WileEC
mindtaker, macky cat, etc.
join:2002-02-07
Yonkers, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
| I must side with cablevision here
That's intelligent. A federal judge decides that the difference between a home-based dvr and a head-end-based dvr is just to great to allow them? That's ridiculous. If I'm deciding what is recorded, and it's for my own damn self, who are they to decide where it can be recorded and stored? This was a bad decision.
--
Experience one of the most beautiful women on earth at PetraCentral! |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
| said by WileEC  :That's intelligent. A federal judge decides that the difference between a home-based dvr and a head-end-based dvr is just to great to allow them? That's ridiculous. If I'm deciding what is recorded, and it's for my own damn self, who are they to decide where it can be recorded and stored? This was a bad decision. There is a difference... When recorded at home, you can do as you please since there is no difference between a DVR and a VCR.... Now, recording at the cable company's headend means that the supplier is recording the content, thus it is illegal.
This was not a bad ruling, though it does suck for regular people. The law is the law.
-Tzale
--
-Virtual Pirate- |
|
kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Arnold, MD | Ha!
If they won't let me fast forward through commercials, I'm not paying extra for DVR service. |
|
RideRed
Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista
Premium
join:2005-06-18
USA | Ditto |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Unfortunately I think copyright law supports that decision
Its ridiculous, because Cable TV has delays and caches copyrighted content to do their job anyways, but Cablevision isn't an individual protected by the Home Recording Act. The copyright owners can dictate whatever requirements they like to someone not protected. Which is why its important that we protect our own fair use rights, so that we aren't dictated to in the same way. |
|
apollo80
join:2002-01-31
Richmond, VA
| reply to WileEC
Re: I must side with cablevision here
said by WileEC :That's intelligent. A federal judge decides that the difference between a home-based dvr and a head-end-based dvr is just to great to allow them? That's ridiculous. If I'm deciding what is recorded, and it's for my own damn self, who are they to decide where it can be recorded and stored? This was a bad decision. You can look at this the opposite way.
A judge has disallowed the head end (the cable company) to record, but DOES allow for DVR's for PRIVATE HOME USE.
Should these knuckleheads in the entertainment industry try to determine or eliminate what the home user can or can't record, or if they can even record at all, point to the judge that ALLOWED this to be the case. |
|
gh4456
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-07
Beverly Hills, CA
| reply to WileEC
It is a good decision, b/c you would basically have on-demand tv, as every station would be record 24hours a day. You just pick the shows you want to watch and fast forwarded through the commercials. That is a nightmare scenario for the entertainment industry. As DVR's get more popular, there will be a need for the end user to pay more for the service or some other way to get advertisements in. I envision a setup done the way they do school/govt closings. They will eat the outer edges with advertisements. There is always product placement as well, but I don't see that bringing in as much money as 30 seconds spots. |
|
WileEC
mindtaker, macky cat, etc.
join:2002-02-07
Yonkers, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Tzale
said by Tzale :There is a difference... When recorded at home, you can do as you please since there is no difference between a DVR and a VCR.... Now, recording at the cable company's headend means that the supplier is recording the content, thus it is illegal. This was not a bad ruling, though it does suck for regular people. The law is the law. -Tzale Who is pressing record on the remote? Me or them? Who is scheduling what programs are to be recorded and when? Me or them? If its me then what you just described as a problem with the physical location of the recording and playback is a technicality. Its down right stupid to throw monkey wrenches of this kind into the progress of technology because of things like this. If VCRs, DVRs, tape recorders etc. are legal for recording and playback of programs, music, etc., then this mere extension of that should be legal as well. Hell, its not even an extension, its exactly the same thing done in a slightly different way. Sorry, I must disagree with this.
--
Experience one of the most beautiful women on earth at PetraCentral! |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| said by WileEC :said by Tzale :There is a difference... When recorded at home, you can do as you please since there is no difference between a DVR and a VCR.... Now, recording at the cable company's headend means that the supplier is recording the content, thus it is illegal. This was not a bad ruling, though it does suck for regular people. The law is the law. -Tzale Who is pressing record on the remote? Me or them? Who is scheduling what programs are to be recorded and when? Me or them? If its me then what you just described as a problem with the physical location of the recording and playback is a technicality. Its down right stupid to throw monkey wrenches of this kind into the progress of technology because of things like this. If VCRs, DVRs, tape recorders etc. are legal for recording and playback of programs, music, etc., then this mere extension of that should be legal as well. Hell, its not even an extension, its exactly the same thing done in a slightly different way. Sorry, I must disagree with this. Well, the Judge needs to follow the rule of law. The Judge's ruling was not wrong... Maybe you disagree with the law, but the Judge did nothing wrong.
--
-Virtual Pirate- |
|
Blackened
Your Freedom Fries Are Stale
join:2003-09-29
| reply to kyler13
Re: Ha!
PC, video card, capturing device, software, record, edit, burn, and done. I would have went the route of Tivo/DVR, since it's slightly more simple, but since their interests are with the same people who want to control my rights to record what I please with the TV service I pay for, I take the less desirable, yet effective path.
This whole forcing people into viewing commercials thing is a bullying tactic that I won't have any part of. If I don't want to watch commercials, then I sure as hell won't, whether they like it or not. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to WileEC
Re: I must side with cablevision here
but the law has no clause for this, the law is not ready to handle modern tech so it was a bad call by the judge because the judge also did not understand modern tech. Advancement shouldnt be changed in the name of old laws old laws should be changed around advancement.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA | This lawsuit is 100% covered by current laws. You cannot rebroadcast content without consent.
