I take it they're trying to figure out whether it's okay to use these "recordings" as evidence.
So I guess it comes down to this question. Is an answering machine tape OK to submit as evidence? If so, this is pretty similar. At least the emails are, anyway. The IM may be a little more difficult to handle.
I realise the two offences (both illegal in the US) are vastly different, but afaik, it'd be legal to offer drink or sex to a 15yr old.
It is not legal in PA. It's called criminal solicitation. There are laws against sex with a minor, and there are laws against giving alcohol to a minor. There are also laws against trying to get someone to break one of the other laws or to help YOU break the law. If you look at the article, you'll see that the sentence was fairly light -- six months of house arrest and probation that ends this month. It wasn't clear whether the probation was part of the house arrest or not.
I believe the two party rules talk about if you are allowed to record a communication or not (As was the case with linda tripp). However, with Email, or IM, a recording is inherent in the process. (Well, ICQ automatically saves history, others may as well)
Absolutely agreed. Since these formats are recorded by default, you implicitly agree to have everything you say recorded. If you, as a computer user, can't understand that it must be recorded in order for the user to receive the message, too bad. As someone else said, it's no different than leaving a message on an answering machine. You KNOW it is being recorded. There's a certain "duh" factor there.
It's even worse than that. I can't believe that the PA Supreme Court is willing to hear the case. The prosecution got their evidence FROM THE GIRL. Let's put it into the proper light. Pretend that you are a 15 year old girl. Let's also pretent that I continuously send you mail through USPS with a nude photograph of myself (*shudder*) and I keep trying to get you to send me nude videos of yourself and engage in illegal sexual contact with me. If you take the mail I send you to the police, and they arrest me, would I be able to complain about violation of my privacy? Give me a break. If you want something to be private, don't send it in an email to someone else you can't trust.
Although the press may be making this case out to be a landmark "reading email == wire tapping" case, it really isn't. It would have been different if the police were intercepting his email before it got to its recipient, or using spyware to read it from his computer.
Now THERE'S an idea. Embed these little gems on your corporate intranet, and use them to convince management that the whole staff needs a computer upgrade. Make sure you put it in places where it will have the highest impact on management.
True, and I'm thankful for this. But I don't think it needs to save data to be useful. If its purpose was to crack encryption codes, it could run through a sequence of brute force attempts, and pass the results back in hidden form fields the next time you switched pages. None of this data would need to be saved locally.
Finally, there is no way to "nice" a JavaScript process. As a result, if it processed too much the user would be inclined to close the browser and start a new one.
Agreed, and this is exactly what I was questioning. Someone mentioned that you can "nice" the whole browser process, but that requires user intervention, which of course defeats the whole purpose.
That reduces the available utility in "Leech Computing" to spyware, worms/virus/trojans, or toy projects.
Based on the above discussion, I definitely agree.
Have you tried SpamCop? They now apparently have a flat-rate fee which is good if you get a lot of email. Sounds promising as a service.
Somebody mod me as troll or flamebait, but this is exactly what the real problem with spam is. Why should I have to PAY to use a tool to cut down on abuse of a service that I ALREADY PAY FOR. I pay for internet access and a mailbox. The spammers don't pay for all the mailboxes they send crap to. Rather than continue to pay for a service to filter out the junk, I'd rather pay someone to go discourage the sender in a more meaningful and lasting manner. Don't you agree?
however, since this computer is tied into the phone system (among other things), this could get kind of scary.
Pointy-haired Boss: Darnit! We're trapped in here! The door is stuck and the ventilation system isn't working! Computer, contact security and have them send someone to open the door.
Computer: I'm sorry Dave. I can't do that.
Seriously, though. I, for one, would be hesitant to have a meeting in a room that *might* be recording everything I say. I would prefer a visible dictation device that sits on the table where I can see it working and provides me with visual feedback of the dictation. If they could just improve speech recognition technology, that would be enough of a leap forward for me. Forget the rest of the crap.
Conceptually, I find this interesting. It can run without user notice. The only problem is that it does steal CPU cycles, and as far as I know there is no real way in Javascript (or Java applets) to make the program run only when it isn't competing with other applications. I can imagine that some users might get really upset because you are stealing their computer resources. Because of this, I wouldn't recommend doing this kind of thing without notifying the user and perhaps giving them the option to turn it off. However, I can see some potential uses for this as long as the user is aware. For example, slashdot viewers probably wouldn't mind some leech Javascript working on the latest encryption cracking contest, especially if they got to "share the wealth."
