Slashdot Mirror
Cablevision Sued Over Remote DVR Plan
zoobid writes "NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox have joined together and filed an injunction against Cablevision over their plan to introduce remote DVRs to their customers. 'They argue that while precedent may allow for legal time-shifting among home TV viewers, Cablevision's plans should require a special license from the broadcasters.' Cablevision's plan to create a centrally-hosted DVR was previously covered here on Slashdot."
"May allow for legal...."... W...T...F...
How about just not making it illegal in the first place?
This is so close to true "tv on demand" that the networks have to be crapping their pants.
How do you justify marking up your "must see tv ads" for those crap shows that you slip between the good shows, if it can be proven that people watch the good shows on a completely different day, and don't watch the crap shows at all? If they have to flat rate, or discount their ads, that'll be a huge chunk of their profit.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
They are worried that it may set a precident of viewers having more control over what they watch! Can you imagine if they had this attitude back when VHS was coming around? Think of all those people that recorded shows instead of watching it at 10:30PM!
Burn karma, burn.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
Maybe one day IT companies will focus on products and services instead of legal activities.
One should wonder how much resources those companies waste in useless legal actions and how much they earn from the same.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
I view televison via an Eyehome (www.elgato.com) connected to my G5 (with like a zillion external firewire drives attached to it; Who said cheap storage was a good idea?) As to content; that was why God invented Bittoerent.
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
I've long since given up watching anything on broadcast or cable - I just download or buy stuff I'm interested in to watch when I want to. Why the hell I should have to watch things when the cable company or the broadcaster specify and then sit through adverts in content I've supposedly paid for is completely beyond me.
Don't let the networks win this one, or the battle is going to go on for years. Once it has left their antenna, they lose their control over it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
So let me get this straight... you can use a personal DVR in your home (rented from the cable or dish provider), and record/playback/etc all you want - but to provide the same functionality as an online service is somehow different? I don't get it!
Get your Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool Here for FREE! - http://fedora.redhat.com
As has been pointed out here on /. many times before, any industry whose business model relies on controlling the channels of media distribution is now dying a death from obsolescence, thanks to ubiquitous electronic distribution.
This legal move by the networks, which obviously has no customer benefit, is clearly a sign of this malady. We are now seeing more and more suits like this as companies, desperately trying to cling to a failing business model, turn to the law to prop up their house of cards. And it is their last, best hope. The government is quite likely the only organization more resistant to change than the media industries.
The content providers aren't content with ramming broadcast flags down our throats; now they want to mandate the design of every freaking piece of hardware between them and the patsies (i.e., consumers) whom they target. This kind of legalistic BS has to come to a stop.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Although I'm not certain how much is truth and how much legend, I understand that a major hotel chain has been seeking the blessing from the top three or four television networks to "DVR" the major primetime shows and offer them to their guests on a pay-per-view basis.
So imagine arriving late to the hotel the night before to your business meeting and being able to watch 24 in your hotel room 8 hours after it ran.
At issue was getting a revenue-sharing agreement setup between the networks and the hotel. Oh, and coming up with a pricepoint that didn't rape the guests.
Although it may someday come to pass, the greedy networks are the barrier to this kind of Hotel DVR system. So it's of no surprise to me that Cablevision is being sued over essentially the same thing that the hotel chain is too afraid to implement on their own.
The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. -- Calvin & Hobbes
While it may seem like playing at semantics, I think they might have a legitimate gripe this time around.
CableVision is literally rebroadcasting their content, which is a major shift from the previous model of 'consumer records it at home'.
Currently, if you want to re-broadcast a show, you have to pay for it. If CableVision goes through with this, it'll seriously dilute the market (in CableVision areas) for re-runs.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
So there I was, with all the hardware necessary for a MythTV box. I thought, "What fun, I can record anything I want, whenever I want, and play it back on my own time". So I set down and got to work. Couple days later, I had it all hooked up to the TV.
And what do I find? There's nothing on TV to watch. I literally spent the afternoon/evening looking for something, anything to record. I still can't find anything worth the harddrive space.
So, I accepted defeat, set it up to record Dora the Explorer and Sesame street ( 2 year old daughter ), and started putting my DVD isos on the harddrive. Might as well savage some use out of it.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
- charge a little more for viewing Lost in a 640x480 window, versus a 480x360 window
- charge a little more for viewing it during rush hour, versus sitting on the toilet at 11pm
- charge a little more for viewing it while in the north side of town, versus viewing it while in the south side of town
I'm not saying that the studios will necessarily go that far, but there is some line of sanity that shouldn't be crossed, and it's possible they're crossing it with this lawsuit.Ah, the classic debate between content owners and content distributors. And who loses? The customer. The technology and profitability for the greatest ideas we can come up with are already here. It's only these large companies holding them back through distrust and fighting. Sure DVRs are already prominent, but they can't even stop fighting over the technologies that are already here. Imagine what we're missing.
