted by the ads, because even a 1% success rate should be enough to pay for the cost of the ad (especially with a readership like Time).
The same thing happens with TV - you are given free television, in exchange for exposure to some number of advertisments. Once again, it doesn't matter if you get up and eat a snack during the commercial, because with a big enough viewership, even 1% success rate would enough additional revenue to make the ad pay.
So say that today, 40% of all people watching a given show end up watching at least 3 commercials during a 30 minute span (the others are off doing something else). So, say during a show lke ER (assuming 10 million viewers), that would be 4,000,000 people watching an ad, and assuming a 1% success rate, each ad would generate 40,000 sales (my numbers might be wrong, but I'm a geek, dammit, not a marketer).
So then, move forward 5 years, when (almost) everyone has a Tivo / ReplayTV unit. Now, the networks would be able to only assume a 10% watch rate during the commercials, which would only be 1,000,000 people. Still alot, but they are now only generating 10,000 sales per viewing. Now eventually, the number of people watching would drop low enough that advertising would become unprofitable, and free TV would cease to exist.
Thus the idiotic quotes from our friends at Fox. Will they see a decrease in advertising revenue? Yes. Is it stealing? No.
If they really cared, they would research new ways to generate revenue, instead it is much eaiser to bitch and complain to the government that technology is hurting them, than it is to attempt to generate new revenue models.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
Ok first of all in many states verbal contracts are only binding if the value of service rendered is under 500 dollars. My cable costs me about 600 a year so I would be excluded from this.
Secondly their is the hude regulatory issue. The airwaves are the publics, and the rights given to the channel coportations are contracted very specifically with the FCC.
I mod down any one who says "I'm sure I will get modded down for this"
Techtronics have a pretty awful reputation, unfortunately. Amazed they're still around, actually...
There's lots of other companies in the UK (and elsewhere) that will mod for you if you look.