And the second you mention 'court' your message get posted to news.admin.net-abuse.email and you get added, forever, to dozens of private blocklists for posting a cartooney threat. (Some people would literally add you to their blocklist now if they knew who you were, just for posting that you would sue under such circumstances.)
OK, since you're the second person to respond this way, it's obvious that people actually thought I was making a threat. So, let me apologize for misleading people. I was posing a hypothetical. That'll teach me to post when I haven't had any sleep. At any rate, what I was envisioning was the potential for some nasty politics. I mean, what would happen if one ISP blocked another, and then the blocked ISP returned the favor? Couldn't that eventually cause problems for all of us? Actually, I'm kinda surprised that that hasn't happened before. Or has it? Anybody with knowledge on this?
I run a mail server and I can block anyone that I choose (right now, almost all of China and Brazil is blocked). If you want to test your theory about a court case, I'd be happy to block your server, too.
Hang on a second. I wasn't challenging you. Besides, I don't run a mail server with access outside my firewall -- it isn't worth the effort for me. But the assumption is that there are partnerships in place between some of the larger ISPs that allow routing through their servers. My question to you is, what would YOU do if Earthlink started blocking you because of a claim that you were running an open relay?
I'll give you a list of IPs in Asia that are open relays. Your mission, should you accept it, is to locate the owners of the mail servers, explain to them that they have open relays, and get them to fix them. Good luck.
I agree with you here -- big time. I've had my share of dealings with some of the Asian "companies." It's really hard to deal with companies in countries where outright lying is considered a valuable (and legal) part of the business process. There are no ethics there whatsoever. Please note that I'm not classifying all Asian countries or companies in this -- that's just the area from which I've had the most annoyances.
You guys need to be a little careful here. I agree with you that nobody this day and age has any business running an open relay. If you don't know what you're doing with your mail server, keep it on the other side of your firewall.
However, here's a scenario that brings the point home. Let's pretend that I'm ISP A and you are ISP B, and some of my customers are trying to send e-mail that must route through your service. Joe Newhire makes a mistake when setting up a new SMTP server and accidentally leaves it open.
This is detected and added to ORDB, which you happen to be using to block e-mail from open relays. Once we realize we've been black listed, we make the necessary contact to be removed from ORDB. But two days later, you're still blocking our e-mail. We notify you of the problem and provide proof that we've fixed it and requested removal from the list. Do you think you can wait for the next update? Guess again. If you didn't start letting the e-mail through again within 48 hours, I would be taking you to court.
Now, the whole point to all of this is that there needs to be a spirit of cooperation here. If we all walk around with our noses in the air shouting "holier than spam," we'll miss the whole point of the exercise: to eliminate or greatly reduce spam. I don't think we're required to provide consulting services for each other, but there certainly needs to be some mutual consideration. If we make the process so arduous that it encourages resentment, it won't be nearly as effective.
The fact is that media currently leans towards the liberal, and reports on the "sins" of the right more than the left, thus giving rise to an easily [mentally] accessible example
Agreed. From my point of view, it's not the beliefs of either side as much as the methodology that bothers me the most.
Both sides would "work together" to ruin a forum like what was suggested.
Interesting. Probably one of the few places where both sides would collaborate.:)
I think we went through all of this on the last time, but I agree that if the opinions were meant to be a sample, they should be made statistically sound. I remember raising the question of qualitative verses quantitative analysis. My guess is that the 47 selected responses are probably the most strong arguments from either side. It is most likely true that the judge will perform a quantitative analysis to see if there are compelling reasons for either vacating or upholding the settlement. We have to trust her to make a decision based not on the opinions themselves or the statistics, but rather on facts or ideas gleaned from those opinions. You'll know whether or not she did her job when she summarizes her decision. Most judges include their line of reasoning with a summary for use in appeals and precendent.
In real life, right-wing conservatives already have this type of influence down cold.
Spoken like a true far-left liberal. Sorry dude, but BOTH groups have this practice down real well. You just tend to notice the group you disagree with the most. I suspect it's pretty easy to identify the people in both groups, though. Just look at those most adamantly opposed (on both sides) to campaign finance reform. Then extract those who backed up their opposition with reference to something specific about the bill that appears to have merit. What's left are probably your extremists.
