Slashdot Mirror


Multiple ReplayTV Lawsuits Dismissed

bluephone writes "News.com.com.com.com... has article about a federal judge dismissing lawsuits brought by 5 users and the EFF over fears of being sued by media corporations. U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper stated the suits were moot since media companies agreed not to sue users in August 2003. She also pointed out that the suit brought by media companies against ReplayTV has been dismissed as well."

24 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. This just in... by NightSpots · · Score: 5, Funny

    Small consumers powerless against large corporations. Film at 11.

    1. Re:This just in... by dschuetz · · Score: 5, Informative

      not quite. if the studios ever threaten again, we have this case to point to as precedence.

      Not quite. I haven't R'd the FA yet, but I'm betting the cases were dismissed because the plantiffs "Lacked Standing." That's a legal term for "nobody's done anything wrong to you, so get out of my courtroom."

      It's one of the more frustrating aspects of our legal system (to me, anyway) -- the inability to pre-emptively decide issues. Instead, you have to wait until you're actually *sued* for something, and then, if the plantiff drops the suit, you may have to go through it all again in the future the next time they decide to rattle your chain.

      (Just like the RIAA and watermarking paper).

      Now I'll go read the article to see just how wrong I am....

    2. Re:This just in... by jonblaze · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not quite. I haven't R'd the FA yet, but I'm betting the cases were dismissed because the plantiffs "Lacked Standing." That's a legal term for "nobody's done anything wrong to you, so get out of my courtroom."

      I'll add another "not quite." Although mootness is sometimes thought of as the requirement that the plaintiff maintain standing throughtout the course of the litigation, mootness really goes to whether the court's resolution of the claim in the plaintiff's favor will provide effective relief. Because the copyright owners have entered into a covenant not to sue, a declaratory judgment in the plaintiffs' favor does nothing.

      It's one of the more frustrating aspects of our legal system (to me, anyway) -- the inability to pre-emptively decide issues. Instead, you have to wait until you're actually *sued* for something, and then, if the plantiff drops the suit, you may have to go through it all again in the future the next time they decide to rattle your chain.

      And another "not quite." In the criminal context, under Steffel v. Thompson, if there is no state prosecution pending against you, you may always seek a declaration in federal court that one would be unconstitutional if so brought. But, the plaintiff must demonstrate that there is a "genuine threat of enforcement." I'm pretty sure that declaratory judgments are also available in the civil context as the court did not question the propriety of declaratory relief but rather the procedural requirement of (lack of) mootness.

  2. Because we can... by pvt_medic · · Score: 2, Funny

    trust them that they will follow what they say. I can remember just not to long ago the US Treasury going back on its word. So I fully embrace this because I trust Big Corporate America.

    --
    30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
    Score:5, Troll
  3. Yeah, sure. by ActionPlant · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So what's to prevent those lawsuits from happening down the road over a slightly different issue?

    Moot. Right. I never thought I'd hear that in our [lawsuit] trigger-happy society.

    Damon,

    --
    http://actionPlant.com
    1. Re:Yeah, sure. by enrico_suave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess it's "moot" because they (ReplayTV) removed the features in newer models of ReplayTV that scared the MPAA/etc...

      i.e. IIRC ReplayTV jewer units no longer lets you get content from other replayTV costumers/units over the net. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about that. It *was* a very cool feature, it's a shame that it's not in the newer models.

      FWIW (surprise) I'd rather build my own and have full control over what I can and can't do with my content -- until broadcast flags/other DRM creeps in further.

      --
      Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
  4. It's moot. But it will come back. by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's probably the correct decision. It's a case brought by owners of a dead product produced by a defunct company against a third party unlikely to sue them. But it will come back when low-cost PVRs that don't require a subscription service start appearing from China.

    1. Re:It's moot. But it will come back. by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Informative

      Replay's dead? Then how come they still charge me $10 a month for a service they are still actively providing?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:It's moot. But it will come back. by JamieF · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh yay. I can't wait for the day when my PVR channel guide is kept up to date by the same sort of company that prints documentation on a photocopier and deliberately omits their company name, contact info, and even product model number so you can't actually go to them for support. Excellent.

      I've worked at a PVR company on channel guide functionality, and it's not easy. The amount of data for every single show broadcast on every head end in the US is actually fairly large, and obviously it gets updated a lot. I don't think that an open source approach to maintaining a feed of channel guide data will work until / unless PVRs get a LOT more market penetration. (The data becomes obsolete very quickly, and has to be constantly refreshed, unlike software that you just keep building on.) That's why, for the next few years, somebody is going to have to get paid to provide the channel guide info. That might be your cable or satellite provider, though. A good way to get free channel guide info might be to hack your cable or satellite box, or maybe to just create a gadget that reads it right off the cable TV signal.

    3. Re:It's moot. But it will come back. by Beebos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Replay is not dead. Replay was bought by a Japanese company that also owns Denon.

      I have a couple Replays and the service has continued uninterupted. They are still making and selling Replays.

      In short, Replay is not dead.

    4. Re:It's moot. But it will come back. by radish · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is a succesful project (XMLTV?) which gets listings data by parsing various public web sites (such as provided by the networks themselves). It's used by MythTV etc. I do however have reservations about using such a system - I can't believe the data quality is as good as (say) Tivo, and it seems a bit of a liberty. The web site providers will get hit for bandwidth as people use it more.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  5. Article Summary by GoodNicsTken · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Hollywood firms equate skipping commercials to stealing TV 2. Sue Sonic Blue into Bankrupcy 3. Sonic Blue is forced to sell of the business unit 4. New company disables the features 5. Hollywood drops suit so they can use the same tatic against the next firm that dares give consumers fair use rights over content they have paid for. 6. .... (Any Manufactures in China want to step up? )

  6. No real problem by CelticWhisper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OK, if I read right, the article stated that there were no grounds for the suit because the entertainment studios had pledged not to sue over commercial skipping and sharing, and have so far upheld their promise.

