how-to block ads
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
| 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. 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- | |
WileEC
mindtaker, macky cat, etc.
join:2002-02-07
Yonkers, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| 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- | |
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. | |
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 | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to RickNY
said by RickNY :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. Please read . research before you make a false statement. What you are saying is VOD.. this is flagged content DVR. ONLY THOSE who have recorded that show will get access to it later. IE: American Idol is on. The network may only have to record one copy of it, but 200,000 people will be able to view it.. those that didn't request the "recording of it" (aka flag the show) then they don't get it. Until at least 1 person flags a show for recording, their data center doesn't record or save it.
So yes, it is EXACTLY as recording it in your home, as far as legality goes.
--
"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 | |
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to floepie
said by floepie :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. Well, it is bogus. If you apply common sense, then if everyone on your block subscribes to the same CV services, what difference does it make if Tom, Dick and Harry watch their favorite shows live at their own homes or a recording that you made for them? Now, if you gave Tom, Dick and Harry a recording of something that they do not subscribe to, then it would be illegal. But if they are paying for it, then neither content provider(s) nor cable company get deprived of any income, so I don't see what the big deal is. And by the way, how often do people invite their friends to their homes who watch stuff on TV that they may or may not subscribe to themselves? Nothing illegal about that.
As I said before, networks like HBO, SHO, etc. view this as a threat to their On Demand business model, as this is pretty much On Demand taken to the next level. Not only can you watch recorded content from premium networks, but from any channel/network that you subscribe to, and for a lot less. I personally never liked On Demand in the first place, always considered it to be a rip-off compared to a traditional DVR, which I had ever since my cable company switched to digital, and have been very happy with it.
--
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... | |
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| 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? 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. If it was just the cable company providing X amount of hours of storage for each device at the head end, and the content wasn't shared between users, then you would have a point. But my understanding of what Cablevision wanted to do was essentially record every channel every minute so that any user could rewind to any point in the recent past. At that point it no longer becomes time shifting but rather unauthorized retransmission.
--
Go Colts | |
kballs
@comcast.net
|  reply to Tzale
CHECKS AND BALANCES.
"Legislate from the bench" is a bogus misleading term coined by a bunch of whining republicans who were trying to pull the wool over.
The executive, judicial, and legislative branches are supposed to act as a dampening mechanism. Each branch is there to prevent the other 2 branches from doing things that are unconstitutional (favoring the side of not making any new laws - in order for laws to go into place and stay there long term all 3 branches have to continue to agree they are valid).
If the legislature puts some bogus law into place, either the president can veto the bill or the judicial branch can declare it unconstitutional.
So it is the job of the judicial branches of government to interpret the law. It is the police's job to enforce the letter of the law. In this case it is the judge's job to decide the merits of both positions and decide a resolution. There is always the right of appeal on both sides (up to the supreme court).
IMO what Cablevision was trying to do isn't much different from what Comcast already does with VoD... except that each subscriber on Cablevision would select which shows they wanted to "record" beforehand whereas Comcast simply chooses what to archive without the subscriber's choice (and hence there isn't that much selection of VoD content on Comcast).
I believe the future is something like IPTV with every season of every show archived in all-you-can-eat VoD (kindof like what Rhapsody does with music now). Live broadcasts (news, sports, etc.) would probably have a relatively short lifetime unless somebody "saves" one by request in their account storage space.
This would actually be a lot more secure since the content would be on the server side and the customer would need to stream it (should make the studios happier than the current DVR box scenario). | |
|