Unfortunately, they must err on the side of caution.
I'm sorry, but this is just a lame excuse. Following this line of thought, they had better hurry up and BAN importation and construction of WLAN cards. These clearly are a violation of the DMCA because they permit people to drive around in cars with laptops and tap into corporate networks to steal copyrighted and private materials. In fact, maybe they should just ban laptops and automobiles altogether.
The single biggest problem is that they provided *NO METHOD* for him to discuss the case with the person who made the decision to reject entry of his shipment. If there were even reasonable controls in place to make sure innocent people weren't harmed by this law, it might not draw such anger from. But the DMCA is probably one of the biggest reasons for campaign finance reforms outside of Enron and Microsoft. It clearly was not well thought out, and is an attempt to prevent potential crimes by eliminating the tools with which they are committed, at the obvious expense of legitimate use of those tools.
It is also considered by many many people in the world to be the "proper" way to make coffee, a fact which is bourne out through labratory tests that show many of the essential flavors and oils are not drawn from the bean at lower temperatures. Very simple.
Agreed. Actually, most modern coffee makers heat the water to boiling. I think the problem is that McDonalds actively enforced a rule that the coffee had to be KEPT at a temperature of 185 degrees. As I said earlier, it was to their credit that they incorrectly assumed most people were buying the coffee to take to work (or that's what they said). Surveys revealed that most people buy the coffee to drink while driving. Since the incident, they have decreased the "storage" temperature to something a little safer.
Many very very common things that we do (often for enjoyment) are fantastically dangerous.
Agreed, and many times we overregulate these kinds of things. It's ridiculous that I have to take out an umbrella insurance policy to keep a thief from suing me if he/she hurts himself while breaking into my house. I think in this case that she was stupid for opening a cup of hot liquid over her lap. McDonalds was stupid to serve the coffee so hot that it was almost guaranteed to cause a third degree burn.
I'm pretty sure this whole thread is going to get marked OT pretty soon....
McDonald's would not have kept their coffee so hot unless it helped sales.
Unfortunately, subsequent surveys have said otherwise. It appears that many people felt their coffee was too hot. I think the issue is that the temperature they were required to keep it at (after brewing) was too high. To McDonald's credit, their perception was that people were intending to purchase the coffee and drink it AFTER they arrived at work. Surveys have shown otherwise. Most people purchase it to drink it on the way to work.
I dunno about you, but someone who manages to spill enough coffee on herself to cause that much injury should take her clumsiness into consideration.
It doesn't take all that much coffee to cause that kind of injury. I think part of the problem may be in the fact that the cup is usually either paper or styrofoam. If the lid is off (or being pulled off) and your grip slips, the cup isn't rigid enough to catch it safely. Any attempt usually destroys the cup, thus making sure that the ENTIRE contents end up in your lap.
...take extra precautions like not opening it over my lap....
Agreed. But I actually asked myself whether or not I had done this. Prior to this whole case, I can't say I was very careful about things like that at the time. My guess is that I'm not in the minority. Maybe her experience will help keep the rest of us from doing something so stupid.
If it takes warnings on the coffee cups for a certain percentage of the population to realize that, then so be it.
Yeah, and some of those warnings out there are downright silly. But I guess sometimes we need a warning or two to point out things we might otherwise have just not even considered, even though it should be obvious. The only problem is, how many people actually READ the cup? Oh well.
If she hadn't been a moron, she wouldn't have put herself in a situation where all that medical treatment was necessary.
Ah, yet another person who is unaware of the facts.
Liebeck was not driving the car. Her grandson was. The car was stopped so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. The contents spilled onto her lap while she was attempting to remove the lid.
There were more than 700 claims by people burned by McDonalds coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some of them involved third-degree burns. Note, these are CLAIMS, not INCIDENTS.
Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. McDonalds actively enforced a requirement that their coffee be kept at 185 degrees +/- 5. The temperature at which it is poured is absolutely not fit for human consumption. It will burn.
Any food substance served at 140 degrees or above represents a burn hazard.
Liquids at 180 degrees will cause third-degree burns in 2 - 7 seconds.
Or do you only remember how the media characterized the case?
Which really makes me angry. I spent months walking around using that case as an example for "stupid lawsuits" until somebody initimately familiar with it actually told me the facts. Personally, I think the people in the media who obviously characterized the case in such a sensational manner should have been required to be that woman's personal slaves for the rest of her life.