Developers: We can use your help.
100 odd channels and nothing on. It's the same amount of entertainment, spread so thinly you can hardly tell it's there.
Major threats to the industry? I assume they mean the advertising industry...BS. as long as there are products and mediums to advertise on advertisers will make money. God forbid TV isnt as much as a cashcow as it used to be... Do they think they're the only industry that needs to adapt at times? Now they'll start pushing the price of internet advertising (costs associated)and producing commercials to compensate and visually spam more shit on the web. If companies only learned to embrace the future instead of fighting it, they'd be more sucessful and we'd probably be more technologically advanced as a culture.
Walk with Music;
I can make my own programming; define several "channels", and choose to watch them whenever I like. If this can all be behind a Tivo interface...ohh boy, better for me. I can record several shows, skip all the commercials, and watch them whenever I like!
Yes, networks should be scared. Then again, I pretty much do this now with my Tivo, but is isn't multi-tuner.
The broadcasters have issue since, as they put it, "Cablevision is actually copying, storing and retransmitting it," I guess the retransmission is the problem. They would want additional license fees, and thus higher cable rates/fees from those who use this service...
So Nielson won't care. They will continue to collect their data from the diaries and drop or adjust the boxes as necessary to provide, what they say, are accurate statistics of television viewing.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4566319.stm
:)
Enjoy.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
Bzzzzzap!
There are only two kinds of shifts involved here:
1. The timeshift of watching programs at a time later than they're broadcast. We've had this right for a long time and it's not in question.
2. The location-shift of the DVR from your living room to the cable company's server room. And this is no different than asking your neighbor or family member to record a program for you that you'd miss getting otherwise.
In fact, if some kid started a neighborhood business of recording programs for people who are away and couldn't get them on their own VCR's, charging them for that service and giving them the tapes afterwards, it would be functionally exactly the same thing. And if the television networks then tried to shut him down and send him back out to selling lemonade and cutting grass instead, the uproar over this would be huge -- and all of it directed against the greedy, selfish, innovation-killing television networks who provide their product for fee over the public airwaves. That same uproar should be directed against the television networks over this plan as well.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Hmmmmm betty.
If these companies who are filling the injunction knew anything, they would know that it matters not to the functionality of the system where the DVR is. The point is that people use DVR's and this is simply a way for Cable to provide cost savings and added value to thier service. There is nothing illegal about it. Or rather if there is the dipshits who drafted such a law should be rounded up and shot.
Don't let the networks win this one, or the battle is going to go on for years. Once it has left their antenna, they lose their control over it.
./ and there will always be some bugger to popup and fill in the gaps.
My memory is vague on this subject, thankfully this is
Back in the 80s it wasn't a problem for cable companies to rebroadcast the local channels over the cable. Why should it, they were doing local stations a favor. The cable company would invest in the approperate antenna, subscribers could get a spiffy signal, and they were doing the TV stations a favor. Some subscribers might have noticed a short period of time were stations they specificly got cable for were dropped from the lineup. But came the 90s... and for some reason the laws changed and TV stations were demanding money for the right to rebroadcast their signal.
Again with DVR service, they are doing broadcasters a favor as DVRs don't filter out commercials... which is the bread and butter of the business. So we have this company selling a service which permits recording of broadcasts, something ruled as being legal, permiting people to archive content and adverts, and for some reason they want money to do this?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
This is the first time that I agree with the entertainment industry on a case like this; if the end user wants to record it, share it with friends, re-watch ot timeshift content, fine BUT this is the cable company cacheeing all content and doing mass redistribution, for profit -- thus it is a commercial enterprise using the content in a way that their license doesnt allow, pretty clear cut to me.
This is just like what MP3.com wanted to do. They wanted to create a centralized music database. Once the program verified that you owned the original CD, it unlocked the music in the database for a user. This was so people could access the music they rightfully owned (supposedly) from anywhere.
And as we all remember, the RIAA destroyed this from ever happening, because they said that MP3.com was essentially profiting of selling their property.
Essentially, Cablevision wants to create a centralized database of all TV programming and "sell it back"
The way I understand timeshifting, you can record your show and watch it 10,000 times.
