Court Upholds Ruling On Dish Network's 'Hopper'

An anonymous reader writes "The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's ruling in favor of Dish Network, allowing the company to continue forward with it ad-skipping "Hopper" technology. From the article: 'Last year, Fox Broadcasting Company, with the support of other broadcast networks, sued Dish for its "Hopper" DVR and its "Auto Hop" feature, which automatically skips over commercials. According to the Fox, the Hopper automatically records eight days' worth of prime time programming on the four major networks that subscribers can play back on request. Beginning a few hours after the broadcast, viewers can choose to watch a program without ads. As we observed when the it started, this litigation was yet another in a long and ignominious series of efforts by content owners to use copyright law to control the features of personal electronic devices, and to capture for themselves the value of new technologies no matter who invents them.'"

Comments

Down the line...

[fyngyrz]

I agree that the decision is sensible in that it allows you to use your own gear at least somewhat as you would choose to (certainly they are not letting us use our gear "freely"), still, one has to consider what a broadcast entity dependent upon advertising revenues will do if those ads no longer generate cash.

One fairly obvious path is "product placement", where the "ad" is in the show with some character brandishing, using, or otherwise making a point about it. That can be subtle... or it could be quite heavy-handed. There are other paths, some of which end with the disruption or even collapse of the broadcast entity -- if the advertising shifts context -- say, to billboards -- then there's no funding going to the broadcast entity, so now what? Or you might find yourself taxed, a' la PBS or the BBC, in order that these entities have operating funds. Some might applaud that, but some will scream bloody murder about the additional levy.

Anyway, since ads do almost entirely support a lot of these entities, if you kill the viability of the ad to any serious degree, you can expect some kind of consequential change on the horizon.

Re:Down the line...

[icebike]

I hope your karma is up to this. You're gonna get pounded.

No, he's not going to get pounded, because his point is valid.

The tacit agreement is being changed. The agreement that has held since television was invented, namely that you take the advertising along with the programming, is being renegotiated.

Its not the GP's fault, he is just the messenger.

The producers of the programming will have to find a new source of revenue, because nobody works for free. You can expect them to change the terms under which the programming is provided. You will see embedded advertising, or high fees for all programming. Or some as yet unimagined method of revenue replacement.

But one thing is certain, nobody works for free. Nobody eats for free, except prison inmates. So maybe we can put those guys to work producing content?

I'd like to see the numbers as to how much an episode of your typical tv show costs. From concept through production, and delivery to your TV.
If you could subscribe only to the specific programs that you wanted, and in doing so receive them free of advertising, but pay all costs via your fees, , what would your cost per hour be?

Re:Down the line...

[Anonymous Coward]

The tacit agreement has been broken for a long time as the networks have continued to lower the value of the content and raise the "price" (number of ad minutes per minute of programming) to ridiculous levels. Watching June Cleaver talk about how Palm Olive made her hands soft while doing dishes at the end of the show vs. 3 minutes of ads for tampons, antidepressants, beer, Chrysler, personal injury attorneys, car insurance, pizza snacks, and GEICO before watching another 5 minutes of the newest SyFy shark/bear/icthysaurus hybrid (ick on all levels) are really worlds apart. Oh yeah, and that on top of paying $70/month to Comcast (remember when cable was advertising-free?) for that in the first place!

They have already been paid by Dish

[Camael]

...one has to consider what a broadcast entity dependent upon advertising revenues will do if those ads no longer generate cash.

That is certainly the argument Fox used. What they conveniently left out is that Fox collects retransmission fees from Dish.

In fact, Dish was at one time forced to drop Fox programming because, according to Dish :-

FOX is demanding a new contract with an unprecedented rate increase of more than 50 percent.

In addition, the broadcast networks including Fox, CBS, ABC and NBC have demanded that its affiliates hand over a percentage of the money they receive from local cable operators that retransmit their signals.

Broadcasters used to be content with the money they took in from advertisers, which supported "free" over-the-air television. But in recent years as broadcasters have lost viewers to cable and advertisers are shifting to the Internet, stations have been seeking new sources of revenue by demanding payment from cable and satellite companies for the right to retransmit their programming.

News Corp.'s Fox is not the only network seeking a slice of its affiliates' retransmission fees. CBS, ABC and NBC are also negotiating for a percentage. However, there is a consensus that Fox is being the most aggressive of the networks. None of the Big Three has yet threatened to drop its local affiliate if it doesn't get the money.

While the corporate skirmishing is waged far above the heads of TV viewers, it is likely to have a real-world effect on households that pay for cable or satellite service — about 90% of all TV-watching homes in the country — in the form of higher monthly rates as local providers look to make up the difference.

Basically, its all about the money. The broadcasting networks have already been paid by retransmission fees and are double dipping into advertising fees.