You are right, though, about networks worried that they will lose their source of revenue. There were similar issues raised with Betamax and VHS when they came out.
Agreed, and that is exactly where I was going with my thoughts. Based on some of the other answers, it doesn't look like cutting out the commercials is significantly easier with the PVRs. But I suspect that the networks are going through exactly the same thing they went through when VHS became popular. PVRs now make it easier than ever to select and record individual shows, thus being even more attractive to use. Almost everybody has / had a VCR, but my guess is that the percentage of those who actually use them to record shows for watching later on is much smaller. I know I don't bother because it usually isn't worth the effort needed to program the date, time and channel. Now that you can select from a listing by Actor, genre, etc, it makes setting up your recording a whole lot easier. In fact, that may be exactly why they are taking a slap at this feature. They are afraid of the "unknown" and how it will impact them.
Technology eventually won, and hopefully the judges deciding this case arent in the pocket of the studios.
I hope so, too. It's really nauseating when a large business that's firmly entrenched stands in the way of new technology that's obviously better for the consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
So I guess it comes down to this question. Is an answering machine tape OK to submit as evidence? If so, this is pretty similar. At least the emails are, anyway. The IM may be a little more difficult to handle.
It is not legal in PA. It's called criminal solicitation. There are laws against sex with a minor, and there are laws against giving alcohol to a minor. There are also laws against trying to get someone to break one of the other laws or to help YOU break the law. If you look at the article, you'll see that the sentence was fairly light -- six months of house arrest and probation that ends this month. It wasn't clear whether the probation was part of the house arrest or not.
Absolutely agreed. Since these formats are recorded by default, you implicitly agree to have everything you say recorded. If you, as a computer user, can't understand that it must be recorded in order for the user to receive the message, too bad. As someone else said, it's no different than leaving a message on an answering machine. You KNOW it is being recorded. There's a certain "duh" factor there.
Although the press may be making this case out to be a landmark "reading email == wire tapping" case, it really isn't. It would have been different if the police were intercepting his email before it got to its recipient, or using spyware to read it from his computer.
Now THERE'S an idea. Embed these little gems on your corporate intranet, and use them to convince management that the whole staff needs a computer upgrade. Make sure you put it in places where it will have the highest impact on management.
True, and I'm thankful for this. But I don't think it needs to save data to be useful. If its purpose was to crack encryption codes, it could run through a sequence of brute force attempts, and pass the results back in hidden form fields the next time you switched pages. None of this data would need to be saved locally.
Finally, there is no way to "nice" a JavaScript process. As a result, if it processed too much the user would be inclined to close the browser and start a new one.
Agreed, and this is exactly what I was questioning. Someone mentioned that you can "nice" the whole browser process, but that requires user intervention, which of course defeats the whole purpose.
That reduces the available utility in "Leech Computing" to spyware, worms/virus/trojans, or toy projects.
Based on the above discussion, I definitely agree.
Somebody mod me as troll or flamebait, but this is exactly what the real problem with spam is. Why should I have to PAY to use a tool to cut down on abuse of a service that I ALREADY PAY FOR. I pay for internet access and a mailbox. The spammers don't pay for all the mailboxes they send crap to. Rather than continue to pay for a service to filter out the junk, I'd rather pay someone to go discourage the sender in a more meaningful and lasting manner. Don't you agree?
I'm certain that one of the individuals who are featured in the spam would be more than sufficient.... Poison them with their own "merchandise."
Pointy-haired Boss: Darnit! We're trapped in here! The door is stuck and the ventilation system isn't working! Computer, contact security and have them send someone to open the door.
Computer: I'm sorry Dave. I can't do that.
Seriously, though. I, for one, would be hesitant to have a meeting in a room that *might* be recording everything I say. I would prefer a visible dictation device that sits on the table where I can see it working and provides me with visual feedback of the dictation. If they could just improve speech recognition technology, that would be enough of a leap forward for me. Forget the rest of the crap.
True, but can you lower the task priority from Javascript or a Java applet?
Conceptually, I find this interesting. It can run without user notice. The only problem is that it does steal CPU cycles, and as far as I know there is no real way in Javascript (or Java applets) to make the program run only when it isn't competing with other applications. I can imagine that some users might get really upset because you are stealing their computer resources. Because of this, I wouldn't recommend doing this kind of thing without notifying the user and perhaps giving them the option to turn it off. However, I can see some potential uses for this as long as the user is aware. For example, slashdot viewers probably wouldn't mind some leech Javascript working on the latest encryption cracking contest, especially if they got to "share the wealth."
