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.'"
This is about "broadcast" networks. They can't have their cake, and eat it, too. In exchange for getting use of public airwaves to make a profit, the public has a right to use what's broadcast.
Next step - in what way is putting content on the public airwaves not placing it in the public domain?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
None of that would work because Dish technicians actually watch the broadcasts and manually record when the commercial breaks start and stop.
On OTA TV I tolerate advertisement because I can pick up the signal for free. On the other hand, people have to pay for fucking cable/satellite service and they still get ads. Back when I got cable I was upset because I couldn't a-la-carte the channels I really wanted so I was stuck paying for a bunch of shit I had no interest in watching. Broadcasters/channels get no sympathy from me because cable simply isn't worth paying for. I make do with OTA.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
You probably read it this article.
Or maybe on AOL
if you kill the viability of the ad to any serious degree, you can expect some kind of consequential change on the horizon.
Collapse of the broadcast entity? Why would I have a problem with this? The “broadcast entity” is the favoured medium of the copyright cartels, who’re doing their best to make the interaction between artist and audience as painful as possible so they can continue on in their role as intermediary. At the same time like any business they want to maximise their profits and minimize their risk. Only “risk” here takes the form of investing in new content, meaning that originality and experimentation are deemed as negative values.
The collapse of the broadcast entity would speed up the disintermediation between artist and audience and expose new streams of revenue and financing. We’d end up with more artists making more money, producing more content that costs less.
Watching The Walking Dead doesn't make me want to buy a Hyundai SUV.
Maybe not you personally, but you know what brand of SUV they drive in that show so the advertising worked.
No sig today...