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.)"
Is that anything like Joe vs. the Volcano?
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
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.
Just wonderful.
i think it is just like skipping stones, it just requires more arm strength.
"I don't need a compass to tell me which way the wind shines." - Mr. Furious, Mystery Men
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's possible to pre-emptively sue (at least in the US, which is where this is all occurring) to ask the courts decide if your actions are legal or not. The idea is to prevent the "chilling effect" of not knowing and being subject to the threat of a lawsuit based on actions that may in fact be legal.
If the courts don't think you have a case, or they think that there's no chilling effect occurring, they'll throw out your suit. If there is legitimate question as to the legality, and legitimate value in deciding early, they'll hear it.
Felten and the EFF tried this a while ago against the DMCA, but the courts dismissed it.
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 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?
I sure hope not.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Yea and it would really screw up the tribial persuit game.
Question: What brand of cola was on the table during the 3rd episode of _Third Rock From the Sun_?
A. Coke
B. Pepsi
C. Root Beer
D. Depends on witch one payed more money this time
E. All of the above
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
So we're talking about something that means that no matter how clever, relevant, and eye-catching an ad is, the user still won't stop and rewind to check it out since they didn't even receive the briefest of notification.
Anyway, this issue may or may not affect your opinion on the ReplayTV unit's acceptability, but it's worth keeping in mind as to why people are singling out this unit. (There's also the other controversial feature of built-in capability to share files, which the networks aren't happy about, either.)
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
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
I say 'A'... no, 'B'......aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
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?
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
Skipping the commercials is theft?
I guess if they can FORCE us to watch their commercials, then they don't have to be bothered with developing better, more captivating ways to get people to WANT to watch their commercials, and ultimately buy their products. Why don't they just skip the millions they spend in post-production of the commercials, and show a simple white background, with a huge black font, and static text like:
BUY CELINE DION CDS
for 30 seconds. I mean, if they can FORCE you to watch it, why spend all that extra dough trying to make WANT to watch it?
I can just hear it now:
"You veel vatch dees commercials, and LIKE THEM!"
"You veel go out and buy de Celine Dion CDs!"
I guess they're logic is: "We made a commercial, so if you don't like it enough to watch it, something must be wrong with you."
I thought the whole idea of advertising was to make the product look appealing, so that people want to buy it. If people dont want to watch your commercial, then something's wrong with the commercial, not the people watching it. That's why I like websites like adcritic.com. you can (could) go there and watch the really creative, entertaining, and captivating commercials.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
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
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
That spying attempt is going to go down in history as one of the dumbest moves in the history of customer relations.
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.
By watching TV you are entering into a Hobbesian contract.
Excellent use of obscure terminology. The phrase Hobbesian contract makes you appear smart, because most readers don't know what a Hobbesian contract is. (Namely, an agreement to obey an authority as long as said authority does its duty.)
They agree to show a show, you agree to watch the commercials. It's a concept as old as the Magna Carta.
Citing historical documents. Excellent.
I can't wait until these self-delusional pirates are given the smackdown by a clueful judge.
Here's where you lose me. A skilled troll would have omitted this sentence, or at least softened the wording a bit. Referring to people who want to skip commercials (at last count, almost everyone) as "self-delusional pirates" is an obvious attempt at ruffling feathers.
One other note: you probably should have written a few paragraphs and explained your ridiculous opinion in more detail. It's far more effective to progressively piss people off than hit them with one insult four sentences into your post.
Final Grade: C
Keep at it. You'll get there eventually.
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?
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.
None of the above!
It's a dessert topping!
No, a floor wax!
No, a dessert topping!
Floor wax!
It might get this bad.
Ever notice that movies have FBI warnings at the beginning? Those warnings are a big clue that we're not supposed to copy movies and send them around. TV lacks these warnings, though. We have no reason to believe that there's anything illegal about capturing a show with Replay, for example, and sending it over a network to another user. You'd think at the very least they'd explicitly deny that, but they don't. They don't deny *anything* with TV.
It is for this reason that I am extremely unhappy with the statement that the CEO Turner made about 'implied contracts'. It almost feels like entrapment. "We'll bombard ppl with commercials until they develop technology to circumvent them, then we'll sue them, then we can exercise even MORE power to cram more ads in there." Yah, I know that sounds ridiculous. I'm just expressing how this whole thing strikes me.
"Derp de derp."
Let's space shift and put the commercials in the bathroom. Just have a little flat screen and a speaker next to the toilet with a motion sensor, and then whatever commercials are associated with the programming you watch start scrolling when you enter the room. Put a pressure sensor on the toilet seat, and appropriately themed adverts could play as you sit down. Get one of those fancy Japanese toilets that perform instant stool analysis, feed that back to the sponsors to help them determine your medical and dietary needs and vices, and get hours of special bonus viewing! Install a proctoscope and get even more!
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
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!
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.
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"
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)