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- |
|
apollo80
join:2002-01-31
Richmond, VA
| reply to WileEC
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- |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to WileEC
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. |
|
RickNY
Premium
join:2000-11-02
New York
1 edit | reply to WileEC
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. |
|
WileEC
mindtaker, macky cat, etc.
join:2002-02-07
Yonkers, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Tzale
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! |
|
dt_dc
join:2006-09-27
Herndon, VA
| reply to WileEC
said by WileEC :Who is pressing record on the remote? Me or them? Who is scheduling what programs are to be recorded and when? Me or them? BTW, according to the following article, one of the differences the judge noted between CableVision's RS-DVR and the traditional DVR / VCR is that CableVision was excersing (some) amount of control over what could and couldn't be recorded. CableVision was planning on only making 12-50 channels available for recording via the RS-DVR (admittedly probably for hardware / cost reasons), not their entire line-up.
»www.multichannel.com/article/CA6···ing+News |
|
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
|  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. The supplier may be recording the content, but they are still controlling access to it with in accordance to customer's subscription. For example, they will NOT allow you to view any of the recorded episodes of "The Sopranos" if you do not subscribe to HBO.
And speaking of premium cable networks like HBO, seems like they already have their own version of "network DVR". They call it "On Demand", and let you view all of their major content at any time after it officially airs. Seems like Cablevision tried to do the same to all of their channels and charge less than if you were to subscribe to all "On Demand" content individually. Maybe that's what ticked content providers off. If Cablevision were to do it, they would be the one getting paid for this service, and content providers would be getting only a part of the profit.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... |
|
floepie
join:2005-12-01
| So, by the same token, if you and everyone on your block subscribed to the same CV services you would legally be able to redistribute content that you recorded to all you neighbors b/c Tom Dick and Harry missed their episodes? This is a clear violation of Fair Use. Whether Fair Use is bogus or not is another question. |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| reply to WileEC
said by WileEC :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. The Judge follows the rule of law. So, you are expecting him to legislate from the bench, which is illegal. Sorry, the Judge was right...
You do know that if you have Digital cable that the cable company knows what you are watching? They have been doing that for years, it's all anonymous though... It's for reporting statistics.
-Tzale
--
-Virtual Pirate- |
|
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to WileEC
How does the service really work? Say you have a cablebox running DVR software. Say CableVision provides some sort of storage, for simplicity's sake let's say this storage is an FTP site. Whats the difference between having that same DVR software in a box with a hard drive or that same DVR software in a disk-less box that stores onto an FTP server the content??
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| The problem isn't the technology. The problem can be summed up in one word. CONTROL. The studios want to control what you watch, when you watch it, where you can watch it, and how you can watch it. Think.. hmmm.. A clockwork orange type TV. That's what they want. We are all supposed to be good little consumers, and purchase whatever is shown to us. Cause remember, you can't be a good citizen unless you bow to the almighty dollar.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to WileEC
said by WileEC :es, it may not be the job of judges to legislate from the bench, but in fact they do it all the time. I hate to cry foul here, but "legislating from the bench" is an invention of the Right Wing Wacko group in this country.
Legislating from the bench = "we are in power in the house, senate, and presidency.. who are you (the judge) to rule against us?"
Judges do have to pass judgment - that's their job. However, they sometimes get it wrong, as in this case. This is why we have a few layers of legal protection. It's only when the supreme court is wrongly influenced is where this country has the most potential to melt down.
It's often said that the supreme court has the most power with out a military.
The remote DVR issues is complete bunk. There is NOTHING that can be shown to damage any copyright holder.. there is NOTHING to show this violates the copyright itself. They are just hosing the equipment in a network data center.
Laywers should know this. They have email service they use daily. MANY of them use a 3rd party host to house that email. That email is attorney client priveledge. For THAT, they will allow a 3rd party to house that confidential material, right? Ok, now one can argue that the Lawyer has authorized the ISP to house the confidential email, right? but what about the client? did they? It's acceptable to trust a data center to house data.. that's all this is.. it's data. Until it reaches the home, it's information.. and since the network is only allowing those that have specifically flagged the content to view it and not others, and because they are not selling the videos.. it's not a violation.
I this was the case,a DVR would be a violation itself. The end user doesn't own or have ultimate control over the DVR.. the operator does. The operator can disable or delete the DVR at anytime. The operator can retrieve the DVR upon demand and take the content. Some people have received DVRs with old content from previous customers... so what's the difference? The RIAA/MPAA should be happy over this.
My prediction - Fox, Universal, MPAA, et all, is going to find out what it is to loose money in court as this will ultimately get over turned along the way of the Beta max argument, the VHS argument, the CD Rom argument, .. this is just the next in line. They have really only have about 1 more year as their puppet president (which laid this ground for tyranny of the corporate word to thrive) will be gone.
**also***
Network DVR/Home Based DVR.. they already know Cable box in the home.. the already know. I could care less if I'm a number in a crowd and they know what is being watched. I actually don't mind. I want them to know what's good and bad.. they react to that and use that data to end shows that are failing.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown |
|