OK, since you're the second person to respond this way, it's obvious that people actually thought I was making a threat. So, let me apologize for misleading people. I was posing a hypothetical. That'll teach me to post when I haven't had any sleep. At any rate, what I was envisioning was the potential for some nasty politics. I mean, what would happen if one ISP blocked another, and then the blocked ISP returned the favor? Couldn't that eventually cause problems for all of us? Actually, I'm kinda surprised that that hasn't happened before. Or has it? Anybody with knowledge on this?
Hang on a second. I wasn't challenging you. Besides, I don't run a mail server with access outside my firewall -- it isn't worth the effort for me. But the assumption is that there are partnerships in place between some of the larger ISPs that allow routing through their servers. My question to you is, what would YOU do if Earthlink started blocking you because of a claim that you were running an open relay?
I'll give you a list of IPs in Asia that are open relays. Your mission, should you accept it, is to locate the owners of the mail servers, explain to them that they have open relays, and get them to fix them. Good luck.
I agree with you here -- big time. I've had my share of dealings with some of the Asian "companies." It's really hard to deal with companies in countries where outright lying is considered a valuable (and legal) part of the business process. There are no ethics there whatsoever. Please note that I'm not classifying all Asian countries or companies in this -- that's just the area from which I've had the most annoyances.
However, here's a scenario that brings the point home. Let's pretend that I'm ISP A and you are ISP B, and some of my customers are trying to send e-mail that must route through your service. Joe Newhire makes a mistake when setting up a new SMTP server and accidentally leaves it open. This is detected and added to ORDB, which you happen to be using to block e-mail from open relays. Once we realize we've been black listed, we make the necessary contact to be removed from ORDB. But two days later, you're still blocking our e-mail. We notify you of the problem and provide proof that we've fixed it and requested removal from the list. Do you think you can wait for the next update? Guess again. If you didn't start letting the e-mail through again within 48 hours, I would be taking you to court.
Now, the whole point to all of this is that there needs to be a spirit of cooperation here. If we all walk around with our noses in the air shouting "holier than spam," we'll miss the whole point of the exercise: to eliminate or greatly reduce spam. I don't think we're required to provide consulting services for each other, but there certainly needs to be some mutual consideration. If we make the process so arduous that it encourages resentment, it won't be nearly as effective.
Agreed. From my point of view, it's not the beliefs of either side as much as the methodology that bothers me the most.
Both sides would "work together" to ruin a forum like what was suggested.
Interesting. Probably one of the few places where both sides would collaborate. :)
I think we went through all of this on the last time, but I agree that if the opinions were meant to be a sample, they should be made statistically sound. I remember raising the question of qualitative verses quantitative analysis. My guess is that the 47 selected responses are probably the most strong arguments from either side. It is most likely true that the judge will perform a quantitative analysis to see if there are compelling reasons for either vacating or upholding the settlement. We have to trust her to make a decision based not on the opinions themselves or the statistics, but rather on facts or ideas gleaned from those opinions. You'll know whether or not she did her job when she summarizes her decision. Most judges include their line of reasoning with a summary for use in appeals and precendent.
Spoken like a true far-left liberal. Sorry dude, but BOTH groups have this practice down real well. You just tend to notice the group you disagree with the most. I suspect it's pretty easy to identify the people in both groups, though. Just look at those most adamantly opposed (on both sides) to campaign finance reform. Then extract those who backed up their opposition with reference to something specific about the bill that appears to have merit. What's left are probably your extremists.
I'm sorry, but this is just a lame excuse. Following this line of thought, they had better hurry up and BAN importation and construction of WLAN cards. These clearly are a violation of the DMCA because they permit people to drive around in cars with laptops and tap into corporate networks to steal copyrighted and private materials. In fact, maybe they should just ban laptops and automobiles altogether.
The single biggest problem is that they provided *NO METHOD* for him to discuss the case with the person who made the decision to reject entry of his shipment. If there were even reasonable controls in place to make sure innocent people weren't harmed by this law, it might not draw such anger from. But the DMCA is probably one of the biggest reasons for campaign finance reforms outside of Enron and Microsoft. It clearly was not well thought out, and is an attempt to prevent potential crimes by eliminating the tools with which they are committed, at the obvious expense of legitimate use of those tools.
