Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

High Court Allows Remote-Storage DVR System

Posted by kdawson on from the score-one-for-the-cable-guy dept.

Immutate and several other readers noted that Cablevision will be allowed to go ahead with deploying a remote-storage DVR system, when the US Supreme Court declined (without comment) to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that went against movie studios and TV networks. (We discussed this case a few months back.) "Cable TV operators won a key legal battle against Hollywood studios and television networks on Monday as the Supreme Court declined to block a new digital video recording system that could make it even easier for viewers to bypass commercials. The justices declined to hear arguments on whether Cablevision Systems Corp.'s remote-storage DVR system would violate copyright laws. That allows the... company to proceed with plans to start deploying the technology this summer."

7 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. I don't get... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee so why should I even have ads? Either get rid of the licensing fees or get rid of the ads. This is like paying for a "premium" website only to get hit by pop ups on every page. I mean, I could even understand an ad or two at the start and after the end of the program, but why do they think they need to have 9 minutes of ads for every show when I'm already paying for their content?

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:I don't get... by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because they can.

      If a significant number of people quit their service and gave the feedback "there's just too many ads for a pay service" then maybe something would get done about it. But they don't.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:I don't get... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with that is... cable bundling. Theres about 5 networks I watch regularly, and out of them about 2 have way too many ads that I would give up watching them if I could send feedback. However, if I cancel those networks, I end up canceling the 3 other networks that I do watch.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:I don't get... by Starlon · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's how Cable started out -- free of commercials. People got greedy though.

      --
      Health Freedom is almost as popular as Freedom itself.
    4. Re:I don't get... by basementman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually TV and Internet costs aren't that different. I pay a monthly fee for the line that goes to my house for both TV and Internet. When I watch a TV show I see commercials, and when I go to most websites I see ads. The only difference is that TV ads are far more obstructive to the content.

      --
      A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
    5. Re:I don't get... by sangreal66 · · Score: 4, Informative

      While the gist of what you are saying is correct, it is not accurate to say that "Cable companies do not pay networks to rebroadcast their signals." Cable providers pay a per-subscriber fee to the networks they carry, from a few cents to a few dollars.

  2. MythTV is awesome by drewzhrodague · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MythTV works for me. It already eats the commercials from the recorded shows, and with simple scripts, I can encode old Star Trek shows onto my iPhone. If you haven't used it recently, I suggest taking a look. MythTV.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.