 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | That comment doesnt make sense to me... "but the launch of "Mystro" never happened, because broadcasters feared losing control of their content."
Huh? How does taking the box AWAY from the consumer give the broadcaster less control? I could understand if this was said in the years before set top boxes were used at all, but now? I am still scratching my head on this one!
--
Now THATS superfluous!! |
|
| said by wifi4milez:"but the launch of "Mystro" never happened, because broadcasters feared losing control of their content." Huh? How does taking the box AWAY from the consumer give the broadcaster less control? I could understand if this was said in the years before set top boxes were used at all, but now? I am still scratching my head on this one! The Mystro trial had the vendor(Time Warner) recording everything the broadcasters sent out and then, in effect, provided a video on demand service to the end user. This is identical to what the cable companies now call VOD. In VOD, the cable companies contract with and pay big money to the broadcasters for their content.
The Cablevision trial lets the end customer record something only for their own use and they hope this setup will be seen as "fair use" recording under the law. Because the end user can only record at the time of the original broadcast they feel they pass legal muster.
I guess the broadcasters aren't happy because if this works and is legal, it makes it cheaper and easier than with a HW DVR to record shows and gives DVR capabilities to many more millions of users. Users that, at least for now, can fast forward thru commercials. I'll bet that if the broadcasters cut a deal with the cable companies to prohibit fast forwarding thru commercials, their opposition will dry up. In fact, I'll bet that is almost inevitable.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
 oliphantI Have 8 BoobiesPremium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to wifi4milez
Exactly what I was thinking...it seems that broadcasters would have more control through their "industry partners" like cable and telco video distributors who would also have a lot of lose and little to gain from video piracy.
Less equipment with the end user makes it cheaper and easier to control.
But as we see with the RIAA, these dinosaurs don't like change and they're scared sh!tless of it even when it could make them billions (eg the home video market which the MPAA fought with every breath).
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... |
|
 GlenQuagmireGiggidy Giggidy Giggidy GooPremium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: That comment doesn't make sense to me... Well they can do what they want but I already have DVR sitting under my TV. When Comcast does move to this new system they are not going to make everyone turn in their DVR it will just be new customers they put on the new system. Do forget Comcast paid $600 each for these DVR, they are going to want to at least break even with them. What they should do is let the customer decide. If they want to use new system then give them a discount if a customer want a set top box charge a little more. I am sure really soon TV will start having DVR built right into them. |
|
GlenQuagmireGiggidy Giggidy Giggidy GooPremium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI | Remember there is still bit torrent. |
|
cluth
join:2004-01-06
Anchorage, AK | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: That comment doesnt make sense to me... Actually, the cable companies have just as much to gain by prohibiting fast-forwarding through commercials as the networks do. Cable companies sell local advertisements and often superimpose them over the network's ads. Customers ignoring commercial breaks hurts the cable companies just as much as the networks (well, relatively speaking). |
|
