 
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß | RA! Fight for the little guy! | |
|  | 
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | Re: RA! it actually seems like a better idea then forcing in home boxes, does this mean that..... cable vision is trying to save the consumer money by not charging excessive fees for DVR boxes ???? | |
| | | Cobras33
Premium
join:2003-02-05
NJ
clubs: | Re: RA! Nah, they'll probably charge a per GB storage fee. | |
| | 
Phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Jacksonville, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| said by AnonProxy  :Fight for the little guy! Damn right. I hope they win this. There comes a point where you can't "get what you pay for" due to work schedules. The sad part is the providers feel you should adhere to their schedule, and you should also watch the commercials. Here's my thing... Many times, I *DO* skip thru the commercials, yet I have stopped, on many occasions, while skipping thru commercials, to see one about a product I am interested in. So I think they are blowing this up for nothing. And in this case, that isn't even the issue, because the stored content cannot be fast forwarded. The providers are freaking out because "it violates copyrights. Well, my answer to that is also in the form of a question, and that is "Does allowing the cable company to do this for their customers raise your shows ratings???" You know the TRUTHFUL answer is "yes". But for some reason they want to stop it. Maybe because they are on a "power trip". It's a damn shame, because these are the same people (TV media giants) who want to raise their fee's for companies like DirecTV, and cable, each year. I think they'd be best off keeping their mouth shut. Based on what actually plays on TV these days, they obvoiusly don't know whats good for them.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. | |
| | | 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: RA! said by Phattieg :said by AnonProxy :Fight for the little guy! Well, my answer to that is also in the form of a question, and that is "Does allowing the cable company to do this for their customers raise your shows ratings???" You know the TRUTHFUL answer is "yes". How is doing this going to raise a shows ratings? If the show sucks, it isn't going to help. If people don't watch that show now, this isn't going to change that. If people do watch that show, they will continue to watch it regardless. JMO. | |
| 
jtudor
Xm 60's On 6 Freak
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-07
Morganton, NC
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Not the real issue I can see lots of problems with remote storage DVR's, and I would not want one myself. Those problems might include:
Being unable to access recorded content if a car clips a pole.
Giving the cable operator too much control over what you can record and how long you can keep it.
Not being able to make a copy of your recorded material to another media.
Bandwidth issues.
The longer I think the more reasons to not have remote storage I come up with.
However I cannot see copyright infringement as one of those problems.
Seems to me that the copyright owners might like this idea better than a local storage DVR, because it would give them more potential control of what can actually be recorded!
Anyway, whatever the RIAA / MPAA and their ilk want is probably what they will get. We consumers don't matter.
--
Best of luck
"Do, or Do not, there is no try!" Yoda
| |
| | apollo80
join:2002-01-31
Richmond, VA
| Re: Not the real issue said by jtudor :I can see lots of problems with remote storage DVR's, and I would not want one myself. Those problems might include: Being unable to access recorded content if a car clips a pole. Giving the cable operator too much control over what you can record and how long you can keep it. Not being able to make a copy of your recorded material to another media. Bandwidth issues. The longer I think the more reasons to not have remote storage I come up with. However I cannot see copyright infringement as one of those problems. Seems to me that the copyright owners might like this idea better than a local storage DVR, because it would give them more potential control of what can actually be recorded! Anyway, whatever the RIAA / MPAA and their ilk want is probably what they will get. We consumers don't matter. Well, whether you happen to like it or not, you do agree that there really isn't any copyright infringement here. I don't know if I would want this service, either, but it should have the option of existing. | |
| | |
jtudor
Xm 60's On 6 Freak
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-07
Morganton, NC
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Not the real issue said by apollo80 :I don't know if I would want this service, either, but it should have the option of existing. I totally agree on that point, it's just not a service that I would want. If Cablevision is going to force this as the only DVR option that would be unacceptable.
Giving the customer a choice of local or remote storage would be what i would like to see.
--
Best of luck
"Do, or Do not, there is no try!" Yoda
| |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Not the real issue said by jtudor :said by apollo80 :I don't know if I would want this service, either, but it should have the option of existing. I totally agree on that point, it's just not a service that I would want. If Cablevision is going to force this as the only DVR option that would be unacceptable. Giving the customer a choice of local or remote storage would be what i would like to see. Buy your own, stop complaining when the man doesnt do things the way you like after you got cozy with him. | |
| | | | 
bobjohnson
Premium
join:2007-02-03
Titusville, FL | Wouldn't that be the same as a local DVR, as long as you cant access it with your computer and share it as you mostly can't now... I don't see anyones copyrights anymore infringed then they are now | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by jtudor :I can see lots of problems with remote storage DVR's, and I would not want one myself. Those problems might include: Being unable to access recorded content if a car clips a pole. Giving the cable operator too much control over what you can record and how long you can keep it. Not being able to make a copy of your recorded material to another media. Bandwidth issues. All that already happens. If the cable co DVR has no cable signal I guess you cant play anything. Cable co easily can lock the software on the cable co DVR to not record, and control length of availability. They can already put macrovision and whatever else on the video out of the DVR, and bandwidth issues, well they exist on digital cable too (pixelation, chanels dont tune in, etc). | |
| | | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| Re: Appeal will likely hang on this issue User control over content should always override the current laws. atm the current laws predate modern bidirectional CATV systems and as such need to be altered to properly reflect the possible applications and implications of such systems.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| bhorow
join:2004-05-17
Forest Hills, NY
| This issue is dead already. Cablevision wants to break essentially existing laws., by have remote storage of content without consent. The issue is that of consent. Time Warner already has a model that Disney (ABC) networks and (NBC) Networks and its own networks agree upon.