    So it seems to me that no real harm has been done here, despite the knee-jerk reaction to view any EFF endeavours being shot down as a bad thing.

    At least it's good to see that the studios have actually been behaving themselves. And honestly, is the commercial-skipping and file-sharing going to hurt them all that much? So far I get the impression that ReplayTV/TiVo/insert-DVR-of-choice-here is still something of a niche market. At least far more so than PCs, which are far more "dangerous" in terms of piracy, now are.

    --
    Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
    http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    1. Re:No real problem by GoodNicsTken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You would consider the fact that a product which enabled fair use, which consnumers loved was sued into bankruptcy/submission a problem?

      Not only that, but the declaritory ruling the EFF was seeking would have clarifyied the entertainment industry's right to do this again. Since it was dismissed, they are free to sue the next one and do this again. Yea, I agree, no harm done here. !?!

  7. Re:News.com.com.com.com... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That, coming from somebody on h tee tee pee colon slash slash slash dot dot org?

  8. features restored by mikeee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The real question is, does this mean we get the commercial skip and internet transfer features enabled on the 5xxx (and/or any new) series boxes from Replay, and not just the older 4xxx like I have?

    1. Re:features restored by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The 50xx (I have a 5060) still have commercial skip and internet transfer. The 55xx (the current models) don't have it, and probably never will. The lawsuit of the Hollywood studios was dismissed partly because Replay/dnna agreed to drop these features. This lawsuit affects RePlay users who were suing the studios.

  9. Fast Forward isn't illegal, just Auto Fast Forward by Mal+Reynolds · · Score: 4, Informative

    All new Replay units still have the commercial skip functionality. The only difference is that a very tiny bit of user input is now required to access the feature.
    The old version used to work auto-magically skipping all the commercials with no user input.
    The new version does exactly the same thing, only it requires the user to push a button at the start of every commercial break. Not every commercial mind you, just every 2 to 5+ minute commercial segment. And just one button...
    But that one button is enough to make it the previously-automagic feature a "manual" function. And I suppose no one in the entertainment industry thinks such a feature is worth litigating. After all, it's really nothing more than a FFF (fantastic fast forward). Remember, Replay units never deleted commercials, they just made insert points and skipped them in the video stream, you could always go back and watch them if you liked.
    Since the new version is little more than a manual FFF, I gather the entertainment industry would have very hard time trying to prove in court that the all-too-similar Fast Forward on VCR's has been illegal all this time.

  10. Re:Fast Forward isn't illegal, just Auto Fast Forw by Buran · · Score: 4, Informative

    TiVo has 30-second skip as well, though it's an "easter egg" that requires a sequence of button pushes that isn't in the official docs anywhere. It also disables itself whenever the unit upgrades its OS. Mine did this last week but the 30-sec skip re-enabled with no trouble (once I punched it in right, anyway!).

    According to at least one TV exec, I'm stealing by doing this because I don't see their ads ...

  11. DVArchive? by joeytsai · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you own a ReplayTV, you know the killer feature for it is DVArchive. (sourceforge site)

    However, I'm rather concerned about it. The website, although hosted on sourceforge offers no source code and repeated attempts to contact the author have been ignored. He's allegedly planning a rewrite of some kind, which is fine, I just want the source for the older version.

    Is anyone a developer for DVArchive or have access to the source? This is not at all an insult to DVArchive or its developers, it's a great program, but in compliance of its license, I'd really like to see the source code.

    --
    http://www.talknerdy.org
    1. Re:DVArchive? by GizmoToy · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are looking for Gerry, the developer of DVarchive. If you want to get in touch with him, I recommend heading over to the ReplayTV section of the AVSforum. He posts regularly there with updates on the newest DVarchive versions.

      While he gives the program away, I seem to remember him preffering to keep the code to himself. Couldn't hurt to ask...

  12. Re:Fast Forward isn't illegal, just Auto Fast Forw by TwistedSquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have always thought that all that this debate surrounding skipping ads will just cause a change in the business model for TV ads. If people are going to skip the ads, I figure there are a few options - display them while the actual program is running (not popular, and can be disabled by image processing hardware), shift towards product placements (which has been happening the past few years), or start charging proper subscription to channels. The last option makes the most business sense, but that would force TV companies to make TV that people actively want to watch, a pretty tricky business. I wouldn't want to be a broadcaster at the moment.

  13. Actually... by jbarr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, this had nothing to do with the 30 second QuickSkip, but with ReplayTV's "Commercial Advance" feature that automatically "sensed" commercial breaks, encoded that data along with the recorded show, and then let the viewer optionally "elimintate" (in theory) all commercial breaks. The networks didn't seem too upset that you could skip blocks of time or fast forward--people still sometimes view commercials and even forget to skip. It's the non-interactive, automatic Commercial Advance feature that they were up in arms about.

    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
  14. Re:Fast Forward isn't illegal, just Auto Fast Forw by Cyno · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The way I justify this is I think cable TV should be free as long as they want to advertise on it. If I'm paying for it they are stealing my time and should be forced to pay me for it. My time is far more expensive than the cost of cable TV.