I didn't realize there WAS an 18 and over spraypaint law. When did they put that one in?
Agreed. Actually, most modern coffee makers heat the water to boiling. I think the problem is that McDonalds actively enforced a rule that the coffee had to be KEPT at a temperature of 185 degrees. As I said earlier, it was to their credit that they incorrectly assumed most people were buying the coffee to take to work (or that's what they said). Surveys revealed that most people buy the coffee to drink while driving. Since the incident, they have decreased the "storage" temperature to something a little safer.
Many very very common things that we do (often for enjoyment) are fantastically dangerous.
Agreed, and many times we overregulate these kinds of things. It's ridiculous that I have to take out an umbrella insurance policy to keep a thief from suing me if he/she hurts himself while breaking into my house. I think in this case that she was stupid for opening a cup of hot liquid over her lap. McDonalds was stupid to serve the coffee so hot that it was almost guaranteed to cause a third degree burn.
McDonald's would not have kept their coffee so hot unless it helped sales.
Unfortunately, subsequent surveys have said otherwise. It appears that many people felt their coffee was too hot. I think the issue is that the temperature they were required to keep it at (after brewing) was too high. To McDonald's credit, their perception was that people were intending to purchase the coffee and drink it AFTER they arrived at work. Surveys have shown otherwise. Most people purchase it to drink it on the way to work.
I dunno about you, but someone who manages to spill enough coffee on herself to cause that much injury should take her clumsiness into consideration.
It doesn't take all that much coffee to cause that kind of injury. I think part of the problem may be in the fact that the cup is usually either paper or styrofoam. If the lid is off (or being pulled off) and your grip slips, the cup isn't rigid enough to catch it safely. Any attempt usually destroys the cup, thus making sure that the ENTIRE contents end up in your lap.
Agreed. But I actually asked myself whether or not I had done this. Prior to this whole case, I can't say I was very careful about things like that at the time. My guess is that I'm not in the minority. Maybe her experience will help keep the rest of us from doing something so stupid.
If it takes warnings on the coffee cups for a certain percentage of the population to realize that, then so be it.
Yeah, and some of those warnings out there are downright silly. But I guess sometimes we need a warning or two to point out things we might otherwise have just not even considered, even though it should be obvious. The only problem is, how many people actually READ the cup? Oh well.
Ah, yet another person who is unaware of the facts.
- Liebeck was not driving the car. Her grandson was. The car was stopped so she could add cream and sugar to her coffee. The contents spilled onto her lap while she was attempting to remove the lid.
- There were more than 700 claims by people burned by McDonalds coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some of them involved third-degree burns. Note, these are CLAIMS, not INCIDENTS.
- Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. McDonalds actively enforced a requirement that their coffee be kept at 185 degrees +/- 5. The temperature at which it is poured is absolutely not fit for human consumption. It will burn.
- Any food substance served at 140 degrees or above represents a burn hazard.
- Liquids at 180 degrees will cause third-degree burns in 2 - 7 seconds.
Now, was she really a moron?Which really makes me angry. I spent months walking around using that case as an example for "stupid lawsuits" until somebody initimately familiar with it actually told me the facts. Personally, I think the people in the media who obviously characterized the case in such a sensational manner should have been required to be that woman's personal slaves for the rest of her life.
When you find out, let me know. Make sure you get their e-mail address so I can forward all of my spam to them.
Agreed, and that is exactly where I was going with my thoughts. Based on some of the other answers, it doesn't look like cutting out the commercials is significantly easier with the PVRs. But I suspect that the networks are going through exactly the same thing they went through when VHS became popular. PVRs now make it easier than ever to select and record individual shows, thus being even more attractive to use. Almost everybody has / had a VCR, but my guess is that the percentage of those who actually use them to record shows for watching later on is much smaller. I know I don't bother because it usually isn't worth the effort needed to program the date, time and channel. Now that you can select from a listing by Actor, genre, etc, it makes setting up your recording a whole lot easier. In fact, that may be exactly why they are taking a slap at this feature. They are afraid of the "unknown" and how it will impact them.
Technology eventually won, and hopefully the judges deciding this case arent in the pocket of the studios.
I hope so, too. It's really nauseating when a large business that's firmly entrenched stands in the way of new technology that's obviously better for the consumer.