Open-and-shut this is.
This doesn't affect consumers and doesn't put any limits on what you're already doing with yer DVRs. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| reply to Blackened
Well
Well The computer I am presently building will have video capture, mondo sized HD's are cheap, Tiger Direct has a internal 500 gig WD for 139.95, and a 750 gig HD for hundred bucks more. I have a DVR and love the thing but if I loose control of how I can use it, it's out of here. and I will use the computer to do the same thing.
What I would love to see is a DishTV card to go into your computer now that would be cool, and would most likely cause the MPAA to crap their collective pants. 
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. |
|
RickNY
Premium
join:2000-11-02
New York
1 edit | reply to WileEC
Re: I must side with cablevision here
said by WileEC :Sorry, I must disagree with this. You are telling Cablevision to record the content and Cablevision is making money by charging fees to other subscribers to rebroadcast that content.
Its not exactly the same as you recording it in your home. |
|
cypherstream
Looking forward to the future of things.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
clubs:
| reply to WileEC
I also side with Cablevision and the consumer. This ruling was nothing but a swift kick in the face for both the consumer and Cablevision. Imagine the pros of this technology for the consumer:
1. If you order the DVR, it can be activated to your existing boxes via software download. No more driving to the local office to swap boxes or having a tech come out to do it. You get it right away!
2. All the boxes in your house can access your recorded content. Weather its playing shows or setting recordings, its a true MR-DVR solution.
3. No more tying up your tuner for recording. Cablevision can set limits on how many recordings can occur simultaneously. Imagine if you could record 3 or 4 shows at the same time, but your home tuner can still watch another program.
4. Cablevision can upgrade your DVR storage space on a whim. No more limited 120 / 160 GB Hard drives.
5. Not having to deploy very expensive DVR's to the customers means quite a bit of cost savings on Cablevisions end. Sure there's the initial expense of developing, testing, and deploying the technology, but it will eventually pay for itself. If they can save money perhaps they can use that capitol to bring on more services, or limit the extent of annual price increases.
I think it's total B.S. that they were sued in the first place. Your setting the recording, Your watching it when you want... it's no different from a home based DVR. So what the storage is in another location. There are security mechanisms in place where no one can access your content but you! It's not like your sharing your recordings on the internet for the whole world to see.
It bothers me when a government entity or another company doesn't understand a certain technology so the always assume the worst. Oh boy so Fox, CNN, etc.. doesn't quite understand what's going on here so oh my god, its copyright infringement. Give me a break.
What's next? Are they going to go after every provider that offers multi room DVR? Oh my god, it's stored in the living room but hes watching it in the bedroom!!!! What a crime!!!! Better send them to jail!
They all all big babies who have to be spoon fed from some Judge who is probably in his late 60's and has no real understanding of technology. After all, hes a Judge, not a network engineer. Grow the hell up media companies, times are a changing.
Sorry if I sound bitter, but I just think this whole argument should of never happened in the first place. I fail to see how this does harm to anyone. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Tzale
Actually, I disagree. The LAW clearly allows consumers to record whatever they want. It's called time shifting. However, the judge has falsely ruled that 'space shifting' is illegal. The fact of the matter, is that we have 3 rights. Time Shifting (record when), Space shifting (record where), and Format Shifting (Which DRM stops). The consumer, much to the dismay of the MPAA, has the ability to time shift via Tivo, etc. The judge just ruled space shifting illegal. And format shifting is a joke, with DRM.
I think this is the kind of judge who ruled against ReplayTV, with their automatic commercial skip. The commercial skip is what made the replay great, but the studios hated it, so they effectively shut down replay tv because of it.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY |  MPAA negatively linfluences the progression of technology
we're screwed.
For a second, I forgot this was already happening. |
|
WileEC
mindtaker, macky cat, etc.
join:2002-02-07
Yonkers, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Tzale
Re: I must side with cablevision here
you make it sound as if "the law" is perfect and infallible, when we all know that is not true. yes, it may not be the job of judges to legislate from the bench, but in fact they do it all the time. This is a case where the law isn't being interpreted properly, in the spirit of how and why the law was written. This is a bunch of massively, obscenely paid entertainment industry lawyers siting specific clauses in decades old code and the judge, who's limited understanding of the technology and/or the purpose of it, agreeing with their arguments wholesale. It's a bad decision. It's crap. All it does is further limit our choices as consumers. And if you think that the entertainment industry doesn't have their own profit-making angle on this, you're nuts. They'll be all for it as soon as they figure out how to exploit this for their own gain.
By the way, personally I would never use such a system as I know in part that it would inevitably be used to track my viewing preferences for the purpose of even greater, more intrusive, targeted marketing.
--
Experience one of the most beautiful women on earth at PetraCentral! |
|
WileEC
mindtaker, macky cat, etc.
join:2002-02-07
Yonkers, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to RickNY
it's not rebroadcast. it's played back. That's like saying you are rebroadcasting a dvd when you play it back from your own equipment. the term "broadcast" implies a broadly transmitted, untargeted transmission which can be viewed or picked up by multiple receivers. This is NOT the case with what Cablevision has in mind.
--
Experience one of the most beautiful women on earth at PetraCentral! |
|
sonofjay
Mission Accomplished - Bush May 1, 2003
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-14
North Attleboro, MA
1 edit | n/m
.. |
|