Man, you really need that seminar!
1. If the studios win this lawsuit, they'll be armed with a handy precedent for going after individual users' DVRs -- granted, they'll need at least a couple more precedents, but this lawsuit does give them a good start.
2. Instead of the "a la carte" per-channel schemes currently being bandied about, why not sell individual shows directly to the consumer? Beyond the Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, Lost, and the AdultSwim lineup, I have no use for the other 78 channels of crap getting delivered to my house... at USD$1.00/episode, the content I *want* would cost less than half my current cable subscription. Plenty of opportunity here for price differentiation, too: charge extra for the HD version, offer a discount if I don't want it on-demand... market forces would drive the studios to produce shows that people want, rather than whatever crap they can get past the network executives. The inverse is also true: niche programming would be available to the consumers who wanted it, rather than have its fate decided by the network executives. Case in point: Arrested Development was easily the best series I've seen this decade, but it was too clever for mainstream America, so the fact that I wanted to keep watching was lost in the noise.
I suspect that some of the impetus for this comes from Scientific Atlantic (now owned by Cisco). They make settop boxes and DVRs. Their DVRs are the ones supplied by Time Warner cable, and perhaps Cablevision. Among the products in their line are DVRs that can record up to two channels at a time for each of up to 4 set top boxes. This means that you can record and/or watch up to 8 shows at a time in your home.
I think what makes the broadcasters crazy is that this can have all sorts of effects on how ratings are captured, how advertisers pay, how TV shows are used. While they're talking about the IP issues, I think the real fear is not being in control of the economics of broadcasting.
As other have pointed out, from a consumer perspective, this technology is what those of us who watch lots of TV want. I have two DVRs, one on each of my 2 TVs, and wish I could see what was recorded on one unit on the other. I'm not alone in this.
It'll work out. We'll pay more. Get less. The american way.
whats so wrong with advertising embedded in TV shows. Why can't Tony Soprano be driving a coke, or eating at a Wendys and commenting how good the sandwich is. I'd much prefer embedded ads then the overt commercials where you have to listen to some jingle or paid spokeperson, those just insult my intelligence. I think they could make more money this way, as it is I don't know anyone in my demographic that doesn't flip the channel when commercials come on.
Then they will just insert ads into those crap shows....not like it's not already happening.
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
In fact, if some kid started a neighborhood business of recording programs for people who are away and couldn't get them on their own VCR's, charging them for that service and giving them the tapes afterwards, it would be functionally exactly the same thing.
And it would be illegal. Just as renting a DVD and showing it to strangers, or to people you know but charging money, or to people you know and not charging money per se, but showing it at a party with a door fee are all illegal.
There are many things that are legal to do for friends for free that become illgael if you do them for strangers or for money.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Hmmm. Well, with the exemption of those ads that are repeated a dozen times for show, I've been rather impressed with the direction of commercials thus far. I mean, years ago would you have imagined that people would donate massive websites or downloads to downloading funny or amusing ADS!?
I downloaded a bunch of the "get a mac" ads recently to show friends. In particular the one entitled "rebooting" was pretty damn funny.
Advertisers are just learning to make their ads better... so I'd rather see a lack of crappy ads (or a way to rate ads) than eliminating them overall.
I don't think so. The kid is simply babysitting your VCR while you're away.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Comcast has been offering this service now for a while, at least where I live (Philadelphia). Each set top box has the ability to time shift content that is paid for with the subscription. I see no reason to distinguish this from cablevision's attempt to do the same.
3 PageOne.asp
See http://www.comcast.com/Benefits/CableDetails/Slot
The REAL American way is to simply tell them to fuck off.
Fuck them, their tv shows, their advertisors, their content, AND their DVD sales. Fuck them and the airwaves they rode in on.
Fuck FOX, fuck ABC, fuck CBS, fuck MSNBC.
Television is a mind drain. It's a waste of fucking time. Out of my friends maybe 1 or 2 still watch a lot of it, and they use it mostly as background filler for their daily activities.
I watch just ONE television show. I record it on my Mythtv box everyday. And I don't even need cable to get it. I thought it would be cool to setup myth, and it's nice, but as it turns out that on my computer when I have a choice between watching TV and not watching TV.. I always choose not watching TV.
Seriously. Everybody at the same time (well when you read this) say out loud:
"I have a life, I have better, more educational, more active, more constructive, and much funner things to do then watch TV and put up with this bullshit."
Paying 50+ bucks a month to have my rights taken away is not something that I am going to volenteer for anymore.
