Slashdot Mirror
ReplayTV DVR to Remove Features
KarlTheGhoul writes "D&M Holdings Inc. on Tuesday said its new ReplayTV digital television recorder will not include controversial features such as automatically skipping commercials and sharing shows via the Internet." This is a confirmation of our earlier story. Their new ad slogan will be "Costs More, Less Useful".
Doesn't automagically skip comercials doesn't mean you can't do a 15/30 second skip or jump forward. Just means that the box won't have the current feature which autodetects and skips commercials. Obviously, a compromise solution, but not earthshattering or skybreaking.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
The reason that peope have largely lashed back at Big Music is because there is a clear alternative which applies not just to consumers' sense of moral wrongitude, but their pocketbooks: Kazaa, Gnutella, or what-have-you. Until people see the alternative that they aren't supposed to know about, just the abstracted idea of not being able to do something that the technology does allow isn't going to catch the public's attention much.
Look at how people seem to feel about Big Music. Reading that ABC News article about the RIT student who settled with the RIAA by paying them $12,000, I was truly surprised at how openly critical of the RIAA the article seemed to be, at least, for another member of Big Media, so to speak. It's not that there's a whole open political movement, but rather that so many people, including, most likely, the ABC News correspondent, simply share music files and the RIAA has made anyone who shares files their enemy, quite publicly. They made the consumers the enemy, not the other way around.
So why will there be no immediate lash back at Big Media for restricting things like the TiVo? Because whats the illegal alternative? What free software are people going to download onto their box-top sets out of self-interest which will essentially make them unwitting enemies of Big Media? There is none; short of complicated and risky hardware-hacking, people won't be exposed to what they are missing.
If one TiVo-type product is available in the store with ad-skipping, and the other without, sure, there'll be a preference. But if people are never presented with the option? Then there will be no complaints. Just don't let them see what they're missing and no one is the wiser.
Rather, critics are bothered by the impact that a totally seperate industry can have on what sort of consumer electronics are even available to us with what capabilities. Were the TV networks to dislike this, they could force contractual agreements with consumers banning the use of these devices (purely hypothetically, of course). But instead they choose a less direct means of asserting their power, which translates to a means of, from a really sinister viewpoint, pacifying the natives.
Rather than openly tell us who's decision it was, the networks use threats and bribes to induce the hardware manufacturers into denying consumers an otherwise profitable and desirable product. This echos far too similarly to the practice of the RIAA of suing the pants off anyone who manufactures software or hardware that appears to threaten them ("Hey, baby, you don't need to sue me to get my pants off...") regardless of significant legitimate use.
This direction-through-indirection is merely annoying at best, but really a terrifying over-stepping of commercial bounds at worst. The government, who supposedly represents us all, is entrusted with the rights to deny us harmful or dangerous products. We trust that such an action is in our best interest, and that the reasons for such an action are the reasons stated up front--no underhanded manipulation is ever acceptible in a democracy--but we have given no such trust to any corporation. When a corporation who's business is televised entertainment, no less, makes for us a decision on what hardware is good and what is bad, it oversteps its commercial bounds.