The idea is start over. Which allows you start over from the beginning if you miss a show.
Of course the issue here is advertising and not being able to skip commercials and the act of consent.
The issue of course is irrelevant since most television shows that people tape are readily availble from the content providers website. You can watch Grey's Anatomy, and Desperate Housewives, and Hero's from the websites, if you miss an episode..There is already remote storage its call the internet.
The issue is a mere legal one..Does cablevision have the right to possess content without permission. If the judge ruled in Cablevision favor it would change the whole idea of ownership, not something likely to ever happen.
Cablevision's concept is nice for consumers to a degree, but its far from revolutionary and the cost of maintaining large amounts of programming on servers, seems more of a cost burden. So winning isn't that great for consumers or Cablevision. I have watched several episodes i forgot to tape using my DVR online and thats more than sufficient access.
I think Cablevision should adopt Time Warner's Start Over Concept which has worked, rather than to go with something that hasn't worked. Cablevision which doesn't own too many networks is doing this to fight media companies and competition from Verizon. This in the end doesn't work to fight people within your own group like Comcast and Time Warner which owns a lot of content.
This is a waste of corporate profits and will go down to defeat, with limited if no upside to consumers. | |
| | sameshtdd
join:2006-01-04
Teaneck, NJ
edit:
April 10th, @11:20AM
| Re: This issue is dead already. The only difference is the physical location of the content. Cablevision already has remote storage of content, what do you think your DVR does?
Right now, the content is recorded in a Cablevision owned box, that is physically located at someone's residence. In this instance, instead of the content being physically located on a cablevision box located in the customer's location...it is on a cablevision box located in the cablevision office.
If I'm paying some extra fee for a certain amt of storage space (like you do now with your DVR STB) for the ability to fast foward, rewind, and time shift the broadcast (cuz essentially thats what the DVR is doing, broadcasting what is on the HDD to the TV), I see no reason why the physical location of storage cannot be changed.
EDIT: In fact, this would save cablevision money and possibly earn them money. They see what shows their subs watch and what they could possibly earn more ad revenue on, AND, spend less money on DVR boxes and just add NAS systems on their end...requiring them to only record 100 copies of greys anatomy instead of 100,000 copies on 100,000 hard disks. | |
| | | schlice114
Schlice
Premium
join:2002-10-03
Colorado Springs, CO
| Re: This issue is dead already. said by sameshtdd :
and just add NAS systems on their end...requiring them to only record 100 copies of greys anatomy instead of 100,000 copies on 100,000 hard disks.
However, this scenario describes one copy of the show being served to more than one user. This scenario constitutes a rebroadcast. A rebroadcast implies that more than one person will be viewing one recorded copy.
When I have the content stored on my local hard drive for my personal use only, "fair use" allow me to keep it and view it or re-view it at my leisure. This is not considered a rebroadcast.
If Cablevision had a few DMX3000s and several hundred TBs of storage, and basically set a (resizeable) partition aside per customer (depending on how much you pay), only for their use, and no one else could use that partition or view that content, you might just be able to make the argument that location of the storage is irrelevant, because the functionality is identical. This would still save Cablevision money in the long run; centralization of storage resources nearly always produces positive ROI over time. However, in order to not be considered rebroadcasts, they'd have to store 100,000 copies of "Grey's Anatomy" in 100,000 user partitions. | |
| | | | br1252
join:2007-04-10
Norwalk, CT
| Re: This issue is dead already. They don't make many copies. A recording is made for the first request then each request after that is logged to a database. A block is recorded just once (for the first user) and they just keep track of each user that requests the same block in a database. A show is recorded not based on start/end times but on the scheduled program blocks (thus allowing for uniform programming/recording).
This approach greatly simplifies the whole DVR issue (just one recording system) and will reduce the overall costs. | |
| | | | | 
CrissObvious
@rr.com
| Re: This issue is dead already. said by br1252 :They don't make many copies. A recording is made for the first request then each request after that is logged to a database. A block is recorded just once (for the first user) and they just keep track of each user that requests the same block in a database. A show is recorded not based on start/end times but on the scheduled program blocks (thus allowing for uniform programming/recording). This approach greatly simplifies the whole DVR issue (just one recording system) and will reduce the overall costs. That was the bloody point in his post... I wonder how some people manage to find their shoes in the morning. | |
| | | | | | br1252
join:2007-04-10
Norwalk, CT | Re: This issue is dead already. It' amazing you can remember to breath. | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | This case shouldnt exist. Govt (by its own choice) does NOT regulate the technology implemented by telecom providers. This case should be dismissed for lack of juresdiction. Its the users initiative to record the program, not CVs. | |
| CWO333
join:2005-02-24
Chicago, IL
| A small step towards the future... I feel network controlled DVR would be a step toward a future where television should be with basically everything on demand. Just think, if everything on TV could be accessed when you want it just like the on demand we already have. When a show is scheduled to come on, you can either watch it live or catch it later (maybe within 24 hours). With this, they can still track ratings (which would be a whole ton more accurate), and if you can't fast-forward through commercials, people won't be able to just flip to another show that's on while the commercial is running. I'm sure at some point every one of you has missed their favorite show due to either getting home late from work, something unexpected that made you leave your house, falling asleep, or another favorite show was on at the same exact time. If everything was on demand, you can catch what you missed, you would still have to sit through commercials (if FF was disabled), and ratings would actually make sense if they counted the hits on the on demand show. Plus, if you still want to record it, you can. | |
| | | |
|
|
Cablevision To Appeal DVR Ruling
·
Appeal will likely hang on this issue