THEN when those corporations can come back once after removed their 'IP' stick from their asses they can start begging for my attention again.
This causes huge problems for network affiliates--local TV stations would be entirely screwed if you could watch your prime time stuff a coupla hours earlier (I'm on the west coast). Why? Local news generates the lion's share of an affiliate's ad revenue with the nightly news leading the time slots.
"Oh fuck, if Jack and Jill can watch Law and Order at 8 PM, they'll go to bed instead of segueing directly to the news. Our local advertisers will hate that."
Not that I'm a typical viewer since I'm 100% convinced that "Veronica Mars" is the hands-down best show on TV with "House" a close second.
If CableVision can actually pull off a compelling service, then it has the potential to pretty much kill off Tivo.
Once Tivo and their consumer ilk are gone, then the networks can sue CableVision, collect massive damages and the death of Tivo will merely be collateral damage.
I actually don't mind well thought out, intelligent commercials. The main reason I have a Tivo is so I can skip the Personal Injury commercials and the likes.
Geico, Volvo and a few others actually have commercials that are pretty tolerable.
If he's babysitting *your* VCR while away, then there is no location-shift in your example. And it is the location shift that becomes the illegal action. Think of it this way, Cablevision is a for-profit company, trying to make money off of somebody elses content without their permission. It's analogous to someone charging a monthly fee for others to listen to their illegally downloaded MP3s. If Cablevision wants to provide this service, then fine, they can negotiate for the rights to do so, but until they buy/rent those rights, the rights to broadcast are owned by the content owners.
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
Just because they beat the system doesn't mean they should have to pay for it. It is not illegal at all. Buying a TV puts you under no contractual obligation to watch the ads, neither does buying cable, or satillite. I mean, basically go cablevision, fuck them hard.
The sound you hear is the continuing dirge for Fair Use rights. Keep in mind that rulings against corporations create legal precedent that applies to you too. This case and that against XM Radio could make Tivos and any other "unauthorized" media recording illegal.
I think this is the most intriguing analogy about the whole thing. Just for the sake of argument, suppose the kid in question has "your" VCR at his house and records programs for you at a price using "your" tapes. It's definitely a fine line, but I think it would be difficult to call this illegal, even if you had another VCR at home to watch "your" tapes.
At any rate, I think the "personalization" aspect is relevant to the argument. Consider the scenario where Cablevision is recording ALL content and then making it generally available to ALL customers on demand. Then, by comparison, suppose that "I" set up my own DVR service(with hardware in Cablevision's IT maze) to record a specific channel at a particular time. I think this difference is what would make the service a legal one. I suppose that the next argument would be one of capacity available to the individual user. If the cable company kept their price/connection the same(i.e. charge to record programs on 'N' channels simultaneously == cost of running 'N' cable connections to the home) I think they have a compelling case for the legality of offering the service.
Every single bloody time I read about a new technology -- or even a simple new use of old technology -- shortly after, or even at the same time I read about that technology being attached where they want to put a DRM on it. My god! I've never seen such obsessiveness. I understand why they like drm, but this is getting ridiculous. If a normal person became this obsessed over something, they would be legally declared insane and locked up. Unfortunately, since they dictate the law, they declare themselves legally sane and lock us up. *sigh*
Check out the DMCRA I don't know that it will ever make it through, but, I can hope can't I?
I think if CableVision put a box in *my* house that recorded *everything*, then sold me software that gave me the same functionality, they'd be fine. It's only that the box is in their possession that causes the issue.
And, you know, it's only a matter of time before a server that records the entire cable stream becomes practical, at least for a cable company that can optimize at each component. Won't that be fun.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Production companies will just sell TV episodes directly to the consumer as soon as they are completed.
Implimented properly, the only difference would the length and kind of wires the signals travel over, and where the data is stored.
I'd add one optimization to that - I'd improve how the video is stored. Rather than have one hard drive per user, you can have a disk farm and only store one copy of a show per metro area, or whatever your locality is based on your transit costs.
It would work like unix hardlinks - when the last user has "erased" the show from "his" DVR, then you can delete the server file and reclaim storage.
Obviously this makes DVR service even cheaper to provide since you're sharing a disk farm and getting the associated economies of scale, so I call this "progress", but the Networks see this as one more nail in their coffin.
Now that the networks are technically obsolete they'll use every legal trick in their book to try to remain relevant. I just can't decide if the last network will go off air in 2020 or 2030. I recently calculated that in 2014 I'll be able to afford enough storage to keep all the media I'll ever want to consume online.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)